Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:22 pm

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on January 4, 2015. I hope you all are recovering from your celebrations and you're get over the rush of buying presents and receiving presents and all of that commercial stuff which everyone goes through and you're getting back to the fact that you’re into the new year. The New Year, as always, is full of predictions from all the gurus out there who follow memes and themes and so on, which is quite easy for them to do nowadays, especially the psychic ones that get on certain shows. Because the memes and the themes put it all out there for you, over the last few things that have happened over the last few years and what's likely to happen, all comes from understanding and correlating them and so on so it gets awfully easy to be a sort of foreteller of the future today.

 

What I do of course is different. I go into the big boys agendas themselves from their own websites, etc. and it's so easy to find the information of where the world is to go because it's planned that way. All the big changes which will affect you are planned that way by big committees, big think tanks, the global meetings and they have, hundreds of meetings every year, all different sections of the United Nations and so on, along with the think tanks, the Brookings Institute and all the other ones. They help plan the future for society, for the big global society as they call it, eventually calling it the Great Society, etc.

 

But those who have been listening to the show for a long time are well aware of what's really going on, why things happen the way they do. I often try to fill in any news articles I read by putting in the bits that are omitted. They love to omit things in the media and that's when you're lead up the garden path. If you only get part of a story you’ll never understand why it's happening, or perhaps even how urgent it happens to be or important it happens to be, because they soften it by omission and so on and they guide you to your conclusions and all that kind of thing.

 

Well, I can tell you here in Canada where I live in northern Ontario it's been awfully, awfully cold and down to about, in the centigrades, down to about 30 below quite a few different nights in the past week alone, and the next week is going to be much the same. It doesn't really go above the freezing mark all day, so it's certainly here all right. I'm quite happy with it because it's supposed to be that way. All this nonsense and talk about global warming, it really tends to tick you off because it's a big, big social agenda for controlling the world and the way that you live, right down to what you even eat.

 

Because it's all down to carbon taxes and the amount of carbon taxes, and energy taxes they call it as well, and how much energy was used to make that particular milk chocolate with the wrapper, how much did the wrapper cost in energy to make it and so on, and that gets all tacked onto the price of product which you purchase. So the boys who traditionally make money on it, and even manage the money system, that's how they make money out of nothing and basically are in control of this, the really big, big boys at the top. And this is a beauty, this one, because now you're getting taxed, really, on your very existence, just for existing and needing to eat and so on or warm yourself. You're going to get taxed on it, taxed, taxed, taxed, taxed, taxed, which all leads to control. So we're well underway to all of this of course as you well know.

 

As I say, I must thank a lot of folk who have been in touch with me too, to keep me updated on how they're doing with their health and their families and all the rest of it because it's good to have an idea. People aren't just nameless faces to me, they're people and it's important to hear how they're getting on and what life is dealing out to them and if they're getting by or having good little moments and so on along with the bad little moments. Because that's what life is all about really isn't it. So it's good to hear how people are doing, I thank people who are getting in touch and so on.

 

Now, the carbon taxes are awfully important because they keep playing up this whole agenda, every scientist is on board, on the panel on climate change at the United Nations, and is on an awfully, awfully high salary. The United Nations already gave them blanket immunity if they're caught lying, because they have been caught before, you see. And why should scientists be lying, for instance? A lie is different from a mistake or a false assumption. A lie is when you know you're putting out a false, and contrived, assumption, a big difference there, to get a political end to it, and maybe an increase in their salary as well. Because they’re paid awfully good money for sitting on boards, and they've got nice clean hands, there's no calluses on them because they don't do any work, they do computer modeling all the time and so on. They're on board with all the socialistic agendas for supposedly the redistribution of wealth, which is nothing to do about giving wealth to the poor folk. It's about putting your tax money of your country into Third World countries, to put the international factories into their countries for them to get cheap labor, we built the factories, and that's what they mean by foreign aid. Lots of things like this are going on all the time.

 

Most of life, in fact, to do from government today, via its big arm the media, the regular media, is to con you. It's a con job to get you to go along with things. They give you kind of idea that the world is being run by great people, awfully honest people, who are better than you in their honesty and decency and so on, and they have your best interests at heart. And nothing is further from the truth. There's no litmus test to get into these positions of power, except by observation from outside and that is to do with science, the science of studying the personalities for psychopathy. If there was a litmus test for that I guarantee you every government would have lots of vacant seats, probably all of them, in fact all of the seats as well. Because the psychopaths gravitate towards powerful positions. And there are degrees of psychopathy, remember. Don't forget that scientists depend on grants getting dished out to them to keep them going in a nice lifestyle, and again, the clean hands with no calluses. All they have to do is turn out a paper maybe once or twice a year, they can even repeat it over and over, the same one, and the money keeps rolling into them. So they are all on board with this great moneymaker of climate change, as they call it now rather than just global warming. It's much better to call climate change since it covers everything and the warming hasn't been really going along with their agenda. They actually wish in fact that they had actually picked their original one that they had which was global cooling and an Ice Age coming. But they picked the wrong one, the wrong horse, and now we're back on to global warming. But that doesn't matter if you are under 10 feet of snow, they'll still say it's global warming that's causing the 10 feet of snow. It's quite an amazing world we live in.

 

And that's how the world is really run, folks. Everyone is taught to be free, that you are free, etc. But you really aren't free at all. THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN SLAVERY IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER, as Charles Galton Darwin said and he was part of the big global society of scientists who helped work on CREATING A NEW MORE SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERY, as he called it. Well, that means that you're going into austerity. You won't know you're going into austerity by force, you'll think it's all for the good of the planet, or the good of this or the good of that. But really it's just to tax everything off of you, as I say, your very existence is taxed so that they can force you to do everything, including what you eat and wear and everything else and so on and so on.

 

Now, here's an article from RT News and it says:

 

‘Winter hell’: Snowstorm paralyzes major Russian highway (PHOTOS)

rt.com / December 28, 2014

 

Russia has seen many harsh winters – but even here, drivers don't welcome wintry roads. Heavy snow and hail turned part of a highway running from Moscow to Rostov into a parking lot. Cars were reportedly buried under snow upon stopping for just a minute.

 

And it goes on about what happened there. Then you go further on and they say that, in Britain, you have other things happening too, about motorways getting close down and so on. It's quite, this is… I guess it's like an Ice Age we're going into, isn't it, especially an Ice Age we're heading into, there's no doubt about it. Then we go into this one:

 

Britain unprepared for severe blackouts,

secret Government report reveals

telegraph.co.uk / Emily Gosden / 28 Dec 2014

 

Britain is unprepared for prolonged blackouts, with increased death rates, rising public disorder and high-risk criminals on the loose among the likely consequences if major energy networks are seriously damaged, a secret (Alan: I love how they always say ‘a secret’.) Government security assessment has found. (A: Secret. It's in the newspaper, the Telegraph here. Now, they're always doing contingency plans for everything. See, government's first order of the day is its own survival, that's number one. They're always doing assessments on what could go wrong and them losing their power, that's standard, that's always been that way. But this says:)

 

The UK's contingency plans for severe power cuts are based on numerous flawed or untested assumptions and need to be revised, according to documents obtained by the Telegraph.

 

The assessment, codenamed Exercise Hopkinson, examined what would happen if a severe storm knocked out crucial energy infrastructure in southwest England, plunging two million homes into darkness for up to two weeks.

 

Transport networks would be paralysed and emergency services would struggle to cope, fuel to run backup generators may be inaccessible and the dead may not be buried, it found.

 

The assessment, which involved officials from all key departments and major industries, took place this summer following 12 months of preparation.

 

As I say, they do this all the time, this kind of thing. Back in the 80s when they did it when Thatcher was in, to do with even a nuclear war, what would happen, and out of that came the documentary and a movie called Threads and so on. But they do look upon break down in society, panic, gangs arising and going out on the pillage for food and so on, and all of the things that could happen, all the disaster things that could happen. This article here's from the Independent and it says:

 

UK weather: 'Coldest night of the year' tonight as freezing temperatures plummet to -10C

independent.co.uk / Lamiat Sabin / 28 December 2014

 

Temperatures are set to plunge over the next 24 hours with tonight forecast to be the coldest of the year so far with lows down to -10C and the likelihood of ice.

 

The freezing climate caused by high-pressure sweeping over from Iceland will hold the country in a bitterly-cold snap until at least Wednesday with clear and crisp nights expected.

 

(A: Then they warn drivers for dangerous icy roads and so on.)

Drivers are warned of icy dangerous travel conditions for the whole country with nighttime lows of -3C expected in the south, -8C in the northern parts and -10C in the Scottish valleys.

 

Tonight is expected to beat the record of the current coldest night of the year, which was two days ago on 26 December in Braemar, Scotland, where the mercury hit -8.5C. The rest of the UK is also likely to experience the lowest temperatures on record for 2014.

 

(A: It's balmy to me, that, when I look at that kind of weather over there because I can get to -30°C to -40°C, and worse.)

 

Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge said: “The very low temperatures in Scotland indicate that it will definitely be the coldest night of the year so far.”

 

So, it's global warming, you see. Then we have this article here to talking about what I was mentioning earlier, carbon credits. It's also important to follow this carbon credits thing because it's to bring all your spending money, all your spending money is eventually to go to taxes and fees and so on for energy taxes and carbon taxes and so on. You won't see big bags of carbon getting collected or anything like that, it's all to be in your imagination and computer models. It goes to the guys who own the right to take this carbon in, at least they are allowed to take all the money in from you, like the Rothschilds' private bank in Switzerland and the guys that are associated with Al Gore and other ones too, who helped push all this thing because they want of the loot for, really, doing nothing. Isn't that wonderful, it will all come into you. It says here that:

 

Carbon credit exchange program final plan

announced before Jan. 12 opening

hani.co.kr / Dec.10,2014 / Bang Jun-ho

 

The final plan for running the carbon credit exchange that will open in Jan. 2015 has been announced. The credit market will be open from 10 am until noon, with bids limited to a range of 10% more to 10% less of the price at the close of trading the previous day.

 

(A: So the big corporations can trade their credits too. It's wonderful for corporations, eh, isn't it?)

 

On Dec. 9, Korea Exchange announced that it had finalized operating regulations and other aspects of the system for the carbon credit exchange. The market will officially open on Jan. 12, 2015.

 

525 companies that are being allocated carbon credits will participate in the credit exchange market, along with the Korea Development Bank, the Industrial Bank of Korea, and Korea EximBank.

 

From 9 am, one hour before the market opens, until it closes at 12 pm, participants in the market will use a bid input program, which is similar to a home trading system (HTS), to submit bids that are -10% to +10% of the base price.

 

(A: Isn't it amazing. It's just like all the other derivatives and so on getting gambled on this big pie-in-the-sky, this big abstract thing that just gets juggled in the sky, and we pay up and pay up and pay up as the big corporations can buy and sell their credits. Not the carbon, mind you, after all, they can't collect carbon so you've got money credits that represent carbon. Isn't that beautiful. I mean, it's better having on the dollar In God We Trust, at least you can trust in something, you can imagine a God, even when you're not supposed to you can try and picture God, they say it's supposed to be prohibited. But you can't imagine a bag of nothing, carbon, I mean, you just can't do it, can you. But you're supposed to. Because these are, you know, professional people who dreamed all this chicanery up. It's quite something.)

 

A carbon credit exchange is a method of allowing companies to buy and sell credits corresponding to the total amount of a country’s carbon emissions. Currently, such exchanges are believed to be the most effective way to achieve goals for reducing carbon emissions. (A: What a lie that is! What a lie that is, isn't it?)

 

The goal of the South Korean government is to reduce emissions to 70% of predicted greenhouse gas emissions levels for 2020, with market operations divided into three phases.

 

The system of credit allocation and penalties (A: See, you get penalties as well.) has already been adjusted after industrial interests drew attention to problems with the carbon credit market. Allocations and penalties are the key to creating an active credit market since these provide an incentive for companies to participate in the market, but these rules were relaxed under pressure from big business.

 

And remember too, all these corporations who are gambling with the carbon credits, were given the credits for free from all the governments, millions and millions of dollars worth to get it started. You won't be getting that for you, because you see, they're going to bring in personal carbon credits now, that's where it's all to go, get you used to this idea, then it's your turn, you see. That's how train animals, bit by bit by bit by bit, you see, then you put the harness on. Now, how do these carbon credits work? At least, how is it put across as actually working? And this is from Carbon Planet. It says here, this article is all about, all about it, you see.

 

Carbopedia

carbonplanet.com

 

Types of Carbon Credits (A: You know, for dummies.)

 

Essentially, the types of carbon credits can be split into two forms, those within the voluntary market and those within the compliance market. Each type of carbon credit adheres to a particular standard or certification. (A: How can gas adhere to anything, eh?)

 

Compliance Carbon Credits

 

More information on the compliance market can be found here. (A: It gives you a link on where to find that; it's probably written by lawyers, to totally bamboozle you.)

 

Certified Emission Reduction (CER) units

 

The most common type of compliance credit is a CER (Certified Emission Reduction unit) which originates from projects in developing counties. Certification and overall approval of these abatement projects and their credits is known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). (A: So, the developing countries are the dirtiest countries, but you in another country can pay for the clean country, even though it's not clean it all, but you paid for the carbon that they're putting out. Isn't that nice, you can share the pain.)

 

Emission Reduction Unit (ERU)

 

Like CER in developing nations, within developed nations, a mechanism known as Joint Implementation or JI, produces compliance credits referred to as Emission Reduction Units or ERUs.

 

New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Certificate (NGAC) (A: For Australia.)

 

The New South Wales Greenhouse Abatement Certificate (NGAC) certification process is comprehensive. It includes Kyoto Protocol measures (A: Again, all these… You never get an invitation to go to the Kyoto protocols, or any of these protocols, where they go and sign deeper into, and deeper and deeper into the mire.), but goes beyond these. In summary the NGAC certification process ensures the following:

 

*That each NGAC represents one tonne of carbon dioxide stored for at least 100 years. (A: But where are they storing it? Or, who's grabbing it? Eh? It isn't, you see.)

 

*That the trees have been planted since 1990.

 

*That the trees weren't planted on old growth forest cleared land (the land must have been clear prior to 1990).

 

*That should the tree from which your carbon credit came come to any harm within 100 years of your purchase e.g. fire, disease, logging; that carbon credit will be replaced immediately from another source. (A: So, if you have to wait for 100 years for it and so on, for any returns on this thing, good luck to you, folks, eh, they've got you coming and going.)

 

Voluntary Carbon Credits

 

More information on the voluntary market can be found here. (A: And they give you the link.) The credit types below are just a sample of the most commonly used products in Australia and globally. Many more types exist overseas and if you want more information on these, please contact us.

 

Voluntary Carbon Unit (VCU) or Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) credit

 

The VCS Programme provides a robust (A: love these words.), global standard for approval of credible voluntary carbon credits.

 

VCS credits or Voluntary Carbon Units (VCU) must be real (A: Unlike the other stuff, which isn’t real I suppose, eh.), the abatement must have occurred, they must be additional by going beyond business-as-usual activities (A: I guess everything’s dead.), be measurable, permanent, not temporarily displace emissions, the findings need to be independently verified

(A: Oh big government bureaucracies are just expanding like cancers across the planet here, and lawyers, eh.) and unique so they cannot be used more than once to offset emissions. The VCS is the most widely known and chosen standards in the voluntary market due to its Kyoto compatibility as well as its ability to manage a wide range of project types and methodologies. (A: What a lot of gobbledygook, eh. Now, what's the next one?)

 

Verified (or Voluntary) Emissions Reduction (VER) and Gold Standard VER (A: I guess we’ve got bronze and all the rest of it, maybe down to tin at the bottom, the personal ones, you’ll have tin standards.)

 

The most popular type of carbon credit used to offset emissions around the world voluntarily is a VER, a Verified or Voluntary Emission Reduction unit and there are many different types. Before CDM or JI projects deliver credits used for Compliance purposes such as CERs and ERUs (A: [Alan laughing.] I can't even keep a straight face with this rubbish, eh.) they can produce VERs. These credits can be verified to a number of specific standards, including the Gold Standard. Not all projects go on to register within the CDM or JI, often due to the size of the project and the inhibitive costs associated with compliance registration (A: That’s just to register the thing, they bankrupt you.), so their choice of one or more of these voluntary standards is made based on its overall viability and compatibility to them.

 

Renewable Energy Certificate (REC)

 

A REC is not a carbon credit that represents one tonne of CO2 emissions but rather a unit that relates to how much CO2e is saved by the adoption of renewable energy (A: I guess you can adopt it now, eh, and give it names maybe.) and how efficiently one mega watt hour (MWh) of electricity can be produced. This can vary from as little as a 500 kilos of CO2e, to as much as almost two tonnes from older, less efficient power stations. Like carbon credits, in an attempt to faze out and replace traditional, emission intensive activities, RECs provide financial subsidies for the power sector to help renewable energy projects become more viable around the world.

 

Isn't this wonderful, eh. You get a bunch of dictionary… See, every department and everything we hear now, you need a whole dictionary for itself, and a set of them maybe. Because it's all, you know. I can remember the movie The Devil's Advocate, and Al Pacino played the devil. He says to this guy he is apprenticing, HOW DO YOU THINK WE'RE TAKING THIS WORLD OVER? He says, EVERY YEAR THE UNIVERSITIES ACROSS THE WORLD ARE CHURNING OUT LAWYERS, THOUSANDS, MILLIONS OF LAWYERS, he says, THAT'S HOW WE'RE TAKING THE PLANET OVER, ARMIES OF THEM. And this is the rubbish they put out there, the way that they word everything, you see. Wonderful, isn't it. Jobs for the boys, the little devils. In fact you know, I think there's a little devil born every minute. I really do. There's never been such gainful employment for them. Because they can put their imaginations to work dreaming up this kind of stuff all the time, and how to scam you, and get rich and powerful over you by doing all the scamming. Not bad, eh. Not bad at all.

 

Then you have this one here:

 

UN Carbon Credit Supply to Drop on Climate Vows: GDF Suez

businessweek.com / Mathew Carr / December 19, 2014

 

Emission-cutting projects overseen by the United Nations will probably reduce supply of credits into international markets as developing nations set up alternative programs at home, according to GDF Suez SA. (A: South Australia.)

 

China’s preliminary plan for a national greenhouse-gas market published last week means projects will now be more inclined to use programs within their own country, said Philipp Hauser, vice president, carbon markets at GDF Suez Energy Latin America, a unit of the world’s biggest utility. China’s move may be followed by others and credits changing hands this week for 50 euro cents ($0.61) a metric ton (A: A metric ton [Alan laughing.]) may rise to a “few euros” by 2020, he said yesterday from Rio de Janeiro.

 

An increased tendency to hold rather than sell carbon credits is underpinned by developing nations joining richer countries in accepting emission limits from 2020, under the UN process of tabling climate contributions through July next year.

 

This is the scam at the United Nations, you know, it's not a country, remember, it's a Corporation, and a private one at that. And no citizen in the world, outside the political leaders that all committed treason by signing on to it, no citizen in the world has a chance to vote on anything, and it's supposed to run your lives, for all the scam artists that really run it all, together, above the United Nations. It's quite something, isn't it? Quite something.

 

And here's the next topic. See, everything is coming down to units. See, you're a unit, you're a production unit. Remember that. You’re certified at birth that you actually are, you know, you're there, and that gives you the given name, etc. that you need in the law to start taxing you and everything else, and taking you off to school and brainwash you, things like that. But you are a unit, a production unit. The idea is that you end up going through the system, working for as many years as you possibly can, paying taxes for government for all their big scam projects and things, and huge paychecks, servants love to live better than their masters, always, and then hopefully, they hope at the end you'll die quietly and quickly. Rather than the money that you've put into all the different medical insurances, getting used on you, therefore… See, your productive life is over, they want you to simply die. Your purpose, see, you’re a productive unit, that's what your job is, not to be happy and enjoy yourself by getting married or whatever. No, you're supposed to be a productive unit, that's coming down to the brass tacks now, you see.

 

For years and years... The socialists began in the early 1900s, that went into the system such as George Bernard Shaw who said, WHEN WE RULE, meaning the socialists system, the real socialist system of what they think of as elite intelligentsia running the world, THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO COME TO US, he said, AND TELL US WHY WE SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO LIVE. Because your whole purpose is to serve the system, contribute to the system, right up to your last breath. And it's all here. They always blame Hitler for it all. No, no, no, Hitler copied it from Britain and elsewhere, the eugenics program, you see. And I say Britain but I should really say London. London is the capital where everything, all the cancers start in Britain, all down through history, and the international bankers and everything else. Everything from the money system and the bankers is corrupt, which means the whole system is, which is your whole reality, folks.

 

And as you start to get ill of course they're prattling on about the cost of, oh keeping you in the hospital and my God, you know. Because you see, emotions go out the window in this age of moral relativity, etc., and it's down to brass tacks, the cost per unit, the cost, that's you, per unit. What's your status in the community? What your status in society? Why should they keep you alive? You, little old you, you see.

 

When they started off euthanasia it was in Holland, never mind Switzerland where you can go and get bumped off, but you can go to Holland, you see, and Holland is starting to introduce it for people there. And they always come out with things, you can say, well I guess maybe you know, somebody who is really bad with cancer or whatever… And that's how they get all these things on the books, it doesn't matter what it is, and once it's on the books they expand it and expand it. And I said at the time years ago, on the air literally, that eventually if you get a bit depressed they'll be bumping you off for that. Or just, oh I'm getting fed up, I'm going through a blues phase… oh don't be afraid, we'll kill you, how is that. It's cheaper than treating you.

 

Number of mentally ill patients killed by euthanasia in Holland trebles in a year as doctors warn assisted suicide is 'out of control'

dailymail.co.uk / Simon Caldwell /3 October 2014

 

(A: Now, under the racial hygiene bill, and the mental hygiene bill, it's true, the Nazis did go in and start killing everyone off who had a mental illness, like a long-term mental illness, in the hospitals, and those who were considered to be mentally subnormal as they put it, and they got that term from Britain as well. But anyway, here is Holland moved into there now of mentally ill patients getting bumped off now.)

 

-42 people with mental illnesses killed by lethal injection in Holland last year

-This is three times more than the number who were euthanized in 2012 (A: See, everything expands.)

-Overall figures for assisted deaths show a 15 per cent surge in a year

-Doctors warn that the Dutch euthanasia experiment is 'out of control'

-UK Assisted Dying Bill (A: Which they keep pushing in Britain.) to be discussed again in Parliament next month

 

The latest official figures also revealed a 15 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths from 4,188 cases in 2012 to 4,829 cases last year. (A: And it gives you a little video and so on.)

 

The incremental rise is consistent with a 13 per cent increase in 2012, an 18 per cent rise in 2011, 19 per cent in 2010 and 13 per cent in 2009.

 

The rise is also likely to confirm the fears of Dutch regulator Theo Boer who told the Daily Mail that he expected to see euthanasia cases smash the 6,000 barrier in 2014.

 

Overall, deaths by euthanasia, which officially account for three per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands, have increased by 151 per cent in just seven years. (A: I wonder how much the doctors get paid for doing that too.)

 

Most cases - some 3,600 people – involved cancer sufferers but there were also 97 people who died at the hands of their doctors because they were suffering from dementia, the figures show. (A: Now, once you get into dementia and mental illness, that's just, it will go across the board, oh, you've got schizophrenia, we can bump you off now, and so on.)

 

The figures, however, do not include cases of so-called terminal sedation, where patients are given a cocktail of sedatives and narcotics before food and fluids are withdrawn.

 

Studies suggest that if such deaths were added to the figure then euthanasia would account for one in eight – about 12.3 per cent – of all deaths in the Netherlands.

 

Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship said the Dutch experiment proved that doctor-assisted death was impossible to effectively regulate.

 

‘Euthanasia in the Netherlands is way out of control,’ he said.

 

‘The House of Lords calculated in 2005 that with a Dutch-type law in Britain we would be seeing over 13,000 cases of euthanasia per year,’ he continued. (A: Mind you, they never continue, they never mention how many thousands of families and old folk are dying in their homes in Britain every winter, I could go into that as well.)

 

‘On the basis of how Dutch euthanasia deaths have risen since this may prove to be a gross underestimate.

 

‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is “incremental extension”, the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’

 

He said there was a similar pattern of increasing numbers of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US state of Oregon, Switzerland, and Belgium.

 

Dr Saunders said: ‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’ (A: So there ya go.)

 

Now, a lot of the other NGOs that are pushing for it all, again, they did nice little stories and so on. But remember too, they also get the grants, some from different governmental departments, and big Pharma too, and some of the big medical insurance industries, if you really dig into things, folks. Nothing out there is what it claims it is or what it appears to be, especially when it's there to help you, you see. Then this one from the mail as well and it says:

 

The country where death is now just a lifestyle choice:

A mum with ringing ears.

Babies whose parents don't want them to suffer.

They've all been allowed to die by assisted suicide in Holland

dailymail.co.uk / Sue Reid / 1 January 2015

 

-Andre Verhoeven planned to retire at 65 to travel the world with wife Dora

-He was diagnosed with acute leukemia and was told there was no cure

-He chose to end his life at 64 and died in January last year

 

-Gaby Olthuis suffered ‘24-hour noise’ in her head, ‘like a train screeching'

-To end her suffering, she was given a lethal potion to drink at her home

-She left behind two teenage children, a boy of 13 and a girl aged 15 (A: By the way, they just came out with new medication for that too, it's supposed to really change it dramatically. That's what happens, eh.)

 

No one would have predicted that such a devoted husband and family man would one day choose to die by a lethal injection administered by his own GP.

 

(A: Now, when your doctors are in the business of killing you, folks, you'd better get your hackles in your hair standing up. You'd really better. I mean, already… It's like Ontario here, if you go into hospital in Ontario you’re automatically put down as a donor, whether you know it or not. And there are people making such money off of organ transplants, and I know some surgeons by the way who do this stuff, they are sizing you up when you go into those hospitals for how much money you are worth, dead. And your GP is in the business now, getting paid by the state or whatever, to bump you off as well. Then what do they do with your body? A lot of them, again, will whisk it off to, you know, bits and pieces, massive money involved in that.)

 

Andre Verhoeven had planned to retire at 65 to travel the world with his wife, Dora. Instead, he was diagnosed with acute leukemia, a cancer of the blood, for which he was told there was no cure. (A: And so on and so on, and they say:)

 

‘His end was so peaceful,’ recalls his daughter Bregje, 37, a writer. ‘Once my father had decided on euthanasia, he was relieved. He was looking forward to the date he would die. In the last few days he was able to say goodbye to his family, his friends, to talk about old times.’

 

(A: And this is the sort of thing they give you, to get you, well, well, you know, oh well. Do you understand, with the medications they have, which they freely distributed amongst all the people on the streets for street drugs, they can give you it in the hospitals. And all this nonsense about they are afraid they'll get the patient addicted, if you've got a week to live, folks, who cares if they get addicted in the last week as they are dying? At least they'll be pain-free. But that's the excuse they give. But as I say, the government is making sure, you know, that all the heroine, which is processed, and the different stuff that ends up on the street in your country, that's why we protect the poppy fields in Afghanistan, by our militaries. Anyway it goes on to say:)

 

You might be entitled to think that what people do in Holland is their business and nothing to do with us in Britain. But you could not be more wrong.

 

If campaigners have their way, the law will be changed here, too, to allow those who wish to end their life to do so at a time of their choosing. For opponents of euthanasia, this raises grave moral questions, as well as concerns that unscrupulous relatives might take advantage of elderly family members — whose estates (A: …the cash part of course…) they might covet — by encouraging them to end their lives.

 

One of the most vociferous and courageous voices in the campaign to legalise assisted dying was Debbie Purdy, who passed away last week at the age of 51 after refusing food for a year. She had said her hunger strike was painful and difficult, but that her life with progressive multiple sclerosis was ‘unacceptable’. (A: …and they go on and on and on.)

 

So they always get massive emotion into these things when there's much bigger, bigger things behind it all. Believe you me, there's big things behind this all. And believe you me, the UN too would love to see the amount of people, not just not getting born but also dying earlier, they've already said that. They've even had sci-fi movies out that when your time came up for your productive life then you just walked into a little booth and got zapped, that was you, gone. And it was put across as being very practical, you know, it was very logical and practical and…

 

Mobile death squads to kill sick and elderly in their own homes leads to surge in suicide rates in the Netherlands - dailymail.co.uk / 24 September 2013

 

You are all dollars and cents, folks, that's what you are. I can also remember too, that in Holland they’ve already had mistakes made. Don't forget, hospitals are notorious for mistakes, you know, you go in to get one arm operated on, they cut the left one off or something and things like that. It does happen, folks. And there was a nun in Holland, nuns couldn't put themselves down to be terminated, it's against their religion, their vows and all the rest of it, but they've done it in Holland.

 

Now, I've always said government would be into every facet of your life. All you're doing your whole life long is being retrained and upgraded and retrained, you see. For those who own you and master you, you see. But this says:

 

New diet guidelines might reflect environment cost

wral.com / January 2, 2015 / MARY CLARE JALONICK

 

WASHINGTON — For years, the government has been issuing guidelines about healthy eating choices. Now, a panel that advises the Agriculture Department is ready to recommend that you be told not only what foods are better for your own health, but for the environment as well. (A: See how they start tying it all in together.)

 

That means that when the latest version of the government's dietary guidelines comes out, it may push even harder than it has in recent years for people to choose more fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains and other plant-based foods — at the expense of meat. (A: Now, they've already come out on radio, I've heard it on the radio, which means they're obviously on TV doing the same thing.)

 

The beef and agriculture industries are crying foul, saying an environmental agenda has no place in what has always been a practical blueprint for a healthy lifestyle.

 

(A: This article goes on to talk about what's good to eat and what isn't good to eat and so on, for you, you see, the big agenda, the social/environmental agenda is all part of it too. It says here…)

 

Once the recommendations are made, the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments will craft the final dietary guidelines, expected about a year from now. Published every five years, the guidelines are the basis for USDA's "My Plate" (A: Well, eventually with ‘my plate’ it will have nothing on it when they're finished, eh.) icon that replaced the well-known food pyramid in 2010 and is designed to help Americans with healthy eating. Guidelines will also be integrated into school lunch meal patterns and other federal eating programs.

 

But that's not what the feds themselves will be eating, as always, you know. That's how it goes. Then of course the meat industry is hammering back at them, etc. etc. etc. So it's a big social agenda underway, and it encompasses everything you can touch, environment, pollution, you name it, every excuse they've got, climate change, yada yada yada, sustainability, sustainability and so on, all one big agenda, you see, and every part of it IS part of it as far as they are concerned. Anything they haven't thought of yet they will shortly, I'm sure.

 

This article here about raw milk and it says:

 

Raw milk producers to be forced to make their product unpalatable under new Victorian regulations

abc.net.au / 27 Dec 2014

 

Raw milk producers will be subject to tough new restrictions, making it harder to sell the product for human consumption, the Victorian Government has said. (A: In Australia.)

 

Under the new regulations, dairy farmers producing milk must either make it safe for human consumption or make it unpalatable by adding a bittering agent.

 

"Raw milk producers will have to either treat the milk with a pasteurization process to make sure that any harmful bacteria are killed before there is a risk that consumers will drink it," Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs Jane Garrett said.

 

"If they don't wish to go through this pasteurization process, they will be required to add a very small drop of an agent that makes the milk entirely unpalatable. (A: Entirely. In other words, you'd better just pour it in the sewer.)

 

"This means that the smallest amount will make the individual recoil in horror, which will prevent absolutely the deliberate or accidental consumption." (A: Isn't that just disgusting! We’re hear from the government and we're here to help you… Argh. So there it goes and so on and so on. So even the ways that folk got around it before to try and get good healthy, you know, whole milk will be, they can't use it. They were getting around by saying it was for bath milk. It says:)

 

Raw milk is sold in Victoria as bath milk and labelled "not safe for human consumption".

 

But on December 11, Victoria's Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester said she was concerned that cosmetic milk was being sold next to drinking milk, and had written to Victorian Consumer Affairs about the issue.

 

Oh, these busybodies with nothing to do, eh. Maybe, I do know, she's married, maybe she should get, who knows. And here's another one:

 

School teachers forced to wear scarlet letter flu masks,

gloves when they refuse flu shots that don't even work

naturalnews.com / December 29, 2014 / Ethan A. Huff

 

(A: Do you understand, this is all behavior modification, folks, where you train the animals step-by-step, what you eat and all the rest of it, how you're going to live, by your public servants. And they'll say, well lots of the public want this. No, they're talking about the NGOs that work for the big corporations that run the foundations that pay these NGOs. It says here that: )

 

The vaccine mafia is upping the stakes in its endless war against freethinking and personal choice. A shocking new report indicates that some daycare workers in Texas are now being forced to wear face masks and gloves throughout the duration of "flu season" if they refuse to be injected with live viruses and mercury. (A: Why not put a star on their tunic or something like they did in the concentration camps? Why not do that? It's the same thing, folks, the same techniques.)

 

Citing a letter received from a concerned daycare worker in the College Station area of central Texas, VacTruth.com reports that at least one daycare center in the region, Covenant Presbyterian Children's Center (CPCC), has implemented the egregious policy, which is akin to forcibly labeling all resisters with a giant scarlet letter in order to coerce compliance.

 

The board of directors at the CPCC reportedly voted recently to require that all unvaccinated teachers and staff members wear facemasks and gloves through the end of February, supposedly to prevent the spread of flu. But such a requirement is both unscientific and discriminatory, eliminating any option for dignified free choice.

 

"Employers should promote a stigma-free workplace, and making employees wear a mask and gloves while teaching is discriminatory," maintains VacTruth.com.

 

CDC: Flu masks don't prevent influenza spread.

 

Many hospitals across the nation have instituted similar unconstitutional policies, including hospitals in nearby Houston. And the funny thing about this is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that flu masks don't even work to prevent the spread of flu. (A: It's nothing to do with that. See, it's not even to do with the topic. It's conditioning you to do what you're told, prodding the animals, prodding the animals, you see, coerce, coerce, coerce.)

 

"No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza," states the CDC on its website.

 

"No studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission."

 

So again, why are the animals taking it like this? Isn't it like Animals Farm, you should all kind of rebel? Huh? George Orwell's Animal Farm, shouldn't you start rebelling, folks, and say that's it, get off our backs. Of this pseudo-psychology socialism, it's way past the point of no return. And again, they admitted this year that the three primary flues that they picked for the shots were the wrong ones. But you'd better get it anyway, you should get it anyway. Why? If it's not going to work what's the point? Well, they actually have stated, they want you to get it anyway TO KEEP YOU IN TRAINING TO KEEP GETTING IT, that's why. [Alan chuckles.]

 

And then this article too, which is awfully interesting, about the chip, you know, the chip in the skin, implants and so on. We know they started with the usual thing, oh it's to help Parkinson's patients or folk with Alzheimer's that may wander off and so on, to track them and trace them and so on. But again, here's the other thing, the pill, the contraceptive pill. It says:

 

Skin implant replaces the Pill: New chip lasts for 16 years and can be turned off by remote control when you want to conceive

dailymail.co.uk / Fiona Macrae / 30 December 2014

 

But scientists have invented an electronic chip that when slipped under the skin releases daily doses of contraceptive, freeing a woman from the need to remember to take the pill.

 

Once in place, the postage stamp-sized device works for up to 16 years – roughly half a woman’s reproductive life.

 

In contrast, the various contraceptive implants that are already on the market only last for up to five years.

 

Finally, in a development that sounds like science fiction, the chip comes with a remote control that allows the woman to simply turn it off if she decides to try for a family.

 

(A: Well, guess who else will have the remote control who can turn it on or off? If they want to do it across the whole region just turn them on and no one conceives. Thinks about the power of all of this, folks. We're here to help you, eh.)

 

In contrast, existing devices such as coils cannot be deactivated. Instead, they have to be removed – a process that can be painful and is only done at a clinic.

 

The device, which could be on the market by 2018, consists of a case contains the chip, a battery and electronics for drug release and for wireless communication to the remote control.

 

(A: So, there you go, folks eh. What else could they put in that if they wanted to, eh? Think about it. Look at the power you're handing over. But it's so convenient. You give up all freedoms for convenience, don't you, you've already done a lot of it. It goes on to talk about all the scientific things of it to do with, you know, how it's made and so on, the technology, which we’re supposed to be amazed by that. Personally it bores me to death, technology these days, you get so fed up with it all, to be honest with you, you know, where it's all going. It says:)

 

The chip contains a series of tiny wells, each packed with a daily dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone widely used in existing contraceptives.

 

Each well is covered with an ultra-thin titanium and platinum seal that prevents the drug from being released until needed.

 

At a pre-programmed release time, a small electrical current melts the metal cap on a single well, releasing the contraceptive into the bloodstream.

 

The remote control can be used to over-ride the programme when needed.

 

(A: And here's an interesting little thing right here, right.)

The system’s co-inventor is Robert Langer, one of the world’s top scientists. His other achievements range from growing an ear on the back of a mouse (A: …that's awfully helpful, that.) to creating a spray that keeps frizzy hair at bay. (A: There you go. I wonder what this chip is going to do to you, eh.)

 

The chip can be adapted to dispense other medicines (A: See, there ya go.) and has already been trialled in osteoporosis patients. (A: They can trial it, it doesn't mean it works.)

 

In trials on elderly women, it worked just as well as regular injections of the bone-building drug teriparatide.

 

Crucially, many said the device was so comfortable that they often forgot it was there. (A: I wonder if they often forget where the remote is.)

 

However, much work remains to be done. It will have to be shown to be an effective contraceptive and, crucially, the company must find a way of stopping hackers from taking control of the chip.

 

(A: [Alan laughing.] Everything used to be so easy, wasn't it? It really was, which is common sense, and it was also incredibly easy. And I'll tell you another thing too you see, these chips were initially developed for, were to inject into people who are convicts. Now, in today's society anyone can be labeled a convict for 1000 different reasons with all the new laws they are always throwing out there, or even antisocial behavior which can just mean talking back and just things like that. This is how they're going to create the whole section of the future. I say section because after that section they'll just simply clone the populations that they need, for the workers they actually will need, this is just a step-by-step process as we go along.)

 

The chip is designed implanted just below the skin of the buttocks, upper arm or stomach.

 

This could be done in a 30-minute operation at a GP’s surgery.

 

Existing contraceptive implants are quicker to insert but don’t last as long.

 

It isn’t know how much the chip will cost but the implants already in use cost £80 to £90 (A: That’s Britain.) and last three to five years.

 

So, there's progress for you, folks, there's progress, with the remote control and everything, that can get hacked, and so of course the authorities can hack it too. Quite interesting isn't it. Quite interesting what they're really up to. It just goes on and on, and you get so fed up with it, don't you? You get fed up with all the gizmos and technologies. And we've been trained to really go, wow, oooooh, aaaaah, you know, and just be in such awe of the state with all of its technology. And unfortunately a lot of folk are, it's rather sad, it's rather sad indeed. It makes you wonder, eh.

 

And just to finish off a couple of stories, this article, they always put these things out at the New Year, you see, the memes for the year. It says:

 

Stop wasting billions trying to cure cancer...

It's the best way to die, says top doctor

dailymail.co.uk / Jenny Hope / 1 January 2015

 

A former editor of the British Medical Journal has claimed that we should ‘stop wasting billions trying to cure cancer’ – because it is the best way to die. (A: For all of you, I guess, you know.)

 

Dr Richard Smith says it may be a ‘romantic view’, but cancer gives people a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones, which is denied to many who die from other conditions.

