Alan Watt
"Cutting Through The Matrix" Live On RBN (#295)
Poem Copyright Alan Watt April 9, 2009:
Little Braying From Those They're Surveilling:
"Control Freaks
Through Time, Always Praying
For Means and Techniques of Total Surveilling,
Now They've Arrived Using Means Despicable,
Sleep Well, Knowing We're All Predictable,
In Bygone Days, Paranoia would Abound,
Causing Dyspepsia and No Sleep Sound,
Endless Possibilities Outside Controls,
Even Though Through Populace, Many Moles,
They Now Show Arrogance, Pompous Elation,
At Victory o'er Nations Under Sedation,
By Means of Subterfuge They have Foisted,
Their Victory Flag About to be Hoisted
Over Billions, All with Concussion,
Live or Asleep, No Repercussion"
© Alan Watt April 9, 2009
Thursday 9th April 2009
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - April 9, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
| cuttingthroughthematrix.com alternate sites: cuttingthroughthematrix.net , .us , .ca alanwattcuttingthroughthematrix.ca |
mirror site: cuttingthrough.jenkness.com |
| European site includes all audios & downloadable
TRANSCRIPTS in European languages for print up: alanwattsentientsentinel.eu | |
|
Information for purchasing Alan’s books, CDs, DVDs and DONATIONS: Canada and America: PayPal, Cash, personal checks & Outside the Americas: PayPal, Cash, Western Union and Money Gram PayPal Orders: USE THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE – AND – Click the link below for your location (ordering info): |
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on April the 9th 2009.
I always advise the newcomers to look into www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com where you can find hundreds of hours of talks I've given in the past, where I try to give you information that is out there (it's just not in the regular media; but it's certainly out there, in old libraries with old books) to show you that the world is guided along a particular path; along a strategic path. And those in control work inter-generationally, through big Foundations mainly; and that's why they can pull off what they want as their future, they bring it into being. A mammoth task indeed; but it's not so hard when you realise that those who fund it, are really just over a dozen world banking families, who fund all the Foundations that then fund all the NGOs (the Non-Governmental Organisations) who demand from government that which the government has been put in place to listen to; that's the new type of democracy.
We're living through the most momentous changes really in history. I think Rockefeller himself talked about this change and he said it would be bigger than the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, where millions of people were forced, with the power of the purse, off their lands into the big cities that were just thrown up, industrial cities, massive upheaval and people moving across countries. We're going through the big changes, the New World Order, as Mr. Brown himself declared at the G20 meeting. It entails everything that we've ever known, because most people will certainly have a hard time remembering shortly what they've ever known as we go into rapid-rapid change.
Also: look into www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu for transcripts of these talks, which you can download for print-up, written in the various languages of Europe.
You can also keep me going, or at least ticking over, by purchasing that which is on my website for sale at www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com or donate to me; and remember: those in the US are fine with personal cheques, they're OK for Canada. And you can also write to [listed above] and you can also help me out that way too, because some people do listen to the show and they don't look into the site, so they don't know where to send anything.
We're on, as I say: the greatest roll for many-many centuries - that Brzezinski, the Rockefellers and others have written about in their own books. Mind you, they were writing about this, 30-40 years ago, because they knew this was part of their goal, this world empire; and those before them were churning out their books, those in the same positions, high-level Technocrats, from the beginning of the 1900s onwards. To do with the Brave New World they were going to bring in, all based on a form of Darwinism, where humanity are animals and therefore can be reshaped and remade / remoulded into any kind of society, any kind of new society, based, as I say, on the ideas of Darwin. We saw this with the Soviet Union, where they had the Soviet Man who was to be the New Man (in Nazi German it was the Super Man); and today it's towards the perfect world citizen who is a good producer and consumer, as they call it.
I think that's the music coming in, so I'll be back with more, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt, we're Cutting Through The Matrix, discussing not just the changes that have already come up, but the ones to come up, a whole world to be transformed; and we don't have to guess at it any more because the leaders are all coming out across the world, at the same time, giving the exact same speeches, as though it's a done deal. What they're really declaring is the triumph of the end of sovereignty of individual nations. It's all been done through stealth and through treaty-signing for an awful long time and it's sewn up, because all the boys on board that are placed in to be the tops of countries, all belong to the same organisations; and upheaval is to come.
