"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#236)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt Jan. 16, 2009:
Planned Institution of Social Evolution:
to Make It Better,
With Frankfurt Joined and Then Together
With Doctrines on Mental Variety,
Planned a Future for the Great Society,
Using Entertainment and Commerce as Tools,
They Programmed the Public, Scorned the Fools,
Brought Their Doctrines into Politics,
Advising Leaders Seeking New Tricks,
Guiding the Left and the Right,
Whose Leaders Perform, Feigning Fight,
Policy Directed by Social-Scientist Think Tanks,
And Then to Hollywood We Must Give Thanks
For Conditioning Public, Thoughts a-Stealing,
Programming Them Through Drama and Feeling"
© Alan Watt Jan. 16, 2009
Friday 16th January 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Jan. 16, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 16th of January 2009.
For the newcomers, as always, I ask them to go into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com and, on the website, they can download hundreds of talks I've given, over the past few years, and you can download them for free. It goes into the big system and systems that work together to bring out this supposed New World Order, which really is just an upgrade of the last world order, into a more perfected system of control. I try to give the shortcuts and show you that big foundations and big institutions work together, creating the NGOs that are the pressure groups that have a voice in society and this is the new democracy that was predicted 100 years ago that this would happen by writers of that period.
Also look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu where you can find transcripts of these talks and you can download them, print them up, and pass them onto your friends, they're written in the various languages of Europe.
Now, this morning, after getting up, after a night in fact where once again it plunged around 40 below Fahrenheit, which is the same Centigrade I think, I sat at the kitchen table and looked south, as always and it was a clear morning and there's the planes going back and forth, back and forth just spraying and spraying and spraying until you end up with this incredible mush over your head and people are all sniffing and their sinuses are blocked and that's what happens as we get sprayed and I thought you know if we can't get people or any organisation or any government to talk about this and come out say what's really going on with it, because this the 10th year that it's been obvious in Ontario and it's been pretty-well continuous types of spraying. I sat there and looked at it and I thought that I'd noticed before when they sprayed it often raised the temperature and I went to the store today and the woman said "well, it's supposed to get warmer later on" and sure enough, it has with all the spraying there. So, I guess they're busy trying to get global warming back on the burner; but, you know, we'll never know what all the effects of the spraying is all about, they will never tell us. You can guarantee it because it's having physical fall-outs on lots of people and they'd have to answer to that, therefore they cannot come out and tell us now. Its one thing being discovered, before they do it, it's another thing to be doing it and then be discovered, they can't come out and tell you what's happened, because the consequences, physical consequences, to answer to and it's obviously a must-be because no one will talk about it in government. If we can't get to the bottom of that, how on earth can we get to the bottom of anything really? It's so hard to get the facts on anything, in this day and age.
I was thinking too about all the different links I get coming in to the different media and you wonder even how much of that is put out there for us all to talk about. Yesterday I mentioned all the wars and policing actions, as they've been called by the UN, that I've seen growing up and living and it used to astound me why the United Nation would send troops into one country and just sit back and tsk tsk when another country did the same thing. It's above our heads, because we're not even in the picture, we're not allowed to know. I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix. This past week, I've been doing shows on how we're controlled by media and entertainment and even by the massive marketing companies really that started it all off and getting us to buy their products. They did it by studying us, in so many different ways, we had no idea we were even being studied. This, eventually, was incorporated into government and all government now uses what they call P.R., which is really the same techniques of psychological manipulation of masses and I've given some of the history of that, some of those involved in it, like Bernays and others and quite a few people before him in fact too. He didn't dream up this whole science by himself.
Power over the masses has always been of critical importance, to those who already rule and to those who would like to get up there and rule. Last night I talked about the Frankfurt School, very important school, because many of its members, and those who were taught by those who came over, went right into the music business and into writing novels and writing movies, with a particular twist, to get you to think along a certain direction, which they wanted you to think along. It's kind of different than passing out pamphlets and asking people to read it, to create social awareness. This is actually manipulation through your emotions and through those things which you like; it's a very clever technique. This is the technique that Lord Bertrand Russell talked about, when he said we have to get Madison Avenue, meaning the big marketing companies, those who understood mass psychology, on board, to create this New Order of things.