 

Indeed, he argues that the country is wasting billions (A: Again, down to economics and economic units.) trying to cure cancer because curing people of the disease means they are likely to die of worse things, such as dementia.

 

But cancer specialists and charities disputed his incendiary comments. They said many cancer patients suffered terribly and would not agree that it was ‘the best way to die’.

 

(A: So he prattles on and on. But again, the media does just put this out, right in there, like handouts, to get the thought into your head, you see. Remember, the depopulation agenda and how we're economic units, and they want to take everything that you earn basically, eventually everything you earn and used for the big projects for themselves at the top.)

 

They also accused the doctor of being ‘nihilistic’ about a disease which ‘takes far too many people far too young’. Dr Smith, 62, who was editor of the BMJ (A: British Medical Journal.) for 13 years until 2004 and is now chairman of the board of directors of medical smartphone app Patients Know Best, airs his views on the nature of dying in a BMJ blog.

 

Leaving aside suicide, he says there are four ways to die: sudden death; the long, slow death of dementia; the up and down death of organ failure and death from cancer where you ‘go down usually in weeks’.

 

He says most people tell him they would prefer a sudden death, but he thinks that is very hard on the families of the deceased. (A: So he's only got the thoughts of those who are going to survive in mind here, you see, he's concerned about them.)

 

‘The long, slow death from dementia may be the most awful as you are slowly erased, but then again when death comes it may be just a light kiss,’ he says.

 

Then he goes through the death by other reasons and so on and so on. But it's all to do with economics, you see, economic units, again, according to your status and your social standing in the new society, that's really what it's all about. We're already there.

 

Tonight I'll also put up a PDF and it's quite an interesting little PDF in fact. They've done studies on you. See, they're always studying you and this one here is to do with attitudes, attitudes on guess what?

 

Influences on attitudes to a personal carbon trading system

epubs.scu.edu.au

 

(A: Down to you the individual, that's the whole idea of it eventually. It’s to completely alter the way that you live, why you live in fact, because they keep even saying why you must live and so on. This is them from North Southwest Australia. But it goes into all the different studies they've done.)

 

There are mixed attitudes to the affect Personal Carbon Trading (PCT) can have on global warming and carbon emissions. The NICHE (Norfolk Island Carbon Health Evaluation) (A: See, they test it in a small areas first, everything is always done in a small area, for all of you, to get done later on.) project has been developed to explore attitudes towards PCT. The researchers have designed the project to investigate links between health, obesity and an individual’s carbon footprint. The first stages of the project undertaken in 2012 involve development of point-of-sale applications, personal carbon consumption web site and collection of data to establish a baseline measuring key health indicators and attitudes to climate change and PCT. (A: See how they are wrapping it all up into one, you see, obesity, climate change, sustainability, carbon.) This paper reports the findings from the correlation analysis of the key variables from the baseline survey. Correlation analysis was used to examine relationships among the variables. The significant relationships identified from the baseline survey will be reexamined in the latter stages of the project during 2014.

 

And they give you a rundown on the survey of these residents that they're using on this particular Norfolk Island. They will also find out what they object to and that will go to think tanks to find the ways to get around the objections and how to con you in a better way to go along with it all. That's what it's all about, all this stuff, a whole new way of living but nothing to do with the reasons they're giving you, folks. Nothing. And the last thing they think of is your health, believe you me.

 

Well, that's the start of the New Year. It doesn't bother me because nothing surprises me since you expect at all, if you follow them, and you know how they have to put it across to you, step by step by step and through gradual brainwashing and so on. So you always know it's coming because you understand what they're really getting at from the very get-go.

 

And that's it, from Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your gods go with you.

 

Topics of show covered in following links:

‘Winter hell’: Snowstorm paralyzes major Russian highway

Britain unprepared for severe blackouts, secret Government report reveals

UK weather: 'Coldest night of the year' tonight as freezing temperatures plummet to -10C

Carbon credit exchange program final plan announced before Jan. 12 opening

Types of Carbon Credits

UN Carbon Credit Supply to Drop on Climate Vows: GDF Suez

Number of mentally ill patients killed by euthanasia in Holland trebles in a year as doctors warn assisted suicide is 'out of control'

Euthanasia in Holland - the country where death is now just a lifestyle choice

Mobile death squads to kill sick and elderly in their own homes leads to surge in suicide rates in the Netherlands

New diet guidelines might reflect environment cost

Raw milk producers to be forced to make their product unpalatable under new Victorian regulations

School teachers forced to wear scarlet letter flu masks, gloves when they refuse flu shots that don't even work

Skin implant replaces the Pill - New chip lasts for 16 years and can be turned off by remote control when you want to conceive

Stop wasting billions trying to cure cancer... It's the best way to die, says top doctor

Influences on attitudes to a personal carbon trading system

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:22 pm

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on January 11, 2015.  Well, it's been another week of going through the subzero temperatures, as we go through global warming that they now call climate change of course. It's been really cold in this part of Canada, where you're 20, 25, sometimes 30 below in the centigrade level, and during the day it's sometimes not much warmer in fact, it never gets above the zero. So were going through these big, big changes of course as the big geo-engineering campaign goes on with the chem sprays and so on, and with the weather manipulation too because they're using electromagnetic frequencies and so on involved in it too, to get all the storms going, these winter storms.  We're getting kind of used to it of course up here in Canada. And I'm sure it's going to bankrupt a lot of people in heating bills this year, just that alone, because it's way beyond what you normally expect. It was bad enough last year but this year's got it too.  So I hope you're all surviving.  We get these big Arctic blast going all the way down to Canada into the States, different parts of the US States who are also suffering from it too.  It doesn't make the roads awfully good at all.

But we have to hang on as we go through these big planned changes in this world where reality is presented to us, after going through all of its makeovers, you might say, by intelligence companies, the secret service companies and all the big organizations that are involved in giving you all of your reality, and telling you what your conclusions are supposed to be as well, and to always blame you for causing all these weather changes at the same time as they’re spraying you and making it all happen.

Now, when you get that going on, which it is going on and it's been going on for some time now, and they have big, big outcomes to plan for all of this with your high carbon taxes changing your whole way of life, energy taxes on all products that you purchase because it supposedly took energy to produce those chocolate bars, and the wrappers even, it will all be taxed on as well, everything you purchase will be the same way. Eventually they have to get you into austerity down the road and they, no doubt, have got planned crashes again with the banks, now that they've done all their stress tests, their world stress tests, and with them all signed on to the bailouts and bail-ins across the world under the guise, under the supervision supposedly of the World Bank.

So, we're sailing along into big changes and we're supposed to just get used to it. Most folk will get used to it and they do get used to it because they don't reason anything through. Most folk don't really think too much. They hear the things getting delivered to them and it goes right into the subconscious.  And they don't stop and analyze anything at all, they think it must all be quite natural and normal. That's how we're trained actually since the age of communication intensified many years ago. They realized they could train whole populations by radio and then television and even through fiction and movies, etc. so it's doing awfully good job.  And they have to bring in the new system as we go through, basically, a martial law in every country as terrorism supposedly increases, increases, increases to bring in a whole new system altogether from birth to death of how we're supposed to live.

And I've got to laugh at a lot of the, ah, what they dish out now as news. It's so awful. I'm sure a lot of it comes from intelligence agencies, in fact we know that has happened in the past with handouts from intelligence agencies that simply are handed out to certain reporters who are only too happy to put it in their papers; they might just put it in complete or they might change a word here or there and put their own name on it.  But that's the reality that's presented to the general public.  There's not much truth involved. If there is any truth at all it's spun heavily, or the rest of the truth is omitted so you're left with half a story which will leads you to the conclusion that you're supposed to come to. It gets awfully boring in fact.

Because everything that's happening is a big agenda and it's awfully predictable when you understand how it works and the different groups behind it that are often connected to the top who bring you all these things to happen. It's like the bombings going on across the world or the shootings in Paris recently, you don't know who really is behind it.  In fact, the guys who can even perpetrate such things don't know either, they think they do, but it can be different intelligence agencies that are guiding them at the top through one of their own people, and they will never suspect to the minute they die that they have been set up to do something, to achieve a further goal in this totalitarian police state network worldwide that's being set up so heavily and so fast.

The other thing you can count on to is the blowback, as they call it in intelligence services.  When you go into countries for years and years and years and you send in troops for years to bring out the raw resources and for the big corporations that are based in your countries, eventually you get blowback. Blowback is when enough of the people have been killed in those countries, opposing the troops that are being sent in, they've lost relatives, they've lost so much, and they certainly retaliate in the way that's allowed today. I say allowed because you don't have the big armies and so on and have full-scale invasions. So they have small groups that train themselves, or are trained, to go out and do acts of terrorism basically. And this stuff was discussed back in the 60s and disclosed with the freedom of information documentation from MI6, the CIA and so on like that.

Blowback is what you get though and blowback can go on for decades if not generations.  And people are really ticked off. The blowback too by the way has really got much, much bigger and profuse since the drone strikes that became in everyday commonplace reality of folk getting blown up. We don't even see where the missiles come from or the gunfire comes from with these pretty solid drones, that can be miles and miles away from the target. Whole families get wiped out, weddings and everything else, supposedly, and there's always an answer, always supposedly to take out a certain terrorist and the rest of them are collateral damage, they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the way it is treated. Well, when you lose relatives, and sometimes all your relatives, you might decide to become radicalized as well, it's going to cause that, and then you’re recruited, then you have different agencies involved, CIA, MI6, the Mossad, these agencies involved in these things too. They're all working together by the way, I don't differentiate any of them, the CIA, MI6 and the Mossad are all one group as far as I'm concerned, with the sharing of intelligence at the top and lots of cooperation.

So they have their own agendas and directions to go and they can never tell the truth to the public whatsoever. They are after desired results.  Their goal is to blame certain factions and keep things going and going and going. That's was happening today. So there's very little you can read that’s straightforward as it is presented in the media, because that's also, many of the articles are actually written by intelligence agencies for the media.  So what can you actually believe? But we do know that blowback will go on forever basically.

Now this article says here:

France Satirical Mag Charlie Hebdo Sued by Islamists for 'Blasphemy'

ibtimes.co.uk / Gianluca Mezzofiore / February 19, 2014

French Islamists have sued satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for blasphemy in Strasbourg for publishing a cover page with the headline: "The Koran is shit – it doesn't stop bullets."  The League of Judicial Defence of Muslims (LDJM) led by former lawyers Karim Achoui, has brought the case before the criminal court in Alsace-Moselle's capital.  The region, which was annexed by Germany in 1871 and 1940-45, still retained part of the old German code that includes the "blasphemy" crime – which no longer exist in the rest of France.  The LDJM has also sued Charlie Hebdo in Paris for "provocation and incitement to hatred on the basis of religious affiliation and insult".  (Alan:  And it goes on and on and on.)

 

But here's the thing though, when you look at this organization, this Charlie Hebdo, that claims it's left wing, it has a lot in common with the Frankfurt school of destroying cultures and also especially destroying religions, at least most religions.  I think the head of it even said at one point they were going to portray, or BRING DOWN ISLAM INTO THE SAME BANAL STATE AS THEY BROUGHT DOWN CATHOLICISM over the years. So they definitely have agendas there, it's not just humor; it's not even clever humor, it's like bathroom humor that you get in junior school.  Of course they were pushing for particular rights and so on. Interesting too that's Sarkozy apparently met one of these attackers at the Charlie Hebdo, a few years ago he met him, and there's connections there too between Sarkozy and them as well so you don't know which organization is really at the top of this.  And you can actually get Muslim organizations that are ruled by outside factions of course as well, and unknown to the ones who follow it, so this is standard. Whenever you get involved in anything and they try to go into any kind of radical move, of whatever it happens to be, be very careful and don't do it because you're being used by somebody else, often from outside your organization, actually maybe even set up your organization for you to join, and it's not for you at all. So be very, very careful.

Another article too is:

French Muslims to sue Charlie Hebdo over Mohammed cartoons

english.rfi.fr / Charlie Hebdo's publisher, Charb / 1.7.15 / By RFI

A French Muslim group is to sue the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo over the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed. French embassies in 20 countries will be on high alert on Friday, fearing that violent protests over a controversial film may be repeated.

And that was back in 2012 so these guys have been hammering at Muslims for years now.  It's like they wanted something to happen.  Somebody did. Somebody obviously did. Somebody obviously, obviously really did want something to happen.  Who suffers? Well, the French themselves will be under more surveillance, yada yada yada, just like 9/11 did it for the US, Canada and so on.

Now here's another article here.  Before I leave that article, actually, I'll just say the one last thing. When the world of spookdom, that's what I call it, spookdom, they are all interconnected, and be very, very careful of all of them because you'll never get facts.  You'll get just what they'll dish out to the media, what they feed the media, so that you believe whatever they tell you, but you'll never get the nitty-gritty on anything at the time. It takes many years, sometimes 50, 60 years before they'll disclose any truth about any particular thing, and often will never do it at all, actual truth.

Whenever… I think it was Pierre Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, the guy who was the young communist leader for Canada’s Comintern, the organization Comintern that would go over to Moscow every year, he led the delegation from Canada to the Soviet Union in 1952.  He knew top operatives within the governments and civil service, and the list that even Gouzenko had come out with back at the end of World War II, of high-profile infiltrators inside the Canadian government and the bureaucracies, was reclassified for about another 30 to 50 years by Trudeau, before he left, the last day before he left actually, so that the public are not to know. That's democracies for you, you know.

Now the next story here is about PIE, this organization called PIE and it says:

How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked

the fight for civil rights

theguardian.com / Jamie Doward / 1 March 2014

(A:  Civil rights, eh.  And that's how they do things, it's always for a good cause, no matter what it is, .  Pedophiles. It gives you some of the campaigners for this particular organization for civil rights.)

 

A 1970s campaign to lower the age of consent has returned to haunt Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey. But in such a liberal climate, it wasn't hard for a small, determined group to exploit a commitment to free speech.

(A:  That's the guise they put it under, you see. So they go on about all the promiscuity at the time, they're getting all these freedoms of promiscuity and God knows what else, but they were also pushing, unknown to them they claim now, the PIE organizers.  It's the Pedophile Information Exchange group, who pass on good targets to each other, these guys, these pedophiles. This article from the Guardian and goes through it and it says:)

But how did the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose affiliation to the NCCL has been exhaustively investigated by the Daily Mail, come to get a ticket to the party?

(A:  And they claim it's because it was a liberal time and the whole thing, and they were trying to lower the age of consent, between children basically down to 14, and these guys came in on the act with their own agenda, very quietly. This is what they claim, which I think is nonsense. They all knew who was what, they knew all this stuff. They wanted to lower the age of consent until they could get… total destruction of the culture, that's what the far left do, to build the new, you see. Destroy all the old, that's everything that gave you your morals, your culture, everything, destroy it all and bring in the new, and they would rule it, these guys that would cause it to happen, that's what they did in the Soviet Union.)

That motion was passed two years after Harman has claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL. "They had been pushed to the margins before I actually went to NCCL . . .” (A:  Well, they will all try and distance themselves from it now, you see.)

 

Admittedly, any group could join the NCCL, which had more than 1,000 affiliate member organizations and the council's motion probably owed more to defending the principle of free speech than defending PIE. (A:  Really?)  And it would be wrong to portray PIE as a major force. Being small, comprising only a handful of activists and with a membership estimated to be between 300 and 1,000, PIE was not a powerful voice at a time when the main debates within the council were about sexual equality and race relations. But its views were so profoundly abhorrent to most of Britain that it is still hard to see why the council did not do more to disown PIE from the start.

Now that's not true. The far left radicals, believe you me, they discuss everything.  It's like Hollywood, to be an actor or actress you cannot have any inhibitions on anything that's avant-garde.  And the far left is exactly the same, you can voice no inhibitions about anything regarding morality. So of course the ones who are involved in it and made their career in politics are trying to distance themselves from it now.  In this next article it goes on to say this:  [Alan laughing.]

Paedophile at the Home Office:

(A:  The home office is like homeland security, the base for all of Britain's security.)

He boasted of storing PIE files where police would never discover them

(A:  He worked there, he was employed by the government.)

dailymail.co.uk / Sam Marsden / 7 July 2014

-Steven Smith worked as contractor monitoring security alarms at Whitehall.  60-year-old said he was given security clearance for the job by Scotland Yard.

(A:  Well, like they just missed him, eh. A complete background check and they missed it, eh?  And he's a pedophile.) At the time Smith was the chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange.  (A: The chairman of it.)  Went on the run while facing charges over child abuse images before being jailed in 1991 and again in 2011.  The former leader of a pro-paedophile campaign boasted of storing the group’s files in the Home Office while he worked there.  Steven Smith, 60, said he was given security clearance for his Whitehall job by Scotland Yard despite being chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange.  He worked as an electrical contractor monitoring security alarms at the Home Office for four years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Smith later went on the run while facing charges over child abuse images. He was jailed in 1991 and again in 2011.

In an obscure book published in 1986, he told how he was given a room of his own at the Home Office and used it to conceal PIE’s files.  (A:  So there you go, the home office, that checks out all things supposedly on all the citizens, for security reasons, gave him a room, the chairman of this group, where he could hide it and the cops would never find it, they would never think of looking there.)

‘For four years I was employed by a firm of electrical contractors, Complete Maintenance, to monitor a control panel of alarm systems at the Home Office,’ he said.   ‘The job entailed practically no work on my part (A:  Because that's what you do when you get government contracts and you work for the government.), beyond attending the panel, and in fact I had a furnished office completely to myself seven days a week on a  rotating shift basis. ‘Much of PIE’s less sensitive file material was stored in locked cabinets there, where no police raid would ever have found them. Each year my security clearance was renewed by Scotland Yard without my connection with PIE being discovered.’   (A:  So do you really think they are that inept?  Do you really believe that?)

He claimed he used a phone number in the Home Office building as a contact point for PIE. A later trial heard that he probably published an obscene magazine from inside the ministry.  (A:  Well, that makes sense, eh.  It's like George Orwell's 1984 where the ministry that ran everything published all the porno magazines and novels. Today it would have movies too.)

Smith, also known as Stephen Freeman, lost his job when his role in PIE was exposed by a newspaper (A: Not by the government or the agencies, but a newspaper…) in 1982. He said he had hoped the revelation that the leader of a paedophile group had been employed in the heart of Westminster would lead to the resignation of then Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw.  But no heads rolled – and it appears that there was only a limited official investigation into his role at the department.  ‘The extent of security chiefs’ knowledge of my activities did not prompt them to investigate the content of my filing cabinets (A:  Oh, they'd know it was there all right.), and a carload of PIE files was safely spirited from the building before it could occur to them to intervene,’ he wrote.   (A:  Oh, and they're all too stupid, right.)

 A second senior PIE official, the group’s secretary and treasurer Barry Cutler, is also said to have worked at the Home Office in the early 1980s.  In 1983, it was reported that a Home Office civil servant had received a series of slides with images of abuse of young boys and obscene letters delivered to his departmental address.  One colleague protested that the material should be handed over to the police, but this was ignored and it was treated as a purely internal matter, according to a Daily Express report at the time.  Smith fled to Holland in 1984 to escape trial after PIE was infiltrated by headmaster and anti-child abuse campaigner Charles Oxley.  Smith claimed political asylum by arguing that he was part of a minority political group campaigning for changes in the law in the UK.  He returned to Britain in 1991 in the mistaken belief he would not be arrested and was jailed at the Old Bailey for 18 months (A:  18 months  for homosexual pedophilia. And it goes on and on and on.)

 

But I mean, this is the kind of stuff you're told is just overlooked by the agencies, you know, these... the best intelligence agencies that you have, they just didn't notice this stuff. And so what will the intelligence agencies eventually come up with to cover their backsides?  Right.  So what kind of story would they come up with if they were actually behind it all?

 

EXCLUSIVE: Secret service infiltrated paedophile group

to 'blackmail establishment'

express.co.uk / June 29, 2014 / Tim Tate and Ted Jeory

A number of allegations of child sex abuse emerged after MP Cyril Smith's death.  The former civil servant has told detectives investigating the activities of paedophiles in national politics that the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch was orchestrating the child-sex lobbying group in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  The whistleblower, who has spoken exclusively to the Sunday Express, says he was also warned off asking why such a notorious group was being handed government money.  It emerged late last year that PIE was twice gave amounts of £35,000 in Home Office funding

(A:  That's all taxpayers’ money, eh.)  between 1977 and 1980, the £70,000 total equivalent to over £400,000 in today’s money.

Those details surfaced only after the whistleblower highlighted his concerns to campaigning Labour MP Tom Watson and his revelations have triggered an ongoing Home Office inquiry into why the cash was given to PIE which was abolished in 1985 after a number of prosecutions.  Until now, speculation about the grant has centred on Clifford Hindley, the late Home Office manager who approved the payments. However, the whistleblower told the Sunday Express he thought higher and more sinister powers were at play.  He has given a formal statement to that effect to detectives from Operation Fernbridge, which is looking into allegations of historic sex abuse at the Elm Guest House in south-west London.  At that time, questioning anything to do with Special Branch, especially within the Home Office, was a ‘no-no’.   PIE, now considered one of the most notorious groups of the era, had gained respectability in political circles. Its members are said to have included establishment figures, and disgraced Liberal MP Cyril Smith was a friend of founder member Peter Righton.

In 1981, Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens used Parliamentary privilege to name Sir Peter Hayman, the deputy director of MI6, as a member of PIE and an active paedophile. In 1983 Mr Dickens gave the Home Office a dossier of what he claimed was evidence of a paedophile network of “big, big names, people in positions of power, influence and responsibility”. The Home Office says the dossier no longer exists.  Whistleblower Mr X, whose identity we have agreed to protect, became a very senior figure in local government before retiring a few years ago. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he was a full-time consultant in the Home Office’s Voluntary Services Unit run by Clifford Hindley.  In 1979 Mr X was asked to examine a funding renewal application for PIE, but he became concerned because the organization’s goal of seeking to abolish the age of consent “conflicted” with the child protection policies of the Department of Health and Social Security and asked for a meeting with Mr Hindley, his immediate boss.  Mr X recalled: “I raised my concerns, but he told me that I was to drop them. Hindley gave three reasons for this. He said PIE was an organization with cachet and that its work in this field was respected.  (A:  Humph.)  “He said this was a renewal of an existing grant and that under normal Home Office practice a consultant such as myself would not be involved in the decision-making process.  And he said PIE was being funded at the request of Special Branch which found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles. This led me not to pursue my objections. At that time, questioning anything to do with Special Branch, especially within the Home Office, was a ‘no-no’.

“I was under the clear belief that I was being instructed to back off and that his reference to Special Branch was expected to make me to do so.  Hindley didn’t give me an explicit explanation of what Special Branch would do with information it gleaned from funding PIE, but I formed the belief that it was part of an undercover operation or activity. I was aware a lot of people in the civil service or political arena had an interest in obtaining information like that which could be used as a sort of blackmail.”

Now you understand, with all the present scandals which have resurfaced with Prince Andrew, Epstein and all the other ones, all these people who procured under aged children and so on for sexual favors for very important people and wealthy folk of course, that kind of scandal is going on too, and they will fight that tooth and nail as well.  The big boys just don't get touched, the really big boys don't get touched.  You know, it's always really been that way. But when you have a culture that's so corrupt at the top, and especially all throughout your positions of power, I'm afraid, folks, it's completely over, no country is safe, as they've all been done in basically.  And no country is immune from this kind of thing.  Corruption is all through, of all kinds of corruption is all through governments.  It's the norm.  For you to expect it to be run properly, to benefit the public, that's pie-in-the-sky, and a different kind of pie, but it truly is.  Because you cannot get anything good coming out of corruption, as they are all filling their pockets like crazy too with your tax money.  And the politicians all have two or three homes, that you all pay for, so they can always have their home in the constituency halfway to the federal government office and so on, and one in the main city as well.

Now, onto a different topic to do with the Internet, we know that censorship is coming.  And nothing is ever portrayed to the public in a direct fashion, and often it's done in an opposite direction of what you would expect in fact, by denials, for instance, things like that, as they go ahead and work around forms of censorship. We know what they have discussed with CISPA beforehand and all the rest of it about giving licenses to those on the net, even to get on the net, especially bloggers and so on, and that will come, there's no doubt about it, there is to be one world authority in charge of all information down the road, even though the net itself should belong to no one. But in the world of power, as it has always been, you've never had freedom, and you never will actually, you'll be under the impression your free but you're not.  But you think about the Sony hack as they called it, and that was such a farce to start with, and definitely inside information was put out there. We know that there's different characters involved in Sony who definitely want censorship in different ways. Of course I'm sure the various agencies within the US, the NSA and so on, want to get in on the act too and use this thing regardless of who started it, it certainly wasn’t a North Korea, to use it to their advantage, as they always say.  They're trying to revive different forms of censorship.  Here is an article and it’s from RT USA.

FCC chair likely to take Obama’s lead on net neutrality

rt.com / January 08, 2015

Speaking at an electronics show, the United States’ top telecom regulator dismissed complaints that tougher regulations would discourage providers from upgrading their networks, seemingly indicating he will back tough net neutrality regulations.  (A:    So you're thinking, well okay, he's going to stay where he is and not go any further.)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler told audiences at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that net neutrality proposals do not currently go far enough to protect consumers. Policy analysts took that as a hint that Wheeler is leaning towards President Barack Obama’s position on net neutrality, calling for Title II regulations for broadband providers that would regulate them as if they were utilities.

"There was an effort made to say that Wheeler and the president were pulling in opposite directions on this, which made for good headlines, but wasn't exactly the reality,” said Wheeler. “We're both pulling in the same direction which is no blocking, no throttling of applications and transparency on how do we get there."   (A:    Now, that's not true because they've been doing that for years actually,  I go through it all the times on uploads and even downloads.)

Wheeler said that Title II reclassification would not harm investment, and that he was moving in that direction. He also said the commercial reasonableness test that he previously proposed was flawed – that test would have scrutinized deals struck between internet providers and content companies such as Netflix in order to speed up services to customers. If they passed the test, the deals would have been approved, potentially creating the so-called “internet fast lanes” prioritizing service for those who paid more.

(A:    Now, that's definitely coming.  Definitely, definitely coming because that was the agenda that Jacques Attali talked about in one of his last books I think it was, where he said that, eventually there would be two classes basically of people in the future, those with massive broadband and fast, like the fast lane, and those with much, much slower speeds and so on. And he said those with the fast would be the winners.)

The FCC has been working for nearly a year on new rules governing how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks. Cable service companies don’t want more regulations or reclassification. Internet users have been pressing for broadband service to be treated like a utility, and for web traffic to remain on somewhat equal footing, disallowing ISPs to prioritize certain content.

We know darn well they already prioritize certain content.  So under we're here to help you verbiage basically, you know darn well they're pushing for much, much more.  And when you have an organization running it all, the carriers and everything else, they can then order the carriers to, don't let that guy through and don't let this guy through, he said something or whatever we don't like.  And they simply never have to admit it, it's all done verbally, by somebody phoning up the head and that's how things actually work in real life, there's no paper trails.

And also this article:

Netflix reaffirms policy against Canadians accessing U.S. site

thestar.com / Michael Lewis / Jan 05 2015

Many Canadian Netflix subscribers use free or fee-based services such as virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent barriers on accessing content available in the U.S.

Netflix, Inc., has restated its policy against virtual border crossing, a practice that has seen a growing number of Canadians bypassing regional blocks to access the streaming service’s U.S. catalogue.

And it says here that what Canadians are doing is not illegal, so I guess they want to make it illegal.  Who knows? Who knows?  And here is another article too…

New Law Bolsters Cybersecurity Protection

ect.coop / Cathy Cash / January 6th, 2015

A new law strengthening cybersecurity protections critical to the electric utility industry and cooperatives is on the books.  The cybersecurity measure focuses on codifying government responsibilities for addressing threats to critical infrastructure.

“We applaud Congress for passing legislation to reinforce how the Department of Homeland Security works with the private sector on cybersecurity issues through its National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center,” said NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson.

The homeland security center coordinates and shares information on cybersecurity with federal agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial governments and across critical infrastructures, such as the electric utility industry.  The National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 provides the department with guidance for cyber incident response . . .

So they really are upping and upping and upping things under, again, terrorism, isn't it. That's what they're doing.  And that's why down the road they're going to issue definitely, it will be a license that you have to buy to even be on the Internet and so on and so on and so on. And remember, any license can be refused.

Now, I've prattled on for years about our supposed experts. Supposedly in this day and age we have the best experts on the economy, that can be possibly trained and found with all their multiple degrees and so on, and often the relation aspects to each other, you know.  But regardless of all that:

Bank of England was unaware of impending financial crisis

(A:   Of 2008. You see, unaware of it, they didn't notice it coming.)

bbc.com / 7 January 2015

Mervyn King was governor of the Bank during the financial crisis.

(A:  I wonder if…)  A month before the start of the financial crisis, the Bank of England was apparently unaware of the impending danger (A:  It makes you feel better now, eh?  It makes you feel safer doesn't it, eh? ), new documents reveal. In a unique insight into its workings, the Bank has published minutes of top-secret meetings of its governing body, the Court, between 2007 and 2009. The minutes show that the Bank did identify liquidity as a "central concern" in July 2007.  However no action was taken as a result.   The documents show that the Bank also used a series of code names for banks that were in trouble.  (A:  They probably would've never been found out, you see.  )

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) was known as "Phoenix" (A:  Mind you, the Royal Bank of Scotland's was actually, I think, 80% owned by the London government, the government owned it.), and Lloyds TSB as "Lark".  Following publication, Andrew Tyrie MP, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, was highly critical of some of the Court's non-executive directors.  He said they had failed to challenge senior executive members, like the then governor, Mervyn King, whom some accuse of failing to prioritize financial stability.  "The minutes show that during the crisis the Bank of England did not have a board worthy of the name. This mattered. And it still matters," said Mr Tyrie.

John McFall, chairman of the treasury select committee at the time, told the BBC: "They all missed the wider picture.  They missed the interconnectedness of the whole financial system.  (A:  What? These are the experts that run not just the country but a good part of the world?)  when Lehman went down it was a real catastrophe."

The minutes show that in July 2007, the Court - akin to a company board (A: So, private again.) - spent time discussing staff pensions, open days and new members of the Monetary Policy Committee.  (A:  And probably their big bonuses at, you know, Christmas.)  Northern Rock queue Thousands queued to take their money out of Northern Rock.  (A:  It shows you pictures of the folk trying to get money out of Northern Rock.)  Members heard that the Bank was working on a new model to detect risks to the financial system, but there was little suggestion of any impending trouble.  (A:  You feel more confident now, don't you?)

Less than a month later, on 9 August, the French bank BNP Paribas came clean about its exposure to sub-prime mortgages, in what some believe was the start of the financial crisis.  Six weeks later, despite some turmoil in financial markets, Court members were told to have confidence in the triple oversight of the Bank of England, the Treasury and the then Financial Services Authority (FSA).

"The Executive believed that the events of the last month had proven the sense and strength of the tripartite framework," the minutes asserted for the 12th September, 2007.  The next day the banking crisis began in earnest.  (A:  [Alan laughing.] Oh, they never see it coming, eh. Isn't it lies, though?  Isn't it lies?  It has been exposed too that the different banks had meetings knowing that the governments were going to bail them out anyway, so they kept going until it happened.  Corruption is everywhere, eh.)

On that day (A: That the crisis began in earnest, they all came out in the newspapers.) 13 September, 2007 , members of Court were called to an emergency meeting, just as the BBC reported that Northern Rock had applied to the Bank of England for a rescue loan.  Since the news was no longer secret, thousands of customers were in the meantime queuing outside Northern Rock branches to withdraw their money.  By then the minutes show that Court members were in no doubt about the risks posed to the economy by the failure of Northern Rock.  "Both the Bank and the FSA were in total agreement that if Northern Rock was allowed to fail it would create serious economic damage," the minutes record.

Now, what other pieces of nonsense that are pushed out for us to absorb and argue over and worry over, and all the usual kind of things that are dishing out every day for us to… It really is meant to get too anxious and so on, etc. etc. The point is also to overwhelm you and make you think there's nothing you can do about anything.  That creates apathy which of course is a great method of tyrants wanting to control everybody, when you're apathetic.  But literally, for well over 100 years there has not been one generation that was given any peace it all. It was either warfare going on or they give you economic crashes, or layoffs and things like that, or downturns, all the fancy names they have for their little games.  You never get peace to enjoy life, of course, and that's a very important factor in controlling populations. Because if you were abused you always turn to the abuser for help, so they keep abusing you and the people are automatically shouting to the government, help us, help us, and they're only too happy to bring in new laws and taxes and everything else. So it's quite interesting how things really work. It's very simple, really, that this has been done for such an awful long time, and we take it for granted and think it's all normal, until literally the state is supreme.  The state is God, that's the whole point of it all, and that's what the humanists said way back, a long time ago, that the state would become God, in other words, and all the experts that run your lives would be put in place.  Well, that all has happened as well and getting worse all the time.

But you take these stories that are dished out:

Euro sinks to fresh nine-year low

bbc.com / 8 January 2015

The euro has hit a fresh nine-year low against the dollar, in part after a surprise decrease in German manufacturing.

If the European Central Bank moves to support the region's economy with quantitative easing (A: Which means devaluating your currency, because devaluing your currency is supposed to help foreign buyers buy your products, etc. etc., that's if you're producing at all, and most countries are not producing, except for debt, because the factories have all gone to China, and were helped to go there by your governments all signing on to the World Trade Organization and the GATT treaty and so on.), or buying government bonds, as the speculation suggests, this pushes a rate rise even further into the future, making the Eurozone less attractive for investors.  (A:  So there you go. And the Greeks.)  The results of upcoming Greek elections could also be spooking investors, he added.  On Monday the euro reached a nine year low after ECB (A:  This conglomerate, this new Soviet, super Soviet, advanced Soviet that they call the European Union, the president said) president Mario Draghi indicated the bank could soon start quantitative easing.  (A: Which means devaluing your current again and putting up all your internal prices.  So that's well on its way.)

And then the usual thing. I've seen this article so many times, every year I think they publish it.  It says:

Most Americans are one paycheck away from the street

marketwatch.com / Jan 10, 2015 / Quentin Fottrell

Americans are feeling better about their job security and the economy, but most are theoretically only one paycheck away from the street.

I won't read it because I mean, we all know it's pretty well true. But again, you're encouraged to spend all the comes in, that's been a lifestyle since the days of Edward Bernays since he pushed that whole idea to keep buy, buy, buying all the produce, and folk try to live up to it too.  And it says that, any emergency that pops up like a car repair or something like that or an emergency room visit, can just wipe them out altogether.

Then you have in the Economist, it's quite interesting, it says [Alan chuckles.] It's interesting in so many ways for those who understand. But it says:

The Economist leaves Janet Yellen

off its list of most influential economists

theguardian.com / Jana Kasperkevic / 31 December 2014

If the current Federal Reserve chair is not an influential economist, who is?

The Economist: “The irony of Yellen’s exclusion from the list is that it is because she is too powerful (A:  …that’s what they’re saying…), rather than not powerful enough.”

Ben Bernanke ran the Federal Reserve and can’t get a new mortgage.  (A:  Oh, ho, ho, ho…)

Fed chair Janet Yellen says income inequality is un-American.  (A:  Really? I don't think she's even from America.)

The Economist’s annual list of the most influential economists is out. Except, this year, something seems to be missing: the most powerful economist in America.  (A:  What is an economist anyway when they're never right?  Although they never get poorer themselves, if you notice, eh.)

Janet Yellen, who was sworn in as the first woman to chair the Federal Reserve in February, did not make it on to the list. Sadly, neither did any other female economists.

The worst part? Ben Bernanke, who preceded Yellen as the head of the Fed, made it on the all-male list again this year. He came in fifth.

In 2011, the magazine named Bernanke the economist of the decade, noting that when “it comes to real power ... no one can compete with Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve.”

The way that the economists on the list are chosen is based on “how much attention was paid to their utterances in the mainstream media, the blogosphere and in social media” during the three months leading up to December, according to the magazine.

As such, it comes as a shock that Yellen did not make it on to the list. When the Federal Reserve chair speaks – be it Bernanke or Yellen – people pay attention. In fact, this year, when speaking at the 2014 World of Business Forum, Bernanke explained that what the Fed chair says could have an impact on the stock market.  (A:  Well, they've proven that in the past.)

“I realize that it isn’t my words that matter; it’s the fact that the Fed chairman has influence on monetary policy – it does mean you have to take care [with words]”, he said. “Moving the market is not a great thing, because if you are communicating clearly and people understand what you are doing, then you shouldn’t be surprising the market very much.”

Yet even Bernanke’s reputation suffers outside the wonky-economist community. About 17% of Americans still think that Alan Greenspan is the Fed chairman.

According to the Economist, Janet Yellen was not included in its ranking because the central bank governors were not considered for the list.

“We made a decision not to include serving central-bank governors, because their pronouncements are also the official views of the institutions they represent. Janet Yellen is the most influential economist in the world because she is the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve; Mario Draghi has the same position in Europe because of his presidency of the European Central Bank,” said the magazine in a statement. “The irony of Ms Yellen’s exclusion from the list is that it is because she is too powerful, rather than not powerful enough.”

So there's your...  It's such rubbish anyway, isn't it. Such rubbish, really. I mean, economists apparently never see crashes coming, supposedly, and it's the best we've got, were told, and we're supposed to believe that. It's all a racket, folks. Money has always been a racket and often run by a particular group of people, who tend to keep it in the family you might say.

Here’s other article too and it says:

Judge tells jobless EU migrant shoplifter to stop stealing

 – and claim BENEFITS instead  (A:  This is in Britain.)

express.co.uk / January 3, 2015

A JOBLESS migrant who racked up a string of shoplifting convictions just months after arriving in the UK was told by a judge to stop stealing – and claim benefits instead.  Pomalecki admitted stealing perfume on more than one occasion.  Dawid Pomalecki began stealing perfume after moving to Britain, from Poland, in October last year.  The 20-year-old was "unaware" of how to claim benefits and was penniless, a court heard.  Just weeks after arriving in Nottingham, he was arrested after being caught shoplifting designer perfume worth £144 from House of Fraser on November 17.  He was conditionally discharged on November 28 after admitting theft at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.  But the very next day Pomalecki stole perfume from Boots (A:  That's a big pharmacy chain.), followed by another £144 bottle from House of Fraser on December 6.  Then on December 11 he stole yet ANOTHER bottle of fragrance from Boots.  (A:  I wonder who he was selling them to.)

He was finally arrested but on Tuesday was spared jail once again despite admitting three thefts.  (A:  I wonder if they'd do that if someone was a British citizen.)  Pomalecki, who is virtually unable to speak English, was handed a community order and ordered to carry out 60 hours of unpaid work.  District Judge Tim Devas asked the thief what his plans were for the next few months and he replied that he was going to get a job.  (A:  Yeah sure.  A job doing what, you know?  I mean…)

Judge Devas asked: "Now what's going to happen to you if you steal anything from a shop again?"   Speaking through a Polish interpreter, Pomalecki replied: "Well, I would be punished more severely, and whatever sentence you give me today."  Boots was just one of Powalecki's targets.  "Take some advice about benefits or anything else but you must not commit any other thefts.  For a number of reasons, including your age, early guilty pleas, nature of the offences and the time you have spent in custody, I will deal with you by way of a community order with unpaid work of 60 hours.  Don't even think about stealing anything, otherwise I might send you back to Poland."  (A:  They won't send him back, regardless.)