It's amazing that when 2001 happened and the speech was made very quickly, I think it was by Cheney or Rumsfeld, he said that nothing would ever be the same again; they weren't kidding and I knew they weren't kidding. If we look at the changes that have happened since then, across the world, simultaneously, with the same laws being rammed through, with the same security measures being rammed through, with identical measures, it tells you that all these countries were already involved in treaties to implement all of those actions and that takes a long time to prepare. Therefore, 9/11 was just the trigger that allowed them to put it all into action, but really the machinery for it had already been done, all the negotiations had been done; everybody was on board.
It's the same thing with everything else that's happened since, and what's still happening, as we go into the closer ties with each other, as they call them. Closer ties, there’s different terms they use about amalgamation and closer ties is one of them; Integration, of course, is the obvious other. And people will think, well what's wrong with that? It sounds nice, what's wrong with all being part of a nice world system? This is the kind of stuff they put into science fiction books for 50 or 60 years; but everything's fine, until you really look at it and say who's really running the system, where do they want to go? Remember, those boys in the Foundations ran Eugenics societies, they still do, by the way, they just call them Bioethics societies; and one of their main targets is depopulation. The term sustainable development was meant to substitute for that; it sounds better than depopulation. And people are being reared, from kindergarten onwards, to have these mantras about sustainable development, not realising that it means perhaps if the authorities say that you're not fit to breed, or there's too many of you, you're just an ordinary person who would produce an ordinary offspring, we don't need you, then you could be sterilised; that's what's coming down the pike, because these boys at the top are on a roll now.
They don't even have to start drafting up legislation, I'm sure they already have it and they have it discussed as well at very high levels. I've read some reports, from societies that now advise governments, like the Optimum Population Trust. In this Brave New World, because we're all primitive, according to those at the top, we haven't evolved as far as those at the top; we're all primitives and we all have to be watched and monitored from birth to death and readjusted along with the political correctness, as it keeps changing. This is exactly what George Orwell warned us about, in his book '1984'; and he calls it different techniques, double-think, where you will have two opposing ideas in your head about the same topic at the same time and - somehow - you'll be able to manage that. You have to be able too, for the bureaucratic classes initially, then the rest of the population, to forget all that you've been told before, when you're told another reason for something and parrot that, as though it's always been that way. That's where we are today.
Here's an article from the Guardian weekly, it says:
Big Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is backed
Privacy row brewing
Well that's nonsense, because I've seen these privacy people before in Government, there's always a minister appointed and they'll tell you themselves they have no power to stop anything.
Tuesday 31 March 2009
The government is backing a project to install a "communication box" in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe,
Well, you see, they've really all been doing that all along, under the guise of insurance fraud and saving people who get their cars stolen. It says:
the Guardian can reveal.
Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant "heartbeat" revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents,
They talk to us as though we are children, how would it reduce anything?
congestion and carbon emissions. A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as 2013.
They can add that to the one they're already put in the car.
However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.
Well, that's the point of it, that's what it's all for.
Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project,
They love these long terms eh? CVIS.
a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.
Of course they're all going to benefit out of it financially and guess who'll have to pay for the extra?
But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it could have profound implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre - more accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.
What they can also do is shut your car down, just like the OnStar programme.
The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency on the 5.9 Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on which CVIS technology will work.
Well, you know if Britain's doing it, they're going to do it here too, because whatever Britain does now is copied immediately, world-wide.
The Department for Transport said there were no current plans to make installation of the technology mandatory.
Now, they always give you a few months where it's voluntary.
However, those involved in the project describe the UK as one of the main "state backers".
Of course it is.
Transport for London has also hosted trials of the technology.
This is the world we're going into, that was planned before 9/11 happened in fact, because I saw similar articles floating the idea, back in the '90s and that's what they call 'trial balloons'. They put up a trial balloon, to see what the feedback is from the public, it lets them know if the public really are paying attention, or even care, and it gives them an idea of when to proceed and how to proceed and implement it; trial balloons. Also predictive programming; and to be honest with you, the people have bowed down so low today, to comply with everything that's happened, I don't see any problem with them bowing even lower; it’s the way it is.