I'm going to continue with this report on the Frankfurt School tonight; and, here's an unfortunate thing, for those really who want the usual kind of show, I have decided I have to go higher, to help those who want to understand. Many people don't want to understand the truth, they already believe they have it all, they're in their pigeon holes, they've taken their stances, they're in their sides and they see their enemies and they'll probably stay there forever and they attack anyone who doesn't go along with them and that's just too bad. If you understand the kind of material I'm giving out, you'll understand how it's all done and how even your enemies are given to you. It says:
The work of the Frankfurt School provided what Paul Lazarsfeld (1942), one of the originators of modern communications studies,
"modern communications studies". That wasn't how to use a radio, that was how you get thoughts and ideas across to people.
called a critical approach, which he distinguished from the "administrative research." The positions of Adorno, Lowenthal, and other members of the inner circle of the Institute for Social Research were contested by Walter Benjamin, an idiosyncratic theorist loosely affiliated with the Institute. Benjamin, writing in Paris during the 1930s, discerned progressive aspects in new technologies of cultural production
"cultural production" – right?
such as photography, film, and radio.
It's amazing to have single shots of people or events that are put on mainstream magazines can have such an impact on us.
In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1969), Benjamin noted how new mass media were supplanting older forms of culture whereby the mass reproduction of photography, film, recordings, and publications replaced the emphasis on the originality and "aura" of the work of art in an earlier era. Freed from the mystification of high culture, Benjamin believed that media culture could cultivate more critical individuals able to judge and analyze their culture, just as sports fans could dissect and evaluate athletic activities. In addition, processing the rush of images of cinema created, Benjamin believed, subjectivities better able to parry and comprehend the flux and turbulence of experience in industrialized, urbanized societies.
You have to bear with me as we go through this, because they're telling you really how it works.
Himself a collaborator of the prolific German artist Bertolt Brecht, Benjamin worked with Brecht on films, created radio plays, and attempted to utilize the media as organs of social progress. In the essay "The Artist as Producer" (1999 ), Benjamin argued that progressive cultural creators
This is what they call them.
progressive cultural creators should "refunction" the apparatus of cultural production, turning theater and film, for instance, into a forum of political enlightenment
Now, that can also be said be propaganda.
and discussion rather than a medium of "culinary" audience pleasure. Both Brecht and Benjamin wrote radio plays and were interested in film as an instrument of progressive social change. In an essay on radio theory, Brecht anticipated the Internet in his call for reconstructing the apparatus of broadcasting from one-way transmission to a more interactive form of two-way, or multiple, communication (in Silberman 2000: 41ff.)-- a form first realized in CB radio and then electronically-mediated computer communication.
These guys were way ahead on what was coming up. Were they just good guessers, or did they have such fantastic faith in the progress of science? Remember: Arthur C. Clarke, another sci-fi writer, was way ahead too, where did he get his knowledge? He got a Nobel Prize for predicting that satellites would revolve around the Earth and be used for incredible communication devices; but he was in on the big institutes, which were way ahead already on a lot of this science, that's how it's done.
Moreover, Benjamin wished to promote a radical cultural and media politics concerned with the creation of alternative oppositional cultures. Yet he recognized that media such as film could have conservative effects. While he thought it was progressive that mass-produced works were losing their "aura," their magical force, and were opening cultural artefacts for more critical and political discussion, he recognized that film could create a new kind of ideological magic through the cult of celebrity
See, they dreamed up the cult of celebrity.
and techniques like the close-up that fetishized certain stars or images via the technology of the cinema.
They realised they could create stars, in other words, that people would follow; but, the idea too was to use these stars to promote the new culture, a political culture and that's what you have today too, you'll often see stars getting pulled out to give their opinions on something, but, as others have noted, can a star have any more insight into the politics than your average plumber? We don't think of it that way, we just think if they're famous, they're well-known, they must be brighter than we are, because they're up there and, therefore, whatever they say must be better than our own theories, so we adopt their theory.
Benjamin was thus one of the first radical cultural critics to look carefully at the form and technology of media culture in appraising its complex nature and effects.
What do we have today? It doesn't matter what paper you look at, what newspaper, or you can watch the TV news, or even Google or Yahoo or whatever, you're going to get all the boob babes and their fall-outs and their romances etc, as they come and go, and come and go and come and go forever. That's all due to these guys from the Frankfurt School; and, using Bernays' techniques, they mixed this in with regular media.
Moreover, he developed a unique approach to cultural history that is one of his most enduring legacies, constituting a micrological history of Paris in the 18th century, an uncompleted project that contains a wealth of material for study and reflection (see Benjamin 2000 and the study in Buck-Morss 1989).