Judge Devas also increased the compensation owed by Pomalecki to £193.  (A:  A fine, I guess, or compensation, so you can work that off in community service.)  David Gittins, defending, said Pomalecki was "unaware of the benefits system" (A:  Which is a joke, they've been advertising it abroad.) and was likely to stop stealing "in the near future."  (A:  I wonder what he's going to decide, maybe a whole bunch of more thefts to do first.)  He added: "He has no income."  (A:  Well, where's all this money going from the stuff he's stealing, and obviously selling?)

Johnathan Isaby, chief executive of the Taypayers' Alliance, said: "The benefits system should be a safety net, not a comfort blanket.  The judge's advice should have been to look for work, not for welfare."

Well, that's why most folk are flying into Britain right now, actually, and have been doing since the 70s in increasing numbers. You know, big business really, really rules. And of course all big businesses have lobby groups lobbying government all the time, official lobbyists, full-time, full pay.  And that's all… You can't get in to see the Congressman and so on in the US, or any country really you can't get in to see the politicians.  But they can get in immediately. In fact, they often have apartment complexes around the Parliament buildings just for the lobbyists, you see, because business rules, big business rules, and lots of money changes hands, it's not just, can we have a friendly chat with you Mr. MP.

But here is an article about tests and the Ebola vaccine.

Ebola Vaccine Tests Resume

Restart Follows Pause to Assess Reports of Joint Pain

(A:  In the vaccine people, you see, you got the test trial.)

wsj.com / Marta Falconi

ZURICH—A Geneva hospital said Monday it was resuming tests of an experimental Ebola vaccine licensed by Merck & Co. after a three-week pause in the trial to assess reports of mild joint pain in volunteers.  In a statement, the University Hospitals of Geneva said a second test group of 56 people will receive injections of the vaccine, which is known by the code name VSV-ZEBOV, at a lower dose than the initial group of volunteers.

So they're going to have a lower dose. But you'll find that with a lot of different vaccines, they can end up turning your immune system kind of haywire and they will attack the joints, for life often, you know, that's the way it is. It ends up with a form of arthritis where your own white blood cells will attack your joints and things. But you know, big corporations like this, they don't give up when they put money into anything, they don't give up or toss it out and say this is bad.  Even the thalidomide that caused a tremendous outbreak of deformed children, whose mothers took this particular drug when they were pregnant, it was a terrible thing, they were born missing limbs and the ones that they had were really short, sometimes a hand would stick out where a shoulder should be and things like that. And they brought that back eventually under another guise of different treatments.  They never stop.

Then we have an article too about:

Take your mandatory flu shot and shove it!

nypost.com / December 15, 2013

(A:  Interesting too, that came out where the CDC and the World Health Organization said, oh we always choose the most prevalent flues that we think are going to travel across the world that year.  And they have never been right yet.  And they have admitted again, the ones that they are giving them right now,it doesn't have that prevailing flu that people are getting. But they're telling folk to get it anyway, the shot. And one of the articles that I was reading even said that, we've got to keep the people taking their annual flu shot because once they make a break in their training, see they're training you to take shots all the time, a break in their training and they might skip it next year. Anyway this article here goes on about:)

 

Last week the city Board of Health voted to force annual flu vaccinations on all babies and children under age 5 who attend day-care centers and preschool programs. Here, Sophia Ling, mother of 3-year-old Oona and a fitness instructor in Staten Island, tells The Post’s Mary Kay Linge how the risks of the shot outweigh the benefits — and wants nannying bureaucrats to stop trampling parents’ rights.

(A:  See, government now and all the arms of government are used by the big corporations now, aren't they, just to get the products out. Can you imagine government mandating, if you started a little company to make, say, buckets and, say, spades or shovels, that they HAVE to buy your brand.  Isn't that wonderful, oooh, everybody would have to buy one, ooooh, eh, you don't have to start advertising and spending money on that and trying to con folk into buying your product, they get the government to do it for them by passing laws.)

When I first heard about the new flu vaccine rule, I was upset but not surprised. The Board of Health did this so quietly, with no input from parents of young children. (A:  That’s standard these days.)  The unanimous vote was cast before New Yorkers had any chance to protest.  (A:  Well, they couldn't protest if they didn't know.)

I don’t respond well to being bullied on a matter of personal health. I also dislike the underhanded way this is being forced only on our youngest citizens. Parents of toddlers aren’t an organized political faction — we’re a bit too busy keeping our [children] safe and calculating the distance to the nearest potty.  To get more facts about the flu vaccine, I turned to the Staten Island Natural & Attachment Parenting group on Facebook. Moms banding together are a powerful force. I followed links to documents from the Centers for Disease Control, vaccine manufacturers and research studies. The more I learned, the more livid I became.  In any given year, the CDC admits, the flu vaccine may be totally ineffective against the flu. That’s because scientists have to guess which strains of the flu virus will be going around each year. Some years, they guess wrong.  (A:  Actually, it's most years that they get them wrong actually.)

At best, the flu vaccine may be 60 percent effective. (A:  That’s what they tell you, without being studied by the way, they don’t do studies on them.)  To me, a 0 to 60 percent efficacy rate equals one thing: fail.  Plenty of people who get the flu shot come down with flu anyway. (A:  And it's true.)  It happened to me, actually — the only time I got a flu shot, during my pregnancy, I was sick for a week. Not only that, the CDC says, “the flu vaccine works best among healthy adults and older children,” less well for babies and toddlers — the very people being targeted by the city’s new rule. Safety testing on children, especially babies and toddlers, has been limited. And the side effects of the flu vaccine are very real. The manufacturers’ warning labels give a long list of potential risks — everything from fever and headache to convulsions, blood disorders and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Last flu season, at least five young children died as a direct result of the flu vaccine, according to the federal database that tracked adverse reactions during the 2012-13 flu season.  So, am I willing to roll the dice and hope that Oona is one of the lucky ones? No.  (A: She’s not willing.)  In my judgment, the potential risks to my daughter outweigh the possible benefits.  (A:  And she goes on and on and on.)

 

But that's how it's done, you're just simply not told anymore.  They discussed the laws and you get policy, because it's policy that you can't get into preschool. I mean, it started with universities and then it went down to the colleges, high schools and so on, you've got to have shots to get in, a policy. And believe you me, these schools are get backhanders too from the big Pharma companies for putting those policies through.  Again, this one says:

New York City Requiring Flu Shots for Preschoolers

nytimes.com / SHARON OTTERMAN / JAN. 2, 2015

And then this one here is to do with:

Sydney venue cancels talk by anti-vaccine activist Sherri Tenpenny

sbs.com.au /  8 Jan 2015

A Sydney venue has cancelled talks by Dr Sherri Tenpenny, an American anti-vaccine activist who is scheduled to give a series of lectures across Australia in March.   The Kareela Golf & Social Club in Sydney's south has cancelled talks by osteopath Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an anti-vaccine activist who was due to hold a seminar at the venue.  General manager of the Kareela club, Dennis Skinner said he didn't want to be involved with the controversial subject.  (A:  So somebody leaned on him. The big Pharma boys would do it, and their own health system, national health system.)

"The club as a venue, we don't have a position for or against this, we just decided the subject matter was too controversial for us to be involved in," he told ABC.  The Kareela Club has since been criticised by Dr Tenpenny supporters, with many leaving bad reviews on their Facebook page.

And lastly we have one on Obama care of course:

ObamaCare fines rising in 2015, IRS prepares to collect

FoxNews.com / December 30, 2014

(A:  It really is a huge tax, isn't it, for the IRS to even be involved in it.)

Don't have health insurance? Get ready to pay up.  The ObamaCare-mandated fines for not having insurance are rising in 2015 -- and for the first time, will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.  The individual requirement to buy health insurance went into effect earlier this year. But this coming tax season is the first time all taxpayers will have to report to the IRS whether they had health insurance for the prior year.   The fines for the 2014 year were relatively modest -- $95 per person or 1 percent of household income (above the threshold for filing taxes), whichever is more.

But insurance scofflaws face a sharp increase if they don't get covered soon. The fine will jump in 2015 to $325 or 2 percent of income, whichever is higher. By 2016, the average fine will be about $1,100, based on government figures.  The insurance requirement and penalties remain the most unpopular part of the health care law. They were intended to serve a broader purpose by nudging healthy people into the insurance pool, helping to keep premiums more affordable. But the application of fines in 2015 could renew criticism of the law, at a time when Republicans are taking control of Congress and looking at ways to undercut the policy.  According to government figures, tens of millions of people still fall into the ranks of the uninsured.

Unclear is how many would actually be assessed a fine. The law offers about 30 different exemptions, most of which involve financial hardships. Further, it's unclear how aggressively the IRS would go after the fines.   (A:  They'll probably get SWAT teams after them eventually.  I'm not kidding about that, that will come down after a few years.)

Many taxpayers may be able to get a pass.  Based on congressional analysis, tax preparation giant H&R Block says roughly 4 million uninsured people will pay penalties and 26 million will qualify for exemptions from the list of waivers.  Deciding what kind of waiver to seek could be crucial. Some can be claimed directly on a tax return, but others involve mailing paperwork to the Department of Health and Human Services. Tax preparation companies say the IRS has told them it's taking steps to make sure taxpayers' returns don't languish in bureaucratic limbo while HHS rules on their waivers.  TurboTax has created a free online tool called "Exemption Check" for people to see if they may qualify for a waiver. Charges apply later if the taxpayer files through TurboTax. People also can get a sense of the potential hit by going online and using the Tax Policy Center's Affordable Care Act penalty calculator.

And I'll tell you another thing too, once it's routine and everyone has accept it, you'll find then that they will really mandate from the government, they will mandate all the shots, etc., and keep increasing them, increasing them.  That's what they used the National Health Service in Britain for, they start making it an authority, you understand.  It's not a service, it's an authority.  They all start off as services and become authorities. It's quite something to watch this nonsense go on and on and on. Quite something.

And like all reality, which is bunkum, I'll just say this last little thing, I wasn't going to, but it says:

First Ebola boy likely infected by playing in bat tree

bbc.com / 30 December 2014 / Michelle Roberts

(A:  Remember, they gave you the same rubbish about the AIDS, oh it could be a cave where bats live, could it be this cave here? Etc., in the documentaries they made at the time. I guess it's bat man, eh.  It shows you.)

 

Bat being captured to be tested for Ebola Other researchers have been testing bats in West Africa.  The Ebola victim who is believed to have triggered the current outbreak - a two-year-old boy called Emile Ouamouno from Guinea - may have been infected by playing in a hollow tree housing a colony of bats, say scientists.  They made the connection on an expedition to the boy's village, Meliandou.  They took samples and chatted to locals to find out more about Ebola's source.  The team's findings are published in EMBO Molecular Medicine.

It's quite amazing. But I'll tell you another thing too, I mean, this is not the standard Ebola that's been coming into the States there, that was out initially, there's a lot of different symptoms and so on.  So I think it's all probably produced in labs like so many other things are too.  And of course, the agencies that will deal with that kind of thing, they're doing it all quietly, will never admit that to the general public. So were given, you know, bats are causing it, etc., which is enough to drive you batty.

But these articles, as I say, are like fillers, they just churn them out by machine I think, probably computers, it gives another two dozen fillers, and they'll push it out in the papers, for the general cattle to lap up and yap about.  Because you really get fed up with the articles they put out there and the way they are presented to the general population.  Maybe we are becoming more and more stupid, because they are getting more and more ridiculous all the time. And they all know what is really is going on, as you all know.  All reality is pretty well hidden from the general public and were managed, truly, just like the herd management that the health services call managing us all with the vaccinations.  They call it herd management, that's how governments now run all of our lives.  We're just the big herd, and different factions of the herd have special agencies forcing them to go along with the rest of the herd and things like that, because it's herd management anyway that you look at it.

Well, from Hamish and myself from a very freezing Ontario, Canada, because of global warming of course, it's good night and may your God or your gods go with you.

Topics of show covered in following links:

France Satirical Mag Charlie Hebdo Sued by Islamists for 'Blasphemy'

French Muslims to sue Charlie Hebdo over Mohammed cartoons

How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights

Paedophile at the Home Office: He boasted of storing PIE files where police would never discover them

Secret service infiltrated paedophile group to 'blackmail establishment'

FCC chair likely to take Obama’s lead on net neutrality

Netflix reaffirms policy against Canadians accessing U.S. site

New Law Bolsters Cybersecurity Protection

Bank of England was unaware of impending financial crisis

Euro sinks to fresh nine-year low

Most Americans are one paycheck away from the street

The Economist leaves Janet Yellen off its list of most influential economists

Migrant shoplifter told to claim benefits rather than steal by judge

Ebola Vaccine Tests Resume - Restart Follows Pause to Assess Reports of Joint Pain

Take your mandatory flu shot and shove it!

New York City Requiring Flu Shots for Preschoolers

Sydney venue cancels talk by anti-vaccine activist Sherri Tenpenny

ObamaCare fines rising in 2015, IRS prepares to collect

First Ebola boy likely infected by playing in bat tree

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:23 pm

Jan. 15, 2015 (#1484)
ALAN WATT
"CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX"
(GUEST ON REALITY BYTES RADIO WITH NEIL FOSTER)

realitybytesradio.com

Neil:  Welcome to Reality Bytes Radio on the 15^th of January, 2015.  Today we have our regular guest Alan Watt on the line.  Are you there Alan?

Alan:  Yes.  I’m here.

Neil:  Okay.  You’ve mentioned many times about how the population is stampeded.  Now everybody imagines a stampede as they have seen in the wildlife movies where the wildebeest is being chased by the lions.  Or they have seen riots where people are crushed or whatever.  But the stampede you are talking about is more of a mental stampede from what I understand.  And this kind of technique if you like has been used for a long, long time.  And do you want to, do you have any kind of insight into where this kind of technique stems from and what is the psychology behind it?

Alan:  It’s ancient actually.  If you go back into ancient times when people lived in tribes, they had...  It’s a natural thing for tribes to have a leader, an elected leader.  And the tribesman, the chieftain, generally has no more than the rest of the people.  He’s given respect and after he has done his year or two years or whatever, someone else takes over with the consent of the whole tribe.  That’s how it used to be pretty well across the world.  But with the rise of commerce, with the early commerce, they were again the psychopathic types you might say who could see how they could aggrandize themselves and benefit themselves if they only had rulership over the people and become hereditary basically as a shortcut to it if they could have their offspring take over, etcetera, etcetera.  And you find the earliest signs of this again across the Middle East and in Asia where commerce came in with eventually out of wherever, who knows, they decided on a kind of standard of money.  Money is the key to all of this.  Money takes you off of a natural system of say a collective survival and hunter-gatherers or even early agriculture and barter.  It takes you from that to the middleman.  The middleman then has the power.  And the middleman will always accumulate wealth.  So if the middleman can also eventually manage this introduction of something to exchange which is called money, whether it is weighed or whatever or minted, and have the people accept it, then he can eventually take over and decide the value of that currency.  That’s been ongoing for thousands of years.  And across that particular area that’s where they understood this in early, early times.

From then on through the Phoenicians, which also was related to all of the groups in the Middle East, they traveled the world again through trade and they tried to introduce their coinage everywhere too.  Initially they would do straight barter with folk they’d meet in different shores and islands and eventually they’d say no we don’t want that, we want you to give us this stuff and start using this stuff.  But to get this coin you’ll have to give us "x" amount of fur or grain or whatever it happens to be.  And that’s what they did.  That’s what a lot of the ancient wars were about.  When they took over a country eventually and got a hierarchy in that country, like a king established, instead of a chief you create a hereditary king with a family; then he is out for his own self benefit and his family’s too.  To live better than the rest of the people you must live off of the people.  I don’t care how else it is done; it’s as simple as that.  And so they worked with the middlemen, the money managers, and so on.  They had to work always down through time together and create these long family lineages and so on.

But in the early times you see with the Phoenicians you had the hundred year wars with even the Spartans, etcetera, as they took over island after island and used the countries that were indebted to these moneymen come merchants.  They’d use that money and the debt that was owed them to force the kings they’d help to establish to use their people, their armies to conquer the next country that would then force the money system upon them.  And that took well over a hundred years you know.  And once they got coinage in there, early coinage of silver about 800 B.C., then they realized that they’d have to force that currency across the world which they did in ancient times.  They found these coins by the way across the world even on the east coast of early America.  So this world has been well traveled many, many thousands of years ago, long before Columbus.

But anyway the idea was: how do you rule all of these people?  Once you get them into an artificial system it’s easier to rule them because they will then believe that they’ll lose their ability to even have self-preservation survival.  An artificial money system or any money system brings a new system of living in, an artificial system.  If you create a city for instance, and all the kings wanted cities, then everything in that city is an artificial system.  They are not hunting, they are not gathering, they need money to bring in all of their foodstuffs.  They have to get an army so they need money to pay the army, etcetera, etcetera, and so on.  So this whole thing is a perpetual self-motion machine.  It keeps going and going and going once you’ve got it established.

Even Plato talked about how cities eventually would dominate the world, these city-states.  And they could change the culture within those city walls all the time because they still have workers inside the city working now for money in artificial systems as we are today all sitting in offices and things, and people are working on computers and they hate their jobs but it’s completely artificial.  It’s unnatural for a human being to do.  But we are taught down through the centuries that this is all quite normal and we accept it.

Now those with the money system and those who understand how it works use that as a big clout on the general public to keep them in line because the more you abuse a person or a whole population, you keep them fearful, and you have taught and trained them that this is all quite normal this system, then when something is threatened, oh a financial crash, or devaluation of your currency and poverty, then the people and the various groups that represent the people stand up and say oh do something to the very guys who are abusing you.  And this is the system they have used all along is fear, fear, fear.  So the more they abuse you, the more the people are trained that you really need them and their experts.  And the experts, as you are well aware, how come things never get any better?  We always have, the bankers always plunder us.  This combination of bankers plunder the public at least twice a century, every century, at least twice, sometimes three times a century.  We bail them out.  There is nothing new in this at all.  This has been going on for a long, long, long time.  And because they also run what’s called the establishment, the whole system of normalcy at the top, the law system, everything, then nothing is ever done to really change because they want to do it again and again and again.

But with the money system and with this commerce thing you have powerful elite groups and the money system all combined together, completely interwoven.  They also use those armies to go and plunder other countries under thousands of guises.  And if you want, if you’ve got, like the New American Century Project that we knew about in the 90’s, where they had all the countries who the U.S. wanted scheduled to be taken out starting with Afghanistan.  I mean they published it on their own website with Paul Wolfowitz and all the rest of them.  Afghanistan and Iraq, then they wanted Syria.  And Israel too wanted the U.S. army to go straight from Iraq into Syria and take Syria out at the same time, then Libya, and then Iran.  And they have accomplished almost all of those goals and they are still underway to accomplishing the last parts of it.  This was published years before 2001.

Neil:  I think Venezuela and North Korea are on that as well.

Alan:  Oh yeah.  Long ago North Korea was too.  But you have to understand too that you are trained to think of yourself as a nation, every country is.  And you are taught to be proud of your nation, etcetera, etcetera.  That’s the first lie you are taught because the bankers who might live in your country, some of them, also tell the top politicians, in fact they make sure they get them in, their boys get in, and they have their plans, this ongoing world domination thing, of taking over the whole world and getting it on one currency system down the road.  And in the process they will also want to incredibly enrich themselves.  It’s never enough, they can’t satiate their hunger for power, these people.  They don’t say well I’ve earned fifteen trillion dollars this year worldwide so I’ve got enough.  It doesn’t work that way.  Power is an aberration.  This kind of power is an aberration.  But unfortunately in this system it’s the normal aberration, so much so, that those down below, all the working slobs, are taught to try and emulate it too.  So they give you that kind of culture, a psychopathic type spillover culture, that trickles down and becomes your culture with the nonsense that anyone can make it, etcetera.

But when they look at other countries, like I say, and draw up their plans for war for the future.  And they mean it; they don’t draw them up in these big think tanks just to toss ideas around.  Then they’ve got to get a valid excuse seemingly to the public to go and invade those countries.  But they don’t call it invasion, they always call it going to liberate them or spreading democracy.  And the ancient Romans said the same thing; they were going and spreading culture everywhere.  They were civilizing the people.  And of course we saw that after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on.  They actually used the same terms, they were bringing them democracy into nations where this was a foreign concept.  And we forget it ourselves that a hundred-odd years ago democracy say in Europe, in Britain, was also a foreign concept.  You didn’t have what you think of as democracy today, back then.  They may have called it a democratic government but it simply meant..., in fact a hundred years ago in Britain you had to own land to go and vote, and so many houses, etcetera.  Tenants couldn’t vote up until about World War I, inside World War I.  That’s where they gave them the vote by the way, the folk who were landless.

So, democracy’s understanding keeps changing as they push the con and keep pushing the con.  Even Winston Churchill wrote in the early 1900’s, this strange concept of democracy, the certain elements coming into Britain were trying to push, and at that time they had different covers, one of the covers was Marxism.

So what you’ve got is the pretence of democracy.  You’ve got this terrible indoctrination of the population, more so I think in the U.S., of a classless society, which is an absolute laughing joke you know.  It’s completely laughable.  But if you train the public like that you can always get them to join up in hordes and go off and fight for any excuse you give them.  And when you go off and fight, what you do is accomplish your missions, which is you take over the lands, just like Britain did with its empire.  The public pay for the armies to go off, the shipping off of armies and all the ammunitions and everything else that goes with it and logistics.  And you put down railroad lines; you put in airstrips today, things like that.  We pay for it all and then private contracts are given to the boys who want to get the mining out, the diamonds, the gold, they’ve got oil, all of these kinds of things.  It’s private enterprise that rules it all and we pay for it all under this guise of democracy, spreading freedom and spreading democracy and all that nonsense.  You have to retrain your mind to actually believe what it’s actually seeing instead of being told what to perceive and what you are seeing.  {Laughs}

Neil:  Yeah.  You mentioned fear earlier on and we did a program on that a while ago, but war certainly is the big tool to stampede people in many different ways.  And the most obvious I suppose is refugees.  And that again brings its own problems for neighboring countries or not necessarily neighboring countries but in the form of mass immigration to countries which again are alien to their own culture.

Alan:  Yes.  It’s called geopolitics again.  That’s what they call it at the top.  We tend to be short-term thinkers.  Most folk are short-term thinkers.  Women are more long-term thinkers than men.  Men can understand small projects that need to get done immediately and then they will go to it and get it done.  Women can actually plan ahead, even years in advance.  But at the top, since we’ve been so well studied, they’ve used a combination of both techniques at the top through the intelligence services, the big agencies that run all the other agencies, etcetera, etcetera.  The Rand Corporation, many corporations involved, big think tanks on constantly studying humanity.  And now with the internet there they can keep the pulse on the public and see what’s working and what’s not working in propaganda technique.

So what you’ve got is the ability to say okay we’ll start off here like a chess board.  Here’s where we want to go but in the meantime we’ll make these moves, these moves, these moves, these moves, and these moves and eventually we’ll get to our goal at the end.  It’s an ongoing game.  I call it the never-ending story because it’s meant to go on and on and on, like George Orwell said in "1984".

So we see the immediate, all the propaganda is always for immediacy.  You’ve got to attack Iraq.  Now even in Canada they were doing studies in Canada in different psychological associations, universities, and they noticed how the media that started off bashing Afghanistan initially for 9/11 and Bin Laden and so on quietly over the course of a year once they were in Afghanistan started to focus and tried to, almost in a subliminal way until it was overt, get the public used to the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in it.  And even though during that period when the inquiry came up and Bush Jr. said, well Iraq had nothing to do with it.  He said Saddam is just a bad man and he’s better out of the way.  That was good enough but the fact is the American public have been trained that Saddam was the ultimate bad guy for a while.  And so you had the schizophrenic attitude, no it was Bin Laden that got the war started and then it shifted, the gunsights, to Iraq and blamed Saddam Hussein.  That’s all it took in the media, constant subliminals, and then into overt blaming until the public in America accepted having to invade Iraq you see.  That’s how you do geopolitics.  And then of course and after at the end of Iraq, when they were through there, Israel came out in the newspapers and television and said well, and they told the U.S. just go straight now into Syria.  All their enemies they want to be taken out too you see.  Why do it yourself when somebody else is going to do it for you and pay for it all too?

So it almost came to that.  Instead it didn’t work and they had to spend a few years and work up this Al-Qaeda nonsense that was all funded by the West to invade Syria which is still ongoing today.  And now they keep changing the names to confuse the public who’ll catch on to what’s going on.  But it’s the same group, totally funded by the West, and that’s how you do geopolitics.  And then eventually they’ll only have, if they get Syria out of the way, they’ve only got Iran to do and then they’ll have all the oil fields, all the minerals, all the aquifers, the water and so on.  It’s just incredible the wealth they are giving to private companies who didn’t put a penny forward in to get this war going.  They get all the rewards but that’s how the British Empire was actually built.  It’s never changed and we tend to think again, stop thinking in countries, like oh the Rothschilds live in London.  No, no, the Rothschilds lived in the U.S. and London and other places too, different branches of their family.  And they will use whatever country is handy at the time to get their geopolitical strategy through, including funding the United Nations, funding the World Bank, and all the rest of it through the CFR and the Royal Institute for International Affairs which they set up and own.  They were the guys who financed Alfred Milner and guys like that, that set up the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the private organization that literally drafted up the United Nations treaty and everything else.  They drafted up the European Union amalgamation.  They drafted up the North American NAFTA agreement too.  They came on television, their branch here in Canada, the CFR admitted on television and on an hour-long show, new show, CBC, that they drafted it up and gave it to them all to sign, the three amigos to sign into law, Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., a private organization that most folk haven’t heard of.  You can’t just join it because you have to be asked to go and join the thing after you have been well vetted.  I mean they’ve studied you for years if they bring you in and the public have no vote on anything that’s going on here, including the CFR.  Why are private organizations running the whole world’s commerce, money and everything else today while we go through this farce that we are democratic?  I can’t even use the word democracy anymore.  It’s a complete, it’s not even a dead joke now, it has disintegrated way under the earth.  {Laughs}

Neil:  Yeah.  It is funny you mentioned the CFR and people being stampeded in it.  I just think of Gerry Adams was invited to talk there so I mean he’s part of that group as well.  And of course he’s touted as this great republican leader and now he’s in mainstream politics and everything.  I wonder who he was working for, eh, you know.

Alan:  Oh absolutely.  I always knew that with him.

Neil:  Yeah and McGuinness.  And okay, the effects on the general public obviously through the media, through the news, the television.  I’m thinking like 9/11, all these disasters, the 7/7 tsunamis, where it’s on the TV like constantly.  In particular what’s happening now with this Paris thing, how that’s been blown out of all proportion in terms of you know the small event that it was.  I’m not you know simplifying the fact that people were killed or anything but you know it’s a fairly minor tragedy if I can put it that way compared to some of the horrors that Israel has inflicted on Palestine for example, or the one a few weeks ago where the Afghan army mislaid a rocket and fired it into a wedding party and killed 40 people.  We don’t hear world leaders on the street about that you know but this thing is playing on the public psyche and basically stampeding them down the road to more and more of a police state and to accept a harsher police state.

Alan:  Well there is no doubt about it, to introduce anything which takes away freedoms and rights from the people, again it is ancient, you must terrify the people that you are all going to get killed or massacred in your beds by these nasty people.  And so if they don’t create the instance themselves, which is a very common thing down through history, if they don’t create it themselves, then they will certainly aid and abet it happening to some little group.  They will give them, they will finance them, they will help them get to their target in order to use the whole event.  You see there is a lot of strategy to do with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and it was fantastic to see how the psychology worked in the Soviet intelligence and MI5 and 6 because they were both the same.  And the idea on the Marxian side or Soviet side was to go into countries that are third world or they are sinking first world countries where there is lots of unemployment, agitate the people but don’t help the people, attack all charities because charities give aid out to the people which alleviate their misery.  We don’t want their misery alleviated, make it worse and then they will get really angry.  The whole point is to get people really angry and uprising to overthrow.  And then the group that was behind it all would jump in, just like the Bolsheviks jumped over all the socialist groups and became the leaders of Russia you see.  They used them all to get the leadership, it was a strategy.  And what the Soviets also said was, if we can get them agitated until the West, the so-called Fascist countries, responded in an overt heavy-handed manner by taking away all the rights of the people, we can then point and say, see, we told you so, that’s what’s really running your country, these monsters and power-mad crazy people, you know.  And then they’d revolt again.  So this was the psychology of getting, using the masses of people to do your bidding for you.  Even down to making their misery worse to make sure they would revolt.

In the West it was different.  The West got into psychological warfare and cultural warfare, very important, both countries did it.  And under the cultural system they hired people who were running the entertainment business in the U.S. primarily.  Some in Britain too which is an in-group clique you might say.  And they made them ambassadors for culture for the West and of course the European countries and even going into the Soviet Union with certain shows and so on.  And what their idea was, this is what they told the people in their intelligence reports, the idea – and the CIA ran it from the U.S., it was called America’s Cultural Cold War, you know – and the idea was to show how liberated so-called democracy in the West was when it came to ideas and freedoms.  So they pushed nudity, they pushed all of these things, you see we don’t have all these barriers that you have there, you’re inhibited in the Soviet System, etcetera.  And the idea was to make the ones in the West, in the Soviet System, the youth especially, try and emulate things like the pop music and then the rock music, etcetera, and wearing the mini-skirts and so on.  And so the Soviet Union actually adopted that technique, the early music television series.  They put their own version on in the Soviet Union, not as raunchy but getting there you might say, because then they had to keep their people happy.  Massive cultural wars go on like that as outside forces change your culture internally.

So there is a lot more involved in intelligence work and long-term strategy and geopolitics than just the immediate thing that you see in the paper today.  When you get back to the immigration policies you were talking about for refugees, they are well aware that they would bring problems into their country, the home country.  Britain for instance in the 70’s, they opened the floodgate under an agreement by the way from the 1930’s and the Royal Institute for International Affairs, that was all the British Commonwealth Countries, that eventually they would bring in, they’d open the borders up for people from India especially, that was one of their biggest prizes, was India.  And they would bring straight immigration right into Britain.  In the 70’s they brought them in on mass.  They were just flooding in.  And that was to deculturalize the people at home.  That was part of the reason.  But down the road they knew, down the road they knew in the 70’s, because I knew the strategy, I said if they ever end up attacking those countries in the future, their homelands abroad to grab whatever wealth there is that they want, I said there is going to be riots here because you’ve got ready made people who are different, they are different from say northern hemisphere people.  It’s a completely different ethnology involved in it and anthropology.  They’re in-groups, big families, all connected and so on.  That’s a different system than the northern folk and how they developed and they will keep their culture for generations that they brought over from their homelands, as opposed to the one they adapt.  They might not even adapt into yours; you’ll have a kind of pretense to an extent.  But down the road if they ever attacked say Muslim countries, then they could be guaranteed to have a population at home of Muslims that would then riot at home.  Then you can push forth laws that would affect everyone say in Britain, even people who have their genes go back for thousands of years in that area.  So we saw the same thing in the U.S. as well with 9/11.    

Neil:  Yeah.  We were talking about movies and programming, but I think it was "Children of Men" where they showed you just that scenario and they based it on Muslims.  At the end of the movie all you’ve got is these hordes of Muslims walking through the streets with kalashnikofs in the center of London.  And they showed you the train station with the cages with all the immigrants in it and you know the dogs and the heavy-handed stuff.  That movie was made, now was it ten years ago, ten years ago at least, and now here we are.  You know we are not far off it.  Another coincidence.  And I mean I can’t imagine what would’ve happened in London if the Charlie Hebdo thing had happened there.  I would imagine that they would’ve shut London down completely.

Alan:  But here’s the thing though.  Back in the early 80’s there was an attempt, something happened in London in England; there were a few terrorists that took over I think it was the British Petroleum tower building in London and that eventually got publicized widely when you brought the SAS.  Nobody had seen the SAS operating in their own country before.  And they were abseiling down the lines, they were all dressed in black and they smashed through windows and so on to rescue the hostages.  And at the time they said it was Iranian terrorists that were involved.  And even the SAS admitted they were supposed to kill every terrorist in there.  They didn’t want anyone to stay alive to say why they had come or who sent them or anything else you know.  They didn’t want it getting out to the press.

Neil:  The same thing has happened in Paris.

Alan:  That’s right.  Well the thing was too though, after that the Iranian embassy had to move back to Iran.  We are forgetting too this was all in that era where Britain had been heavily involved and running Iran and getting the oil out for years and years and years and they put the Shah in and all the rest of it.  And the Iranians were not happy with all this stuff, all their money getting taken out of their country, etcetera, and even their top people getting put in power by outsiders.  So this was during that whole phase.

Now the Cold War was still going on as well and so they didn’t want a ruckus.  Even when a policewoman, they broadcast that, she was out directing traffic outside the embassy while the Iranian staff were told to leave and for some reason one of the Iranians opened fire with an automatic pistol, machine pistol, and shot this policewoman.  Now, there was a lot of oh that’s terrible, oh what a shame, and so on in the media, but there was no call for say martial law techniques or everybody must be monitored now or the domestic population of Britain must give up all their rights, because the Cold War was still going on; Russia would have used that.  Now you don’t have that anymore and it’s out in the open where they always wanted to go.  So if they don’t actually create the incidents to create more and more martial law technique and total surveillance, etcetera, then they certainly aid the groups that they know want to do these things.  They certainly aid them financially and with weapons and all the rest of it, there is no doubt about that.

Neil:  Yeah and again you know we are getting it constantly, well I don’t watch TV, but on TV and in the media it’s constantly front-page news any time there is any slight incident involving "terrorism", there is always a Cobra meeting or you know somebody is having a special meeting to discuss how they could prevent it in the future.  And it’s as you say twenty years ago or whenever that Iranian embassy siege was, well longer than that wasn’t it, maybe thirty years ago, you know there was none of this.  There were no calls for shutting down London or you know patting everybody down at the train stations or whatever.  But these Oyster Card things that people have got in London that track you everywhere you go on the bus and the train.  You have to go through barriers with them.  I don’t think we are too far away in London from certainly seeing barriers at the end of the street where you’ve got to go through these things.  And that’s obviously what they are for.  I mean they are a form of an ID card basically.

Alan:  Well the oldest idea was always to, if you were going to say we are going to keep you safe but you can have no rights.  You can’t have one without the other.  It’s as simple as that, that’s what they tell you.  And back in the 90’s, the late 90’s in Canada for instance, I knew something was coming up, the big plans.  I knew about the American Century Project and their own website as I say it was up there.  They published it twice with their whole agenda.  I think ’93 then ’97 they republished it.  And I thought well how are they going to get the world from this supposed flaccid era of peace to all of this and to take these countries over without a blowback?  And of course in ’98 I think it was, 1998, the attorney general for Canada, a guy who was always appointed into jobs, Allan Rock his name was, suddenly put out an Omnibus Crime Bill which when analyzed, and the reporters said this too, this is completely an anti-terrorist and martial law type bill.  And in ’98 nothing seemed to be happening to the general public, we were lulled to sleep and all the rest of it and kept entertained.  And then as soon as that was signed and put through he went off to work in the United Nations right off the bat immediately.  But it was never explained to anybody, including the journalists, why this kind of martial law thing was coming out, indefinite detention, etcetera.  There was, you see the plans were already made.  All the intelligence services knew here’s the agenda, the New American Century Project, here are the wars we are going to have in two or three years.  Here is the blowback you get.  Blowback is when you create radicals because if the folk start bombing your country and you see your family is constantly bombed up over ten, twenty years, youngsters growing up are going to be incredibly radicalized and full of hate.  That’s natural in all wars, especially extended wars, and so blowback is when that will create the enemy that you didn’t have in the first place.  I mean really if none of this had happened and you didn’t have the New American Century Project and you didn’t have this constant power grabs of oil and wealth from say Africa, diamonds, gold and all the rest of it and all the minerals and yada-yada-ya, and the oil across the Middle East.  If you didn’t have all that problem going on with private wars going on, commercial wars, you wouldn’t have had this physical war.  That’s just basically it.

So it was all planned.  They knew the blowback they’d get.  They knew they’d come down to martial law after 2001.  It was all set to go on the books already and then even all the plans, and the think tanks had ten years to work on the plans before 9/11, ten years to think on ways, okay when this happens how could we gradually get the folk to accept being monitored in everything they do, where they go, and so on, step by step by step.  And they talked about different events they would need, to introduce each part of it to the public to get them to accept it.

If you do it too suddenly, all at once, there is blowback from your own people, your internal people.  But if you do it step by step by step and bring in all the experts and really hype it up, then the public will adapt and adapt to each step, until they are getting x-rayed at airports and everything else.  And it worked pretty smoothly in actual fact right up to the present time.  And now as I say an incident that, why should the whole – you see the Soviets called this technique collective punishment.  If they wanted their own people to be, say if they had wanted them disarmed, if they had wanted them disarmed internally in Russia they would get someone who went crazy with a rifle and then they’d ban it for the whole population.  That was called collective punishment.  And it’s a technique that the West has been using since, and actually since before, but definitely after 9/11.  And really hype up the story until it seems to be everywhere.  They do constant ongoing psychological evaluations of the populations.

Back in the 90’s I think it was called the year of the gun was the big topic because there were gangs, Jamaican gangs, Trinidadian gangs and so on all fighting each other in Toronto for drug territory.  And they were all shooting each other.  There was hardly a day that went by in the paper that you didn’t hear something until the public got used to it again.  But after that year they did surveys on all the populations of Toronto and after one incident where a white girl was shot, it was great publicity for them.  She was shot by a Jamaican who was an illegal immigrant who had been caught three or four times and revolving-door justice and put back on the streets.  They wanted this guy to do something eventually and he did.  So he shot this white girl who was out, she was engaged and getting married that next week or something, beautiful story for the papers and the media and to get outrage going amongst the people and then the anti-gun campaign kicked in on the act.  They said we have to ban all guns from all people, including all hunting guns, and so on, and so on, and so on.  That was used, one person was killed, therefore let’s ban all hunters, etcetera, and register all hunting rifles, etcetera.

So that’s how they work out this thing.  But they did a survey in the population and because they hyped that same story for months they found that the average person in Toronto, just from that one repetitive newscast and theme, were terrified to go out at night, even though the chances of anything happening to them were the same as it had always been, one in millions.  They literally, the psychological impact of creating fear and trepidation of just walking outside your door had massively increased.  And that’s what they can do with the media, the way it is psychologically presented to the public, introduced to the public, and then the repetition to the public.  You can actually get them to adapt to any fallacy that you want.

Neil:  Yeah.  I mean you’ve discussed it on your own broadcast before and called it learned helplessness.  That’s basically where people are so afraid of doing anything that they feel helpless about anything, even managing their own affairs at home.

Alan:  Their own personal lives.  It creates apathy.

Neil:  Yeah.  Well I mean apathy, we are well aware of how apathetic people have become and whether it’s a combination of what you were just talking about there and the fluoride and all the rest of it.  People have certainly, I’d say, given up hope.  And I can’t imagine being a young person these days and looking at the world and thinking I’ve got a great future ahead of me.

Alan:  I know.

Neil:  You know.  And you know you drive along the road and you see all the little school children coming out of school and you look at them and you wonder what kind of future they are going to have.  But then again they have been kind of stampeded down the road of technology and they’ve become almost addicted to it.  I’d almost say I’m addicted to it.  I spoke about this to Aaron Franz and somebody else the other day there about it and you know this is the big comfort now.  This is all they’ve got to look forward to is basically playing games for the rest of their lives because there is going to be nothing for them to do.  There are so many consequences.  I don’t see any jobs for them or any kind of long-term career they can go into which hasn’t been kind of, I don’t know how to describe it, infiltrated by the system if you’d like.  I mean not even doctors are having to go do surgeries anymore; you can phone them up on Skype apparently and get a diagnosis.  Everything has been taken down to the basest level.