And it's strange now, because I've been talking today to someone about cyber war and how the Internet was given to the public, because it's the best way to monitor everyone. Everyone must be predictable in a totalitarian regime. And I was thinking too about the nonsense we read recently about China hacking, I don't know, a dozen countries, or maybe more, into governments’, through governments’ computers and taking data from them and even putting in software and reprogramming them. Now, you think about this: every government in the world has pushed and pushed for you to put all your data on the Internet and use the cashless society, electronic banking. The same governments have all got the same regulations to do with your spyware and the computers themselves. Every computer sold to the public, in every country, must be hackable, by government agencies. That means that all the spyware you buy and even what you think is the best that you can buy, must be by-passable by the government agencies, so it won't keep them out. Plus, they've installed 'back doors' in the computers. Now, if you think you have an enemy, if you truly thought there was an enemy, across the sea somewhere and that enemy can hack into the government computers, that means that same enemy could also wipe-out every account, bank account, of all you out there who do your cashless banking. And that's called economic warfare, you crash that, the economy goes right down and we're all sunk. That's not happened, has it? It hasn't happened. However, these super computers used by a supposed enemy have hacked into the government computers, we're told. Well, what chance would we truly have against this done against us ourselves? We'd have none with our little AVGs and Spybots and all the rest of it that we're allowed to purchase, none at all. Which tells you there are no enemies, because they'd never set it up and put their public or slaves at risk of being conquered by someone else, very simple.
From, I think it's called the Wired Magazine, on May the 13th 2008, going back to 2008, this is the article I've mentioned before:-
Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers
The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it "access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure completely undetected."
Back with more - after these messages.
=== BREAK ===
I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, showing the listeners that when these guys talk about doing something, they always do it; and there are people, including myself, who seem to get hacked pretty regularly now, who are speaking out about what's happening in the world. I guess that's the evidence, to ourselves really, that we're being targeted, because we're saying something that is, at least, being a nuisance to those in control. And to be honest with you, I don’t think you can't do much more than be a nuisance, because I really do think it's almost all sewn-up, except for those that still think, that's the only thing in our favour: there are still people today who haven't succumbed and who can still think for themselves, they know what's going on; they're sentient. To continue with this article from Wired:
The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online. The Air Force recently put together a "Cyberspace Command," with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies.
To rule networks – They’re not kidding.
The Department of Homeland Security, DARPA, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion "national cyber security initiative."
That's the start of it; they always give low numbers to start with, that's low, these days.
That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks. "You used to need an army to wage a war," a recent Air Force commercial notes. "Now, all you need is an Internet connection."
On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for "Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement." "Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access," a request for proposals notes, "to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." This isn't just some computer science study, mind you; "research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities."
Unlike an Air Force colonel's proposal, to knock down enemy websites with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, "low and slow" approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrating information" from adversaries' networks.
I know people who've had their hard drives fried with these and they admit they can fry your hard drive; I've read the article on that as well. It's so simple, because, after all the Military-Industrial Complex were using the Internet, long before we even knew it existed. They gave it to the public, a lower-grade version mind you; so, naturally, they made and designed it (the stuff for the public) to be hackable and destructible as well, if need be, when you become a nuisance. It's interesting to watch this actually take place; and it's certainly interesting to watch it happen, when it happens to you.
Here's another article along similar lines, this is from Mother Jones, of all magazines; and it says here:
A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
It's from April the 2nd 2009.
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Well, if you don't know it, we're in a perpetual state of emergency.
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor - an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic
And here's how:
to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.
It also has a PDF here of the whole Bill, by the way.
... The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
"We must protect
It's great how they move chairs don't they? But they take the same Bills with them, it's a must-be; this is one of his babies.
We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs - from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records - the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
Ha!
But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cyber-security threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping into data transmissions between computers.
Back with more - after this break.
=== BREAK ===
I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix: showing you how everything's on a rampage now, towards a particular goal. They have many goals, to fulfil different levels. Some are five year plans; some are ten year plans; some are thirty year; some fifty year plans. That's their M.O. [modus operandi], intergenerational / Fabian alterations, to achieve their beautiful New World Order. And today, I was talking to someone about Communism and I said: you know, we're basically under the Soviet regime; and if they don't mention that to the public in mainstream, the public, unfortunately, will not come to that conclusion by themselves. Brzezinski was quite correct when he talked about the scientific indoctrinations, and even using technotronic warfare on the public, of which he said they'd be completely unaware. He said they will be shortly unable to reason for themselves, they'll expect the media to do their reasoning for them. Therefore, they can give you all the symptoms of what was called the Soviet system but just don't mention Communism. If they don't mention it, the general public will never catch on and say 'my goodness, this is kind of familiar'. Remember: Collectivism is another term for Communism that the Club of Rome used when they said they preferred that system to run a world. That's what they were going to model all of this on; that's why, by the way, that's why China is the model state for the world, we've all to emulate them.