Max Horkheimer and T.W. Adorno answered Benjamin's optimism in a highly influential analysis of the culture industry published in their book Dialectic of Enlightenment, which first appeared in 1948 and was translated into English in 1972. They argued that the system of cultural production dominated by film, radio broadcasting, newspapers, and magazines,
That included music and everything.
was controlled by advertising and commercial imperatives, and served to create subservience to the system of consumer capitalism. While later critics pronounced their approach too manipulative, reductive, and elitist, it provides an important corrective to more populist approaches to media culture that downplay the way the media industries exert power over audiences and help produce thought and behavior that conforms to the existing society.
That was, initially, the conflict, as I say: you've got the power established that already is and you have a culture that's come out through consumerism that's altered behaviour. As I've said before, if you want to alter behaviour, you alter something in the environment of the subject and that's what you buy, that's what you put in your home, that’s that little box you turn on and stare at and get hypnotised by, for instance. And, here's this other group that came in who were Trotskyite in thought, the Dispossessed, they had no country they said, no country left; and, they had an agenda, to take over this industry and use it for even further political Trotskyite purposes. Now, Trotsky, as I've said before, believed in this Marxism that was to do with evolution, it was coupled with Darwinism. Remember that Darwin himself had the offer, from Karl Marx, or Karl Marx wanted to put him in his book, to thank him, because he had validated his communist belief by giving out his theories on evolution. After all, the whole idea before this, society prior to that, was due to, it was a very fixed society, you had a sort of religious overtone, in every country, with a head of that country who was the head of the religion and in comes Darwinism and threw it all out the window. I'll back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, bringing through what most folks would see as very boring material; but, it's in this kind of material where you find how, not just us, just we, but those before us, were manipulated by organised groups, well-funded groups and finding the funding of these groups is almost impossible. They certainly were incredibly well-funded and they were pushed to the top in all Western countries, mainly the US and Britain. Many of them also worked during World War II, with the O.S.S. and some of them even wrote books, novels; the idea being that, through novels, you could change the thinking of people. If you gave them a straight non-fictional work, they might be too prejudiced to go through it with preconditioned prejudices; but, if you write something in a novel form, your mind can be altered, as you get caught up in the story and taken through the process and that's sometimes what they call it in these novels, it's a process, it's a mind-altering process where you'll actually be down-loaded with things that you previously would have rejected, on a cultural basis, or a personal basis, or a racial or ethnic basis or anything else.
The Frankfurt School also provide useful historical perspectives on the transition from traditional culture and modernism in the arts to a mass-produced media and consumer society. In his path-breaking book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas further historicizes Adorno and Horkheimer’s analysis of the culture industry.
I keep harping on this and it's right in here, "The culture industry". We've been brought up to think it's an entertainment industry there to amuse us and it's got nothing to do with amusing us, that's a secondary effect. It's to alter your thoughts and the way you see things and think about things and the conclusions you'll come to are all in the movies. They know which conclusions you will come to.
Providing historical background to the triumph of the culture industry, Habermas notes how bourgeois
That's middle class.
society in the late 18th and 19th century was distinguished by the rise of a public sphere that stood between civil society and the state and which mediated between public and private interests. For the first time in history, individuals and groups could shape public opinion, giving direct expression to their needs and interests while influencing political practice. The bourgeois public sphere made it possible to form a realm of public opinion that opposed state power and the powerful interests that were coming to shape bourgeois society.
Only by understanding how all this came about, as I say, wading through it, will you understand what's happening today, because these same forces and same groups and those who believe in these particular, I wouldn't call them philosophies, some of these people do, but they knew where they were going and they're still going there. That's what New World Order is all about, that's what Norman Dodd was talking about when he met the heads of the Ford Foundation and other Foundations, who told him they were mixing the Sovietised system with the Capitalist West and they'd blend the two cultures together seamlessly; and, that's what we see today, it's here. It's been done and funded by the big Foundations, these charitable organisations, as we think of them. The same Foundations that sponsor and pay thousands of NGO groups to push for laws and changes in society and they have lobby groups, professional lobby groups that get the ear of government at any times they wish, while Joe Average, who thinks he's in a democracy, simply can't.
Habermas notes a transition from the liberal public sphere which originated in the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolution to a media-dominated public sphere in the current stage of what he calls "welfare state capitalism and mass democracy." This historical transformation is grounded in Horkheimer and Adorno's analysis of the culture industry, in which giant corporations have taken over the public sphere and transformed it from a site of rational debate into one of manipulative consumption and passivity.