Alan:  Well they did studies on the future back in the days of H.G. Wells in his heyday when the big Fabian socialist society that was just a branch to run the left wing, a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs/CFR.  They did lots of studies on the population about the creation of apathy, what we are talking about here, and what would happen if eventually we got to a generation where they say well there are too many of you, we don’t need you anymore in a post-industrial society.  This was all discussed way before World War I and II you know and then ongoing discussions right to the present.  If they got a population to accept apathy and being ruled by experts, that was the whole push for the Fabian Socialists, rule by experts and social workers and advisors.  Experts of all kinds your whole life and monitored your whole life too.  Make it so unpleasant and give life less value, so you must devalue life itself, which they have done an awful good job at.  And then you bring in voluntary euthanasia for the desperately ill and terminal.  And then you simply up it like Holland there too, well if you are depressed why not kill yourself you know blah, blah, blah.  And now they are even allowing teenagers to make that choice now.

So, this was all discussed long ago.  We are just living through a script right now.  That’s what we are living through, a script.  And every facet of society has been catered to in the script.  Ongoing studies and updates on how to manipulate each group and gender and everything else and age group.  And they are pretty well getting to that point there.  If they make life so, look at all the Sci-Fi’s they put out there about end-time catastrophes and everybody living in rubble except a small elite.  At the end of those movies you go, oh, blah, it’s so blah.  And that’s an idea of where they would like to bring your mental state, into the state of every day is the same and apathy, it’s apathy, apathy, apathy.

Neil:  Yeah.  In terms of the techniques they use, do the exact same techniques work in every culture, or do they have to kind of doctor it a little to push certain, I’ll call it, races or cultures in a certain way because the culture doesn’t allow them to be kind of so easily talked into doing certain things?

Alan:  What they did actually in earlier writings in fact, it’s interesting to see the earlier writings, because around 1900 the big organizations that formed say the Alfred Milner Group and his group joined with the Cecile Rhodes Group which is Rothschild’s Group too.  And they merged together into the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  But they did studies on that kind of future.  And what they had found already, Britain remember was into India and Africa and all across the globe dealing with other cultures to dominate them under the pretense again of oh we’re bringing in civilization to them and order, etcetera, and as they looted the countries.  But what they found was if they could, the easiest thing to do they said was to look at the gender, what works with a woman in one country will work with a woman in any country.  So don’t just look at them as a group of people, start looking at gender and age groups, etcetera.

But they also said the same thing that Marx said before that and Lenin said afterwards and even Mao Tse-tung said for China, what they said was, the only thing that could defeat this technique of gradualistic change, planned change for domination, was a religion.  We forget that religion was an embodiment of the whole culture of the people.  If you look at the Muslim people, the religion is their culture, you can’t separate the two.  It’s their way of life, it keeps their order and everything else going amongst them and so on and you can’t separate it.

In the West they have already destroyed most of the religion.  And already the new religion is the state as you know because this is what they said, when the religion in the West dies down, dies off gradually, the state will already be accepted as the new, and science and the experts are accepted as the new bosses basically.  That’s harder to do in say Muslim countries because their culture is their religion.  This idea of democracy is an alien concept to them.  So they have to alter.

What they are trying to do across the world is use, go for the very young.  That’s what the United Nations and UNESCO is all about, get to the very young across the world, try and westernize them through things the young are very hyper about like sex.  When their hormones are kicking in when they are really young that’s all they are thinking about.  So start showing them stuff they’d never see in their own country, make sure they all have the cell phones, etcetera.  And make sure they can all watch music television or movies and give them lots and lots of sex.  And they will turn against their parents; they will be different from their parents.  That’s what they hope for.  And to an extent it will work with some but not perhaps all in a culture which is very bonded together with a religion which is their culture as I say.  And for them it’s worked for thousands of years fine.

So they had to tweak it and tweak it and tweak it.  The other way is to bribe leaders and try to take over that way, straight forward bribes just like how Britain set up Saudi Arabia for folk who don’t know that, Britain set it up, London did I should say.  And Philby was involved in that too by the way, the double agent.  But they set it up and in Saudi Arabia they made sure that those guys at the top, the Saudis, the princes and so on, would be awfully rich and they would have dynasties, and when dynasties form unfortunately they start to lose their identity with the general public.  And they become an elite group and then they’re your man basically for life as long as you make sure they’re safe as well, they will play ball with you.  So if they can’t try and bribe you outrightly, if they can’t bribe you, they’ll try and have a coup as the CIA is in charge for doing and simply eliminate you and replace you.  So that’s the real world we are talking about.  This is the real world.

Neil:  Yeah.  You were talking about dynasties, I mean it’s not in just in those types of countries that those exist, I mean in Ireland particularly in my experience, you’ve got families there who have been in politics for centuries and they are still there.  Their sons take over the seat and that’s it.  And the same in Britain.  Well I don’t know if it’s to a lesser extent but a less obvious extent maybe in Britain.  But in Ireland it’s in your face that it’s just families running the country.  So and the parochialism there is incredible.  You know people will, it doesn’t matter what they do to you over there, the people will vote for you.  You know, I don’t know if it is something in the Irish psyche or whatever, they’re just like very complacent, and they got away with it.  And that again is a corruption of society in itself.  And that it breeds that kind of corruption at lower levels.

Alan:  It does.  You’ll emulate, you definitely emulate what you see above you, especially if you are young and you catch on quick, you can emulate what you see at the top.  And they become your role models in fact.  If you are a good crook you’ll become one of them.

Once, remember every top family starts off, say in ancient times or even the Middle Ages, by slaughtering the folk around you to take power and then you install yourself and after a generation you’re the good king or the good queen or the best queen or whatever.  And it’s the same thing with crooks, like the Bronfmans who ran the whiskey trade you know, the illicit whiskey trade all through Canada and the States during prohibition and made millions and millions, incredible empire.  And give a generation after that, put them in the best universities, and they are respectable.  The Kennedys were the same, they were involved with the Bronfmans in fact with the whiskey running, and they became respectable.  So it’s all to do with image making but the reality is it’s all started by gangsterism and brutal force and slaughter.

Neil:  Yeah.  Well I suppose the Rockefellers are another example of that, the great philanthropists of modern times.

Alan:  They blew up competitors’ wells.  They had gangs going around blowing up what they called wildcat guys who were independent.  They’d blow their wells up and all the rest of it.  And his idea, remember he was part of a worldwide group in his day, Rockefeller, he was put to the States for that reason, and his family was anyway.  It’s the same with the Bronfmans by the way, there is a great history of how they came into Canada and then they sat doggo for a long time and then were activated and poof did they take off.

But you’ll find that standardization is the key.  Rockefeller as he was getting rid of all the competition in oil, said we’ll get the shareholders all onboard with the same one company and that’s why they called it Standard Oil, to standardize prices, price fixing, and everything else.  And if you didn’t join him he’d put you under by every means possible and he did.  Great documentaries have been put out in the past about him.  And even today David Rockefeller has talked on the history of his family, he justifies it all saying well if this guy had taken our offer he would have been okay you know.  He has no regrets at all.

Neil:  It’s almost like the Godfather movie and the horse’s head in the bed, isn’t it?  He made them an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Alan:  It’s exactly like that.  And then you’ve got also, you’ve got the fact that it isn’t just there.  Rockefeller got into the standardization of the American culture.  And he took over the culture industry across America and helped finance it.  He created the American Medical Association, standardized the Big Pharma, he’s still got five Big Pharma companies worldwide.  And they run the Medical Association.  They run the training for the doctors what they are going to get taught, what they are going to believe right down to the same old treatment for cancer, radiation and poison chemotherapy.  They have standardized everything.  You see they don’t come in and say we are going to get rich, no, they came in with a mission to take everything over until they monopolize everything that you need to survive, food, water, medicine, everything, and work itself in fact, and government.

Neil:  Yeah and of course that the American culture as you said was created and that’s the culture that they are now trying to spread everywhere.  I don’t know was Japan one of the early experiments of that because they seem to get into all this Elvis Presley stuff and all the teenagers started clipping their hair and the leather jackets.

Alan:  It’s a fascinating story, a fascinating story with Japan.  As I have mentioned before, after World War II they immediately set up because they had been planning it to set up these cultural influencers they called them across the old warring factions, or they were their enemies in fact, they were enemies.  They completely rebuilt the whole culture for Germany, right down to you couldn’t get taught history before 1945 you know.  That’s a big feat when you think about it and they called it the Denazification of Germany.  Any old ideas that led to had to be completely eliminated from memory.  And the youth were told a whole different, different story.

In Japan, Harry Hopkins was involved along with FDR, during the war they planned what they would do with a post-war Japan.  And they said they would set up a banking system run by the U.S. but going through the government to dish out grants to the private companies that used to be part of the war machinery in Japan and they are still going today.  But they would completely obliterate the warrior mentality of the culture itself.  They’d use it as a big experimental basin.  And they did, right to the present time they are still doing it.  And they also tried to see if they could utterly destroy the sexual bonding of men and women there.  The sexual deviancy in Japan, what we think of as deviancy, has been promoted from the top.  You can go into restaurants and see anything you want to see and get anything you want to see.  It’s just incredible how they have completely destroyed a rigid strong culture and given this completely strange culture that’s constantly malleable according to the direction of those who control it.

Neil:  Yeah, there is a great documentary on Japan called, "Love and Hate in Japan".  I don’t know if you have seen that one, it’s on YouTube.  There’s a guy there and he’s living with this younger girl, and she’s home to be an escort agency.  They’ve got like two or three jobs each you know just to try to survive in this shoebox.  And he was quite an activist back then in the 80’s I think it was.  And he had like ten thousand people in the street and they really clamped down with the kind of martial law and everything there against him.  And that’s well worth the watch.  And it shows you where they are trying to take us.  Literally these people were living in what can only be described as a cupboard you know and it was awful.

Alan:  What was the title of that one?

Neil:  "Love and Hate in Japan".  Yeah, I mean it’s very kind of frank, it kind of ends in a happy ending but yeah I mean if anybody wants to see where they are taking us with this Agenda 21 wish, here it is you know and of course Japan was the first place to come out with, I believe it was the first place to come out with these kind of horizontal cubicles you just crawled into and slept in overnight underground.

Alan:  That’s right.  Well they were like beehives.  And also getting back to the sexual thing too, they introduced there first of all the whole concept of transferring your sexual attention to very lifelike dolls, a booming trade in Japan.  Until, and you know they have done documentaries on that too, and these are very wealthy folk often that have a room full of these life-sized very womanly looking dolls.  Not these blow-up rubber things, I mean real professionally made.  And to see if they could transfer their affections onto something which is actually inanimate and really non-human.  You’ll project a humanness onto them, humanity onto them, but just to see because what they can use in one country if it works, they find out the technique that led to it working, and then they could use it anywhere in the world.  That goes for all their goals basically.

Neil:  Yeah that’s the way they are in Japan, they kind of see it as the home of robotics so I guess that’s a logical step forward for them, isn’t it?

Alan:  It is, yeah.

Neil:  More than this way.  But again that’s, I mean how do you persuade somebody to have affection for a machine?  I suppose people like their cars.  You know they don’t want to get rid of that particular car because they love it or whatever or whatever it may be, their favorite piece of jewelry, or whatever.  But inanimate objects.  I guess in these days these things won’t be inanimate, will they?  But I mean how do you train the human mind to do that?

Alan:  It’s quite simple if you read Charles Galton Darwin, who was a physicist in the 1950’s in Britain.  He put out the book, it was called, "The Next Million Years", talking about the need for the elite to so distance themselves from the masses who would gradually die off and be controlled and so on.  They’d have to do this; it was their duty to do this.  And he said that the first thing is to break the attraction between men and women.  That would depopulate naturally right away.  And then too if there is no family structure, man, women, children, you won’t stand up and fight for them when they are being oppressed.  So you’d be stuck individually with Big Brother talking down to you just like the screen in Orwell’s 1984.  And government would be more effective, H.G. Wells said the same thing.  But Charles Galton Darwin says, he said that gradually through techniques which they knew because they worked with Bernays by the way and he knew Bernays because Charles Galton Darwin lived in Manhattan for a while, he worked on the Manhattan Project, he was one of the scientists there.  And he had lots of debates with these guys and big dos, big think tanks, how to bring the people to accept materialism and rather have materialistic things like a car instead of having a wife.  And then how to get women to want cars and not have men.  Then too how they could gradually introduce through the creation of movements, appearing to be social movements, that there is a lot of deviancy amongst society which was called deviancy then, homosexuality, lesbianism, and so on, and then gradually make that a normal part of society until there was no normalcy left for them at all.  And if you can get it into the school system, get them trained early into this kind of thing none of them would mate up in a natural way.  And they wouldn’t have offspring.  That was the main goal of it, not to have offspring.

You’d also masculinize the women so that they wouldn’t be attractive to the men, they could be more aggressive.  But he also said, it’s so interesting what he said, by the use of hormones, he said, we can alter the mentality of the male, he can become more effeminate.  And he says you can also make the women more aggressive.  So almost a role reversal, so he is talking about bioengineering the people.  And this was in the 50’s and I guarantee you if that was being said in the 50’s at the top think tanks they were already trying it out in different areas.  And he said the same thing, we’ll put it in the food and the water, etcetera.

Neil:  Yeah.  I mean the ultimate result of all this psychological stampeding if you want to use that term is that your 2.4 children family, your average family or whatever, they are all going in different directions.  You know the woman has now become the man, the man has become the woman, and the children don’t know who they are or where they are going.

Alan:  The children are brought up by the state.  That’s what the state says.  They give them their new values, it’s pushed at school.  It’s all social indoctrination.  When your schools are teaching, are sexually indoctrinating them into different techniques and so on of thinking or behaving, when they are into that kind of thing this has nothing to do with education as it used to be.  This is complete social engineering.

Neil:  So as I say, like your mum, dad, and the children are all at different points of the compass, all going in different directions, and there is no cohesion whatsoever and that’s the ultimate goal.

Alan:  And it’s worked awfully well, hasn’t it?

Neil:  Oh yeah.  Yeah, we see the results of it everywhere in the family breakdown and societal breakdown of course.  Okay Alan that’s our hour done.  Thanks for coming on again.  And we’ll be on Monday again with Thomas Sheridan talking about the music industry.  I know there are a lot of people that are looking forward to that one so I look forward to that one myself.

Alan:  Okay.

Neil:  And I’ll talk to you later.  Take care.

Alan:  Thanks very much.

Neil:  Cheers.  Bye.

Alan:  Bye now.

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:24 pm

Jan. 18, 2015 (#1485)

"Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt

(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)

 

"Carbon Scam's Goal with Persistence

 Is to Tax and Control Your Existence"

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on January 18, 2015.  You know, you've got to really admire the power that goes into managing us all, this power, this consortium let's put it that way, this consortium of internationalists with all their agencies, even our own governments of course, they're private at the top, of course, but they do own governments, they own continents, they own the economies of countries, they own the banking systems of countries, the currencies of countries, they own the military-industrial complex, and they set forth the agenda.  Their thousands of think tanks work on each part of the agenda right down to the minutia to do with individuals and what groups or cluster you fit into, your friends, etc., why you do it, etc, and how they manage all of us basically.  They know when they put out a new idea that’s going to rip you off or whatever it happens to be again.  The public, they know how many will respond, who will to stay asleep to it, not bother, and the ones who will argue about it and complain. So everything is minutely managed and that's what happens when you live through an incredible agenda.

And we never get a break, really. When you think you're getting a break, be careful, because so much is going on behind the scenes in preparation for the next big bash on the head that we all get.  And there's always many reasons, and many benefits that they get out of one, say, one particular thing for instance. As an example we can use the slump in oil prices right now. Now, it's not really a slump in oil prices as we know.  There's big companies there that aren't losing a penny, I guarantee you.  It will be paid by the taxpayer, any losses they say that they are incurring during this geopolitical strategy, as they lower the prices of gasoline. If you notice, oil itself in the stores, if you buy oil for your vehicles and so on, it isn't dropping it all, neither is heating oil, things like that. So this is a managed strategy that really, is very, very incredibly reminiscent, when you read the Rockefellers and so on of the oil wars back in the early 1900s, right through the 1920s and so on, as they put all competitors and what they called the wild cats under.

Everyone, for instance, goes to the bank to borrow money and to invest and to build up their companies, and they basically set their prices for selling, the old wild cat guys did, and present oilfields too, on making X amount of money, with the frackers doing it today too. And just like in the 1920s, or 1910, they're going under dramatically because they expected a certain return to pay back their debts, as they were paying it off, and eventually they had hoped to be winners of course.  That's not going to happen with a lot of them because, just like the Rockefellers, they're being taken over by the big oil companies today for peanuts or bankruptcy sales basically.  So you'll have one giant monopoly owning all the gas and oil, etc. down the road, not too far off actually, not just in your country but across the world.  Because these oil companies are international as you know and they have the power of their bought and paid for governments behind them who all go off and conquer countries to grab the oilfields. They've done that for years and years now and we've all live through it and watched it happen.  But it hasn't stopped yet.  They're putting under Venezuela right now, they're having some riots in the streets to do with shortages of everything, because they also have a big debt to pay back to different bankers.  They were expecting certain returns and when the bottom falls out of the market they can't get that kind of profit back to pay off the interest on the debts and so on, and down they go. That's how it works. It's very simple.

Economic war is an incredibly powerful, powerful instrument, been used many times.  And during that, it's not just to do with big profit and taking over as a complete monopoly, that's part of it because they have to have total monopoly over your food, water, all energy, etc. etc. But they also want to alter the way of living, your way of living.  And believe you me, when they set oil prices back to where they were, it won't be to where they were, it will be way over where they were, with a whole bunch of new laws too, social laws and tax laws, etc. to do with you, to bring you into austerity according to how much energy you're are using, just to live. It's an existence tax if you like, another existence tax, and this one is for a living tax, if you live then you give off carbon dioxide, everything is produced for you to eat, etc., it will give off a certain amount of carbon in production and on and on it goes.

You see, you're the problem, that's how you're being trained to believe, that you're the problem for weather changes and climate changes and global warming, as we freeze our butts off here in Ontario with commonly 30°, 40° below zero.  And it doesn't matter, it's your fault, you see, and you're going to pay for it and pay for it. And because of that you'll be brought into this new austerity system.  Austerity, remember that term austerity? Most folk have forgotten it but the big think tanks that were set up to work on it, they haven't forgotten it. And neither have all the NGOs that are all bought and paid for and set up in fact and founded and funded by the big foundations that are owned by the big corporate leaders of the world.

Because we're run, again, by systems set up under this term democracy, which include so-called minority groups that are social activists. And it's very interesting how you see them affiliated with United Nations.  And the ones that they don't wants in, certainly don't get registered at the UN. But if you are for all the UN policies and agendas, which is massive big business, international big business, then you accept all of the tenants of United Nations:  transsexualism, trans-humanism, all of these things all come into it and again, austerity, for everyone across the world... Except for the few that have to run the world, all the bureaucrats and so on, they'll live awfully well as we go down the tubes into austerity. It's quite interesting.  And the manufacturers, at least the big corporations that own the manufacturing, the guys who own monopoly manufacturing, they will run the world's goods and services, etc. etc. It's quite fascinating to live through it and watch it all happen.

But don't fall asleep because you think that you're going to have gas prices low forever. This is a geopolitical strategy, it's a social strategy, and it's also a strategy to lull you into sleep because you're really going to get hit very shortly with things you never imagined, believe you me.  And we'll touch on some of that tonight. Now, here's one example here on the presentation of the same article really, the same topic.  This was from the National Post. It's by Rex Murphy, who is often on CBC television giving you his little spiels.  He doesn't go into it very deeply so it's meant for the general population, this article. He says…

Rex Murphy: Plummeting gas prices are a welcome break for Canadians — until a carbon tax comes along

news.nationalpost.com / Rex Murphy | January 17, 2015

(Alan:  And you say, okay, he telling little bit, there's a carbon tax coming. And they've been waiting for it as you know, your governments, local governments too have signed on to this a long time ago with United Nations and the big corporation that runs the United Nations, in fact, set up the United Nations.)

 

Can you not, just one time, allow a little of the benefit to flow down and let those who most need and appreciate some small break have that break?

God must have loved the common man: He made so many of them. Whether that quotation can authoritatively be ascribed to Abraham Lincoln or not, it does catch the tone of the man as his persona has come to be known through history and legend. A great part of Lincoln’s appeal, both to the people of his time and to the generations that followed, was his fine-tuned respect for “the common man,” his experienced understanding of, and respect for, the daily life of the majority of his fellow citizens.

(A:  And for Ontario, we have premieres that are like governors of states in the US.)

Premier Kathleen Wynne is leaving the door open to a new tax to combat climate change, just months after saying a carbon tax was not part of the Ontario government’s plan.

(A:  In other words, when the prices were up high, and the prices in Canada are generally higher than elsewhere, they couldn't really push it then, you see. So this is how politicians work, they wait until there's a slump, because they knew this was coming up, this geopolitical war to put countries out of business with their petroleum and so on.)

After winning a majority government last June, Wynne said a carbon tax was not something the Liberals planned to introduce, even though she wanted a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The province could adopt a cap-and-trade system that lets the worst polluters buy credits from companies that burn less fossil fuels, or impose a tax on all carbon emissions, including gasoline burned by automobiles.

If I did not fear flutters in the yuppie dovecote I would say Abraham Lincoln had more than a little bit of Rob Ford in him. What I will say without perturbation is that Lincoln loved the little guy.

Despite the shower of gloom and menace that shadows each day’s news, the little guy (and gal), at least on our side of the globe, has been getting a small break lately. For the first time in ages a tank of gasoline costs less per gallon than a handful of diamonds, or the cost of pimping up Neil Young’s now-electric 1959 land-yacht Lincoln Continental. For the first time in ages it’s possible for many people to travel to work, drive around on a weekend, (A:  I wonder where they get the work, that's gone too.) take a driving holiday, hitch up the trailer, without offering up the children and the house as collateral/hostages to a bank before pulling up to the local Irving’s.

Both in Canada and in the U.S., the fall in gasoline prices has worked a real miracle, done a thing neither government nor industry has had the will or means to do:  It has given people who actually work for a living, those who have the low-paying jobs — the clerks and secretaries, teaching assistants, fresh graduates toiling as low- or no-wage interns, taxi drivers, maintenance men, janitors, those waiting tables or clearing snow, fishermen and farmers — a break. De facto, the decline in the price of gasoline means a little bit of real money — finally — in the pockets of those who so very rarely have it.  (A:  Well, it's not taking into account of the fact, through this planned devaluation of your currency since the last bank crash, everything has shot up in price too, even your vegetables, etc., everything, common staples are just out of sight. But anyway he goes on to say…)

For them, it’s the equivalent of an accidental tax break. The oil crisis, whatever else it may be doing, is giving a break to the one set of people all the political parties should be most sympathetic to, and whom they laud with pieties on every occasion. So here’s a time to act out the pieties, and make sure this little bonus stays with the people who need it most.

But will it? Already in Ontario we are hearing from politicians, “well, now is a great time to put on a carbon tax.” I beg furiously to differ. These politicians and warmist campaigners have no soul. Can you not leave Lincoln’s “common man” alone? Just once? Please? Can you not, just one time, allow a little of the benefit to flow down and let those who most need and appreciate some small break have that break? Must their one parade be rained on?

Now, this is just a little bit of it.  So it's just the governments who want to put it in, or people in the government who want to put on carbon taxes, eh…  That's how you read this one here.  But then you go into this article here and this goes into, from CBC news and it says…

Ontario could see carbon tax: Wynne

cbc.ca / The Canadian Press / Jan 14, 2015

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne makes an announcement during a press conference at Queen's Park in Toronto on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2015. Wynne refused to rule out a carbon tax for Ontario on Wednesday, Jan. 14.

After winning a majority government last June, Wynne said a carbon tax was not something the Liberals planned to introduce, even though she wanted a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The province could adopt a cap-and-trade system (A:  Same kind of thing again.) that lets the worst polluters buy credits from companies that burn less fossil fuels, or impose a tax on all carbon emissions, including gasoline burned by automobiles.

When pressed today about following British Columbia's lead (A:  British Columbia's like California, I mean, the people with the cash always tend to go towards the West Coast, you see, the north and south, Canada and the States.  That's where all the NGO leaders love to live as well, you know, it's better climate for them all, etc.  They like the warmth, as the rest of us pay the carbon taxes with heating fuels in the winters and stuff, that we're really going to get stiffed with this one.) and imposing a carbon tax, which included a seven-cent-a-liter levy on gas, Wynne refused to rule out the idea.

The premier said she wasn't prepared to say what options the province may come up with, but added Ontario must do its part as part of a national strategy on climate change.  (A:  Well, it's not national, it's international.)

Wynne said Ontario wants to balance its desire for economic growth with the need to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Environment Minister Glen Murray is preparing a report on the various options to put a price on carbon emissions.

Like they haven't been all drafted up, you know, years ago and just waiting.  Because it has been done, years ago, even how to introduce it and when to introduce it. Well, there's going to be a price war shortly as they put countries out of business to produce gasoline, and then once the monopolies have taking it all over they can jack it up. But in the meantime, they can slap on the carbon tax. Because the general public will say, oh what's 10 cents a liter for a tax, you see, when it's so much cheaper than it was. Then once they bring it back up to normal, plus the tax on top, then the tax will expand, what's on the books, every year, and you're screwed again. That's reality. That's reality, folks. So that's what's going on there.

Here's the thing now, there's an organization, and I've read this years ago when it set up in about 2006 and 2007 and so on.

Western Climate Initiative

wikipedia.org

(A:  Now, I said so many times in the past that nongovernmental organizations are recognized as the new type of democracy, back in the early 1900s when they talked about bringing  real democracy in to countries in Europe in Britain.  A lot of very good minds at the time said that democracy, the way it's laid out, would only apply eventually to those with the most voice, and the most voice would be comprised of lots of citizens that would not be the general population, it would be special, nongovernmental organizations where they have the numbers, of the activists that are always pushing, and they will de facto represent the general public, because the general public say nothing, you see, they are the silent majority. That's how the Soviet Union was set up. The Soviet Union had NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, but with the government appointed leader. And we have the same thing here but they don't tell you that the leaders are appointed by the big corporate foundations who trained them and set them up to start up their organization, to give the appearance they are speaking for the people, or union, or whatever it happens to be, as it was in the Soviet Union. And there are good reasons why it's the same, because it worked in the Soviet Union.)

The Western Climate Initiative, or WCI, was started in February 2007 by the governors of five western states (AZ, CA, NM, OR, and WA) with the goal of developing a multi-sector, market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  (A:  …right.  And the governors certainly signed on to this, like a policy, not as a law, and it's all from the United Nations.)

The Western Climate Initiative, or WCI, was started in February 2007 by the governors of five western states (AZ, CA, NM, OR, and WA) to evaluate and implement ways to reduce their state’s emissions of greenhouse gases and achieve related co-benefits. These states and future participants in the initiative (collectively know as WCI "partners") also committed to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions (set in August 2007 as 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020), participate in a cross-border greenhouse gas registry to consistently measure and track emissions, and adopt clean tailpipe standards for passenger vehicles. By July 2008, the initiative had expanded to include two more states (MT and UT) and four Canadian provinces (BC, MB, ON, and QC). Together, these WCI partners comprised 20 percent of U.S. GDP and 76 percent of Canadian GDP.

The most ambitious and controversial objective of the WCI was to develop a multi-sector, market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Detailed design recommendations for a regional cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were released by the WCI in September 2008 and July 2010. By December 2011, California and Quebec adopted regulations based on these recommendations.

(A:  Now, where is it set up in anybody's charter that allows, say, a Canadian province and a state in the US to adopt policy that affects all of their citizens? And no one has stopped this or complained about it, because you see, you really don't have nations. You've got to keep thinking you do have a nation until world government is eventually announced way down the road, and it might not be that far off now, they might just do it after the next big massive crash, which is planned, to bring in the new system, a complete system of utter slavery, [Alan chuckles.], I mean, obvious slavery. Obviously a few, actually most folk won't notice it is slavery, because they will be here TO SAVE YOU and so on, and bring in a new system and way of living, as you are registered and monitored and guided from birth to death. That's really what it's about, folks. Now this goes on to say…)

 

(The WCI has no regulatory authority of its own.) Key administrative aspects of the regional cap-and-trade program are being implemented in 2012. (A:  So, it's got no regulatory authority of its own, it can only put this forth as, what, a suggestion?  Meanwhile they've got all the limits per year, how much to get reduce per year, way into the future.  Hum?  And it gets implemented, just signed into the law or something by governments? Why isn't this all over the news?  All the time? In detail? Why don't they have specials on this for the people? Because they don't want the people to really understand it, that's why.)  Power plants, refineries (A:  Here ya go…), and other large emitters must comply with the cap in 2013. Other greenhouse gas emission sources, such as suppliers of transportation fuels, must comply with the cap beginning in 2015. (A: I mean, it's just… a coincidence, you're just into 2015 and what's getting hit, hey? Your fuel, it's going down, and that's when they were to implement the carbon tax.) Among other things, the Western Climate Initiative lays the foundation for a North American cap-and-trade program (A:  That's the Al Gore projects, and the Rothschild projects and so on, where really the carbon taxes are going to get collected and go through the Rothschilds private bank in Switzerland, a part of the new economy.  Of course there's the fact that these big corporations will go through Al Gore's company and other companies like that and swap all their carbon credits, etc. etc., and make profits off of it, while you pay for it all. It's quite something, isn't it? See, many of these big corporations actually have deals, they have deals with all your governments.  The United Nations actually made a little loophole, as all the countries were told that the countries were to set all these national parks aside, but big corporations will have drilling rights and prospecting rights in these places. So they get given these massive tracts of land for nothing, that they can speculate on, let them sit for a while, and then put that down as a carbon sink.  It cost them nothing to get it but when it comes to their tax time if they put down how much carbon is sinking, etc, and changing into oxygen and all that by the plants and the vegetation, and if they say it's more, more actually, if it's actually producing more or cleaning the air more than what it's taking in, they'll actually claim money from the government at tax time and make a profit on it.  You understand, the ordinary folk never win here, it's not meant for you to win. If you think the ultra-rich are ultra-rich right now, just wait a year or two when this thing is really under full steam here. You wait and see. And you watch the rest of us all plummet down to what it's meant to be, for the managed society.),but it says the Western Climate Initiative lays the foundation for a North American cap-and-trade program not only in its design and implementation, but in its potential acceptance of greenhouse gas emissions offsets from projects across North America.

Some observers described the entire project as greenwash designed to avoid committing to the Kyoto Protocol, and cited evidence that much more drastic cuts, up to 40%, could be achieved without affecting investment yield in equities, a good indicator that such cuts would not affect economic prospects in the economy as a whole.  Some watchdogs expressed concerns over why WCI was set up in the state of Delaware as an anonymous shell company that would evade public scrutiny.

The CEO of CARB James Goldstein is also listed as the Chairman of the Board of WCI Inc. (A:  …naturally…) and the head of the auction oversight group.  (A:  And they give you a link for that too, the auctioning and trading of these carbon credits, etc.)

Several U.S. partners, although active participants in the design of the program, announced in 2010 that they would either delay or not implement the program in their jurisdictions. The partnership was therefore streamlined to include only California and the four Canadian provinces actively working to implement the program. As of January 2012, regulations have not been issued by British Columbia, Manitoba, or Ontario, although a carbon tax in British Columbia will be increasing to $30/tonne of CO2 equivalents (A:  I love how they… I mean really, it's a lot of nothing, but they transpose it into something else, equivalents you see, all this nothing into nothing equivalents.) in July 2012.  Several WCI partners also remain active in the International Carbon Action Partnership, an international coordinating body for several such regional carbon trading bodies.

(A:  But it all comes under the United Nations.  And as this expands, and once you've all accepted it, you see, and it's normalized, it's just always been there like gravity, they'll expand it to include so many other things.  But it's also to include energy, the energy that was used to make that bar of chocolate, and the rapper, everything, and down to a tax on you personally as well.  And your heating of course is going to just go through the roof, if you can manage to get heat at all.  And of course the monopolies will say it's got to be their gas, or it's got to be their oil, or whatever, sanctioned by the governments that will approve it because they are all bought and paid for, and there will be no competition of any kind, it will be big prices and you'll be really into poverty.  But the big corporations, because they can give you less and charge more, just like electricity right now, won't lose a thing, they'll profit as they actually give you less and less and less.)

Alberta and Saskatchewan object to cap-and-trade and in July 2008 called WCI's plan a "cash grab by some of Canada's resource-poor provinces." (A:  No, it's not. It's a global thing, this.)  However, Alberta has legislated a small restricted carbon charge of its own. The objections seem to be more related to the reporting and disclosure requirements that would be much higher for a North American project than for one based strictly in Alberta. Monitoring of the carbon-intensive Tar Sands, for instance, is inadequate according even to Alberta's own government. Industry funding to other independent monitoring was also cut.

Well, they should toss it out because this is all part of a big world agenda, that isn't just to do with profit and taking over, it's total monopoly, as they bring you into a completely new way of living and bringing you into austerity, folks. Because as I say, everything that you have to buy to live, your basics, everything, is going to have an energy/carbon tax applied to it.  And it's just monstrous what is happening.  This is a big social agenda for control.

Now this other article on the same thing…

Western Climate Initiative, Inc.

wci-inc.org

Western Climate Initiative, Inc. (WCI, Inc.) (A:  …Inc, because it’s a corporation.) is a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to support the implementation of state and provincial greenhouse gas emissions trading programs.

(A:  So here you are, a nongovernmental sort of thing...)

The Board of Directors for WCI, Inc. includes officials from the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia (A:  Now, is that why they were put in, these officials? Of course it wasn't. And should the public object? You're darn right they should object.), and the State of California. The services provided by WCI, Inc. can be expanded to support jurisdictions that join in the future.

WCI, Inc. Activities:  (A:  Their agenda…)

• Develop a compliance tracking system that tracks both allowances and offsets certificates
• Administer allowance auctions; and (A:  …that’s their carbon credits.)
• Conduct market monitoring of allowance auctions and allowance and offset certificate trading. (A:  That's to do with cash for all these guys.)

The Board of Directors of Western Climate Initiative, Inc. is pleased to announce that Greg Tamblyn has been retained as the organization’s Executive Director.  (A:  Remember, they have CEOs for these NGOs and everything, folks, like any other corporation.)

Mr. Tamblyn has over 10 years’ experience developing and managing renewable energy and environmental programs.

(A:  By the way I was thinking there, if you've read any of the top magnates of the world and how they got their money, they are all gangsters to start with until they became respectable in the second-generation going to the best universities, and with all of that loot they've got. You'll find that, for instance, the Rockefellers, the three brothers were into governments and private companies.  They ran the military-industrial complex, a good part of it. They put their own boys from their own foundation into governments, all over the place, and all different branches, including the military operation, parts that deal with military, the State Department, all that kind of thing.  They had all got their start at Rockefeller, and they were all getting retainers too, quietly issued to them, to make sure that the strategies of a private family were being carried out nationally and internationally, via the government, including wars.  And when that was all getting found out they decided to start creating all the NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, to make it appear that they're not related to any of these big foundations, and really, from the general populace who are concerned… That's how they do it. It's worked awfully well. So the right wing think that all these NGOs are communists, and oh, old hippies and things, rather than the fact that it's big corporations that own them, big foundations are the fronts for the corporations, and they're really bringing in a fascist system under the guise of fighting big business. What a joke, hey!  Isn't that beautiful, the strategy of it all. Isn't it?  And folk fall for this. As I say, otherwise you would know, you see, all this is another Rockefeller agenda or another… name one of the big families, who run the countries. It's a great cover for them all to get what they want. Because these families, by the way, are not independent of each other. They all belong to certain, well let's just call them, clubs, put it that way.)  As Executive Director, Mr. Tamblyn will be responsible for coordinating administrative and technical support for the emissions trading programs of WCI, Inc.’s participating jurisdictions.

Mr. Tamblyn comes to WCI, Inc. from the Renewable Energy Institute International (REII) where he served as Executive Director (2007 – 2014). As the Executive Director at REII, Mr. Tamblyn was responsible for managing renewable energy projects and the day-to-day operations of the organization. Prior to his appointment at REII Mr. Tamblyn worked on various environmental and renewable energy projects throughout the United States.

WCI, Inc. was formed in November 2011 as a non-profit corporation to provide coordinated administrative and technical support to state and provincial greenhouse gas emissions trading programs. (A:  I mean, even that whole greenhouse gas thing... is baloney.  But you see, the more they say it, and speak it into existence, the more folk think it's all real. Without the normal greenhouse gases, folks, there would be no planet at all, we'd all be dead, it protects us from ultraviolet and radiation and so on.  And this CO2 they jumped on, it's one of the smallest trace gases there is in it, and it's got to be there for plants to grow. But facts don't matter.  Anyway, this guy who is in charge of this nongovernmental organization, this nonprofit, is making...) The annual salary for this position is $130,000.  (A:  Yep, that's what he got in 2014. That's not including his massive expense accounts; I'm sure some of his dinners will be about $5-$10,000 each.)

But anyway, this is the reality, folks. We're run by what would appear to be do-gooders, you see, do-gooders, that you don't elect, we don't elect any of them and for some reason they simply just have the ear of governments.  They can put things forth that are signed into law, by what you think are your governments, and I say, what you think are your governments.  It's quite something. Quite something, folks. And that's how we're really run. Joe Blow, the common man, as Rex Murphy said, honestly isn't told a fraction of the information he should know, and how things actually work, and what things really are that are getting presented in the newspapers, never mentioning world agendas, or anything else, or these private corporations and private nongovernmental organizations that have their top leaders, the CEO leaders all funded and put forth by private foundations, owned by the same guys who own the military-industrial complexes, tax-free foundations by the way, who are there to help the world, you know, and poor folks across the planet, and to run the world properly, you know, manage it properly like the pharaohs managed their slaves in Egypt.

Now, it's quite interesting to see how most folk, the so-called silent majority, most folk want to follow, they will obey rules and regulations. They have lots of entertainment to escape into as things get worse and worse and worse. And down through history it has always been smaller groups, naturally, who have made changes, some for better, some for worse, it all depends on what happened and how you look upon it too. But we've had small groups really running the world for a while, of the ultra, ultra-rich, and they’re getting more and more rich all the time, more and more powerful the time, and now they have these thousands across the world of nongovernmental organizations as fronts to push their agenda through, of course, and their control of everything. Because the old socialist idea was to have an expertly run society.  And socialism, believe you me, was funded by the extreme right wing of the era, the real capitalists who thought if they could force people to do and buy and so on and live the way they wanted them to do, then apart from getting awfully rich, if you are supplying all the authorized materials etc., and goods, then you could also govern their whole lives into a more uniform standardized society.

Now, we're in the age of the control freak, this is what it's all coming down to of course. In some countries they monitor children two to three months after birth, like Scotland where they give you GIRFEC, a state authorized guardian you might say, because parents aren't guardians anymore.  The state is supreme and that guardian will make sure that that child gets their, eventually, monthly psychological evaluations to find out their views about things and if they find out something wrong they'll either drug them or tweak them in one way or another to get them back on track into the officially approved program of thought, you see. Because thought control is a big part of it.  In fact, most of it is thought control.  Independent thinking is really frowned upon by those with this very old and very well organized agenda that encompasses every part of living. Believe you me, it's not just to do with pollution.