This is an article from the Associated Press, yesterday.
Chavez says Beijing part of 'new world order'
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his two-day visit to Beijing this week is part of the creation of a "new world order."
That's just what Brown said, isn't it? At the G20 meeting, a New World Order. All the ones you thought were opposing each other, and they play this game in public, are all going in the same direction, using the same terminology, isn't that kind of odd folks? And just for the hard of thinking, I'll repeat that:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his two-day visit to Beijing this week is part of the creation of a "new world order."
The frequent U.S. critic, who was to meet with China's president and Communist Party leader Hu Jintao on Wednesday, told reporters upon arriving the evening before that power in the world was shifting from America to countries such as Iran, Japan and China.
That's exactly, of course, what Brzezinski said, when he was coaching Obama; he was publishing this stuff in major magazines and so on.
"We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multi-polar world," Chavez said.
A "multi-polar world," eh?
"The unipolar world has collapsed. The power of the U.S. empire has collapsed," he said. "Everyday, the new poles of world power are becoming stronger.
That's all over the Foreign Affairs Magazine, the CFR’s official magazine and it's been out there like that for months talking about the same thing, since last year in fact, they've been talking about this, that the US must go down and new countries emerge etc, emerging countries and take their rightful place. Meanwhile, of course, America and some of the British Commonwealth countries have to fund it all, you see? So:
"The unipolar world has collapsed. The power of the U.S. empire has collapsed," he said. "Everyday, the new poles of world power are becoming stronger. Beijing, Tokyo, Tehran ... It's moving toward the East and toward the South."
Chavez has made Beijing a frequent stop in his global travels to promote his agenda of anti-American world unity, stopping in the Chinese capital no less than six times since rising to power in 1998 elections.
Here you have all sides, supposedly, guys who publicly yell at each other and yell about each other, all going in the same direction, using the same terms, giving the same reasons and explanations for it happening; and we can't quite catch on there's a big club here. There's only one pirate ship and they're all on board it; that's how it really is, they're on board. Then the article goes on to talk about all their investments and things that they're doing.
I'm also going to put a link up, tonight, about that Bill that's going through, it's sitting there waiting to go through, I think it was the guy from Monsanto, up next to Obama, put it in: HR875. It truly is so open and vague; to do with food and food safety that, literally, they can classify your kitchen as a preparation place for food and have it government-inspected, it's an open door. Gardeners, even home gardeners, could be charged and have their property confiscated, if they don't go by certain guidelines and rules. And the people who put it forward - as I say - all work for Monsanto. Are we really surprised? Because, after all, you see, in this Brave New World, you have to be inter-dependent; you cannot be independent for water, independent for your food or anything else. You'd be anti-social if you're not inter-dependent on the system. Therefore, every means of being independent has been, for many years, and now it's on a roll, has been taken away from you, to make sure you're inter-dependent, meaning totally dependent on the system, that's what it means. Double-speak is wonderful, wonderful: interdependence means you have no independence, quite simple. This is going through and it's scaring a lot of people. This article here, it says:
Criminalizing Organic and Home Growers
HR 875 The food police, criminalizing organic farming and the backyard gardener, and violation of the 10th amendment
This bill is sitting in committee
They don't know when it's going to go through, it probably will get rammed through; and then it goes into all the things that can happen:
• Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
• Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.
• Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
• Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
They don't miss a thing eh?
• Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal.
Every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. They're not stupid at the top, with their legalisms, if they wanted to make it very clear, it would be clear. The reason they leave it so vague and open is because they're going to exploit those areas and use them over you, in an authoritarian manner. It says:
• There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
• Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
• Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
• Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
Well, who cares about amendments anymore and all that stuff? Because no one's really taken any look at that seriously for years, that's been obvious. They've even had Presidents making rather sarcastic comments about them. It says here, it's an interesting connection, because it's true:
Didn’t Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply?
Yes.
Didn’t Stalin use the food to control the people?
Yes, like Stalin did when he starved the Ukrainians to death and actually took all their grain from them. You see: food is a weapon. It says:
Last word …… Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on what can and can’t be said in the pulpit, instituting regulations forcing people to rely solely on the government, control the money and the food. What is that called? It is on the tip of my tongue ……………
I'll put up the link for that too, because it will end up where you have people coming into your kitchen. They already have that in Britain, on a voluntary basis, mind you, from the Government, where people are hired to go round and come into your kitchen and check your refrigerator and advise, silly old you, how to store food, use food and what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat and that's where it's going to go. You'll have penalties eventually if there's too many fatty foods, especially when they start weighing you, mandatory weighing; that will come as well.