That was the system that Bernays and his friends had given the West.
giant corporations have taken over the public sphere and transformed it from a site of rational debate into one of manipulative consumption and passivity.
Passivity, through consumption.
In this transformation, "public opinion" shifts from rational consensus emerging from debate, discussion, and reflection to the manufactured opinion of polls or media experts. For Habermas, the interconnection between the sphere of public debate and individual participation has thus been fractured and transmuted into that of a realm of political manipulation and spectacle, in which citizen-consumers ingest and absorb passively entertainment and information.
"passively entertainment and information". What was it that Russell and Huxley talked about? Giving us trivia and Huxley talked about giving the people very base, simple comedies and things like that.
...In Habermas's words: "Inasmuch as the mass media today strip away the literary husks from the kind of bourgeois self-interpretation and utilize them as marketable forms for the public services provided in a culture of consumers, the original meaning is reversed" (1989: 171).
I'll be back with more of this dry stuff, but very important stuff, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, going through the Frankfurt School, a very important organisation, because it merged with the Bernays Society, the society that Bernays and his friends had pretty-well created, through mass consumerism, and they merged together and that's what became of the two systems. We have a sort of socialist system today, with a corporate elite at the top and, I've said for years, that to understand the system we live under, it's essentially Sovietised, from the upper middle class down, with masses of bureaucrats and government officials and departments running our whole lives for us and it's getting worse, of course and it's planned to get worse. That's their perfect society where everyone is observed and organised and followed right through your entire life; but, at the top of it, like Carroll Quigley said: you have this, really a fascist-type system, he didn't use the word fascist, he said it would be a new feudal system where the corporate overlords, the C.E.O. overlords of the corporations, they'll be the new feudal overlords of society. That's exactly what we have. If we look at the bail-outs now, to all of these big giants, even the motor corporations, the manufacturers of cars and the banks etc, that's corporate welfare. Yet they've had society through their manipulations in the media for years, getting angry with the welfare people at the bottom level strata of society, where what's spent on them is virtually pennies, compared to the billions they're dishing out to their corporate boys at the top. However, they don't call it welfare, but they certainly are cash gifts; they’re gifts, not loans (and that's been happening for years). It says here, going back to this article:
Yet Habermas is right that in the period of the democratic revolutions
When you actually had revolutions right afterwards.
a public sphere emerged in which for the first time in history
The first time in history, people forget that it's not long ago.
ordinary citizens could participate in political discussion and debate, organize, and struggle against unjust authority. Habermas's account also points to the increasingly important role of the media in politics and everyday life and the ways that corporate interests have colonized this sphere,
They've taken over as they merged.
using the media and culture to promote their own interests.
People really think that, we're taught that, in fact, what's good for the corporations is good for the country. The corporations have no loyalty to any country, haven't we noticed, they're international. They pulled up, lock, stock and barrel, from the West when they would get cheap labour in China and zoomed off there, without a care what happened to all the unemployed left back home.
The culture industry thesis described both the production of massified cultural products and homogenized subjectivities. Mass culture for the Frankfurt School produced desires, dreams, hopes, fears, and longings, as well as unending desire for consumer products. The culture industry produced cultural consumers who would consume its products and conform to the dictates and the behaviors of the existing society.
That's what the Frankfurt School were brought in to do, was to gradually alter that, to bring in this synthesis of the two systems together, for the future, the future is now, it's here.
And yet, as Walter Benjamin pointed out (1969), the culture industry also produces rational and critical consumers able to dissect and discriminate among cultural texts and performances, much as sports fans learn to analyze and criticize sports events.
In retrospect, one can see the Frankfurt school work as articulation of a theory of the stage of state and monopoly capitalism that became dominant during the 1930s. This was an era of large organizations, theorized earlier by Austro-Marxist Rudolf Hilferding as ‘organized capitalism’ (1980 ), in which the state and giant corporations managed the economy and in which individuals submitted to state and corporate control. This period is often described as ‘Fordism’ to designate the system of mass production and the homogenizing regime of capital which wanted to produce mass desires, tastes, and behavior.
Most folk would never think about that, you know, if we're all buying the same things, wearing the same things, walking around with i-pods and listening to the same things, our behaviour is being altered and we're all becoming rather passive and conforming to what's been designed for us to conform to.
It was thus an era of mass production and consumption characterized by uniformity
That's what it created, it was uniformity.
and homogeneity of needs, thought, and behavior producing a mass society and what the Frankfurt school described as ‘the end of the individual.’