But from this article here, it's very good, a very good article, it says…

All Over America,

Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

theeconomiccollapseblog.com / Michael Snyder / January 8th, 2015

(A:  Now, preppers in the States, as you know, and elsewhere, are folk who are trying to live independently.  Many of them in fact started off as new agers and thought they'd get off the grid and things like that and be self-sufficient, a dream, a dream that's very, very old. Because at one time very long ago we were all individual survivalists trying to live from day to day, hunter/gatherers, etc. And it's all changing today.  You cannot be independent. You must need the state, which is a front for the big corporations who rule the world, the state must tell you what to do, what to buy and how to live and all the rest of it, from birth to death. That literally is it, the planned society.)

Why would the government want to punish people that are just trying to work hard, become more self-sufficient and take care of their families?  There are approximately 3 million preppers in the United States today, and often they appear to be singled out for punishment by bureaucratic control freaks (A:  ...that's all the agencies we've got now.) that are horrified at the thought that there are families out there that actually want to try to become less dependent on the system.  (A:  Actually, they use these families, and news articles, as they attack them with SWAT teams and things like that, to terrify the rest into compliance. That's how it works, you see.)  So if you use alternative methods to heat your home, or if you are not connected to the utility grid, or if you collect rainwater on your property, or if you believe that parents should have the ultimate say when it comes to health decisions for their children, you could become a target for overzealous government enforcers.  Once upon a time, America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, but now we are being transformed into a socialist police state where control freak bureaucrats use millions of laws, rules and regulations to crack down on anyone that dares to think for themselves.

For example, people have been burning wood to heat their homes since this country began.  And this is still very common in rural areas.  But the Obama administration does not like this at all.  (A:  Again, forget the front man they put in, folks. This is an ongoing intergenerational agenda, you see. Politics is the farce. Do you think Obama is making decisions? I tell you, none of them can make decisions, because they are not allowed to. Their bosses above them make the decisions all for them.)   The Obama bureaucrats at the EPA fear that our little wood stoves may be contributing to “global warming”, so they have outlawed the production and sale of 80 percent of the wood stoves that are currently in use.  The following comes from a recent Forbes article.

It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.  (A:  So there's no exemptions no matter where you live. And again, that's to get folk to move too, because you believe you me, they've got the whole future mapped.)

While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.  (A:  So they want it down to 12 micrograms.)

Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast-to-coast can’t meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t, cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.  (A:  And I read that about last week or the week before from a different article too, down to the 12 microgram limit, which makes it impossible, you see.)

There are other preppers that try to use very “clean” methods to power their homes, but that is still not good enough for some government control freaks.

For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home.  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik…

Think you are still free to make choices in your life? Do you think the government will allow you to live independent of their utility monopolies? If you think so, try opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and your own self-sufficient water supply. Today, those life choices could land you in jail if you live in South Florida. Take the case of Robin Speronis.

Robin Speronis has lived off the grid, independent of the city’s water and electric system. A Florida court ruled this off-the-grid living illegal last week and has given Robin until March to connect her home to a municipal water line or face possible eviction. Further, officials in the city of Cape Coral have justified this by deeming Robin’s home “unsanitary,” citing the International Property Maintenance Code. (A:  So there you go, an International Property Maintenance Code, again, the United Nations. No one gets to vote for the United Nations, but they're running your lives, as a front, again, for the big foundations, which are just the front, really, for the agendas that the big international feudal overlords of international corporations sink the tax money into. In other words, tax-free, these foundations, because they're helping you, they're making social changes, you see, so they don't get taxed for things and they sink all of their money into there.)  First of all, since when did we begin to locally recognize “international codes?” Where in the US Constitution does it provide for international jurisdiction over local codes? Ironically, this “international” code mandates that homes be connected to an electricity grid and a running water source, even though most of the world lives without reliable electricity and municipal water and sewer. Further, the code is outdated and obsolete because it was written without consideration to both old and new technologies that relegate the need for grid tied power and municipal water as unnecessary and expensive; especially, in locations where it simply isn’t feasible to have grid tied utilities. Nonetheless, Speronis’ home does in fact have power and water through far cheaper and more environmentally friendly means — solar panels and rainwater, but that reality is ignored by the local government.

Incredibly, most Americans still seem to believe that we live in a “free country”.  But we don’t.  Our lives are very tightly constrained by literally millions of laws, rules and regulations, and more are being added every single day.

Even some of our most basic fundamental rights have been seriously eroded.  One of these is the right to make basic health decisions for our own children.  In New York state, children that have not received all of the designated vaccines can now be banned from attending public school, and this requirement was recently upheld by a federal appeals court…

New York State’s requirement that children be vaccinated before attending public school does not violate their constitutional rights, a federal appeals court in Manhattan said on Wednesday.

In affirming the requirement’s constitutionality, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld a previous ruling by a federal judge that students exempted from the requirement for religious reasons can be barred from school when another child has a disease preventable by a vaccine.

The decision was the latest to go against three parents from New York City who say their religious rights were violated when their children were kept out of school as a result of the immunization policies. The parents’ lawyer, Patricia Finn, said her clients planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So what are we free to do without government interference these days?

Not much.

In fact, in some states we can’t even sit on our own land and collect the rain as it falls from the sky for our own personal use.

If you do this in the state of Oregon, for example, you could go to prison…

Gary Harrington, the Oregon man convicted of collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his rural property surrendered Wednesday morning to begin serving his 30-day, jail sentence in Medford, Ore.

“I’m sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty,” Harrington told a small crowd of people gathered outside of the Jackson County (Ore.) Jail.

Several people held signs that showed support for Harrington as he was taken inside the jail.

And of course these are just a few examples.  Almost every single day there are more stories in the news about government bureaucrats cracking down on preppers.  They almost seem to relish the opportunity to go after the “non-conformists”.  (A:  Well, they do, that's what they're told to do.)

But the good news is that the number of Americans that are seeking to become less dependent on the system just continues to grow.

So what about you?

Are you a prepper?  (A:  …and so on and so on.)

 

So really folks, it's an ongoing agenda, they're never going to stop at the top.  They have what they call, the force of the law.  And they also, we know for a fact, that many folk, as I say, the silent majority in certain areas will simply move. They'll migrate to the thronged cities; they'll go on the city's power supply.  Because they're getting taxed off the land and persecuted of course, and they can't burn their stoves, and if you can't get it way up yonder where ever they live in the rural areas, or its awfully expensive, more expensive, and move into the cities, then they're taking public transportation. So it's all been thought out years ago, how to get everyone to do what you want them to do, from the top. And that's what the think tanks work on of course. They do all these computer studies too and simulations, they can get pretty accurate accounts of how many will actually move en mass, how long it will take them, the different classes that will move first, second, third and so on and so on and so on. So you're living in a plan society already, nothing to do with democracy, nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.  The appearance of democracy should not include specialized nongovernmental organizations that no one gets a chance to vote into anything, never mind make decisions for them that affects their very life, living itself, life itself. It shouldn't be allowed.

But again, your mainstream, which is all, again, part of the corporate elite, it's just the promoter for all of that kind of stuff of course, and so is the general media as well.  Because they don't tell any citizen.  They don't do specials on all of this. They don't give airtime for someone with a counter to the agendas, with a different viewpoint and so on.  Under the fair policies act, etc. they only give it to the ones who are authorized to come out and go against you, and you can't go against them. So that's the technique that's used in this world today, and it was well thought out a long, long time ago, folks, a long time ago. As I say, the think tanks work on all these policies daily, daily, full-time, thousands of folk sometimes just in one big think tank, you know.  They also use university studies and all these things, just ongoing, ongoing, ongoing, to see how the cattle are responding, and different sectors of the cattle are responding, and how to get the rest of the cattle to respond and do the right thing, which is to do what you're told.

Now, I've talked many times about the techniques that are used to take your rights away and about collective punishment, if one person does something wrong in a nation then you punish them all. But it's always for a bigger agenda that they won't tell the public. Of course, we know that the whole agenda before 9/11 happened was all written in the books and the step-by-step process of all the things they wanted to do and would need little excuses to push and push and push and take more rights from the public.  And it's ongoing. With the shootings in Paris, etc., that's been a big part of it.  This stuff that I'm going to read, really, has been on the books for a long time. Because I can remember before 9/11 happened when there were documentaries on Canadian television with the top security people at the time, and the agencies at the time, with some, I think they went over to Israel and they were working with the Israeli Special Forces and officials on security and coming terror and all the rest of it. And some of these guys when they were talking, these Canadian guys in charge of the agencies, you talk about fascists,  I mean, they put the guys around fascist governments in the past to shame, really. But this article here is from RT and it says…

Erosion of free speech?

 Cameron pledges to ban Snapchat and WhatsApp

rt.com / January 12, 2015

PM David Cameron may block encrypted messaging platforms Snapchat and WhatsApp if the Conservatives win May’s general election, as part of the party’s agenda to bolster surveillance powers following last week’s terror attacks in Paris.  (A:  It doesn't matter who's in, folks; it's such a joke even having a party in Britain now because they're all the same, literally.)

During a meeting with Britain’s security chiefs, the Prime Minister pledged to halt the use of communications platforms that can withstand snooping from security services who are in possession of a warrant.   (A:  Well, it won't matter. They've been doing it all along without warrants, as we all know, hey. We all know this.)

Such software applications focus on popular messaging and social networking apps that deploy encryption techniques to protect users data.

WhatsApp, Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime, which encrypt information in this manner, could all be targeted by the Conservatives’ proposed policy.

Cameron also pledged to revive the Tories’ much-criticized “snoopers charter” to aid security officials in monitoring online activity.

(A:  Literally, we might as well just… I wish the governments would just pay for the computers and iPhones and all the rest of it, right.  But they're called ‘personal’ computers, making you think it's yours… it's yours. If they forced you to get it you'd be suspicious.  But because it came out as a ‘personal’ computer, like yours, and it really pushed, oh, ‘your’ private information... oh, private. It was all lie from the beginning.  Everything was worked out long before they decided to give you the computer.)

In April 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled against the introduction of the Snooper’s Charter, warning it would culminate in privacy rights violations. The Court outlined a more moderate data retention program that would aid criminal investigations.

But in early July it emerged the government was seeking to push through emergency legislation, which would flout the Court’s judgment and re-legislate for the blanket retention of data.   (A:  …they’ve always done this though.)

The snooper’s charter subsequently caused a rift in government, however, after it was blocked by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on the grounds it posed a risk to civil liberties.   (A:  Then they go through the usual stuff.)

But the fact is, it was planned a long time ago, step-by-step.  And again, you also get the same thing from RT…

‘I am not bothered with civil liberties stuff for terror suspects’

– Boris Johnson

rt.com /  January 12, 2015

London Mayor Boris Johnson (A:  He's quite a character, and quite a family history he's got too by the way. In fact, I think it was his granddad and great granddad were members of the Milner group for, causing revolutions abroad.) said he’s “not bothered” with civil liberties when it comes to terrorism suspects, while he attended a vigil in Trafalgar Square in solidarity for the 17 people that have lost their lives in terrorist attacks in Paris.

Johnson said: “I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to.”   (A:  Well, this is just to make sure we're all even more listen too, that's all, in more detail in other words.)

He argued that security services should be able to monitor the emails and phone calls of anyone who posed a threat to Britain. . .  (A:  Now, there's a broad term, ‘a threat’ to Britain…  If it's a threat to the agenda it's a person with a different point of view, that's all, a point of view, as they keep expanding what they mean by it.  It's like terrorism, they keep expanding the meaning of it to include so many things, especially any opposition of the mind, you see.).”

The government is pushing for the Communications Data Bill to be re-introduced, which would give the security and intelligence services greater power to monitor terrorists.

They're all getting in on the act of course, as you well know...

Surrounded by surveillance: Is everything spying on you?

Computerworld.com | Nov 22, 2011

Depending upon who you listen to, GPS tracking shouldn't be your only concern when you are out and about on the streets. The ACLU hammered license plate scanners as 'logging our every move,' a different investigative report concluded your car is spying on you, and some even claim the street lights are out to get you.

The ACLU reported on the "widespread tracking of citizen's movements" via the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs). "It has now become clear that this technology, if we do not limit its use, will represent a significant step toward the creation of a surveillance society in the United States." (A:  Well, it's already here, folks. And this is from 2011 by the way, this article here.)  The ACLU does, of course, regard GPS tracking without a warrant as intrusive on privacy, but license plate reader "technology is rapidly approaching the point where it could be used to reconstruct the entire movements of any individual vehicle."

Well, we know that the little box and so on and the GPS, they've been tracking you for years actually, right down to what your speed is on the roads that you're on and so on, and they know the roads that you're on as well, things like that.

Lawmakers move to block black box recorders in cars, DVR snooping

Computerworld.com | May 1, 2012

 And then it talks about what we already knew and they were using before it ever broke into the media.

IntelliStreets

illuminatingconcepts.com

Extremely smart street lamps, IntelliStreets system, are another tech coming under heavy fire as many of its critics claim it's Big Brother tracking your every move. ABC7News reported, "In each lighting fixture or each lighting pole, there is processor very much like an iPhone. And it takes inputs and outputs and talks back and forth. And the poles actually talk to each other." That's not all because when you step "into view of the street light, there is a camera that spots you... it can even take your picture. The system is also capable of recording conversations making critics cry invasion of privacy."

After lighting contractor Illuminating Concepts (A:  …this is the company.) took a great deal of heat over its IntelliStreets system, it responded with Big Brother or Big Idea? "Those crying foul over our Intellistreets lighting, security and information system seem to have two consistent qualities: they know little if nothing about the overwhelming merits of our potentially life-saving technology; and, everything they ever learned they learned from the 'Big Brother' movies." The company said the grant money came from the Department of Energy, not DHS, (A:  Well, the Department of Energy is also part of the military-industrial complex, that's the guys who own it.) since the IntelliStreets are energy efficient.   (A:  Okay so it's energy-efficient, so that makes it okay, right?  Humpff.  There's no argument at all.)  "In its fullest form, Intellistreets also includes the collection and reporting of information immediately and completely so that first responders (police, fire and EMS) (A:  …so it’s there to help you, you see.  That’s why it’s there, folks, you see, they’re just thinking about you, they’re always thinking about us, the poor souls, we’re all helpless, you see.)

Yet the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has long warned about the dangers lurking in digital signage, "ads with eyes" as it continues to grow smarter and more interactive. The World Privacy Forum [PDF] (A:  ...included here by the way and I'll put it up tonight.) warned that "digital signage systems fitted with sensors, cameras and facial recognition systems for the delivery of targeted advertising risk creating a 'one-way-mirror society'."

There's electronic data everywhere, touching nearly every aspect of life, and digital evidence may be the star witness in a criminal case. MSNBC was talking about when it comes to your car collecting evidence via a vehicle's "event data recorder" which is like a "black box" on a plane and then witnessing against you. Yet others say "that e-evidence might just as easily create an unshakable alibi."

We've looked at war texting, an SMS attack to steal a car, at how the Nissan Leaf secretly leaks your location and your speed to websites (A:  So some vehicles are way ahead of others of course, with the ability for more information that's given to whoever is collecting it at the other end.), and there are cars with an IP address, like the Chevrolet Volt, which could potentially be vulnerable to client side attacks. SNOsoft Research delved into hacking your car for fun or profit (A:  …another link there.), which pointed out it's not really that difficult to program a car to kill a driver. (A:  And that's very true, the intelligence services have been doing this for years.)  So you see? It's all how you view things and perhaps your paranoia level.

So what you're living through, folks, is an incredible agenda which leads into social control.  Incredible. And nothing has been missed in the day-to-day living of every single type, and I mean type, personality type of individual.  And it's to get worse and worse and worse, until the totally controlled society, where you'll have no say in anything...  If they accuse you of anything, thought crime, whatever crime it happens to be, all the new crimes they are creating, you'll have no alibi at all because in somewhere or another some camera has got a picture that could be evaluated as you doing this or doing that, or you could be putting something in the trash, who knows.  But this is the life they're bringing in for you, under the guise of keeping you safe.

I mean, there's nothing government will tell you that's ever true.  I really mean that. Anything they tell you, they might tell you in a roundabout way what they're going to do, they give you a totally different reason why they're going to, but they won't tell you all of it, what they're going to do in one particular area, or the real whys, and there's consequences to it all.  That's what public relations are for, and every department in government has public relations and they hand out things to the press to make sure that we get the perception about whatever topic it is, that we're supposed to believe. Every company has the public relations, whole departments of them, who sit and psychologically evaluated how to push something across to con the public.  Police forces all have them too, public relations officers, people who spin truth to make it more palatable, by omission or spinning.  That's the real world and that's how it really does work, folks.

I've said for so long that the groups that are out there, don't join the ready-made groups because many of them were set up by the opposition under the guise, we're here for you. And if you start one up for yourself you'd have to have a whole incredible intelligence network to make sure that no one infiltrates it, because you will get infiltrated and someone can take it over rather quite easily, especially the one that works the hardest for you, that's what they do. Read all the different techniques about infiltration of the communist system during the Cold War.  In America and Britain and elsewhere there were hundreds, hundreds of front groups, front organizations that were to all lead the culture along an agenda, their thinking and so on, and in the universities, into thinking in this particular way, or that way, whatever way it happened to be.  And they had Christian groups and everything conned into it because they didn't come along and say, hey we're communists and we want to change you and use you.  They give them a good reason, to help something or help somebodies or groups of people, and you say, well that sounds good, I'll put money down on that and help. Nothing has changed. The ones at the top know what they're doing, who lead all these groups, they know, they're well-paid and well-funded, incredible pensions and everything else.  But they love to use lots of followers…

Only by becoming an individual in the first place, understanding what's going on, can you actually achieve anything at all. And believe you me, it won't be easy.  But you have to learn to speak your mind in every situation. That doesn't mean you get into an argument, you speak your mind. You have to learn to be calm.  Learn it. And don't overdo something, just say what you know about something. Eventually it will come down to, literally, persecution across the board.

But since all the organized nongovernmental organizations have thousands and thousands and thousands of followers, as I say, the top branches of them are all well-funded and well-paid, full-time salaries, they even have office blocks a lot of them, pretending that they're really speaking for the people. No, they're not. We don't elect them. We don't vote them in. And most folk don't even know who they are. But their names are always in the paper, the name of the groups, NGO. Just like the United Nations itself wasn't voted in by any citizen of the general population of any country.  It was set up as a front organization, by the same guys who already owned the banking world, they owned governments including Britain, especially Britain at that time, and had for a long time.  They helped fund the whole setting up of the communist opposition, because it’s got into two opposing forces, to create social change and political change, and educational change.  And all during that era that was opposing communism, it was being taught in universities across the States and Britain and elsewhere, quite openly, by professors brought and from the Eastern countries, and all getting funded and getting passed through immigration without a problem, right into those positions, to teach the socialist doctrines, through social sciences and things like that. All effective and it worked awfully well. Only one group runs the world, one group.

But as I say, you've got to claim your individuality.  Be yourself, for goodness sake. Be yourself, that's all. And find out who you are, really who you are, not the yes men that takes the opinions that are downloaded to you, do you want this one or that one. For every topic they give you a left and right, take this opinion or that opinion.  And answers are never quite that simple.  And the answer you give might have nothing to do with either of the ones they offer you.

Individuality, when it goes, there's nothing left to save.  Nothing left to save whatsoever. It is true, the majority will, I've always said for me personally, the main enemy I have, which is totalitarianism, and those involved in it, it's also a good part of the general population that go along with it all because they don't want to know. That's why the big boys have always decided to use this thing called democracy, the majority of the public will go along with anything they're told by the leaders.  To have a quiet life – they'll think, I've got a quiet life – so they let it all go.  Then eventually as the numbers increase of those who let it go, the general population, then they'll say, well why aren't you getting this license or whatever it happens to be? To drive or whatever, it doesn't make any difference.  Or paying this fee or whatever, why aren't you doing it? The rest of them have accepted it.  And they'll say, 70% of the public have accepted blah, blah, blah, therefore we're making it a law.  And that's why democracy works for the big boys, to use it as a con game. Sad, isn't it? But we're so well understood.

And I don't give you the cheerleader rah-rah-rah thing, or a show, like a wrestling show of entertainment. I just give you the bare facts, that's all. Because I'm not selling anything, I have books there and that's about it. I'm not selling all kinds of products.  This is not a business. If I wanted a big business I would have one and I'd put on the show and I'd sell you all kinds of gimmickry.  My job here isn't to terrify you, is to lay it on the line, folks. Because really, personal responsibility comes into all of this. It's always personal responsibility, because what you say to others and what you say to your family members, what you say your children really does matter. And they may not agree with you now, the children especially, because they're getting a totally different indoctrination at school, and they're getting all their values from the state as Huxley and others said would happen, that was always the agenda.  As they go through life and experience the difficulties of life they'll start to identify with you, and say, oh they were right after all about this and right about that. That's how it is. Because whether or not they liked it at the time, you planted a seed there of a different opinion, a different way of looking and perceiving things, that's what's important. This is long-term strategy.  Because where we are today, and all the things I've talked about tonight, were planned a long, long time ago, in detail, folks, step-by-step, stage-by-stage.  And no one has the right to rob us of our minds.

From Hamish and myself in Ontario Canada, where it still freezing, 30 to 40° below at nights often, because of global warming of course, it's good night and may your God or your gods go with you.

Topics of show covered in following links:

Rex Murphy: Plummeting gas prices are a welcome break for Canadians — until a carbon tax comes along

Ontario could see carbon tax: Wynne

Western Climate Initiative - Wikipedia

Western Climate Initiative, Inc.

‘Democratic outrage’: Cameron pledges new anti-strike laws

‘I am not bothered with civil liberties stuff for terror suspects’ – Boris Johnson

All Over America, Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

Busted! Your car's black box is spying, may be used against you in court

Erosion of free speech? Cameron pledges to ban Snapchat and WhatsApp

Surrounded by surveillance: Is everything spying on you?

Intellistreets

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:27 pm

Feb. 1, 2015 (#1488)

"Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt

(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)

 

"The Agenda's Been Slow but Now Here We Go"

 

Title & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Feb. 1, 2015 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on February 1, 2015.  On the night of September 11, 2001, I said on the radio that the hardest thing from now on that would happen to you, would be to hold onto your sanity as we go through massive changes. Because the changes were planned and published, often, long before the event, the changes that would follow to supposedly cope with the events and the damage control, etc. But long ago they were talking about doing all the things, of biometric scanning, the total communications over everybody's communications and copying them all, etc., and watching every single person, long before 9/11 came along. Because with every advance in technology, in fact, even the introduction of particular technologies, it's vastly changes the behavior and the way of thinking of society.

If you think about the changeover from the horse and cart to the steam engine for instance, the steam engine allowed massive freight to be carried into very remote areas, where existing villages were overwhelmed with the sudden influx of people, etc., etc, and they can also start other businesses and export stuff by train out of the area, mining stuff and so on.  Other villages cropped up alongside the rail road tracks and that's all people thought about at the time was prosperity, what was opening up.  And your behavior would adapt to the circumstances from an agricultural/agrarian society into a manufacturing society and so on. And those at the top with the big money and investments planned it that way with factory towns, etc.   Not the cowboy era, believe you me, it was mainly factory towns that sprung up all over the place.  Then you have the introduction of the automobile and the expansion of roads and the building of the roads across areas that had not existed before, except perhaps the occasional trail here and there for a cart.

With it all too comes governmental departments and bureaucracies to maintain these things through taxation and so on.  So your behavior always changes and you adapt to the changes, and eventually it's normal to you. That's why some generations look back on the previous generations and see them as old-fashioned and quaint, they can really fathom how they lived.  Somehow they also think they must have been awfully unhappy, stuck in rural areas and they couldn't travel very far and so on. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, the more isolated they were often and the slower news would take even reach them, the happier they were, they couldn't get so brainwashed by a big commercialized media.

So today you have the Internet, and you've had television for years that drastically, drastically altered behavior, because all governments used it as a tool to modify behaviors, to drum up patriotism when they have future wars on the table ready to go, things like that, and then during wars they would churn out the movies, paid by your tax money often, about the military might and how it was great fun and all the rest of it fighting the bad guys. So all technology is used.  It has its own particular effect on society. But it's also used by those who know how to rule over the minds of people, from the top.  And we live in a very Machiavellian time, more efficient that Machiavelli could have ever dreamed upon in his age, where again, it was town crier's that went around villages with propaganda and decrees from the top, they even use the churches too to put out what they claimed was news at the time, of impending invasions and of wars and why they had to go off and fight, etc. etc.

So everything is used by existing powers, and the existing powers expand their powers and grow massively during times of conflict and change, etc.  During the 50s in the 60s government was all gung ho for science to take over, to rule society in the sense, to rule society and guide society with all these miracles that would be introduced into the general population.  Microwave ovens and the television, eventually color television and so on, and the space programs, then all the science fiction movies which were flooded out the public to make some think it was, oh we're going to end up in space one day, every child thought he would end up in space going out for adventures and so on.  And of course nothing of the kind materialized, and it wasn't intended to either.

So fiction is heavily used by manipulators of the future. Always. Always, because we've got to remember that mythology itself is a very, very powerful tool, when it can be brought up from the darkest depth of ancient times, and back to the present, completely altered in fact. In fact, when we talk about this today in the movies they turn out using all mythological characters, the people who were alive in the day when these myths originated would not understand you at all because it would be nothing like the actual core gossip or beliefs or myths that were getting created at the time.

So we live in constant changing times and every possible thing that's worked on people in the past, and various religions too, are used over and over again. You can create religion, which is just a common belief system, pushed from the top again, in any direction you want. You can have an atheistic/atheized religion like a communist religion, the future utopia, a heaven is going to be brought on earth by everyone being monitored and training themselves, self-monitoring, very puritanical in the sense, so make sure you had no counter revolutionary thoughts and you would all work for the greater good of the state. That was a religion, the Marxian religion. So never, ever discount other people's belief systems, and never go by the mainstream media because unfortunately they are a tool of the power structure that rules the world.

You'll be amazed at the amount of wars, for instance, that Britain during its Empire days got involved in, one after the other, in far-flung places, which they really did not understand at all. They didn't understand the peoples, they didn't understand the history of the peoples that they were going to dominate.  They didn't understand the way of life of the village, to the city, or whatever, in places like India, and even Afghanistan, and across Africa either.  Their answer to it always was just throwing missionaries, try to, what they called, civilize, or tame them. If that didn't work they'd bring in the troops.  So all techniques were used including threat of power and use of force, and then actual massive use of force to try and make it work.  Trying to make square pegs fit into round holes, that's the sadness of the so-called experts’ plans, they always end up with incredible consequences, and long-lasting consequences, and catastrophes.

But it's not just at home. When you get involved in war, and I've said this many times over the years, you will become in many respects what you're told your enemy is. You will become as vicious, you'll use the same techniques, which means that your moral, your initial moral authority that you had been told that you have, because you're always the good guys, when you invade somebody, that will dissipate as well until you become barbaric. In fact, you become more barbaric than your supposed enemy you’re fighting. And that comes home with the troops. It also infects the culture back home through all the propaganda too, when the fallout starts to begin and they become hard and bitter and more brutal towards each other at home as well. And governments themselves grab more and more and more power to try to contain this mess that they've made, that has ripple effect across the board, not just the countries that they are in to get their oil or to get their goods, or their jewels, or their diamonds, or their gold or whatever, for their big businesses at home, the big corporate businesses, and a few private families.  But it infects you back home and you have incredible fallout from it all.  It really is incredible fallout.

In a system that pretends to be Democratic, and I really mean pretends, they always have these kind of problems because in the so-called democracy you have a kind of laissez-faire capitalism to an extent where they will invest in anywhere, including slave nations, if the profits are good.  And then if they abolish slavery they simply give them a pitiful wage.  And often they will move these people, these workers across into islands, that still goes on today, and the workers put themselves down as paying off their transport to get to this island they're going to work in, and mine or whatever it is, and of course they never pay it off.  They can't pay it off so they're stuck there most of their lives digging in these rotten mines.  So slavery does exist today in many forms, in one form or another.

Unfortunately the world is run by gangs.  We are taught, for instance, that the countries across, say, the Middle East and Asia are primitive. And they are not primitive. They are very ancient, and have survived awfully well under the circumstances and climate, etc., and conditions.  We are always taught that we are the moral authority, and troops are given the most basic indoctrination possible, so that they don't think too deeply about what they are being sent to do.  They don't know the history of the peoples, the cultures of the people.  They're taught to go in there and bring democracy, democracy.  This thing called democracy. It's a foreign concept to people abroad, never mind increasingly to the people at home.

But as I say, in democracy how can you have big business literally running the financial system of the country that you live in, and in other countries too, and creating their own world Empire by their own means, and governments going cap-in-hand to borrow from them all the time, which gives power to the lender, always, always to the lender, and terms to the lender?  And terms are not just paying it back with massive compound interest, it's also suggestions on how governments should handle their affairs, including the political affairs at home and abroad. And there you have private groups, or clubs you might say, a very powerfully wealthy people, and they have such pull and organizational abilities. They have massive bureaucracies in the corporations, and think tanks, often bigger than governments, and so much at their disposal to work their future plans in, and how to even use governments, and whole nations, for their own private businesses, including the troops and so on as well. It's a sad, sad state of affairs.

And this loose term of democracy is always elastic because it expands and contracts all the time, and gets stretched in all different directions, according to the needs of those who already rule, or any of the new groups who rule.  Like the bankers when they were given total power of deregulation back in the 80s under Reagan and Thatcher at the same time, then of course when you end up with the crashes in 2007 and 2008.  Then you find you have just as many gangs and criminals working inside the big massive banking system as the gang lords that they'd installed over in Afghanistan and places like this, that your own governments installed by the military.  And you don't understand the people at all in the countries that you're over there fighting in.  So you have a loose term called democracy. And when the bank crashes came the governments didn't know what to do about it.  Rather than arrest them all, which meant the whole collapse, total collapse of the banking industry, and the economy, and your governments, they just simply threw money at them.  And you have to accept that you're ruled, economically, by big powerful interrelated gangs.  That doesn't give you much confidence for the future, does it?  But meanwhile, so all the old myths, that why you existed as a nation, etc., the myths and the symbols have fallen flat, it doesn't work the same way anymore. It doesn't work the same way.

After World War I, for instance, it was so many millions of guys that were getting thrown over the trenches, every single day, 64,000 died in a day, more the next day and so on.  Throw in another battalion, throw in another battalion, that was the mentality of the officer corps at the time, who ruled the show at the top in the HQ's. Like a scorecard, how many did we lose today? Oh, 100,000 or 200,000, you know, throw in another one.  And out of that mythology that they created, they had to create it to keep it going, and win, try to win this war, the financial powers of the West had to invent these new mythologies and say, well it's for a future utopia, it's to bring in a more equitable world and more equality back home…  Because we were measuring in the West from the feudalistic system, where this term democracy had never been applied to everybody at all, the majority the folk had no vote if they didn't own property and so on.

So you think you win a little bit here and win a little bit there, but the big boys already had it planned when most folk got the vote, or all got to vote, they would simply create, through their big clubs of course, like the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations, private institutions that would then work with the governments to unite the banking systems across the world, the economies, but still own it privately.  And the public wouldn't elect these different organizations, they simply put themselves in place and worked with the powerful elite, because they were the powerful elite, they were members of it already.

But I always think it's so ironic that, for instance, the US funded the initial setup of the guys who would become Al Qaeda to fight the Russians when they went into Afghanistan.  Then when the US went back into Afghanistan later to fight the Afghanis, they then funded different factions, warlords in other words, and they'd overthrow what they thought were the worst warlords by replacing them with other warlords, who'd behave in the same natural historical way of warlords all down through time, in Afghanistan. And they didn't understand it at all, what they were doing. They didn't understand it at all. As I say, so they've just fed the fire which should never have been started in the first place, and kept feeding it and feeding it until now it's out of control across all of these countries. All starting with Western interference long ago, and again, the domination of who's going to own the oil of the world.

This term interdependence is quite fascinating.  You see, under the big corporate big business structure that we live under they look to the future all the time.  That's why they employ all these futurist think tanks to try and see what's coming up down the road.  And to keep power in their hands, just like the government would do, big private corporations, private corporations make their big plans, geopolitical plans way in advance so that they will never lose power.  And because they were importing so much oil for such a long, long time from the Saudi's and different countries, they wanted the monopoly of it for themselves.  It was a nuisance to have the people inside those countries owning the oilfields.  It was an awful nuisance, when they could have it all to themselves in the West. And through many different techniques and trial and error they've tried to do this very, very thing.  As I say, since the 1980s, since the banks deregulated, the gangs inside the banks have planned all of these wars, and use the governments, and the troops, to try and grab all the oil for themselves as well. It's a sad state of affairs.  So when you're interdependent, whether you like it or not, if we live in a world where you didn't need oil, as I say, every invention has its consequences, everything is going to be promoted as an invention into the general public, into society, into transportation and so on, has got massive consequences.  And if it's run on oil and gasoline, petroleum derived from oil, then anything that happens across the waters which produces that oil can fluctuate and have devastating consequences back home.

So therefore, we live in a very unstable society.  Governments have abdicated more and more power, long ago actually, to the big banking system, and the banking systems themselves, as I say, often have such big bureaucracies they are equal to some governments across the world, and bigger budgets too, some of them. Yet we still push this term called democracy.  Even though with democracy when it was initially thrashed out in the public, and in Parliament in Britain, they came out with the idea eventually and said, well democracy can only end up having special interest groups, heavily funded by interested parties, which they now call stakeholders.  So, private parties, groups, of very powerful people, fund so many of the NGOs, for instance, that demand climate change taxes, and taxes for everything and so on.  This is part of the agenda for the global controllers who want total domination, not just over the Middle East and everywhere, but over the whole planet, folks, the whole planet. Not just over groups of people, but the minds of each individual across the world down the road. Actually, it's already here.  Everything you think, everything you utter, every little comment or quip has to be recorded, if possible, as you are monitored from birth to death to make it safe for the Masters of the world to go on into the future with their own offspring who will inherit the power and be exempt from all this monitoring and so on.

The chaos that ensues, they say, like Rockefeller said, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. That's what we're going through today as they're smashing up the eggs, and a lot of mess, a lot of eggshells in amongst the omelet.  And this is all accepted at the top, as we go into more intrusion into our private lives.  And this is only the start of it, I'll touch on this tonight in fact, because everything has consequences, as I said.  Never read the superficial lines in the news and just take it at face value and say, well they'll still be nice about things.  Because you see, that's not how humanity works.

Now, here's an article that has exactly to do with what I'm talking about, to do with the consequences of things.  And the consequences of what happens in one country, if they are all on board with the agendas, will be the same as another. You simply have to look at Britain to see the incredible police state that's formed in Britain.  At the same time, they're still living, everyone's coming in from all the countries that are supposedly radical, supposedly radical, and using that as an excuse to watch everyone inside Britain, and they expand its powers once it's on the books. Well in Canada, here's an article about the recent debate, it was actually all drafted up long ago I'm sure, the next step of anti-terrorist legislation for Canada.  I'm sure it was all done. They do it in phases, you see, so you accept one phase, well you get used to it and go back to eating the grass, you know, like cattle in the field, and then they bring in the next phase, and the next phase. It's all planned that way, because they understand how the general population tick.

B.C. citizens should be wary of new anti-terrorism laws, officials say

theprovince.com / Nick Eagland / January 28, 2015

BC (Alan:  British Columbia, this is the west coast of Canada.)  Civil Liberties Association Policy Director Micheal Vonn, July 11th, with files of cases in the association's Vancouver office.  (A:  And that was when they first came out with some of this stuff.)

The federal government is expected to introduce new anti-terrorism legislation Friday (A: This was last Friday.), but experts say British Columbians should be wary of how it could affect their freedoms.  (A:  …well naturally. This is like a carbon copy, probably just taken off of the British paper that they put out years ago.)

The bill is expected to include provisions making it easier for police to arrest suspected radicals, a retooling of Canada’s no-fly list, reduced privacy limits on passport application information and a crackdown (A:  This is interesting…) on communication aimed at radicalization, according to recent comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and media reports.

Micheal Vonn, policy director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said while details of the bill aren’t yet clear (A:  …and that’s what they do with these massive omnibus bills that are thousands of pages, and deliberately made that way.), she’s concerned about how the introduction of “more extraordinary powers” to police and national security without “appropriate accountability and transparency” could hurt British Columbians.

“We’re looking at provisions that will undoubtedly violate the rights of Canadians and not make us one bit demonstrably safer,” Vonn said.

Now, that's just one little article, it goes on and on but they get the feedback from the BCC Muslim Association. But who's talking to the average person here? Why do you have to belong to any group to say, this isn't right, this isn't right? I mean, it really is ridiculous, you know. And then out comes this one.

Canada’s anti-terror bill needs to balance

religious expression and inciting terror, Kenney says

thestar.com / / Jan 28 2015

OTTAWA—There’s a fine line between legitimate religious expression and inciting terrorism, says Conservative cabinet minister Jason Kenney.  (A:  Well, that’s what he’s paid to say.)

It’s that line the government will be walking — carefully — in its new anti-terrorism bill, expected to be unveiled Friday.

The bill is the government’s much-awaited legislative response to two attacks carried out on Canadian soldiers last fall by men believed to have been influenced by radical Islam — attacks the government considers acts of terrorism.

Though police already have the power to go after those suspecting of being on the verge of committing terrorist attacks, the new bill is partially aimed at stopping the seeds of those attacks from germinating altogether.

“Our objective is not to diminish legitimate expression of political or religious views, but rather incitement to terrorism — and there is a fine line there that the legislation will try to draw,” Kenney said in an interview Tuesday.

“Obviously there are some malevolent religious influences that can add to the process of radicalization towards violent extremism, and we have to be extremely mindful of that.”

How to effectively combat radicalization is a struggle facing governments and security agencies the world over.

The RCMP is currently rolling out its own strategy, which includes working more closely with community groups in order to identify and divert people who may be susceptible to extreme views that could eventually lead to violence.

(A:  Well, they've used that in Britain now for years, so they're just copying what has been done, you see. This is the sad thing, when something goes awry and people panic, near the top, they tend to look at what's been done already elsewhere.  And if it hasn't worked elsewhere it doesn't matter, they have to grab it and try and use it.  And it won't work anywhere else either. And too, what it is aimed at then becomes almost watered-down, because it's expanded to include anyone with an opinion contrary to any government policy or specific government policies on anything. If they don't like you, in other words, they can go after you. That's humanity. Humans are not anything but, anything but some perfect species, believe you me.)

But the police need broader powers to deal with those doing the radicalizing, suggested Conservative MP Tim Uppal, who is also the minister of state for multiculturalism.

“If the police are doing their investigation and they come across people who are trying to radicalize others, before any type of violence . . . I think that’s somewhere where we do need some action,” Uppal told The Canadian Press recently.

The other problem facing legislators is how to handle radicalization online, which many acknowledge is the primary source of information for young men and women who later end up joining violent causes.

“We need to be able to follow up on and see how we can ensure that we are able to either stop those messages that people are getting, or at least be able to follow up on it in some way,” Uppal said.

But Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter said he wonders why existing anti-terror laws of various kinds haven’t been put to full use.