You see: we're just livestock to these people at the top; livestock, they want to check the condition of their livestock. Unfortunately, most folk don't mind today, don't mind. They walk through, people with their holidays, on aircraft and here's the guys come out with their socks on the floor, holding up their pants, like somebody who'd just been captured and put in the Gestapo camp. They don't complain, as long as they can go on their holidays. Humiliation, how much does it take? Well it's endless isn't it? We've noticed that, endless humiliation. I always think of Bertrand Russell when he said we shall create apathy with the people; that's the sort of thing you do, to create apathy. You also show massive force, by State powers, internal armies, call them police or whatever you want. That also creates apathy, ‘well what can I do?’ It makes you feel so small; this is all part of psychological conditioning and warfare. Amazing, isn't it? Amazing; but that's the world that's the world that was planned long ago, that's the world we're living through; and, meanwhile, everyone is fighting everyone else, on other levels, as we all go under, which I said, years ago, would happen.
Now, we've got a caller from Australia, it's Paul, is Paul on the line there?
Paul: Hello Mr. Alan Watt, how are you doing? It's an honour to talk to you as always, sir.
Alan: How you doin?
Paul: Not too bad thank you; and just listening to what you were just saying Alan, about how far will the government humiliate their people and I think to the point of death, I reckon.
Alan: You're right.
Paul: Quite sad, quite sad. And you know, talking about, well for Australia anyway, the emblem of the kangaroo and I think it's the Emu, about how they symbolise us as animals, basically, would that be correct?
Alan: No doubt at all, I've no doubt at all.
Paul: Because it should be a man and a woman, like left to right, shouldn’t it, at a minimum anyway? As the human race, instead of a kangaroo and the Emu for Australia!
Alan: Well, it's better than Canada: Canada used to use the British flag; and then they pulled a con, telling us we had more freedoms and they gave us a maple leaf and the maple leaf is a red one; and a red maple leaf is a dead one, you get that in the Fall! ha-ha!
Paul: I never would have made that connection, you're right; you're right. And just one more quick thing Alan: about Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia: he wanted everybody to have optic fibre throughout all of Australia, everybody having it, which would have cost billions and billions of dollars. But, luckily the opposing side, and rightly so, said we wouldn't be able to afford to and he kept on saying well, it'll pay off in the end. I was thinking, really, my main point of that was why optic fibre everybody on the Internet? That seems like a form of spying and all of that.
Alan: Yes, well, that's why they gave us Internet; in fact, they could not pull all of this off unless they were absolutely sure with their data collection. It’s to keep the pulse on everybody, and the trends, and to keep the present trends, they're always ahead of the game. They couldn't pull any of this off without computers, that goes for all police enforcement, everything. You know, in Europe and it's the same in Britain, they're all connected, all the policemen, every policeman is connected with a special system, with a new radio and he can talk to any cop across Europe. The lowly policeman can talk to any cop across Europe, with this interconnected system, any time he wants. They have their own special ones for themselves; but, for the general public, we're just an open book. We are an open book, for them to read daily; and they know exactly what to do. They know if there's resentment against something, which tells them how to get round it. The Rand Corporation uses this data all the time and projects upcoming trends and how they can enforce certain things and get round objections; it's all done with data collection.
Paul: Absolutely, it's kind of like the devil himself is having a book of life for millions of people in this world. It's kind of like that, how he wants to track everybody and try to have his own book of life, because it's kind of like the Big Brother system, Alan, in the UK, of England, of how Big Brother cameras everywhere, because, I believe that the Devil is not omnipresent, like the Lord Jesus Christ is; and so he must have to keep a physical eye throughout the world.
Alan: It's a physical eye; the technique too, is just one place removed from the old technique. If you look at the Communist countries or any totalitarian country in the past, you'd have massive photographs and pictures of the leader in the streets. You'd have them in doorways, have them in alleyways, you'd have them everywhere you look. Big brother was really there: the face of Lenin, or Stalin or Adolph and so on. If you go back into ancient times and the Eye of Ra, if you were a slave in Egypt, that was everywhere you looked, there was always an Eye of Ra somewhere, watching you. Psychologically, it makes you feel so tiny, small and it made you, again, apathetic, thinking 'There's nothing I can do, this all-knowing eye sees every move I make, if I run off, they'll know'. It's the same kind of technique; that's one of the main objects of all of this surveillance, is the psychological effect, to get the public to feel apathetic. Because, again too: in any experiment, that which is being observed will behave differently when it knows it's being observed. Therefore, our behaviour is modified when we know we're being watched, we're acting through life, people are posing and acting and constantly second-guessing themselves, in case they do something that might be construed as wrong, or misinterpreted as being wrong. We're being trained, through all this observation; and the cameras are part of the training system.