You can't be an individual if you're the same as everyone else, but governments love that, they love to have everyone the same. Individuals tend to be problems. The mass will go along at a meeting, when they've been brought to a conclusion, by someone in the Delphi Technique; if there's one individual there that's got a different point of view, comes out of left field with that idea, there can be chaos in that room, even for the one controlling the technique. Therefore, the individual's a problem.
No longer was individual thought and action the motor of social and cultural progress; instead giant organizations and institutions overpowered individuals.
“Organisations, giant organizations and institutions overpowered individuals”: that's getting right back to what I'm trying to say. We don't have democracy; we haven't had it for an awful long time. The massive foundations, that were put into being by those who already owned the giant industries, like the Rockefellers, like the Fords and Carnegies, then funded all the NGO groups, giant groups, organisations and institutions and that overpowers the individuals, it overpowers the individual’s ability to have a voice. They only listen to big groups and the big groups are well-funded. If you notice who really funds most of the environmental groups, they come from these same institutions. The same institutions will have shares in lumbering companies. You find who owns much of the animal activists, who runs and funds them and the money's filtered down through the very organisations that own the laboratories where they test the animals. It's a dialectic.
The era corresponds to the staid, conformist, and conservative world of corporate capitalism that was dominant in the 1950s with its organization men and women, its mass consumption, and its mass culture.
During this period, mass culture and communication were instrumental in generating the modes of thought and behavior appropriate to a highly organized and massified social order. Thus, the Frankfurt school theory of the culture industry articulates a major historical shift to an era in which mass consumption and culture was indispensable to producing a consumer society based on homogeneous needs and desires for mass-produced products and a mass society based on social organization and homogeneity. It is culturally the era of highly controlled network radio and television, insipid top forty pop music,
Now, it's rock and rap and so on.
glossy Hollywood films, national magazines, and other mass-produced cultural artifacts.
Of course, media culture was never as massified and homogeneous as in the Frankfurt school model and one could argue that the model was flawed even during its time of origin and influence and that other models were preferable, such as those of Walter Benjamin, Siegfried Kracauer, Ernst Bloch, and others of the Weimar generation and, later, British cultural studies. Yet the original Frankfurt school model of the culture industry did articulate the important social roles of media culture during a specific regime of capital and provided a model, still of use, of a highly commercial and technologically advanced culture that serves the needs of dominant corporate interests, plays a major role in ideological reproduction, and in enculturating individuals into the dominant system of needs, thought, and behavior.
Now, when you go into the beginnings of the Frankfurt School, where did they get all their theories from? All these theories really originated within Germany, very important place because it was the pinnacle, in the 1800s and the early 1900s, of science and all the studies of science. Before the scientists took over with all their theories, they were like the other countries where religion really dominated because religion itself is a controlling factor to get a passive population to go along together on the same path, so it's very-very important. These guys had studied the likes of Hegel and Nietzsche and all the rest of them; and the world they wanted to bring in would be really a Godless world, they wanted to bring in the rational man but they also understood that most people out there were not, to their way of thinking, rational at all. They were well aware of Bernays' studies and they knew that to get ideas across for a political system, to transform society from 'working your way up' type society, as it was always pushed before, standing on your own two feet, to a socialised society, which was controlled and manipulated by those who knew better, they'd have to accept the fact, for a while, that people would still be into religions and so on.
I mentioned last night the movie Hollywoodism, which is worth looking into, because they tell you in the movie, from the very voices of many of the top producers of movies, how it's been used all along, to shape our thoughts and feelings about the past. And, feelings, I stress, because feelings are very important, even though the rationalists that control us are maybe psychopathic themselves in nature and they truly do believe they have the right to direct society and make us conform into a new system which they have planned. They do realise that they have to do it, through our emotions, like Bernays said.
You go into any store and just look at the way it's laid out, everything is psychologically laid out, for the man, the woman and the child. The children's stuff, generally, is all at the checkout counter, because that's when their parents want to get through, they're frustrated, they're annoyed, they've got all those bags to carry at the end of it and the child will take some of the candy, they're right at his level and the hope is, because most mums and dads will, just to get out of the line, with all those people behind them, they'll pay that 'oh well, throw that in too'. This is psychology, that's why it's right there; every store is the same. Many of the big chain stores now are identical in layout, regardless of which one you go into, because they're psychologically set up that way.