Now, here's the reason why you haven't 'been put to full use'. When legislation is introduced it has to be pushed from the top to radicalize the police forces and all the other agencies, that are overseers you might say, of society. Because there's no doubt it radicalize them, there's no doubt whatsoever.  And they introduced things piece by piece of it for years until you accept, and accept, little bits and little bit, and then they push for the big one.  Because this is going to change all relationships between the public, believe you me, and police and so on who will become ultra-paranoid.  It will also… Unfortunately it's going to go the way of the US with these massive internal armies and agencies, with all their SWAT teams and everything else, who just storm in and, anything that will be left alive at the end of it, they'll ask questions later.  This is the way the cowboy mentality that gets pushed.  Really, there's so many Canadians who really hope that it's not going to happen the same way here, and I hope it doesn't. Because if I saw the signs of that happening I would just move immediately to some other place, and anywhere at all.  Because then, once that starts it's never going to stop, you understand, for your whole life long.  And do you want to live in a police state your whole life? Do you want to live in a society where every little comments you've made is going to be misconstrued, by someone who has got it in for you?  Or an agency, which again, just like the ticket police, has to fulfill its quotas?  And that's what happens too, you know, the drug enforcement agencies do this in the States as well, they've got quotas to meet and so on and it doesn't matter if the guy is innocent or guilty, if he's left alive, you know, he'll be charged for something and put on the books and so on.

We don't want that in the rest of the world. We don't want this at all.  But unfortunately the Masters who are in cahoots with each other across the world, I think they actually do. I think they actually do. Because they themselves at the very, very top never had any belief whatsoever that democracy would ever work.  And there's lots of University papers and books that have been put out over many, many years on that very, very fact. The Club of Rome said the same thing in The First Global Revolution, one of the books they put out. They said that democracy would never work, there's too many conflicting parties, conflicting groups, all demanding their own particular rights, that nothing would ever get done.  And at the top when you're run by big massive commerce, that runs everything, our whole way of life is based around commerce, your whole culture, everything is based around commerce. So the masters who rule commerce want more and more say in how things all work, including how you behave, and how you think, and what you think, and what you believe and everything else. They want to make sure they can create you like a robot, and that will come down the road too.  So the omelettes are being created, the eggs are bring all smashed, and you’re living… The generations who are living now have this for their whole life to contend with. Because the big boys never stop their plans and say, this is not working, this is not working.

The old myth that they pushed out there, and it really was a myth, that if you just simply bring people into a country they'll all adapt, for prosperity, and get along.  It hasn't really worked. I think it was Angela Merkel who said the same thing in Germany a while back, it had failed. Because people tend to drift and create their own communities, they like their own kind unfortunately, and the more there are of them, because they are familiar with their own culture, naturally, they want to keep it, rather than come into this new kind of materialistic culture that's been fostered and created by Hollywood, and another group who wanted to dominate everybody else.

A lot of folk won't like what I'm saying, but this is what is.  It's realistic, this is realism that I'm talking about here. Not mythologies, not idealism's, it's what IS. It's not over my head, I'm not guessing at any of this stuff. There's lots of publications from universities, as I say, and many professors and many so-called experts at the top who have published this stuff, even so many members of the Council on Foreign Relations who helped set up this structural system, including what's taught in universities and colleges and schools, which give you your idea of reality. It's not yours at all. It's not yours whatsoever.

So what's happening in Canada is not that they're really putting out new laws that they have not enforced before.  It's the order to start enforcing, and that changes the mentality of the agencies that will start to enforce it all. It puts pressure on them, they must produce, they must show results of what they're up to, and that can cause absolute hell on the road to it. I read recently about, it was called the Rise of the Warrior Cop, in America, and the drug wars and all the other things that they used for the rise of this military kind of policemen.  And this is what they're going to bring across the whole world. And that's not right. You cannot possibly still call yourself democracies when you have this going on. Because there's folk in the States who get killed all the time, who have nothing to do with drugs, the wrong places get raided, and whole families wiped out.  It's been happening for years and years and years, and yet it goes on. It just goes on and on and on.

That's why you should always never demand anything from governments.  Never demand it. The average person is taught to say, oh that's wrong they should do something about that.  Who should do something about that? Because if the government gets involved you might regret it, because it always goes awry.  Always. This is the history of the world, when force and government work their big ideas across nations. Now, this article goes on to say…

RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson has said Zehaf Bibeau appeared “lucid” and “purposeful” in spelling out his motives (A:  This is one of the guys that did the shooting I think.), which Paulson described as being rooted in his religious beliefs and opinion of Canada’s foreign policy.

Paulson initially said he wanted to see the footage released to the public, but has since signaled that may not happen.

Easter said he’d like to know if the message on the video lines up with what federal officials have said about it.

“Maybe it doesn’t match with the prime minister’s messaging,” he said. “Now, that would be a sad commentary, if the commissioner of the RCMP is being led down that path. But we’ll see.”

That's one article and in this article here it says…

Canadian Government Continues to Expand State Powers While Leaving Privacy by the Wayside

eff.org / January 29, 2015 / Kimberly Carlson

The Canadian government is scheduled to release new security legislation on Friday that would grant even more power to its police and domestic security agencies. This proposal comes in response to a string of "lone wolf" shootings of soldiers in Canada last October.

This isn’t the first over-broad anti-terror legislation we’ve seen proposed or enacted in Canada—and that’s what’s concerning. The country has been playing catch up post-9/11, hastily increasing state surveillance powers, particularly during this past year. Bills that grant a broad range of policing and intelligence powers to government agencies, as well as speech restrictions on ordinary citizens, have already been brought forward, but we have yet to see the implications of these laws as many of them are still navigating through the legislature or just coming into effect now.  Tamir Israel, staff lawyer at the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), cautions the Canadian government in creating yet another set of new powers before the dust has even settled on the last set of expansions.

Top Canadian judges agree, saying there are laws in place, such as provisions in Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, that were crafted for this purpose. Retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci, cautioned about:

the "spillover effects" that any rush to expand police powers would have on freedom of religion, association and expression; the possible "tainting" of Canada’s Muslim community, and the risk of "overreaching" by security intelligence agencies when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.

To pile on more anti-terror legislation is simply reactionary and a recipe for disaster. (A:  Then all the other politicians are getting in on it.)  Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, however, asserts that this proposal will contain the proper tools Canadian police and security agencies need in order to keep citizens safe as new threats arise.

Why the need for more legislation if the country’s state surveillance powers are already so robust? Documents released by The Intercept this week from the files leaked by Edward Snowden show that the Communications Security Establishment (CSE, formally known as Communications Security Establishment Canada or CSEC) is already using very invasive surveillance tools. The revelations that CSE tracked millions of downloads each day, all over the globe, as part of its foreign intelligence spying and Five Eyes information sharing initiative exposes an overreaching surveillance state with little to no oversight.

You understand, when you have these kind of reactions from governments and orders are issued that must be fulfilled, this part about little or no oversight will get worse and worse and worse as the various agencies are told to perform, to produce, to show how many arrests they've made or whatever.  And I'll tell you another thing too, unfortunately, there's a lot of middlemen in the ways that they use, and assets that they use, that will lie their teeth off to make up the stories.  We found this in the past too, tickets for convicted, that might be in the hole for years and years and years before it's admitted that the CIA asset or whoever it happened to be, whatever country that use them, this little snitch got time off himself or got paid for all the stories he made up. This is what happens when the need to produce results to show their superiors overrides factual evidence.  And then you're in a sorry, sorry state, believe you me. And since government goes around corners on square wheels, to stop all this and change it can take generations, if ever again. And personally, with the Internet and so on, I don't think it ever will. I think this had to go along with this, again, the introduction of this technology into society, how we adapt and it changes us as it goes along. It changes society, your behavior, everything, and it also allows all this nonsense to continue as well.  Sad, isn't it, but that's where we are with all of this stuff.

Now, you combine the last article with this article from the Globe and Mail and it says…

Canadians support increased security powers, poll suggests

theglobeandmail.com / DANIEL LEBLANC / Jan. 29 2015

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians are ready to give new powers to the government (A:  …this is from a poll.  And polls are a joke, as we all know.) to combat security threats, including blocking websites that promote the proliferation of terrorism, a new poll suggests.

Over all, the Globe and Mail/Nanos Research survey found the federal government has strong support to introduce legislation that would limit Charter rights such as freedom of expression (A:  …so there ya go, freedom of expression…), within certain limits (A:  …which is… as vague as they want it to be, because they can use it for anything…), after a series of attacks at home and abroad.

The prime minister says he is looking at strengthening powers to "survey, detain and arrest" after an attack on Parliament Hill Wednesday. Stephen Harper says Parliamentary security will work with other police agencies.

Now the thing is, the way that even this is worded, it gives them wide scope for everything really. Why aren't they just aiming it at, and be specific and say, okay for this group here because that's where it seems to be coming from?  rather than putting a broad ban across the whole network with people just simply voicing opinions about other things altogether that the government is up too, and not liking that either?  They have reasons for this. They're not stupid, completely, at the top. They're not stupid, it's not that. It's not that. And I know where it's all going to go too, because you understand, I don't know if people know this, but in Afghanistan and Iraq and different places where the British and US military have been for a while, when they go into villages and they make every male take biometric scanning, their irises, fingerprints, everything, DNA, you name it.  And they want this globally, including at home too.  And big business is always involved in this system, which we think is democracy, guiding it. They're always guiding it, you see, for their own sales, etc. And these big businesses have been supplying the militaries of the world for a long time with all the biometric scanning stuff, that's portable stuff too that they can carry into the battlefield with them.  So they want to do it at home as well, for your own safety, naturally. And it's great sales. But this says…

IBIA and SIA Declare Support For New Biometric Exit Provisions

findbiometrics.com / January 21, 2015

The International Biometrics and Identification Association (IBIA), (A: Another big club, you see, a big business.)  in concert with the Security Industry Association (SIA) (A:  The guys that make all the war industries and so on.), has issued an open letter in support of provisions set forth in Section 13 of H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act.

The statement, addressed to Michael McCaul and Bennie Thompson – the chairman and a ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, respectively – comes nearly a year after the IBIA voiced its concern that the mandate for biometric exit had remained unfulfilled. (A:  In other words, they have not gotten all of the orders that they wanted.  [Alan chuckles.]  Nothing to do with right or wrong.)  The new letter makes it clear that the original vision of a comprehensive border security regime is still unfulfilled, but that the Biometric Exit Data Systems provisions contained in Section 13 of H.R. 399 are a solid first step in the right direction.

Biometric time and attendance solution concerns Air Canada workers

biometricupdate.com / Stephen Mayhew / January 27, 2015

…you see.  And the next article here, it says…

New security bill aimed at

combating 'lone wolf' attacks coming this week

cbc.ca / Jan 25, 2015

Legislation will expand powers of domestic security agencies in wake of last year's attacks.

(A:  So, lone wolf attacks, you see.  Now, a lot of the lone wolf idea, or ideology, comes from people who are mentally unstable, which they are well aware of, often with a history of having been treated for schizophrenia and various things like that, paranoia. And if it wasn't one thing that would radicalize them, it might be something else. They're given a cause, you see… or they grab a cause.  And they can be used, actually, by existing groups to commit various acts as well.  This says…)

Harper said the new legislation will "contain a range of measures to ensure that our police and security agencies have the tools" necessary to combat domestic threats.

But so far they haven't got the whole bill, I guess it was passed on Friday, and we'll have to wait and see. It will be such a long thing, it will take months to go through all of it.  We might not even get it all dished out to the public for a long time, it might even be a year or two before we get access to it all; we'll get some very, very basic principles and so on.

Just to change topics, you remember, everything is thought out at the top through think tanks and so on, how to use everything to their advantage, a particular thing that happens or, say, the gas prices going down.  Immediately the big car or truck manufacturers get in on the act, oh we're going to go back to the 70s or 60s and time to buy a truck, not telling you that this is a temporary little geopolitical war glitch that they've got on the go to lower the prices. And also the reason a lot of the prices are lowered right now, by the way, is that, you see, this is the ideal time to put in a carbon tax on top of it, and up the price, the taxes on gasoline.  Because you won't grumble, you see, if your gas goes down to about, under one dollar, you'll say oh well it's still cheaper than it was before. Believe you me, once they've got a carbon tax on it, and up the percentage of taxes on gasoline, and then the jack it up to the old price and beyond, then you’ll really see it, folks. Because you are getting trained to go into austerity, remember, that's part of the world solution, they claim, is experts running your lives to make sure, because you're just too stupid to manage your life yourself, you see, and so on. But this says…

Hoping for a heist at the gas pumps

thestar.com / John Barber  / Jan 25 2015

Clawing back just a few of the many cents per litre the price of gas has dropped recently would set provincial (A:  … this is for Ontario.) finances on a whole new course while still allowing drivers to benefit from historically low prices, writes John Barber.

What could be dreary about a month that brings a fresh jolt of pleasure every time you pass a gas station?

(A:  Then they give you the usual kind of happy, happy, happy stuff before they hit you, that it's time for government to get more money, to keep it afloat of course, so they can fix the roads and that, which never happens, etc. You all know, it's the same in the States and Britain and everywhere else across the world, the same cons are used.)

But that unexpected and unearned happiness makes this the perfect time for a significant and long-overdue hike in provincial fuel taxes. (A:  Oh, it's overdue? Really?)  Clawing back just a few of the many cents per litre the price of gas has dropped in recent months — even recent weeks — would set provincial finances on a whole new course while still allowing drivers to benefit from historically low prices.

(A:  Whether it's local, provincial, in the US it's state, or federal taxes, but very little of any of it will ever go to the reasons that they're supposed to. That's why we're in the mess we're in. And they've always got new projects on the go all the time, and there's a lot of money, through the corruption, that just goes missing all the time too, folks.  But we're always given some fairytale story, because we like fairytale stories, you see, we feel safer about it, that it's to help us all that they put more taxes on. Because I mean, government always needs more taxes, doesn't it?  You know, their wages keep increasing, and they have to keep up with the cost of living, up at the top.)

Last summer we were paying $1.25 a litre or more.  (A:  I think it was more, way more, up here.)  Today we’re paying 82 cents. With a stiff new tax hike, we might be paying as much as 87 cents. (A:  Up here it's about 97 cent to a dollar, where I live here, and this is still Ontario.)   Could any tax grab be more painless — or potentially beneficial — than that?  (A:  So that's how they word it to the average Joe…  Ah so, what's a few cents? )

And then again, another article from the Globe and Mail. Because this is how they use it. Remember, never let a good crisis go to waste, get your agenda through.

A provincial patchwork is the worst way to tax carbon

theglobeandmail.com / DAVID MCLAUGHLIN / Jan. 27 2015

Canadian climate change policy is characterized by inadequacy at the federal level and fragmentation at the provincial level.

Now, two major recent Liberal announcements will exacerbate both these problems.

First, Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne announced her government would implement a provincial carbon pricing policy. Then, federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau (A:  He's trying to become what his dad was.) stated that it was up to provincial governments to implement carbon pricing policy, not the federal government. As prime minister, he would “co-ordinate” provincial actions rather than formulate his own.

(A:  So it's not a matter of, should they even do it? It's either going to be federal OR provincial, you see. That's how they do these little fake, you know, arguments.)

The politics of this are plain. Mr. Trudeau has deftly but significantly undercut his own previous declarations on carbon pricing in an attempt to shield himself from Conservative party attacks. . .  (A:  Than they go into the usual nonsense about politics. This is a done deal, folks. It's been… We signed agreements year after year for donkey's years, and a donkey's life is a long time, and donkeys years are, oh, awfully long. They keep signing us deeper and deeper; we're committed to it.  You never got a vote on any of it, and you never will. That's democracy, you see.)

 

The policy ramifications are also plain. It is the provinces that are filling the federal policy vacuum on climate change with all its attendant economic and environmental consequences. Ontario will join British Columbia, Quebec, and Alberta with some form of carbon pricing policy (likely cap-and-trade) touching an increasingly vast swath of economic activity.

It would even be your standard of living activity, right down to can heat yourself or not, and what with. So that's how they introduced this kind of nonsense, they try and make it as though, well it's just going to be the corporations that will start trading more and more carbon credits to each other, etc. etc.    And then the Guardian says…

10 signs the stars are aligning for a climate deal in Paris

theguardian.com / Adam Vaughan / 21 January 2015

Following Al Gore and Pharrell Williams’ Live Earth 2015 announcement, we round up nine other reasons to feel happy ahead of crunch climate talks in Paris in December.

So it's all, it's a done deal. It's a done deal, folks, as you’re brought into austerity. It's not just to take money off you, it's going to decide how much you're left with.  And what you're going to be left with is pretty well zilch once your bare essentials are paid. That's what I'm talking about. I kept saying, you're going to get put into austerity. How do you think they're going to do it? All this was also discussed at the World Economic Forum, where it's thousands of dollars for a ticket, of course, as they keep all the general population out, because they’re so Democratic.  But all the NGOs are funded, again, they're just fronts for the big international corporations that run the foundations that pay them, you see, they pay these NGOs to get their policies through, by demanding, just another lobby group really, the governments do what they're told, by the private corporations.

And then this one here [Alan chuckles.]  This guy just, ha, he just can’t fad off into the sunset. It's Prince Charles of course and it says…

Prince Charles:

global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for Earth

theguardian.com / Fiona Harvey / 26 January 2015

A new global pact on climate change, due to be signed this year in Paris, should be a “Magna Carta for the Earth” (A:  See, it's not just for little old you.), Prince Charles has urged.

He said this year marked potentially the “last chance” to save the world from the perils of global warming (A:  I can remember when he said we had months to do it, a few years back, it was ONLY MONTHS then that we would all die.  But here we are.  You know, lies don't matter, they can always regurgitate them, especially when you're someone like Charles who has no imagination.), with the Paris conference and the United Nations’ plan to replace the millennium development goals with a new set of sustainable development targets.  (A:  …as they keep upping the quota.)   “We simply cannot let this opportunity go to waste.”  (A:  Never ever forget that term. That's from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs which is their parent organization, all private clubs by the way, that help run the world, and they run the government, and they put their own members into politics all the time, and they vet anybody who runs for politics, to make sure that it's always one of their guys in, regardless of the party. And you vote because you think you're Democratic.)

He told a meeting of forestry and climate experts in London: “In the 800th anniversary year of the Magna Carta, perhaps this year’s agreement of the new sustainable development goals and a new climate agreement in Paris should be seen as a new Magna Carta for the Earth, and humanity’s relationship with it.”

But he warned of difficulties ahead as the negotiations build up: “[This is] an absolutely crucial opportunity, if not the last chance before we end up in an irreversible situation, for the international community to establish a new set of interlocking, coherent and ambitious frameworks governing human development, poverty (A:  He doesn't give a damn about poverty. His folk have been living off the public for, phew, generations… hundreds of years.), disaster risk reduction, the natural environment and climate change.  (A:  …you know, the weather that is always changing.)  We could, and should, see an agenda set for the coming decades that is capable of transforming the prospects for humanity by improving and nurturing the state of the planet upon which we all depend.”

His insistence that 2015 will be a make-or-break year for the climate, and environmental sustainability, were echoed by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and now the UN’s special envoy for climate change. . .

…jobs for the boys and girls, eh.  They just go on and on, eh, from one little international job to the next. We’ll make you the President of Ireland, and then we'll put you up at the United Nations for the planet.  And you know, that's how it goes, folks. These people are little pawns in the game, the yes men, paid awfully well to get their Master's voice put into words in bills and action and law.  And that's democracy.  That's democracy in action.

And you have to think about it too, that the Club of Rome writes... That's another division of the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations, you know, a big massive think tank designed also to change the policies and cultures of the people by introducing indoctrination in different areas, into the schools, to add to all the other indoctrination's that you're given.  But they did say that, there were too many conflicting sides and groups and parties. Well, they make sure of that you see, because they are all [Alan chuckles.] given all their groups are paid by big foundations, that's where they get the big massive paychecks from.  So they don't believe in democracy anyway.

Everything is privately owned that rules our lives. And we have pretty well no say in it at all.  None at all. The only say we'll have shortly is, how do you want to freeze to death.  Because you'll say, well I've got to use wood to heat. Oh you can't anymore, it's a law. And you say, well I can afford the oil. Well it's not our fault sir, you know there are alternative fuels. And then you go back into this loop again, well I can't afford the alternative fuels. You go back into a constant loop, you see, where they're not saying you've got to die, but they know darn well you do have to die.  You see, that's how it's done.

And you have been taught that humans are rational?  There are so many lying deceiving humans out there.  Most folk have a bit of it in them, maybe more so today than ever before.  And especially folk who are paid to force it upon you, they have to lie, because they never take responsibility for what they're going to cause.  And then you're in chaos, real chaos.  And it's a sad state of affairs, indeed.

But I've never seen anything sent out by governments saying, would you like to go along with this agenda or that agenda or this policy, and so on?   And if not, why not? And what are your criticisms of it?  Before anything goes any further and gets passed into laws.  You see, that would be democracy. But they can't even risk that because their excuses for what they do are so flimsy to start with they know they couldn't succeed.

Charles Galton Darwin said in his book The Next Million Years, that slavery has always existed in one form or another, it's all to do with how you perceive it, you see, and he says, WE'RE now in the process of creating a more sophisticated form of slavery.  And that was back in the 1950s that he wrote that book. He was already part of that the global futurist organizations planning, with the big movers and shakers, the future, and the cultures, and the changes for the world, along with many other well-known figures. And they were not kidding, folks. You don't pay people millions of pounds for an individual salary to put jokes out to the public.

Well, I hope you're climate change is treating you better than mine. Mine is just, oh, as I say the Fahrenheit scale that most of the US uses, I'm hitting 30 below quite often at night here.  And I check the major media for the area, including the federal weather report stations and so on, and I’m telling you, they are under-reporting every night by 10 to 16°. Every night. Because it doesn't look good when you're globally freezing, and yet they’re telling you, you open the papers the next day, you're actually warming.  We live in a zoo, a manufactured zoo of Machiavellian proportions and beyond.  And beyond, because everything is now deception, said by very straight faces, by well-paid "experts".

I hope you hang in there and you keep your sanity. Don't fall for anything. Don't go nuts.  And don't be terrified to death, just be aware of things. As I say, you've got lots to think about.  And especially if you're young, it's probably time to look elsewhere in the world to live, that might have a few years left before the big boys decide they want something in that country and take it over.  Snatch the few years of happiness you might be able to get.

From Hamish and myself in Ontario Canada, it's good night and may your God or your gods go with you.

Topics of show covered in following links:

B.C. citizens should be wary of new anti-terrorism laws, officials say

Canada’s anti-terror bill needs to balance religious expression and inciting terror, Kenney says

Canadian Government Continues to Expand State Powers While Leaving Privacy by the Wayside

Canadians support increased security powers, poll suggests

New security bill aimed at combating 'lone wolf' attacks coming this week

IBIA and SIA Declare Support For New Biometric Exit Provisions

Biometric time and attendance solution concerns Air Canada workers

Hoping for a heist at the gas pumps

A provincial patchwork is the worst way to tax carbon

10 signs the stars are aligning for a climate deal in Paris

Prince Charles: global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for Earth

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:27 pm

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on March 29, 2015. As always I hope, I really do hope that you’re pulling through into the spring, which appears in the occasional place  south of the border, more than where I am here up in Canada.  Last night in fact it hit on the centigrade scale about -25, or 25 below.  Hopefully I'm going get some spring eventually too but we’re pretty well going into April and it's not really on the horizon that much at the moment. Well, we're going through global warming, right, that's the reason we're so cold up here.

Now, we're living, as I've mentioned so many times, in such a massively planned psychological muddle basically, by the big forces above us that have trained us since child birth, that they have influenced us in so many ways that most folk are completely unaware of in fact, primarily through, part of your initial indoctrination and education, apart from that it's taken up by media and also by entertainment, which is the greatest way to alter behavior of all. In fact, we mimic what we see. We even mimic the attitudes of the actors we like, or who are portrayed as likable in special movies and so on.  We copy in other words, we're very much into mimicking. Children are more apt and you'll see it more openly in children with the language and everything else they pick up on television, a lot of it which you don't like in fact.  But all of this is understood by those who put it out in the first place because the culture industry calls themselves just that, amongst themselves, the culture industry, not the entertainment industry.

At the very top you have the economic system and those who run at the top the economic system. There are people, a few individual families in fact that slush billions every day into the world economy. They slush these funds around all over the place and everyone else follows suit, because they read the newspapers, who's investing in what and so on. And the little guys, again, always emulate what they see, even though it's very misleading because it's a game too where those at the top always get out in time and divest the money and put it into another option before they crash a certain market and so on.

But that's the name of the game in this system. There's nothing fair about it. It's not designed to be fair. Those at the top will actually... really, put out the old idea of social Darwinism and survival of the fittest, that developed out of that Darwinistic theory, and they believe that they have the right to use cunning and so on. They say that all is fair in love and war, but it's also all is fair in economic business as well. And business is not a very nice thing because behind all the smiles of the business suits when they meet together to drink their brandy and so on and sip wine, there's always this competition amongst themselves.  Vast egos. Many of them actually are psychopathic, there's no doubt about it at all.  Look at some of the statements that some of the top of them, CEOs and so on come out with.

And the reason they get to the top is that they know how to play the game. They know what the game is. They can emulate emotion, affection and so on, and fire you just in the same breath actually or a second later. They don't really have emotions as we think of it. They have the emotion of great happiness when they win something personally, and they have that high they get when they succeed in putting other competition under. That's real business and that's just the way it really is. Competition is taught.  It used to be more blatant in the schooling system where they would grade you in classes in fact and then you'd compete and compete within the classes for the little gold stars that you'd get on your little cardboard form or booklet or whatever or on the wall. And that's the system, you're trained at an early age to compete. Athletics is just another part of it, to compete, compete, compete, and so were the school exams as well.

So we live in a competitive society. Is it natural? Well, some parts of it may kind of natural because I think young guys in a primitive society, as they call natural societies, primitive, and tribal societies, which compete to an extent.  But they would also form their natural pecking orders where one person who might be the best hunter or the best runner or whatever would have compassion and feel part of the rest of the group. If he didn't and he tried to take over as leader of the tribe or whatever there was enough people to depose him. When he gets an army behind him, through taxation than he can pay an army money, then you're really in trouble because then he can stay in power, then intermarry with some other psychopathic leader’s daughter of another tribe.  That's how history has been made in fact, unfortunately.

Now, I've mentioned before that when you have psychopaths in a system of psychopathic control, which is never humane, sometimes there's a spill over and more wealth allowed to the people at the bottom in so-called prosperous times, or when they have big plans afoot that may be a few years hence they'll bring on a war, and folk are happier prior to the war and tend to go into the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and so on to keep what they think it's theirs, their right to have a good prosperous life. Once they are running out of wars of course they take all the goodies away from you, and they don't really need you to be happy anymore, because they can use you in other ways.

Today we're in a scientifically controlled society and they don't have to keep you happy at all for that matter. In fact, they have found in their neuroscience and so on, if they keep you on edge all the time they can condition you all the faster.  Because you can't grasp hold of something for long enough, that you call normalicy, to hang onto. And normalicy develops over time, it becomes the culture and so on. If they can keep them in a stampede they can shape and direct the direction of the stampede according to their planning quite easily. And that's where we are today under the anti-terrorism and so on, global economics, bank failures are threatened all the time.  We have bank bail-ins planned because all of the countries, all of the first world countries have signed on to the IMF and the World Bank with their directions to, have treaties on all this, that they'll all do bank bail-ins where they will literally take all the deposits out of the savers' accounts and so on.

So we're living in a very crisis ridden society, and then they have the threat of terrorism constantly on the go, which can only end up, with the aid of technology as we have it today, into a worse system than you had in the East Germany's Stasi police.  And the Stasi police, they put a lot of good documentaries out on it and some good movies that were based on fact, written by participants in fact, or victims of the Stasi, both actually took part in making some of them. They show you how innocent people, lots of them, thousands of them, every year, had their homes bugged. They could bug a home entirely by going in and within 10 minutes they had many, many bugs put all over the place. They could record everything that happened; they had little fisheye cameras and so on. Today they don't need that because you buy all the equipment that surveillance needs. You buy it thinking it's of a benefit to yourself, it's much, much easier. I'll be touching on some of that tonight. That's the way it is.

Now, I'm going to mention right off the bat here too that at this time of year, and all through the winter, I always get lots of people emailing me with problems and depressions and so on. And these are from people who have a higher understanding of what's happening in the world and why things are happening and as always they find no solution out of it.  And you can't simply give simple solutions to a system which is total. That's why I liken it to The Matrix in fact because it's very, very much like the matrix system portrayed in the movies as far as realities go, and with their false endings, even within the movie. You think you have arrived, that the person is going to give you the answer, you've arrived at the right place only to find out there's another compartment or level above you or beneath you or to the side of you and so on. That's how the system is. It's a very complex system.

And people get depressed in the winter, especially when it's a bad winter like we have now, and the last few years in fact. There are fewer jobs as well, people are being laid off and unemployed or working so many part-time jobs they are burned out.  Many folk are lonely of course, naturally, because if you are into trying to understand what's happening in the world, you're getting the patterns, you see how it fits together, it's very difficult to talk to people who are in their programming. They have been well programed from childhood onwards in fact and they have really, they take the world as it is presented to them and everything in the world and all aspects of it, the way the media, the television and so on presents it to them. They take it that way. They think, well naturally, it's a natural way to take it. That's why it works so well for those who run the world. Why would you think that you're being deceived? Why would you think that?  In a natural society why would you think you were born into a form of deception? And being trained not to see what's there? So it's a natural thing for them to cling onto that, I must be right, and all authorities must be right, all authority figures must be right, because they all say they are. You see. And all their friends do too, who are also under the influence of the world being presented to them and they have taken it as the presentation is given.

That's the hard part for people. And I tell them, when you're really getting depressed about it all, pull back. Pull back. Don't overwhelm yourself with what seems to be negativity because negativity will destroy you and put you into a massive depression. You can't allow that to happen to yourselves. Pull back from listening to the bad news.  Even the show that I do, pull back from it.  And relax, allow your mind to relax. Concentrate on the things you must get done to survive and get through day to day, and do the essential things. But pull away from things that just spouts out, there's a lot of shows out there that spout fear every day, which seems to be overwhelming. It is overwhelming in fact, and they use a shotgun approach to things. They tell you 50 bad things that are scary things that are being considered by governments around the world, all at the same time, within an hour or two, and then you're left shattered afterwards, in a frenzy. That's the shotgun approach, scattergun approach were all these problems are whacked at you and not a single solution is given in the presentations. Which makes you wonder why they're doing it in the first place.  [Alan scoffs.]  But again, you've got to remember that a lot of what’s called the patriot business is a business for those people. Don't forget that.  Without what's happening in the world they would have no business, and that's how they do it.

Now, you must always pace yourself according to the news that's been given out there and don't become incredibly overwhelmed by it and put down by it  until, as many people find, they can't communicate.  I mean, it's very difficult to communicate to those around you, who are living in their day-to-day television series and the dramas and so on and their news.  And you know why things are happening on the news even, of why it's being presented, something is being presented in some certain way, but you can't convey it to them.  Just bite your tongue at times. It's not their fault. It's not their fault. Many folks' conditioning is so perfect, it has taken so well in them they can't understand what you're talking about. It terrifies them if you try and explain to them something that's happening. They always say, choose your battles. It's the same when you're choosing your talks for conversation, choose them, know when to talk and when to listen. And you know, you don't have to get into some butting of heads like a couple of goats, you don't have to do that. It doesn't get them anywhere because they've already made their mind up, they're not going to… they can't believe you. If they did believe you they would crack up, you see.  It fills them full of fear. Someone who's been brought up to think that, why would anybody, why would a system lie to me about so much? It fills them full of fear. It terrifies them.

So you have to choose your talks to people and conversations and know when to live inside your head. I’ve told so many folk to do that. But when it becomes overwhelming, pull back, you've got plenty inside your mind to think about.  You don't have to listen every day, and this is part of the technique too of fear. There are those who put out fear, fear, fear, fear everyday... because it becomes addictive.  I've mentioned this so many times before and folk should really use the archive section of cuttingthroughthematrix.com where I explain the techniques of horror movies and psychology. Even in the worst B-movie horror movie people will watch the beginning and say, oh God no.  But the hook it's in you see, what's going to happen to so-and-so? And you project yourself as so-and-so the hero, or the victim, and as a girl, that's got to be the heroine or the victim.  And the primitive part of your brain kicks in because the horror movies are about impending danger, life extinction, all that kind of thing. And you don't want to turn away because it works, a horror movie, it works just like a dream, that's how it works and is assessed, with you being chased or whatever and if you turn away or don't tune in you might miss something that's going to save your life. So you listen to the shows that spout bad, bad, bad, terrifying news, very scary, with all the music behind it… Whenever you hear music dramatizing someone's words, and it's going bang-bang-bang-bang, whatever the noise they're making at the time, these are psychological techniques to intensify fear. I hope you understand all that.  And you've got to pull back, you see, switch the darned thing off. You find out no monster is going to get you at the end of the movie, because you're not going to watch it.  And it's the same thing when you're hearing, tuning into shows every day that are petrifying you, don't do it.  It will kill you. It will destroy you.

So that's a bit of advice for everybody. Because in this world today you have enough, enough natural bad stuff going on. A lot of you are struggling, we are all struggling actually financially.  The economies are going down the tubes. China was made and set up to be, not by China but by the Western countries and their governments in collusion with the World Bank and the Bank for International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, all private institutions, and the GATT treaty and so on for trade and tariffs.  We set up China as the commercial manufacturer of most things for the whole planet.  In fact, we funded it through our tax money and so on, unbeknownst to the people themselves we funded it all. And they knew the impact of impoverishment and job losses of nonproducing countries, they knew that would happen. And they knew there would be depressions, economic depressions and mass unemployment and so on. That was all decided by our betters who often pretend they are elected by you and that they are there to serve you, which of course is never, in my life for sure, ever been the actual truth at all. That's the way it is. I'm not saying it's fair. It's unfair, of course it is. But there's nothing fair in this massive system of economics. There's nothing fair, never will be in an economic system set up the way it is and the way that we have experienced it for so long. It can't be fair. It's not designed to be. It doesn't want to be.

So when you're getting overwhelmed with things, pull back, switch off all the terrifying news, in fact all news for that matter.  And get the things done that you must do. If you're unemployed try and get something to tide you over.  It's imperative that you try. You don't have to like the job, just do it. Earn enough money and when it gives you time to look around for something else and so on that's a little bit better, and not so soul destroying as I call some jobs because a lot of them are definitely soul destroying, if they are repetitive especially.  And take care of yourself. Get the imperative things taken care of first of all. And when you go back into it, looking out for what's happening in the world, you'll find that if you had some peace in you, you must have some peace there, then you can handle it much, much better. And don't go right back into the same routine of getting terrified every day, hour after hour, listening to certain things. Pull back, get the important things that are going on, and keep the basic view of what's going on, the basic view. You have to forget all of the rest of the extraneous stuff, get the basic view and that's all you need to know.

I've gone over the whole big world agenda for so long from documents put out by members of big organizations involved in globalism, and the boys involved in the culture industry who meet at global meetings as well on how to make sure, along with the educational systems and so on, they make sure they're bringing up the right kind of society to be manipulated by the system, which is going to get more and more intensive. These things have all been going on for well over 100 years now. And I've also gone through all the different organizations that work for the big changes that help the big international corporations continue. The big international corporations you'll find are sponsors of all the supposed civil liberty groups and so on out there and the big cultural change groups that are out there, and so on and so on.

So be very careful what you listen to. You don't have to listen to their whole spiel, you know what it's going to be and you know what spin they're going to take on before you start listening, and once you understand it, switch it off and start thinking for yourself. Because you must get through life. You must get through life yourself. It's imperative you take care of yourself.

Now, I've mentioned Bill C-51 in Canada, this Anti-Terrorism Act 2015 quite a few times and I'll just touch on this tonight to start off.  I warned about it last time, what this could turn into. It's inevitable, in fact, that if it gets passed it will turn into, I think even if they don't pass it this time, we're already doing most of it anyway, it just gives them more right to do further things openly, I think. But anyway this says:

Bill C-51: What it is and controversy behind it

torontosun.com / Julia Alexander / March 18, 2015

What is Bill C-51?

According to the Government of Canada, Bill C-51, also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, was designed to, “encourage and facilitate information sharing between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of Canada.”

The Conservative Party introduced the idea of increasing security provisions after the Parliament Hill shooting in October, but didn’t formally introduce the act until January.

Simply put, the Stephen Harper government wants to allocate more power to police services and security institutions like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to keep a closer eye on potentially dangerous terrorism situations and prevent future attacks.

Why does the Harper government insist we need it?  (Alan:  And this is from the Toronto Sun.)

According to the act’s official summary, Bill C-51 would ensure safer transportation services for Canadians, allow law enforcement to step in and arrest, without question, a person they suspect is about to carry out a terrorist attack, and it would increase the protection of witnesses who come forward with information on a potential terrorist attack.

(A:  Now, you often find witnesses who come forward, or witnesses they've already grabbed, you see, who are already in jail awaiting some sentence, for maybe their part in something or knowing someone or whatever and being involved in something. And it's well known in this whole judicial system that we live in that they tend to, they can make things up to get out and get other people incriminated who have nothing to do with them whatsoever. That's fairly common in the criminal justice system and we hear about it all the time. And it would simply increase. Because every other country that was totalitarian have used the same techniques in the past, this is what happens, no one becomes safe at all, even folks they don't like, they will rat on them, and once you're on a list, you know, you can't really prove your innocence. Once you're on a list government does not, as people who are in government have told me, work very fast to correct mistakes, they don't do that. They're so slow, they go around corners on four square wheels.  They lumber in other words. And once you're on a list your life can become absolute hell, absolute hell. Can you imagine each trip you would take in a vehicle, they would have your license plate, you have the automatic scanners now as you drive by and they pull you over just to harass you and question you and so on. Because the police themselves have already judged you as you're being… The judgment has been made for them that you are suspicious, you see, if you're on a list. And that's the sad truth of so-called civilization.)

Essentially, the government would increase its role in national security to keep a constant watchful eye on potentially harmful situations and end them before anyone is hurt or killed.

Why is it so controversial?

Civil liberty groups and other critics have claimed the bill stretches the definition of security to potentially include peaceful protests, further restricts freedom of expression, and raises privacy concerns, since the act would allow federal institutions such as Health Canada and Revenue Canada to share private information with the RCMP.

Critics have also expressed grave concerns that it fails to define terrorism clearly, (A:  And you can't because they're already broadening it to include many other things that are not what you would call terrorist related at all. And that's inevitable as well.) and in attempting to remove all terrorist propaganda from the Internet will effectively try to censor freedom of expression on the Internet, violating a handful of online civil liberties.  (A:  It will be more than a handful of civil liberties. Personal conversations on the phone or whatever, little comments you make, even jokes you make, it will all be taken awfully, awfully seriously. And it becomes a nightmare. That's the problem with this kind of system.)

 

(A:  So it was read a second time apparently before the standing committee.  It was pushed through parliament fast.)

Where is Bill C-51 at?

Bill C-51 was formally introduced on Jan. 30, and since then has been rapidly pushed through Parliament.

On Feb. 23, the bill was passed and read a second time before being referred to the Standing Committee.

(A:  I think it's got one more go then it will be into law.)

So as I say, these are like bad dreams because you know the history of other countries that have used techniques like this before in the past, and they are horrific. The stories that come out are horrific, how so many lives were utterly destroyed, destroyed by this kind of system that comes in when you have suspicion, suspicion.

Another article here is:

Why I Am Fighting Bill C-51

huffingtonpost.ca / 03/20/2015 / ELIZABETH MAY

The reaction to Bill C-51 has been widespread and the opposition is growing. While its short title is the "Anti-Terrorism Act," it is both more and less than that.