Paul: You're so correct, it's been an honour speaking with you Alan, thank you very much.
Alan: Thanks for calling. Now, we'll go to Andrea, from New York, are you there Andrea?
Andrea: Hello, Alan?
Alan: Yes.
Andrea: Hi, I was watching Reality Check Part 2 and you talk about flags and you talk about the British and the American and the French flags and evolution, after revolution, of the flags. The British flag, at one time, had the red and white stripes and then the Templar Cross and the St. Andrew's Cross, in the upper left-hand corner, right?
Alan: That was the British East India Company; that was the first major international corporation, owned by the Crown and nobility, from the 1500s.
Andrea: That wasn't the British flag then?
Alan: They had the British flag in the corner of it. Hold on a second and we'll take this up, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, talking to Andrea, from New York, about the flags; continue Andrea.
Andrea: So, the British East India Company flag became the British flag?
Alan: No, they already had what they call the Union Jack, that's the cross and the St Andrew's Cross combined; but, you see, understand: England started off with the Knights Templars Cross, the red cross.
Andrea: Oh, right.
Alan: And that's the sign in itself that something else is running England, but then they merged with the St. Andrew's cross of Scotland, because they were building up an Empire and they added to it that way as well. When they created the Corporations, and, as I say, the Crown is the first major Crown Corporation, in the time of Elizabeth the 1st, the first truly Rosicrucian Court that created the British East India Company and then they had a succession of flags that kind of evolved over time. One of their flags also was interesting, because it had the stripes of course, the red and white, horizontal; and they also had a circle of stars on a blue background, for every place that they basically owned, where they had a depot, a major depot in the country.
Andrea: Were these white stars?
Alan: Yes and it's interesting to see that, because the European Union has got twelve stars on a blue background, in a circle. And: the original revolutionary flag of the US, didn't have horizontal stripes of stars, it had a circle of thirteen stars, on a blue background, just like they did at the old East India Company, before they put up the British one on top of it. So, it's interesting to see the same people obviously, the same associations, obviously, down through time, using the same symbology, time after time and the public don't catch on to it. In the Pythagorean, remember too, they're always talking about Pythagoras, in the so-called High Masonic tradition and Fabian Society, it's all part of the same thing, they use colour-coding as well. For instance, do you ever wonder why they have blue for Conservative and police etc and then when you have the Labour or Liberal, it's a red tie they'll wear and you also have the green ones in now as well. These are all sacred colours, because each colour represents a technique of use over the public and revolution is the red one, so you have the cap is red and the flag is red; and then, under law, they’ll always say we're bringing in a constitution for a new government, under law, well in comes the blue, you see. Of course, it's done by few, those who are illumined. What is illumined? Those who are white – so you always have white; so it's always red, white and blue for the High Masonic tradition; but the sacred colour, that's never shown until completion, is green.
Andrea: Oh, my! So, what about the French flag?
Alan: The French is the same. It was born in revolution and it is red, white and blue.
Andrea: Ok, thank you very much.
Alan: Thanks for calling.
Andrea: Ok, bye.
Alan: Yes, we live through a system of languages and, again, it's always in your face, but people don't stop to question, or think. If you look at the present world maps, look at all the small countries now that have triangles and pyramids of all kinds; and sunrises, very important, sunrises over water or land. The dawning of a new day etc., it's in our faces and the cluster, the little cluster around the UN, very important: that's the conqueror in ancient Rome.
So, from Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, it's goodnight and may your god, or your gods, go with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Links to articles covered in the show:-
"Big
Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is backed" by Paul
Lewis (guardian.co.uk) - March 31, 2009.
"Air
Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers" by Noah
Shachtman (wired.com) - May 13, 2008.
"Should
Obama Control the Internet?" by Steve Aquino (motherjones.com) - April 2,
2009.
"Chavez
says Beijing part of 'new world order' " by Christopher Bodeen, AP (at
wn.com) - April 8, 2009.
"Criminalizing
Organic and Home Growers" [HR 875] (healthfreedomalliance.org).