In the big department stores, they're all using strange colours, these high purples and so on, to attract the eye and the eye is distracted to them but it's what's next to it that's important, it's almost the same colour, because that's the product you're going to end up buying.
We have been studied like ants in a colony, for many, many, many centuries, maybe thousands of years, and they know how to manipulate us at the top. In the Vance Packard book, I read from a couple of nights ago, he talked about all the studies and there's even videos out there are on them, where you'll see them in action, where they were studying the eyes of the consumers and what they could tell just by the blinking, the dilation of pupils, or the lack of blinking. They knew exactly if the person wanted this product or not, or would buy it.
When I was young, I used to wonder why governments were spending so much money sending people into other cultures, to study what they called ‘primitive tribes’. I know now why they did it, because they want to find what all of humanity has in common, because everything that's in common can therefore be manipulated in the same way. You don't have to alter your techniques of manipulation for it not to work on another people, if you understand the things which are all the same. It's very much like Albert Pike, who definitely understood a lot of these sciences, in the 1800s, where he said that we have to understand and look at man and woman, the world over, he was talking of them as targets, to bring them into the societies, he says and not look at their culture, it doesn't matter about their culture, about the cultural differences. If the right things are presented in the same way, going to the common things we all share, through emotion, that's what he meant, he didn't say emotion, but he meant through emotion, then they could bring them into these societies. He was talking about a greater world of fraternities, bringing them all in on the same path.
The goal of World government is very old, very-very old. Bankers talked about world government, centuries ago, and they said it was inevitable because they were funding the wars that created the big empires. Out of wars come the treaties; wars change the sides of all opposing actions, that's what Carroll Quigley said, that's one of its main functions. Wars aid governments to get bigger and bigger and bigger. That was the fear of top psychologists, 80 years ago, the ones who led their field like Carl Jung. Carl Jung saw that through the use of wars and the effects on all combatants, all the sides, his greatest fear that government would be stifling. He said that he wasn't worried about an iron curtain across the world; he saw this curtain wrapping round the whole world, regulations and bureaucracy.
I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix and I've gone through some very dry stuff, it's not the usual kind of talk show thing where we get things in bits and bites and we discuss what the media have given us to discuss. It's to try to show you, for those that are interested, and there's a lot out there who are interested, in the forces that help bring us to where we are and that are still action today. That is why, as I've said, regardless of the party that you vote in, or you think you voting in, or whatever, the agenda, this world agenda, this global agenda, of a planned society, initially run on, or primarily run on socialist type issues, steamrolls ahead. It doesn't matter who's in, because the main politicians are bypassed anyway, they're kind of like puppets at a show for you to focus on. The bureaucracies behind them are trained in the kind of stuff that I've just been talking about and they have their mandates, they've had mandates since the League of Nations; and, men and women have worked their whole lives and retired and new ones come in and that's why Foundations and government can predict the kind of society they want to bring in a hundred years and carry it through. The bureaucracies themselves have mandates and they work hand-in-glove with the big Foundations.
I was reading a book recently, where Mr. Rockefeller, during the Cold War, was so involved with the spooks or spies that they'd often go to him, if they couldn't get Black Budget money and he'd pull out his cheque book and ask them how much they wanted. Who was running what back in the Cold War when that kind of thing could happen? Rockefeller is the man who is still running ahead today, talking about a global society, with a vastly-reduced population "There's too many people" he keeps saying, who funds most universities and who attends all kinds of world conferences, who started up the World Council of Churches and everything else that could help unify everything together.
The approach they take is the academic approach, where rather than sit and argue over emotional debates, and fight each other and maybe even strangle each other, they sit and use reason. You look for those things which you have in common, rather than focus on your differences and that's how the world is run; and, for those who really want to know what's going on, look at how many world meetings are on right now. Look up the universities, look up, across the world, look up universities and see what kind they're organising now, you'll find they're all the same, on board, on track with the same topics. Working and bringing in a pre-planned directed future. Most folk will drift into it and think it's all quite natural, they won't even ask the question how did all this come about? Powerful forces at work, powerful forces which are well-funded, they work with all the foundations, they work with all the governments, they get the red carpet treatment with governments and we are in big-big trouble and we have been, all our lives, most just didn't know it. That's where the confusion comes in, we don't know the facts and I'm trying to give them to you.
For those who like more, just look at my website, donate to me and it keeps me going; and, from Hamish and myself, Ontario, Canada, it's goodnight and may your god - or your gods - go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
Article (continued): "The Frankfurt School" by Professor Douglas Kellner (ucla.edu).)