It is less than "anti-terrorism" because it is likely to make us less safe. The act gives new powers to CSIS to act in Canada and overseas to "reduce threats," with virtually no limits. CSIS is specifically not allowed to cause death or bodily harm or "violate the sexual integrity" of anyone. The range of potential activities -- from break and enter, search and seizure, infiltration, monkey-wrenching, include powers to offer witnesses immunity from prosecution or from ever having to testify.  (A:  So some obscure witness can just say something about you, and that's you.)

There is no requirement that CSIS tell the RCMP what it is up to (A:  That's the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.), and it is the RCMP that has been successfully countering plots and arresting suspects. Just imagine when the RCMP finds key witnesses have a "get out of jail free" card from CSIS. (A:  That's the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.)  That and other sections run a high degree of probability of gumming up the works. Security experts, especially those with experience in the Air India inquiry, remind us that it is critical that security agencies not develop silos. C-51 takes a system that is currently working quite well and threatens to turn it into a three ring circus, without benefit of a ring-master.

It is also less than Canadians would expect, as there is nothing in C-51 to work against radicalization. No outreach efforts, nothing for the prison system or the schools as the U.K. government established in its new law passed in December 2014.

It is more than anti-terrorism, as the range of activities covered by a new and sweeping definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in the information sharing section of the bill covers far more than terrorism. It could plausibly cover just about anything, and certainly would cover those opposing pipelines and tankers.  (A:  That's the enviro-groups and so on.)

It is actually five bills rolled into one. Each part contains provisions I can only describe as dangerous. For example, part 5, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Act, appear to allow the use of evidence obtained by torture. Part 3, ostensibly about getting terrorist propaganda off the Internet, uses a set of new concepts that would criminalize private conversations (A:  I mean, that's terrible, that.) -- and not just about terrorism.  (A:  Humph.) The propaganda section does not require knowing you are spreading propaganda, and "terrorist propaganda" itself has a definition so broad as to include a visual representation promoting a new concept called "terrorism in general." Experts are now referring to this as "thought chill."  (A:  ...thought chill.. Actually, it will be thought kill because it will kill… you'd better kill off any ability to think at all, I think. )

As the first MP to oppose C-51, I now have a lot of company: four former prime ministers, six former Supreme Court justices, over 100 legal experts, Conrad Black, Rex Murphy, Tom Mulcair and the NDP, the editorial positions of the Globe and Mail, National Post and Toronto Star. The Assembly of First Nations has called for it to be withdrawn. I hope you agree as well. (A:  And that's in the Huffington Post.)

But we're going down the route, the inevitable route, actually, of what happens when countries become more tyrannical and obsessional in a particular ideology of some kind. Today it's the need for antiterrorism and everyone is suspicious.  Anyone who is a bit different at all will be put down as suspicious and possibly dangerous.  Because if they don't know much about you then yeah, you could be dangerous, or you could be quite simply happy and not dangerous at all. It doesn't matter. See, facts don't matter anymore. And if you disagree with various things in government just by your opinions on things, that's maybe enough to get you into hot water, by having an opinion on something or an observation.

It's… Well, I've always said that something wicked this way comes, and this is repeated down through history as I've said before. And with today's technologies it makes it all the more easier to carry it all out. It's rather sad. It's rather, rather sad. But you know, I've mentioned different talks that I've given in the past about how science itself impacts society.  Very important thing to understand because people don't…  People really don't… I think Jacques Ellul said, the people learn by osmosis. It's that they don't really reason or think things through from information from outside that comes to you. It just comes, it just sort of sinks in there and you don't question it or reason through it, or agree or disagree with a lot of it. And to do with technology, that's part of it because we've got to understand that a long time ago, not so long ago actually, really, most folk had to travel by horse or horse and cart.  That's the ones that could afford the horses, lots of folk couldn't.  Then for a long time, for instance, in the 20th century public transportation was the only way that a good part of the British people could move around, trains or mainly buses actually, to get to their work and all the rest of it.

Everything is geared towards an economic system.  There's no way out of that allowed in the system, it doesn't allow that. Because you must earn money even to pay taxes. At one time people would become hobos and take to the road, and take their chances and maybe die, you know, in the winter and so on. But even that was a form of freedom and the right to choose that. But that's all been taken away too as they grabbed them off the streets on the various acts, vagrancy acts or mental health acts or whatever. And you can't even get that loophole out, to just escaped now and walk off and say I've given up on society.  So you must earn money to buy the things, because in the system everything is based on money. You must buy things to feed yourself, clothe yourself, warmth, heat, shelter, clothing and so on, and pay taxes.

The whole system is a complete system and you are there to serve the system in actual fact. And that's how you're described in economic schools and so on, you're collateral, you see.  You are a worker. You are a resource, a human resource. And they work out from statistics on your health and so on, and your past health, how long you might get in a working situation, a particular job, and contribute to society as they call it. That means, by the definition at the United Nations, YOU'RE A GOOD CONSUMER, so you've got the money to buy things, AND YOU'RE A GOOD PRODUCER.  When you become just a consumer, when you retire, then you're really a bad citizen. And if you become unemployed, then you're bad, you're not contributing, you're not contributing taxes and so on and so on. Because government is so huge today, it's massive, and many of the big foundations out there also get tax money for all their nongovernmental organizations, which are funded by the foundations, they get tax money added to it. Because everything is shaped and geared to take you along a particular avenue of believing in the system and why they are doing things, environmentally or any other way, and it's all for your good, etc. etc.

So we're not just simply… I've always said that culture just doesn't develop anymore. It's always planned and shaped and controlled. And that's what it's all about, is massive control, right down to thought control, obviously. But when you introduce technology of any kind into society you're not riding around in the horse and cart anymore, or Shank's pony which is your legs of course, you're not walking.  And you're into getting a vehicle, etc., and all that goes with it, your insurances, taxes, road taxes and so on, in order to get to and from work and all the rest of it. So that changed massively society, and it allowed folk for the first time to get out of these crammed cities into outer areas and travel into work as well and get a bit of freedom and peace from the crowded, crowded cities.  That's all to change because the whole agenda for the 21st century, they want you back in these crowded cities, for you lot.  But they have a tiered system for those who are middle wealthy and very wealthy and so on, little perks along the way. Everything is based with economics on awards for those beneath.

So again, technology changes it all. So the vehicle itself changed society massively and eventually they want to take it all away from you again.  And what they've replaced a lot of it with is something that helps all of the institutions, set up by governments and working with governments, and working with the economic system, to monitor you all and manage you even better, of course that's the Electronic Revolution that they had.  Many years ago I read on the air articles about the big military industrial complex and how they were putting articles out in the papers and magazines, years ago, about if they come to the end of wars – they were already preparing as they were doing this, the big global wars for instance – they were going into security, domestic security systems, cameras, microphones and so on, and the computer and all the rest of it, even before they gave us the computer. And it's all come to pass. And of course there always lobbying government. Remember what the definition of lobbying and lobbyist happens to be. Because lobbying government, if you lobby government you're trying, a special interest group is trying to influence the decisions of government policy.  And those decisions then are passed on, which alter your behavior, beneath the government of course, if they mandate you must have this, they mandate you must have that.  And your police forces, everything that they mandate that they must have, are getting all these camera systems that are everywhere, tied into your computerized system in the cars and so on and so on. It's all interconnected. So technology itself alters your behavior.

When something is placed in your environment it alters your behavior. They knew that with the radio. When the radio came out the BBC used it immediately and it sprung up immediately to use it for propaganda.  They used it widely for World War I.  They found out they could alter people's behavior, by ensuring the radios were cheap enough to buy, and they could put them in workplaces, even in factories at times, and you would listen to the shows. And they gave you, they found that cliffhanger dramas, you were left with the cliffhanger at the end, welltune in tomorrow for the serial to find out what happens to the hero as she is hanging off the cliff, will he or won't he die? Folk would rush to their homes after work to hear the next episode. So it would alter human behavior. They knew it altered behavior with the use of advertising too, by promoting certain things people would change their dress codes, things like that, their hairdos, all of these things.  Then when television came in, bang, that was really off to a big, big thing. Cinema was also used as well. There was tremendous war propaganda documentaries about how to get the people happy, happy, happy, the young folk who don't know any better to join up and go off to war. It was all put across very happy with lots of dancing and so on, and we are the youth and we're going to do it all.  An actor dressed up in the uniforms, who were never in the military, telling them why they have to go off and fight, even though these actors were not going off to fight themselves.

This is management of the mind, you understand.  So technology can massively, and always does, alter human behavior. By behavior too I also mean your thought, what you think about, how you think about things, why you think about things, and opinions you're led to conclude and they become your opinions.  That's why there are so many neuroscientists and psychologists and behaviorists involved with all these big companies that present movies, television, dramas, documentaries, things for government, documentaries and so on, right down to the management of the Internet, on behalf of the authorities.  So everybody buys their personal computer, oh, privacy is yours, and all that nonsense, when they had no intention of that. It was for their benefit to categorize you with your personality style and so on. They said it was, first, for advertisers so that they would really find out how you tick and promote things to you. But of course it was really for all of those involved in it including government agencies and security agencies to personality profile you.

And they're constantly doing studies. They hand a lot of this data over, in fact, they give access to streams on the Internet to a lot of universities, like MIT and so on, to profile groups of people and find clusters of people, why you are in this little cluster, what you all have in common, what other things do you have in common, why is this?  Massive psychological manipulation will be used on all of the people according to what they observe, you see, that's how precise and how deep all this goes and it works awfully, awfully well for them.

So this whole idea with Bill C-51 for Canada, and all the British Commonwealth countries have the same kind of bills, it's inevitable. They planned this years ago. They knew, before they gave you the Internet they would bring out all these different bills under different guises at the right times and so on, to manage. Because the first thing the government must do, the first job that it has, is to preserve itself.  And itself means also the whole institution, not just the government but the system of economics that you're born into.  So be very careful when you're thinking about getting this and getting that because it's, oh it's so convenient.  It will be used on you, that's the prime purpose of it. The second purpose is to condition you as well and bring you to the correct opinions and observations and all the rest of it. And also to make you think that privacy is a quaint old-fashioned idea. Many folk already do.  And you don't understand that people fought for centuries over things such as privacy, to have privacy in the first place.  When you lose that you have no security. And when you have no privacy of your mind it's all over, it's finished, forget it, throw in the towel.

So I tell people try and reclaim your mind, if you want to.  Many folk don't want to. They're happy. I've read articles by the big global planners before where they have said that many people will love their servitude.  And they do. If they're doing okay financially and so on and they are young enough to feel healthy and they can party and all the rest of it, they love it, they love the system. They're okay.  I'm okay, Jack.  You know, I'm all right Jack, as they say.  So that's the way it is. Everyone has been divided into different categories. So don't expect, you know. Don't expect other people to simply jump on board and start questioning things. And don't get angry with them when they can't or won't.  You can't get angry and ostracize yourself completely. You got to live amongst the world of people, and it takes all kinds of people, you see.  And the conflict doesn't help, at all.

Now, talking about how technology changes our whole way of behavior. I've mentioned so many times about the fact that they've known for an awful long time, even from World War I when they took photographs of the troops in the trenches, the troops would behave differently.  They would walk differently, their stances would be different when they knew they were being filmed. You might have experienced that yourself when someone's taking a photograph of you, you don't stand normally or relax or whatever. You'll stand in a different pose or whatever because you're being filmed.

Well, they also know that when you're being filmed in the streets by CCTV cameras then your behavior is changed too. The spontaneity of how you would joke with your pals, it goes, it disappears. Because you're being watched.  So you learn to self-police yourself, that becomes second nature. Wherever you go you're being watched and you become more, apparently more into yourself, introverted, you see, and they know this at the top. They want to encourage people to self-police themselves, the way that George Orwell's 1984 portrayed Winston with that bland expression of his, because an expression could give you away as being a subversive, or a thoughtful person, which is the same thing.

Think about this.  Here's an article here, right along this inevitable path as I say. It says:

‘CCTV in all homes’:

 Police chief’s domestic security call attacked by privacy groups

rt.com / March 09, 2015 / Reuters/Soeren Stache

(A:  Now, they've already tried this in Britain, I know that, in certain areas. In fact, they used it for people who were suspected, supposedly, years ago, of abnormal behavior in the home. They might be kind of loud with each other, whatever it was, someone would report them.  In would come the authorities and the social workers and so on and then they put cameras up and watched them. It says here:)

Britain’s most senior police officer has urged families and business owners to install hidden eye-level CCTV cameras to make it easier to identify burglars. (A:  Right.)  Privacy rights groups say it will make the public “an extension of the police.”

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (A:  They love these hyphens, eh; there’s a story behind that too but that’s a different story.) encouraged property owners to make a “stronger effort” to help with criminal investigations.

(A:  Now, I wonder who's been lobbying him as to… You don't think that the guys at the top of these things... Yeah, they'll get lobbyists, you know, and the lobbyists always help them on their career path and they also help them with funding and so on, things that they're never going to admit to.  It's always been that way.)

Families and business owners should plant two CCTV cameras in their homes, Howe says, ideally one high camera to capture the full crime scene and another eye-level camera to capture clear images of criminals’ faces.  (A:  Well remember, everyone under the modern law system, then the training of the police, puts everyone down as a potential criminal. That's you, too, that are sitting in your own home.)

Those who are only able to install one camera must ensure it is at eye-level. Howe claims this is the “most important angle.” He said this strategy would make it easier for police to identify criminals.

However, privacy campaigners have condemned the strategy, claiming it will turn the public into “an extension of the police.”   (A:  Well that's… It's beyond just that, folks. I love how they give you these, these little canards... an extension of the police. It's beyond that. It will alter your complete behavior if there's cameras in the home. You won't be spontaneous. You won’t be so happy and joking and all that. Jokes can be dangerous now, you know.)

Few British households already have CCTV cameras installed, and the minority that do “position them too high.”   (A:  [Alan laughing.])

“Over the last year as facial recognition software has got better, we can apply the software to the images of burglaries or robberies and we can compare those images with the images we take when we arrest people,” Howe told LBC radio. (A:  And it goes on and on and on.)

 

But I mean, these are the little articles here meant to make you, and a lot of folk will, who are conditioned, well we should do that, yeah, yeah, yeah. And this is how… They don't question all the dangers to it all, at all, it doesn't enter their heads.

Many of the talks I’ve given in the past I've gone through a lot of the history of this, and even the history of the Psychiatric Association, that is not just involved in psychiatry, believe it or not. There was a big political push at the beginning to create a psychiatric professional movement, with the intention eventually of running the world.  Science, that's themselves at the top basically, they would determine who should be in power; a good idea actually but for the wrong reasons. They wanted to test all politicians or people who ran for politics and so on to see if they were sane enough to do it. Now, if any group had that particular power then they would of course abuse it right away. Because what is their definition of someone who is sane enough to use it? If you didn't have the same attitudes as the psychiatric majority, who would have their own votes on particular topics, then you wouldn't get in. On the other hand, I personally do believe that anyone with any kind of power over the public, right down to the policeman, should be tested for psychopathy. I really believe that. I really, really do believe that. And that goes for any government worker who's involved in your taxation and all the other things that they do, and anybody who's in charge of housing and so many different fields, should be tested for psychopathy. In this system it's mainly psychopaths who get up in charge of things, because they’re very aggressive, they take the risks, the chances, incredibly manipulative, and they can dispose of all competition as they claw their way up too, without a thought, because they have no conscience.

But here's where they're going to go, according to the last article for instance, where the police just want you to have cameras, to catch burglars, it says. Well, here's the other part of it, which falls in naturally.  It says:

ACLU Lawsuit Seeks Data on

TSA's Creepy  "Behavior Detection" Program

motherjones.com / Allie Gross / Mar. 23, 2015

(A:  Now, that's the transportation safety agency. This is the one that's the big one in the States that they created, which is crazy, there's so many agencies tripping over each other. But this says:)

Airport security basically sucks: Being herded through a Tensabarrier maze alongside a bunch of strangers is vexing enough. Then throw in the bag searches, the bomb-swabs, the mandatory doffing and donning of footwear and accessories, the "complimentary" pat down—it's hardly surprising that some people will come through the experience looking less than cheerful.

Nowadays, though, your very reasonable travel emotions (anxiety, stress, fear, despondency) can earn you even more face time with the Transportation Security Administration. Since 2003 TSA has toyed with the idea of placing "behavior detection officers" in airports across America (A:  They're not toying with it, they've put them in already, I’ve read the articles in the past.) —part of a $1 billion counter-terrorism measure known as SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques), which officially launched in 2007.  (A:  And they have computer programs too, that were invented by other psychopaths, who would immediately dive into where they see their prospects of advancements and in their paychecks and so on.)

"Our request and the lawsuit is to determine if TSA can adequately defend SPOT."

The behavior detection officer's job is to scan travelers' faces for micro-expressions—facial movements that come and go in the blink of an eye and are said to convey a person's true emotions. When one of these airport mentalists (A:  ...and that's really what it's down to, isn't it?)  spots a potentially shifty character, he can take it to the next level by striking up a casual conversation—the idea being that brief encounters may suggest whether a person poses a threat.

Signs of "anti-social" behavior (see emotions above) may result in a traveler being flagged for additional security measures. Between 2004 and 2008, as my former colleague Ben Buchwalter has reported, 152,000 people were flagged but fewer than 1,110 were arrested. Most of the arrestees "were undocumented aliens, had outstanding warrants, or were carrying fake documents or drugs."   (A:  So other reasons caught them, you see.  So out of the 152,000 people, really, that were flagged for facial expressions, all they got were folk who gave themselves away by fake documents or they had drugs on them or something else or warrants.)

Meanwhile, the SPOT program, which relies heavily on officers' subjective observations, has been compared to the "stop-and-frisk" police tactics that have resulted—at least in New York City—in a disproportionate number of stops of blacks and Latinos. In an anonymous complaint obtained by the New York Times, one Boston TSA officer wrote that "the behavior detection program is no longer a behavior-based program, but it is a racial profiling program." The Times interviewed other TSA officers who corroborated the claim.

All you would have to do is take the same program, and they're already doing this by the way, and putting facial expressions into your homes, like the article we just talked about, CCTV cameras in all of your homes.  And then of course, why were you irritated Mr. so-and-so when you were watching TV, and this is being presented, why were you, you had a frowned expression on your face? Will they take you in for reconditioning and reeducation? Like, a camp there that they'll take you into?  This is all inevitable, folks. And all the programs that are out there, and again, through lobbyists companies and so on to push all this on government, it's fascist. When governments and lobbyists work together, that technically is fascist, big corporations involved, for financial gain, to get their products put through lawfully, into law, to be used in homes and things like that, then that's it, it's over.

Then this article here, it says:

Are smartphones making our children mentally ill?

telegraph.co.uk / Peter Stanford / 21 Mar 2015

(A:  [Alan scoffs.] There's a form of doublespeak in the article, it says:)

Julie Lynn Evans has been a child psychotherapist for 25 years, working in hospitals, schools and with families, (A:  …blah, blah, blah.) and she says she has never been so busy.

“In the 1990s, I would have had one or two attempted suicides a year – mainly teenaged girls taking overdoses, the things that don’t get reported. Now, I could have as many as four a month.”

Now, what she's mainly saying is, their cell phones.  In fact, they can look into all kinds of things without parental consent, that are causing the problem. Society today is broken. Families are broken. There's been a war on the family structure for an awful long time to break it up. And the fallout is phenomenal, it's not just the phones, folks. And the push in this article, really, when it gets down to it, is for putting more resources into mental health services, which is a big United Nations mandate, has been for many years, to get every child from birth right through into adulthood checked constantly for mental health. And that includes having the right attitudes, that are pushed out by the top, that you must accept and must parrot.  If you don't parrot it you’re mentally ill.

So you'd better be careful the things you actually watch and read yourselves. You must always dissect everything and look at it from different sides, different angles. So as I said, remember, very early psychiatry's objective was to evaluate everyone in society eventually and help run society, including the politics and everything else. That hasn't stopped. So when you see articles like that be very, very careful, it's still the same mandate that's on the go. Rather than look at all the things, all the factors that go into destroying all of society, pushed steadily since at least the 60s, actually before that but steadily since the 60s, until you have dysfunctional everything, how many folk are really functional in any direction at all these days?  Be very, very careful. But they don't go into checking themselves, who's watching the watchers? Who's doing the diagnosis on the psychiatrist? Many of them, too, are psychopathic by the way.

Now, here's an article here that ties in with, again, how technology changes society, not just those who use them but those who see the potential for using it on you. And there have been many articles out before about schools using apps and putting them into the different...again, mandating you buy their computer or whatever or even giving you them from the school, and they can then tap in any time they want, any teacher can, and watch what you're doing, and actually watch and hear what you’re doing as well.  And even seeing you undressing in your bedroom, a lot of these scandals are dying down by now, because folk are being acclimatized to those as though it's all quite normal.  But this article here says:

Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS)

pearsonclinical.com / Edward S. Shapiro, PhD

The time-tested BOSS direct observation program is now available as a smart phone application, making it easier than ever for you (A:  …this is for teachers.) to monitor students’ behavior. Backed by extensive research, the BOSS system provides reliable and valid data on specific problem areas—so that you can determine appropriate remediations to help students succeed.  (A:  So it's all to help students succeed, by you observing them and sneaking and watching them.)

Features & Benefits

Take advantage of this new app to help easily pinpoint areas for behavior remediation. Use this intuitive tool (A:  …it’s intuitive, right…)with grades pre-K through 12 to assist you in:

• Recording and tracking frequency of targeted positive and negative behaviors. (A:  Again, these are all value judgments by the teacher, who might not like the student.)
• Documenting a student’s active or passive engagement in activities.
• Tabulating data and emailing it to you for future use to help support a disability diagnoses. (A:  Who's doing the diagnosing here?)

(A:  And it tells you how to order this BOSS program, BOSS app and so on.)

To download the BOSS app, visit the Apple® or Android™ app store

(A:  Then it's got training, they have all these different training tools, products.))

Training

Pre-recorded Webinars

Conducting Systematic Behavioral Observations in Schools: Using BOSS App for iPhone and Android Webinar Recording

A brief discussion of the basic concepts of systematic direct observation will first be presented.  A full explanation of the BOSS code, its categories and methods of data collection will be provided with an emphasis highlighting the use of the BOSS App available for iPhone and Android.

(A:  Then it says:)

You May Also Like:

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition

Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales

(A:  Social skills, is that what schools are there for, to teach you different social skills? Well, they're always upgrading the politically correct social skills, right, and so on, so that's really an order one.  But here's an article here and it says:)

Orwellian nightmare unleashed on schoolkids

Teachers now thought police with extreme new spy 'tools'

mobile.wnd.com / 03/15/2015 / Leo Hohmann

(A:  Remember, this fits in with the GIRFEC in Britain and everything else; there's many ways to monitor you and guide you from birth to death now. With the GIRFEC in Scotland they put a government-sponsored person, an agent really, who must come into your home, you must let them in, from about the age of two months onwards. And they get into all your business, the parental business, everything else, and to make sure that that child is getting the right kind of indoctrination, it doesn't have any particular dislikes of any people or anything else and so on and so on, so they can always adjust you as you grow up.)

Technology is increasingly being used by schools to gather data on students, testing not just their knowledge of subjects like reading, math and science but subjective "social skills."  (A:  Social skills.)

Parents and students have been “opting out” of high-stakes testing in record numbers over the past year, saying the standardized tests waste valuable instruction time, cause undue stress and often measure “skills” that have nothing to do with academic knowledge.

Rather than merely asking for a right or wrong answer to a math, history or science question, (A:  Oh, that’s old fashioned stuff now, that’s passé.) the new assessment industry is capable of boring into a child’s attitudes, values, opinions and beliefs, all of which parents and privacy advocates say is no business of the government’s.  (A:  And that’s absolutely true.  All of the things that they're going to pry into make you you, and it's your right to be you.)

The pushback has led some state education systems to recommend a reduction in the amount of high-stakes testing in public schools.

But, parents beware, the sudden realization that maybe too much testing is going on is not going to lead to less data being collected. Quite the opposite.

In fact, traditional testing may no longer be needed. Schools have found they have better, more efficient ways to collect even more data on your child, without resorting to paper and sharpened No. 2 pencils.

Oregon’s Gov. John Kitzhaber, for instance, assigned a task force to this problem recently and after a year of private meetings, the group is ready to unveil its recommendations which are expected to include replacing standardized tests with high-tech “observation” tools.  (A:  And I'll put all these links up, remember, tonight at cuttingthroughthematrix.com.  And the link is in here for all that, the high tech observation tools.)

Fewer tests might sound like a relief to stressed-out students and wary parents.

But what if your child’s teacher could have access to a software application that allows her to collect data on your child in real time, without ever being rolled out in a test?

Enter the BOSS app. It is just one of countless new data-collection products available to school systems looking to collect data on the sneak.

BOSS stands for Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools. (A:  You can do it out of school too, though.)  The app was designed to “enable psychologists to observe” patients but is now being marketed to schools interesting in tracking students’ behavioral patterns.

Created by the British-based textbook giant Pearson, the BOSS app can be loaded onto a smartphone and used to secretly monitor every move of targeted students in the classroom.  (A:  What about out of the classroom?)

Does little Johnny fidget in his seat a bit too much? Does he socialize with the students around him in an appropriate manner? Does he tend to stare aimlessly out the window when he should be paying attention to the teacher?

All of this information can be pulled in and stored in an individual dossier for later analyzing and assigned an intervention and remediation that will deal with Johnny’s shortcomings, whether they be laziness, lack of assertiveness, over-aggressiveness or whatever psychological problem the app may discover.  (A:  Of course, they will all be infallible, right?  [Alan chuckles.])

BOSS app can be downloaded from iTunes for $29.99 and comes in age-appropriate versions from pre-K through 12th grade. (A:  So this app, really, it's quite something. It's beyond many of the other ones that are already out there. But again, it's not the only one out there too.)

The BOSS app is not the only new technology percolating in the education industry that has the ability to invisibly assess students in real time without their knowledge, or the knowledge of their parents.   (A: Because parents don’t matter anymore.  The state owns the children; they own us actually.)

 

Below is a small sampling of other apps being marketed to educators:

(A:  And here's the info and it says:)

You Can Handle Them All app• “You Can Handle Them All”: This app, produced by Master Teacher (A: That’s another one.,), describes 124 behaviors that teachers may encounter in their students and identifies the primary cause of each. (A:  Oh, like they just know now it, hey.  There could be many factors involved.)  A teacher using this app places each student into a category, with options that include “The Blabbermouth,” “The Blurter,” “The Boss,” “The Bully,” “The Complainer,” “The Disengaged” and “The Class Clown.”   (A:  How about “The Labeler”?  That’s for the teacher.)  It then prompts the teacher with suggestions on how to remedy each unwanted behavior.

• “Pearson Dash”: Another product by Pearson, Dash, according to the iTunes product description, enables teachers to “Organize and track your students” according to classroom seating charts, to “record, edit, and e-mail observational notes on your students,” to “View student performance and mastery of skills with SuccessTracker data.”

• “What Would You Do at School If”: This app focuses squarely on social skills. Put out by Super Duper Publications, it seeks to elicit answers to sensitive, revealing questions that help schools develop a psychological profile on each student. Instead of a test, this app is presented to a young child as a fun “game”(A:  That's much the same as how it's presented to adults, they don't even know they're being monitored and checked and so on. It's fun, isn't it?)while collecting data on the child’s parental upbringing and personality.

(A:  So it's an invasion into privacy, of many areas too, but they won't push that so much.)

what would you do in school if “Select the cards you want students to see, and have them work on solving problems and practicing good social skills (A: Now, who has said what good social skills happen to be? It changes according to the Masters of the era.)  as they discuss situations in and around school,” the product description says. “The prompts include questions like, ‘What would you do if … you forgot your homework?’ and, ‘What would you do if … your classmate teased you about the new shirt you wore?’”

Students are then graded based on how many “right” answers (A: Now, what’s a right answer?) they give in what is clearly a test of one’s attitudes, behaviors, values and beliefs.  (A:  Well, that's why they designed it that way, you're not allowed certain attitudes, behaviors and values and beliefs anymore. Birth to death, reconditioning, reconditioning, reeducation, way beyond the old Soviet reeducation camps.) The problem with such questions, say privacy experts, is that the “right” answer is clearly subjective and has nothing to do with a student’s ability to acquire and retain objective academic knowledge.  (A:  But most schooling has nothing to do with academic knowledge anymore, it's social engineering.)

For instance, a parent may teach a boy to defend a weaker boy or a girl who is getting beat up by a bully. But what if the “right” answer in the role playing game is to go and tell a teacher or principal? Will the child get marked down if he answers that he would intervene and physically stop the bully’s attack? What will the remediation for this “wrong” behavioral skill be?  (A:  What will the remediation be?  Another thing you might say too, supposing that little boy that's being attacked is beat up or killed, when he's off reporting it to the teacher.  It would be another case to see, well should he have gone and helped break it up first, because that would apply to a human adult.)

According to promotional details on iTunes, the “What Would You Do at School If” app lets teachers:

• Track correct and incorrect responses for an unlimited number of players.

• Receive feedback for incorrect and/or correct responses

• View results in a graph and see which questions a player missed during a session.

• Print, E-mail and share your results. (A:  With whom?  Mental health authorities, agencies, whatever.)

The same vendor, Super Duper Publications, puts out a separate app called “Super Duper Data Tracker” that allows teachers to “increase the accuracy and efficiency of your data collection” on each individual student.

There are literally dozens of these apps out there being downloaded by teachers, often at the behest of administrators, (A:  Well, they're all getting lobbied, right, and there's money that changes hands, believe you me.) and many of them come tailored to the Common Core national education standards. (A: That’s just coincidence, right?)

One teacher who reviewed the Super Duper Data Tracker on iTunes said he liked it but wished the data came with increased portability and could be more easily integrated into other platforms.

“It would also be great if this was tied to a website where teachers had an account and could input large amounts of data on something other than the small screen or tempermental (sic) keyboard of an iPad/iPhone,” the teacher said. “Then everything would be backed up, we could share data with other team members (especially in situations where many people see one student!). It is a great app, I just think in the day of icloud and spreadsheets it is begging for a big overhaul.”

 

Well, that will come regardless because eventually their opinions will overcome any other reason of course, because it's already happening.  And little Johnny will be reconditioned his whole life long into being the proper kind of citizen that's been designed by the state.

Now, I've given talks in the past. As I’ve said, they're all in the archives section of cuttingthroughthematrix.com.  You can find talks on the big world players who helped create this presents culture, many of whom are long dead, because culture is always created, the future is always planned, folks, and who worked at the United Nations and with United Nations, with the big psychological associations, psychiatric Association so on.  I've given you all the different statements, even the books they put out, they're all in there, where they said that they would bring the situation in where you would get trained from birth to death.  So all this isn’t just happening spontaneously because of technology. It's time for it to get put forth. And many of them, and Bertrand Russell said it too, governments would be unable to resist the temptation to use all these methods to bring up a kind of society that the government itself desires. And it can be any kind of government.

Now, as I’ve said before, that's just the way it is, folks, and to get back to what I said earlier in the talk, you must proof your mind. You must proof it yourself, and guard your mind because you are you. Everything in you, your opinions and so on, all these different composites of you, that makes you you. That's the natural person. We don't want to go into stereotypes, like bricks in the wall on a conveyor belt getting stamped in the same shape and so on. But the big boys at the top don't want you to have different viewpoints and so on which are contrary, and are sometimes a nuisance to different government agendas. And then you do become an enemy of the state. And at the very least you become, get put into a label, pigeonholed, and they have many definitions and terms that they use for categories of humans in society. We're all monitored, believe you me.  It doesn't matter if you’re doing radio shows or not, or blogs or anything else, it doesn't matter, you're all getting monitored.

The folk who don't like what's happening are already called, and don't belong to any clubs or agencies or groups that are protesting.  They're called unaffiliated subversives on the grounds that they don't like certain things that are happening in society today. They're not politically correct.  They don't adopt the updates you’re given on what you should believe in, what you should think of certain things and topics and so on.

But anyway, don't let this destroy you or flatten you. Don't let it happen, folks, because when that happens and you all just cave-in, you’re as well as just saying, here's my brain do what you want with it. And that's not what life is all about, is it?

The ones at the top have their own definition of progress. But true progress has been freeing up people, from all kinds of slavery, by bullies and authorities of all kinds down through the ages.  And we have the brief little piece of it where we have certain rights and so on, and now it's all to be taken away, again. And you can't let that happen for any reason given to you by government. You can't go backwards.

And for those, as I say, who are being overwhelmed by information, switch off for a while. You don't have to tune into the horror story to see how it ends, you're not going to die tomorrow, whether you tune in or not. You must survive. You must look after your own mind. It's all you have. And I've often said, the mind has no firewall, be careful what you let in there.  Even that which seems to expose stuff, don’t let it destroy you.  And question the things that you think are destroying you. Be very, very careful. Because you do matter. You all matter.

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:

Bill C-51: What it is and controversy behind it

Why I Am Fighting Bill C-51

‘CCTV in all homes’: Police chief’s domestic security call attacked by privacy groups

ACLU Lawsuit Seeks Data on TSA's Creepy "Behavior Detection" Program

Are smartphones making our children mentally ill?

Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS)

BOSS User's Guide

Orwellian nightmare unleashed on schoolkids

Quote from Hamish on March 12, 2021, 7:28 pm

April 5, 2015 (#1497)

"Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt

(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)

 

"Lies and Deception Always in Season,

 A Good Excuse for the Masses, Then a Secret, Real Reason"

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on April 5, 2015.  Now, last week I mentioned that if you think life is becoming just too overwhelming with the daily feed of what's given to you as news, and all the horrors of what could be happening or what might happen, all the catastrophes that could happen and so on, switch off for a while and don't worry about it. Because if you were to go through all the different agencies that give you all the fear factors you'll find it's been happening your whole darn life, and to your parents as well. Because that's what control is, is by keeping you in fear. And as I have mentioned so many times, someone who is abused will turn to the abuser for protection to quell all their fears when it's just too overwhelming.

So understand, you're not the first generation to go through all of this. Those who think they've woken up really haven't, that's for the majority of those. They're following certain agencies that give them all their information and they're given various spins and so on, but they're never given all the facts involved and the agencies involved behind it all and the techniques as to how it works so well.

From ancient times to the present we always looked towards the strong man, who is generally the psychopath, to protect us, you see. Now we have agencies and governments full of them, because that's who gets to the top in a psychopathic system, especially when money is the key factor for controlling everything. Everyone is dependent upon it, you're given no choice whatsoever.  And psychopaths go to where the power is, and when power comes through money, that's where they head for, you see. They claw their way up. They're vicious. There also clever, if they come from the right, they always say, social classes and so on, or strata, social strata. But what they really mean is a class system of course. Because they're protected more if they are in the upper middle-class families or above. Because anything they do in their teenage years which are psychopathic, is covered over as simply juvenile or teenage, you know, energy, super energy, that kind of thing, so they get off with it. And since daddy and mommy generally can pull strings to get them off, then that's what happens, they're shielded from the problems of the lower-class psychopaths.

So remember, you get them in all strata. If you're born into a higher, well off system and parents and so on, you'll find that, you'll learn the cultural norms, even if you don't understand them because you don't actually feel the emotions of them, but you know it works on everyone else, and you become a better psychopath, you see. You're put into the better schools where you can't fail either; that's a fact as well, folks, it happens in all, again, social strata of universities. You can't fail depending on daddy and mommy and all the rest of it, and who knows the dean, and who gives the grants to the universities.

So, it's a psychopathic system that runs us and it really has been for an awful, awful long time. Once we left the old tribal system, and introduced money at the same time, the head chief could then keep his family line going, and employ as many mercenaries as he wants, even under, oh, it's really a government army, it doesn't matter what they call it, and quell any people who tried to throw them over and put him out of the tribe. And it's been that way ever since.

With the advent of all the sciences, and all your tax money that's actually going into all the studies, that are done on you, [Alan chuckles.] so they can understand your behavior better and manipulate it all, it's been on the go for such a long time, the scientific indoctrination we get and scientific observation. Now it's complete, really, with the Internet, cell phones and all the rest of it. So everyone is profiled and they enable themselves to be profiled by thinking that somehow they're so smart that nothing will ever be used against them down the road. And nothing is further from the truth.

Therefore, understand what's happening. If you understand what's happening and realize that you're not the first generation to understand what's happening, then it makes it much easier.  Other folk in previous generations, there was always a few who understood from childhood, who...many simply rebel.  They don't understand why it's all wrong. They rebel. They sometimes turn anger inwards, they drink themselves to death or drug themselves to death.  If they had information provided when they were young they would understand why things are happening, why the system is the way it is, why the culture is the way it is too.

Because every culture is planned for every generation. It's planned culture. There's no separate culture industry and separate governments and so on. Everyone is a product to an extent of the culture industry, which is essential for psychopaths at the top to control societies. It's more evident in the US where, with incredible indoctrination to the flags and symbols and so on, they can convince the public of anything and look at all the Pentagon sponsored movies that are out there on war and all the rest of it. It's just quite fascinating to see how well it works.

Remember, that worked on ancient Rome too with the culture. If you were a man you had to join the Legion and he had to go off and fight the wars. And he had little trade-offs in those days because you could steal and have some booty as they called it, plunder, that you could keep for yourself now and then. But essentially that is what a man was supposed to be, always fighting expansionist wars for your masters. And the Roman system went in and expanded its empire, introducedthe money system to the countries that didn't have it, then taxed it from them, and made sure they all had to use the monetary system, they couldn't just barter anymore and be self-sufficient.  That's the first thing that must go is self-sufficiency.  Therefore, you have to earn money to pay the taxes or else, and in the Roman days they would just simply cut your throat. Today it's more sophisticated of course but it's the same technique. Because the Roman system itself eventually went under because eventually with all the massive taxes from all their Empire flooding in to keep a tiny elite in the middle of Rome living in prosperity, incredible prosperity, they still ran out of taxes. It's always the same story. Because even the Roman elite, you know, borrowed from private bankers, and they have many names of who they were and where they came from and often it wasn't Rome itself.

So the system of money sponsoring psychopathic ambitions is very, very, very old. Because they go together. One goes with the other, always. It's never, ever separate. And right to the present day it's the same thing. Britain when under too because it's spent so many centuries borrowing money from private moneylenders, for their wars, putting the populations down as the guarantors to pay off the debts by taxation and taxing them, and eventually it ran out of steam. It's like someone who ends up with emphysema and they can't even get a breath in or breath out properly, that's what happens in expansionist psychopathic systems.  And nothing's changed. Nothing has changed regardless of who apparently is the dominant character playing the game in your nation, or your Empire, or the opponent's Empire, it's all the same system.

Now, back in the 90s I came out and said that people should stop beating themselves on the head with anxiety and anger and frustration, not knowing why this goes on and on and on. And I said, I didn't come out to be a cheerleader for the masses.  Most of the people in the mass will go along with any system they are given. They’re the followers of the psychopathic system. In fact, they're happy to try and emulate, however futilely, the ones at the top, regardless of, again, their social strata or class that they happen to belong to. Because you want to be a winner, that's always put out, you're a winner, you’re awfully successful, it's better than being a loser, and you despise those down beneath you. That's always the psychopathic system. You’ll see it in tyrannies of even the 20th century where generals are always, who are psychopathic themselves, clustered around the top psychopath.  And the psychopath can only admire a more cunning and vicious psychopath, they literally grovel to them.  And they want that position too but they never try and get it and grab it themselves, but they will obediently serve the master, and they will beat the rank beneath them all the way down. That's how it works in a psychopathic system.

When they don't use overt tyranny they use the capitalist system, which is all the same thing by the way, fascist/capitalist/communist.  It's all the same honchos that get to the top. All based on materialism. And in the capitalist system it's Empire restructuring under the guise of peacekeeping. It's beautiful isn't it, how it can be disguised by the use of terminology. They learned that a long time ago too, how you could literally alter terminology, that's what law is all about, altering the meaning of terminology to make something more acceptable to the populace.  And it works awfully, awfully well. We don't send soldiers anywhere, we send peacekeepers to go off and expand the empires. Again, there's always a good reason they give you, you see, but it's never the real reason. There's always a good reason for the people, and a real reason. And the real reason of course is expansionist capitalism where people who run your countries, the top corporate groups, bankers, corporations and everything else, that are all tied together by the way at the top, often intermarried, they expand all their enterprises under the guise of, going over there to preserve peace, in one country or another.  And they run the media therefore they can always tell you the propaganda at home is to, well here's the reason were going over there, they're fighting each other, it's to stop them, or, to bring civilization to them, etc. etc. They have used every excuse under the sun. Today it’s more sophisticated of course because most folk do believe what authorities tell them. And that's the key, too, in behavioral sciences, and the nudge programs, and the neuroscientist involved in all these things, masses of them today, massive profession, well-paid of course because they work for governments and so on to make sure that they train an update the population, almost instantaneously, when the new agenda comes forth.

You see, you're taught, here's the politically correct way, the authoritarian way to say something to them.  They will obey the authoritarian voice, the familiar face on television giving them the news, and they will believe it, you see, they won't question it. That's what most people go by. That's always been that way. That's why they keep anchors, well-known anchor people on television, and actually make them star profiles by lots of propaganda and interviews and so on, to make them into what you think in your mind is a star, and a kind of daddy figure who would never lie to you. And they keep them until they're tottering off their seats because they're so darned old, because you have grown up with them and that's awfully important, you see.

We follow what's called the stars. It's an old occultic term too, following the stars.  You're taught to follow the stars, so they create stars. Creating a star could take anybody, give them a little bit of acting lessons, deportment and so on, and train them to the authoritarian way that they put things over, they're confident, assertive and so on, and then give them a massive buildup in the press, get lots of publicity everywhere, until in your mind they become a star. It's not different from creating an actor for entertainment, or indeed, the new musician or artiste in music or whatever it happens to be, and the heartthrob, the male heartthrob for the females, and the extroverted young slut, that is the in-thing today, for the females. It's all controlled, and discussed at the top, not just by the culture industry because guys who also own governments own them both you see, and they must approve or disapprove, yeah, this is the way to go. And the myriads of, again, behavioral scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists, all involved in keeping the system going, and directing the future at all times.

People follow the stars, they emulate the stars, regardless of, again, their social strata or class. And they emulate the behaviors, which they put across as being, oh, you know, exhibitionist or the in-thing, the trendy, popular, the popular… don't you want to be the popular person at school, college and so on. The popular ...they tell you what it's supposed to be. And unfortunately the mass of people, the bulk of them, will emulate that, and be totally blackmailable throughout their whole lives, forever now with the social media. That's part of the intention of it of course too.

So there's always a war going on and it's not the ones that are across the seas that bother you. It's the ones internally because it's always upon you, to do with your behavioral updates, your conditioning, the monitoring of you, whether you know it or not, or even care or not, and to make sure that you’re the product. See, you are the product. Not the iPhone, not the Internet, YOU are the product that all these things enable you to be, and you are designed that way. Some folk, the few, as I say, who understand very early on when they're young, depending on their temperament as well, they can understand it and not cave in and collapse under the fear of it all. But they understand it. If you understand things, as I say, it should not cripple you. You shouldn't let anything cripple you mentally.   Because remember too, since it's a war, they want the casualties. The casualties they want are the ones who could be people who are thinkers, and speakers, of facts down the road. They don't want that.  They'd rather those ones when they're young literally whack their brain on drugs and booze and all the rest of it. Then they are out of the picture, they're no problem, they're disabled. So for those who are young, and I said back in the 90s, I'm only looking for the ones, the few, who are turning in on themselves rather than looking, getting the facts, understanding the facts, so they don't punish themselves or destroy themselves in the process. That's more important.

You can stop the general TV population, the ones who are always viewing and soaking everything up that's put out for them, which they think is entertainment, they think they are in charge of it. They think they are in charge of their own minds.  But that's not the purpose of entertainment. It's a very... [Alan chuckles.]  it's completely weaponized.  Completely. It doesn't matter what the story line is, the hook to get you in to watch the rest of it, it's all the messages you get along the way that's so important. Understand why it works, how it works, you're not the first generation it's worked on, and you won't punish yourself the same way. You become much, much stronger, more self-confident and self-assured. A few of them of course, the psychopathic ones will catch on quickly, the streetwise ones, and they will want to get up there themselves, that happens too, you see.

So I don't speak to the… I speak to the ones who are trying to punish themselves because everything is just, as they see it, wrong.  They are suffering from the fallout of the destruction of the family unit, that was all intentional.  What is a family today? It's portrayed through Hollywood in certain movies, especially the new ones, more and more so they show you that they're all dysfunctional.  No one is talking to anybody.  The guy is a wimp. The mother is going off and having affairs.  And everybody's chatting on the Internet to look for affairs.  And their children are all putting out the little porn things across the net as well. That's all intentional. Everybody must be an open book and if you're not an open book they want to destroy you by other methods, preferably having you destroy yourself. Don't do that.

Keep the information in your mind and don't be hysterical about it. Be calm about it. It's your life – and an old saying too which goes through a lot of occultic themes and all the rest of it, it doesn't matter where it came from, but the fact is, it's true. You are only in charge of yourself. The only person you can be certain of influencing and in control of, as much as possible in this system, is yourself. Don't think it's a personal challenge that your ego must take on everybody else's ego and defeat them until they are a clone of you.  That's called tyranny. That's how tyrants acts and work, you see. And you destroy yourself in the process, because you’ve got to accept the fact that it's not your job to make, you can't make people change. You have enough work to do on yourself, believe you me. And if you meet people along the way who are asking questions, then you answer them as carefully, and I mean as carefully as possible. Not like some mad nutter that lives 24 hours a day listening to various shows that terrify you, terrify you, terrify you, it sounds like a raving nutcase with pressure of speech, the way they deliver it and so on, and hysteria. That's not how you put things across.  To teach anyone you must be patient, considerate, and careful, and don't give them a whole library of information, which seems disjointed and unrelated the way it's put across, deliberately I believe, by many of the things they listen to.  You've got to go through things in a careful order because you're showing someone.  It's like any kind of teaching, it's the same way, you must stay on the same topic for a while, the same particular topic for a while.  And you'll be surprised to find that the person, when they hear and start to understand that topic will start thinking on other things for themselves for the first time.

I'm going to touch on some stories now which are important, to show you the techniques as well. There's no point just throwing out stories.  You've got to understand how it's done, why it's done, and the techniques used behind them all, and their goals and so on. There's nothing in mainstream that isn't carefully selected, worked over, in order to put it across to you, to make sure that you get what the authority says is the right understanding, the authorized understanding of the topic.

And this one is, again, to do with the bill C-51, it's called in Canada, which is much the same as the British bill.  We're having the same bills across the Five Eyes countries and so on, the ones that are all part of, and have been since at least World War II, the Empire system of pushing for global empire and domination, etc. to keep the peace, and so that...again too, they even teach in the wars schools the British Empire system, which it is still an empire by the way and it's not British. But regardless, it does matter. This whole idea of Empire, they said that, again, they get taught in officers’ training that war can only be eradicated when there are no more nations, nations must be eradicated, and have global government.  Now they call it governance, because many agencies are involved in governance, private ones too, to make sure that there will be no, that we'll have eternal peace, you won't have this friction, you see. This is the excuse and con of it all. And it's nothing to do with the truth because the truth is, when psychopaths rule at the top anyway they must always turn, then, on those internally. You're seeing a bit of that with different bills that get passed through all, from Britain and different countries and so on. It's, again, to take away freedoms from people, to give the rulers the supposed open right of spying on everyone, to keep you all safe. You see, that's how it's done.

Now, here's one here and it's called:

Diane Ablonczy (Alan:  …in Canada.)  Uses Air Quotes (A:  That's for quotation marks, they put their fingers up and so on.)    While Discussing

'Rule Of Law,'  Bill C-51

huffingtonpost.ca / Jesse Ferreras / 04/02/2015

(A:  It's coming to Canada, you see. I think it's pretty well a done deal.)

Diane Ablonczy has an interesting way of talking about the "rule of law" and "fundamental justice."

The Conservative MP was taking part in a review of Bill C-51, her party's controversial anti-terror legislation, in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Tuesday.

She addressed an amendment to the bill, proposed by the Green party, (A:  You know, they're all… I don't believe in any of the parties to be honest with you.) that took inspiration from recommendations by the Canadian Bar Association (CBA).  (A:  And I'm sure the Canadian Bar Association is part of the British Bar Association and all the other ones and so on.)

Here are some of the remarks:

"... the Green Party wants to throw some other things into the mix ... Now the judge has to also consider, in addition to the Charter and the CSIS Act, they have to consider something like, 'rule of law.' They have to consider things like 'principles of fundamental justice,' whatever that is."

Ablonczy used air quotes with her fingers when she mentioned "rule of law" and "principles of fundamental justice."  (A:  Because understand, going back to the days of Plato, Plato said there is no justice, but for the people’s sake there must be the appearance, only the appearance of justice. A: It's never changed.)

We can't help but wonder where we've seen that gesture before...

Ablonczy may not have been trying to be dismissive of the concepts of "rule of law" and "fundamental justice." She is a former lawyer herself.  (A: Well naturally.  We’re run by lawyers, armies of them.)

But she nevertheless objected to them being used as additional barriers that judges have to bypass when authorizing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to violate Charter rights in the name of reducing security threats.

Sections 12.1(3) and 21.1 of the bill prevent Canada's spy agency from doing so unless they've obtained a warrant.

The CBA recommended that the bill be changed so that those sections conformed with the "fundamental role of Canada's judiciary in upholding the Rule of Law and Canada's constitutional guarantees."

"This aspect of the proposed Bill is at odds with the role of the courts and the judiciary system," the association wrote in a submission.

"Canada's judges are charged with upholding the Rule of Law and Canada's Constitution against unlawful state action. They should not be conscripted by the state to limit Charter rights."

But Ablonczy disagreed with the CBA, saying that such an amendment would put action "pretty much at a stalemate."

It was struck down at committee.

Now, you know, many Canadians won't even be thinking about this, this kind of thing. They don't, most folk don't reason through what's happening, or even think it affects them in any way. That's the perfectly conditioned citizen, the television viewer who believes in the mainstream professional news announcers, again, that they've grown up with and has been there for years, and it never dawns on them that they could be lied to, very cleverly too and using a lot of sophistication. It never occurs to them at all.  After all, I mean, when you're born in naïveté why would you ever think that they're out to get you, in some way or another, and nasty things are happening. Why would you? Are you taught that at school? No.

And then you have this article about the same thing:

Elizabeth May, Greens Say Bill C-51 Still Dangerous Despite

 Tory (A:  …conservative.) Amendments

huffingtonpost.ca / Jim Bronskill / 03/30/2015

OTTAWA - A Conservative plan to amend the federal anti-terrorism bill hasn't squelched opposition to the sweeping security legislation.

A handful of proposed government amendments, to be presented Tuesday, haven't alleviated Green party Leader Elizabeth May's concerns about what she calls a dangerous and undemocratic bill.

May said she plans to present five dozen amendments when the House of Commons public safety committee begins examining the 62-page bill clause-by-clause.

Seven leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, issued a joint statement Monday calling on the government to withdraw the legislation.

(A:  Now, this is what was discussed back in the early 1900s, of what democracy would be legislated as, with the rulers of the Empire system of its day, the empires. That eventually it will be parties that are authorized by those who own the system.  And you would also have on behalf of the public the appearance of people who would speak for you. And so you have Amnesty International Canada authorized, and by the United Nations, which the rulers of London and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a private organization, the CFR, created.  That was the whole idea. They created the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, for the global society, the central banking system that must be put in, even one for Europe, and their members, their private members all drafted the bills for NAFTA and for the European Union.  So here they have the ones for the public, supposedly, run by this authorized, again, by the same group, to speak on behalf of you, you know, the silent majority, because most of the silent majority are watching porn or something else, you see, or 50 Shades of Gray which is the next best thing. You don't vote for these groups either, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, made up of more lawyers and so on, and Amnesty International Canada, which is awfully selective in who it decries, and they have turned a blind eye many times to countries where, your countries are involved in torture abroad in different places.  So they are very controlled group themselves. So you really have no one to stand up for you. You see, that's what I've been saying all along. You have to stand up for yourself. That's all you can do.)

The NDP and Liberals have also called for changes to protect civil liberties and improve oversight of security agencies.

However, Conservative ministers appearing before a Senate committee Monday made it clear the government has no plans to create a full-fledged national security committee of parliamentarians like the ones in Britain and the United States.  (A:  Well, they don't have to because they have them, quietly, you see.)

The government bill, drafted in response to the murders of two Canadian soldiers last October, would give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service more power to thwart suspected terrorist plots — not just gather information about them.

(A:  It's not just to do with terror. It's total.  It's giving themselves what they already have the right to do, to spy on everybody, and they do it all the time.  We've had many, many whistleblowers over the years come out and tell you all this stuff and lots of information about it. But this is to give them the legal right to do it, which sounds better, again, for the silent majority… Oh, well, it's a legal thing, you know, it's legally authorized.  It's a psychological trick.)

It would allow CSIS to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a judge's permission, expand the sharing of federal security information (A:  To whom?), broaden no-fly list powers and create a new criminal offence of encouraging someone to carry out a terrorism attack.

(A:  Now, we've had instances in Britain, the States and Canada of secret agencies, your internal secret agencies attempts in the past to create radicals, put out their own spies to encourage the radicals, even give them explosives even though they are generally dummy.  In other words, sting operations, they create the thing and then they come in and arrest them and they say, hey we caught a bunch.  Would these young guys have even gotten together if they had not had someone trained in psychology, with an outgoing personality, very confident, and generally of their own race because you generally hire ones from these particular ethnic communities and put them into your own security agencies, to create stings. So here you have this thing… . . . create a new criminal offence of encouraging someone to carry out a terrorism attack.  Well, shouldn't you arrest those who create the groups in the first place? And, of encouraging someone to carry out a terrorism attack . . .  Doesn't that apply to the ones that carry out the stings? It doesn't take much to pick it apart, does it, or to use some logic here.  So it's nothing to do with that, obviously, it's got something to do with what they're already doing on you, and to expand their powers, and ACT on their powers, of knowing all about you, and nothing to do with terrorism.)

In addition, the bill would make it easier for the RCMP to obtain a peace bond to restrict the movements of suspects and extend the amount of time they can be kept in preventative detention.

(A:  That's the name now for throwing the key away and no court case comes to light. Again, the use of terminology, something that used to be thought of as a horrific thing that kings and queens did in the past across Europe where they would throw folk in the slammer forever, they didn't see a magistrate or a judge or anybody because they had no power at all. Power is the system, if it slams you inside the hole, never to see the light of day again, often, then that's what they did.  Now it's called preventative detention, it doesn't sound so terrible does it? Just put you inside a dungeon with no lighting generally or maybe 4 inches of light, and the water coming through the walls and everything else.  I keep saying that nothing has changed, in a psychopathic system, down through the ages, just their terminology, which is more, you know, it's more user-friendly, the terminology.)

Sources have told The Canadian Press the government plans to introduce four changes to clarify or curtail elements of the bill, including an assurance the information-sharing powers do not apply to protesters who demonstrate outside the letter of the law.  (A:  In other words, they want to make sure that their authorized protesters, the different parties I mentioned earlier, the NGOs, who are authorized, because they're always pushing for cultural changes, to make things worse, you know. So they need them, so they gotta make sure that they put something in there so that they can't be arrested and put in the slammer forever, because they are a tool.)

But the amendments do not remedy several key concerns of opposition MPs (A:  Members of Parliament.) and rights advocates.

"The reality is this bill will make us less safe," May told a news conference.

She denounced the legislation as vague, badly drafted and, ultimately, "dangerous garbage."

The NDP (A:  National Democratic Party.) and Greens plan to vote against it, while the Liberals intend to support the bill despite their desire to see changes.  (A:  And so on and so on it goes. They're also talking here about, it says:)

Liberal Sen. Colin Kenny reminded MacKay that he once supported the idea of a committee of security-cleared parliamentarians, who would be entrusted with secret material, as a means of better monitoring spies.

MacKay said his thinking had evolved on the issue, particularly with regard to the danger of leaks.

(A:  Now, here's a little thing that ties in with this.  You see, Britain had that all through the Cold War, of selected parliamentarians, in generally the House of Lords and I guess in other countries it will be the Senate, that supposedly were given all this data, the secret data. And it was so blatant as to what they really did, these particular individuals, during the Cold War. Because they all got the first dibs because they understand where the government was going to invest money to do with the war, the Cold War, and the missile industry and so on, that they had massive shares in and some of them even owned them.  So much so that even documentaries, or even dramas that came out afterwards, they actually showed you the scams that they did. Oh, the Russians of got a better missile, we're all in danger. And this person gets first dibs information in the private secret hearings and he would be off to his company and you know, oh yeah, here’s how to put it across, this will be a faster and better antimissile/missile, that will defeat that one, we'll get them to push that and lobby for that. And so on and so on. Nothing changes. Today it's all the guys who are involved in the secret things for governments, have the massive shares or they're corporate owners too of all the security equipment that spy on you and everything else. Massive money. Anyway this says:)

"For matters of national security, I am concerned about the handling of sensitive information that could literally put a person's life at risk."

MacKay and Blaney praised the Security Intelligence Review Committee, a civilian body that reports to Parliament on CSIS's activities.  (A:  And so on and so on.)

So it's a done deal. And regardless of what they'll tell you they're simply legitimizing all the things they've been doing all along the way without telling you. But they like things themselves to be, you know, officially legal, so they simply pass a law and make it legal, you see. Remember, before, kidnapping was illegal, but now when they want to kidnap someone, whisk them off to another country and torture them, or even within your own country, it's called extraordinary rendition. Again, this kind of confusing user-friendly, marketing PR that they use, so's that the folk don't get the same terrible connotations of torture and fear and horror, you know. It works awfully well.

And then a little article too, to show you that Canada is the same as every other country, because we're all on the same bus in other words, every country is on the same bus, on the same road, with the same systems. Because it is the same system, with the same bankers lending to governments and so on, and corporate CEOs and that who are all just simply, again, members of the same big banking corporations, regardless of the corporation that they are put in charge of.

After 50 Years of the Canada Pension Plan We've Run Off Course

huffingtonpost.ca / 03/30/2015

(A:  Now, they've been saying this for years. They're only about 30 years behind Britain I think. Because it was never intended that all this money that was to get put in this vast, in a pool of money, by law that you must pay, for the right to work, you know, you must pay, that they're going to use, someone uses you see, and it's all private corporations now that use it, massive money of yours that's now a massive fund and they invest it, and they skim off the gold at the top and you're given the dross at the bottom. Everything has got a real reason and for you they give the good reason.  Oh that's good enough for you to believe, here's the real reason. So this article goes on about:)

Lester Pearson was a remarkable Canadian. We first came to know him as a proficient global statesman, skilled in the diplomacy of multilateralism. He assisted at the birth of the United Nations, invented the concept of peace-keeping (A:  Again, terminology changes...), and won the Nobel Peace Prize.  (A:  Well, so did a whole bunch of people who were involved in slaughter across the planet.)  In 1963, he became Prime Minister of Canada.

(A:  Now, what they're not telling you here is that Lester Pearson was also a member of the big Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian branch of foreign affairs which is the Royal Institute of International Affairs, for globalism, run by top bankers and everything, who pushed communism. And Lester Pearson with some other diplomats from Canada, especially Ontario, were quite honest about their ambition. They said when they were setting up the United Nations, and they worked with Alger Hiss who became a convicted communist eventually.  But they were pushing all the communists’ globalist agenda. And communism has nothing to do with what you are taught it is, believe you me. Even the followers are conned silly.  It was never the intention for the workers to be equal, never ever the intention. It was always for the scientific, an elite intellectually to rule the world, properly, you see, properly.  And it has never changed. The techniques are still used although they don't call them communism today. But anyway Lester Pearson was quite blatant about the fact that they were creating the beginnings of the system to create global government, you see. Technically they were traitors of their day, [Alan chuckles.] when you had fought supposed massive enemies and I mean a massive war, World War II and before that World War I, to keep your nation and your culture and your way of life, which is an awful joke, that's what they push in times of war. Look at Britain now. And look at Canada, it's the same thing, we've got masses of debt and all the rest of it. So he's given all these accolades, this Lester Pearson, and this says:)

Five years in that job, Mr. Pearson never once had a majority in Parliament (A: And that shows you who put him in.), but still he led one of the most productive governments in Canadian history.

This past February, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Canada's Red Maple Leaf Flag -- one of Mr. Pearson's proudest accomplishments. Next year, we'll mark the 50th anniversary of national medicare, another Pearsonian legacy.

And this week, the legislation that originally created the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will turn 50 years old. It passed the House of Commons on March 29, 1965, was approved in the Senate on April 1 and received Royal Assent on April 3. (A:  And that's your April fool’s joke, hey, approved in the Senate on April 1st.)  The CPP and its Quebec counterpart came into effect on January 1, 1966.

(A:  Now, what they'll tell you is an excuse for all things going wrong, but not in this article. But generally what they'll tell you is, well we based all this on the prospect after World War II that gross national product would always go up and up and up and up, you see. And so there would always be lots of money, a massive taxation base with larger wages and larger taxes, to pay for the pensions, to pay those folk who are retiring and whose pensions themselves are going into a big slush fund, that was then privately funded across the world and into investments, you see, with the same idea that every country it was invested in would be on a win-win situation for ever and ever and ever, with this gross national product always going up and up and up and up, something that at no time in history has ever been true for any length or period.  So this is the story here, as they applaud all this.)

 

And this week, the legislation that originally created the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will turn 50 years old. It passed the House of Commons on March 29, 1965, was approved in the Senate on April 1 and received Royal Assent on April 3. The CPP and its Quebec counterpart came into effect on January 1, 1966.

The stated purpose of the Canada Pension Plan was to ensure all working Canadians have an opportunity to retire in dignity. It builds on basic Old Age Security to achieve greater social justice linked to progress in the economy.

(A:  As you know, since that time the dollar has been devalued hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times, so the purchasing power is nowhere near what that dollar invested 50 years ago is, and it was spent long ago by the way. The big returns come into the corporations that run the slush funds and so on, and a little bit trickles back into where it's supposed to go.)

Established by federal-provincial agreement, the CPP is a mandatory contributory plan into which all employees and employers pay regular premiums. (A:  A mandatory contribution plan, you're not allowed to...in other words, don't you worry about it, we'll take the money off you, by law, and you better pay it, if you want to work, or you can't work. And we'll take that money and when you retire you can live in dignity. This says:) That money is invested to generate the returns necessary to cover the plan's benefits. (A:  And that was the con.)  As such, CPP contributions are essential long-term investments in portable retirement incomes for a large portion of Canadians, supporting their future living standards.

That sounds like common sense today (A: And they go into the reasons why blah blah blah they put it through. And it says:) . . .

 

The CPP was an historic accomplishment!

But by the 1990s (A:  It was before this actually.)-- with longer life expectancies (A: So they’re blaming you for it… you see.  [Alan chuckles.]), aging demographics and escalating unfunded liabilities -- doubts had arisen about the future soundness of the Canada Pension Plan. Would it run out of money? Was the investment strategy getting adequate returns? Were the benefits supportable? Was the administration strong, efficient and independent? The plan clearly required major renovations to save it, and that would take federal-provincial consensus, which is always hard to get.

As part of a multi-pronged effort to restore fiscal integrity to the Government of Canada, then-federal Finance Minister Paul Martin Jr. decided to tackle the CPP challenge. He found a key ally in the Provincial Treasurer of Alberta, Jim Dinning. Ontario Finance Minister Ernie Eves was also helpful. Together, they built the business case, the social consensus and the national momentum to rejuvenate the CPP.

It's an interesting historical footnote that saving the plan earned strong support across Canada -- except for provincial NDP governments in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and Stephen Harper and his Reform (now Conservative) Party.

Today, the CPP ranks as one of only a handful of successful public pension plans worldwide. Its administration is competent and cost-effective. It's a distinct fund, independently managed (A:  By whom, hey?) according to investment policies that are free from political interference. It has a proven track-record as an international leader in the pension industry, generating world-class rates of return. (A:  Well if they get world-class… what are world-class rates of return? Are they talking about part of the world, you know, India? You know, where? It doesn't tell you. I mean, this money that you pay in, is lent out, lent out, lent out, that's what investments are. And massive returns on very high interest lending to other countries and so on and different corporations down through the years, it does generate a lot of money, it is reinvested over and over and over again, and lent out and lent out and lent out.  But you who pay it in get very little at the end of it all, the cream always goes off the top.)  External actuaries have recently judged the CPP to be sound and secure for another 75 years (the maximum actuaries will go).  (A:  No, that's a joke, that one.)

Because it's been neglected for the past nine years, the CPP is labouring under one major limitation. The maximum regular benefit a contributor can receive is just over $12,000 per year. (A:  Well, that was not bad 50 years ago, right. But were talking about the present day, $12,000 a year.)  The average is just more than half that. (A: $6,000 a year.)  Those amounts are far from sufficient to ensure retirees can maintain their (A: Here’s the purpose:) quality of life, without other significant savings.

But the typical 35-year-old today is saving less than half of what their parents did at that age. (A:  That's because the spending power of their bucks, and, [Alan chuckles.] opportunities to work now, with globalization, all the rest of it and deindustrialization, are gone. And yet your dollar is worth darned all.   How many cups of coffee could you buy 50 years ago, huh, for a dollar?  How many would you get for a dollar 50 years ago? How many? You can't get any today up here in Canada.)  Three-quarters of those working in the private sector don't have access to an employer-sponsored pension plan. (A:  That's because they've done away with all their industry and everything else that used to sponsor, again, a pension plan.)  And of those who are within 10 years of retirement, fewer than one-third have $100,000 or more set aside to sustain themselves. Another third have no retirement savings at all.

Is this a big shock, for all the experts? Is it really?  Oh, come on.  This article is a joke!  Because as I say, in Britain 30 years ago they were saying these pension plans and all that are a big, big racket for those who do all the investing and lending out and then they get the returns and so much back, very little back. It was never intended to… Everything, again, has, you know, a good reason and then it has, for the insiders, the real reason. But there's just an article there just to show you the cons that go on. And then within Canada, where it's going to tell you that, you know, you'll be getting about $6000 a year, after paying into this pension plan for 40 years or more.  And they've got the age moved up on the old-age, retirement age and everything else, right, because they would rather you die before you claim it.  Argh.

Anyway:

Canada to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria 'within days'

torontosun.com / April 02, 2015

Canada will begin launching airstrikes against ISIS (A: That's just Al Qaeda that was funded by the West to overthrow all the countries in the Middle East.) in Syria "within days," the commander of Joint Task Force Iraq says.

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Constable declined to give a specific date, but said the final details are being put into place before the Canadian military begins expanding its operation from Iraq into Syria.

"I think we're going to be good to go in reasonable short order," (A:  Well, that's very reassuring, that should be in a movie, that.)  Constable told a media briefing Thursday morning.

"The allies are excited about us getting into Syria as well because of our capabilities."  (A:  I love these terms they use. It's like saying this country is going to invade.  Did you give authorization? No, no.  You [Alan chuckles.] get no authorization for anything, but you are put down as responsible for it too.)

On Monday, the House of Commons passed the Conservatives' motion to extend Canada's six-month mission against ISIS in Iraq for a year and expand operations to neighbouring Syria.

Now, we've got to go back a little bit here. If you remember 2001, and before 2001, the group that became the politicians during that era belonged also to the private group called the Project for a New American Century.  George Bush and all the rest of them, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. etc., they all belong to this group, that listed in the 1990s the countries they wanted to take out across the Middle East.  They were called neocons, because they were in league with Israel. And Israel came out with the same list.  They wanted Iraq taken out.  They wanted Libya taken out.  They wanted Iran taken out, Syria taken out. They wanted all those countries taken out. Then General Wesley Clark came out and said the same thing on a live interview on television, it's probably up on YouTube somewhere. So they were trying to use their Al Qaeda bunch to do it, you see. But because enough people who watched this understood that Al Qaeda was being armed, through Qatar, now they call it Cutter for some reason but it was called Qatar, and that was the base that all the money and the arms to arm them all were coming into from the West. And because they were complaining about that, oh a breakaway group, which no, it's the same group and now they're called ISIS. Which by the way, the groups themselves don't call themselves ISIS, it's for your benefit to believe it is so.

And they initially started attacking Syria, because the human cry from the West at that time, in Israel and the States and Britain, everywhere, we've got to get rid of Assad.  But they got bogged down, they couldn't take Syria and get rid of Assad. So than the US is going to get more involved with troops and all the rest of it, and then Putin of Russia stepped in as the spokesman for, again, the world community and says, hey, this is the old colonial empiricism going on here, expansion. And that didn't sound good, and the whole world went kind of, you know, one of these quiet guilty, you know, moods, and stepped back. So rather than us getting involved physically with troops they created the ISIS to attack instead, you see, and it got bogged down. But now that ISIS couldn't get rid of Assad they’re back to the same rhetoric, we've got to get rid of Assad.

Because everybody on that list has to be taken out. It's very simple. They never change their tunes.  Never, never. And so really, from Gulf War One the same agenda has been going on. Because this group, created privately a long time ago in London, England, that puts its members into parliaments and many have been prime ministers and so on, and in the States they are the same group that puts the members in to become presidents, for generations, have their world agenda there, and they own the media, and they are still on the go to do the same old things. So whenever they have a plan they never back out of the plan. You might think they'll delay it for a while or change it. No, no, they go back to it, always get back to it. You see.

So anyway, Canada is involved too, so there's going to be more blowback from this.  And again too, they know darn well once they start bombing in Syria, and they're hoping for it by the way. I'm sure agencies do this, they'll hope for it, blowback, because then it can then further the agenda against them… Syria is the enemy. And there will be folk from Syria living in Canada perhaps, or elsewhere around the world, that will get really ticked off. That's the human response if your old homeland is attacked, you get ticked off. This is how they… This is why they created multiculturalism. They flooded Britain with immigration from the 60s in some places then, and in the 70s it was stepped up, and in the 80s again, whoof.  So you had all the folk inside of your country from the countries that you were going to attack down the road in the future.  That way you can create martial law across all the countries, and the general population, even the traditional population, say, of Britain would also have to go under the scrutiny, you couldn't make exceptions and say, well you're, you know, British, blah, blah, blah, for many generations. So that's how you bring in martial law across everywhere. If you didn't have them all in the country, people who could stand up and say, hey that's our old homeland you’re attacking, you couldn't pass totalitarian laws across the whole nation. You couldn't do it. It's a chessboard, you see.

So anyway, it's all part of the art of war, you see, and the techniques involved for long-term agendas, that the public are never ever given access to. An article tonight too is about you. You. Because they're always going to modify your behavior. You are the product of the culture industry. Your education, which is in bed by the way with the culture industry, everything must all work together to create the you that they want, with the behavior that they want, and the opinions that they want, for the era that you're in and so on. But there's an article here to do with behavioral Nudge Squad from the White House.

Here Comes the White House’s Behavioral ‘Nudge Squad’

theblaze.com / Jul. 30, 2013 / Becket Adams

(A:  Now, this is what they have in Britain already, they've had it for years.  It's behavioral scientists that work with the culture industry to give you almost subconscious nudges on what to do, what to think, how to behave, and what to believe. You are the ultimate creation of what they give you, what they feed you. It says here that:)

The U.S. government is looking to recruit members for what some are calling a “Behavioral Insights Team,” a panel of experts (A: And you have been trained that experts must be always right, and real and, you know, expert at what they do. That's why they're called experts, right?) that will study human behavior so as to “design public policies that work better (A:  Now, this is through public relations companies, this is what they'll tell you. Now remember, public relations is propaganda agencies, that's where ‘public relations’ came from.  Bernays used ‘propaganda’, he thought it was the right term to use and he liked it. And ‘public relations’, again, came out later because it sounded more, again, user-friendly, more, more nice, rather than lying to you, for a goal that you wouldn't even understand. So…)  . . .  “design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” (A: To help people achieve their goals. It's good to be brainwashed, achieve your goals that, you know...) according to a document describing the program.  (A:  And I'll put the links up for that too. Actually it's on this article anyway, you can see it yourself.)

“The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials,” the document reads.  (A:  So they've already used all these trials in other work. Actually they've been using it for... your whole life long.)

“The team will be staffed by 4-5 experts in behavioral science and experimental design and evaluation,” it adds.

FoxNews.com was the first to obtain and report on the White House’s “Behavioral Insights Team” memo.

The document praises British Prime Minister David Cameron for implementing a similar “behavioral insights” (A:  It's actually called behavioral modification over there. That's what it is, you see.) team in the U.K., claiming the group has advanced the priorities of the British government while also saving it at least £1 billion within the next five years.  (A:  Well, that will pay, you know, .000000000% of this year's interest that they owe on loans.)

The document also shows the White House is already coordinating similar programs with federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

(A:  And they go on and tell you all the different agencies that they're working this through.)

“We are already working with over a dozen federal departments and agencies on newly-designed behavioral insights projects,” the document reads, “including the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education (A:  Naturally, they've always done it through education.), Veterans Administration, Department of Treasury, Social Security Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the United States Department of Agriculture.”

Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences, emailed the document to a university professor requesting he distribute it to people interested in applying for the gig.  (A:  Oh, it's just a gig for them, right.)

The document goes on to list the job responsibilities for the “central team”:

(A:  Now, believe you me, when they give something out for public consumption you're only seeing...there's always two things given out. One is the one for public consumption, and there's always the one for the agencies themselves, that's totally different. So this is the user-friendly one.)

• Build Capacity: Work with a broad range of federal agencies to identify new program areas that could benefit from the application of behavioral insights.(A:  What about using it on the politicians themselves, and test them for psychopathy.  That would help us all.) Help to design, implement, and test the relevant interventions using rigorous experimental methods.  (A:  Oh, so they use rigorous experimental methods on you.)

• Enhance Capacity: (A:  That sounds good, that's user-friendly.) Provide conceptual and technical support to agencies with specific behavioral insights efforts already underway.

• Convene: Lead a multi-agency “community of practice” to identify and share promising practices and common challenges.

• Create and Provide Resources: Generate tutorials and other “how to” documents to help accelerate these efforts within agencies.(A:  Teachers get these things all the time, on how to brainwash the children, they call them toolkits.) Manage online library of relevant documents and media.

• Help inspire new ideas: Work with external partners to identify research findings that can inform policy and practice.

However, some are leery of the fed’s new initiative;  (A:  No kidding hey!)

“Such policies — which encourage behavior subtly rather than outright require it — have come to be known as ‘nudges,’” FoxNews.com notes.  (A:  Remember Sunstein?)

The term comes from the 2008 book titled “Nudge” by Cass Sunstein and Chicago Booth School of Business professor Richard Thaler. Sunstein was the Obama administration’s regulations czar and is married to Samantha Power, Obama’s new pick for US ambassador to the UN.  (A: Naturally, you know.)

 

(A:  Now, Cass Sunstein did not invent nudge.  You've been getting this your whole life long, these nudges, through regular television shows, through school and different ways. They used to use peer group pressure because the majority of the public, the mass, will encourage the person who's going to be a bit different to go along with them, with all their opinions and everything else. That's old news actually. But they also do it through your Internet, oh people who liked this also liked that, you know. And then you help them with all the data, you know, folk who like this, tick this off, like this, dislike this. And you know, yeah, [Alan chuckles.] rats in the laboratory, and most folk are and they don't know it. )

Cass Sunstein, former Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

And associating the fed’s new “behavior insight” initiative with the term “nudge” isn’t too far off.

Indeed, as one professor who received the “Behavioral Insights Team” email wrote in an email to his colleagues: “Anyone interested in working for the White House in a ‘nudge’ squad? The UK has one and it’s been extraordinarily successful.”

“I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies,” Utah State University professor Michael Thomas told FoxNews.com.

“Ultimately, nudging … assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them,” he added.  (A:  Of course they do because they want you to be a little clone, through brainwashing, and use all kinds of techniques on you.  And most folk, again, will go along with the mass because they all want to be the same.  And they understand all of this.)

Of course, he continued, the government doesn’t always get it right.

Dan Cruz, spokesman for the U.S. General Services Administration weighed in on the issue:

As part of the Administration’s ongoing eforts to promote efficiency and savings (A:  Ha.  Ha.), GSA is considering adding some expertise from academia in the area of program efficiency and evaluation under its Performance Improvement Council.

Here’s the “Behavioral Insights Team” pitch:

And I'll put the link up to it as well. And that's what it is, this is the exoteric pitch they give you, for you to understand how it's all going to be put on you. It's already getting used on you, all the time, and many… I could do 100 hours on it quite easily.

So you see, you understand, the greatest enemy of any mass system run by psychopaths is the person who can think for themselves, who hasn't been critically wounded mentally through growing up and life experiences. That's the greatest threat they have of all, so much so that Bertrand Russell who helped design the system that you're now living through today, and the whole degradation of the culture that you were to get brought through on the way, and the changing of all the gender stuff, all that was 50 years ago on their plan, actually longer than that, by people who are now dead.  Long-term strategy planning and implementation, using all these techniques that they're claiming are new sciences.  Which is a big joke.

So remember, you are a product of it to an extent. When you see people who will not listen, can't listen, who are completely at odds with everything you say, it's because the conditioning, they're nudging and all their conditioning work together to produce what you're looking at, that person. Perfect conditioning. But they themselves think they have made their own mind up on everything. That's how beautiful it all is. It's fascinating actually.

But anyway, that's just a little bit of the news. Don't panic over it. Don't cripple yourself by sweating over it. If you are in charge of your own mind you will see through all these things yourselves.  And because of that you do have a firewall on your mind. Most folk don't. For them the mind has no firewall. It's up to you. And for those who can handle it, you can dig deeper.  Don't go fanatically crazy digging into it forever and ever until you're like a manic-depressive. Simply take what you can handle at a time, at a time, and do a lot of thinking.

Believe it or not, thinking requires something called, which is really taboo, which is why they don't give it to you these days, they don't like it because it helps you along. It's called silence. Turn everything else off. All the data you want to think about is in your mind already, you go over it and peruse it in your mind.  Your mind is awfully good at sorting and categorizing things out for you, cataloguing things. So use your mind. What a gift it is to have a mind. Why do you think there are so many powers in the world all trying to destroy it and rob you of your mind? Think about that.

Anyway, from Hamish and myself, from a still wintery northern Ontario, Canada, it's good night and may your God or gods go with you.

Topics of show covered in following links:

Diane Ablonczy Uses Air Quotes While Discussing 'Rule Of Law,' Bill C-51

Elizabeth May, Greens Say Bill C-51 Still Dangerous Despite Tory Amendments

After 50 Years of the Canada Pension Plan We've Run Off Course

Canada to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria 'within days'

Here Comes the White House’s Behavioral ‘Nudge Squad’