The importance of symbols is that the symbols themselves are archetypal images. This is what Carl Jung, if you go into his books on symbology, Carl Jung gave more out to the public probably than any other person. These archetypal symbols, what it means is that every child in every nation, if you give them a pen and pencil and paper, they'll sit and scribble pretty well the same types of symbols of stars and circles and so on. The occult system that runs this uses the very same symbols with slight variations here and there. They modify them slightly, but your subconscious mind does recognize these symbols and they comprise a language of its own. This language when you see symbols repeated or given in a certain sequence act like a language; a spoken language to your subconscious, and they can actually influence your behavior or your thoughts. Jung himself reduced it down to conscious mind, subconscious mind, and then the unconscious mind. Unconscious doesn't mean totally dead. Unconscious means it's the big sea where all thoughts come from. It's from the unconscious you get your nightmares where you could do things you would never do in real life, things that would be unthinkable for you to do, but they're dragged up from this big sea; this primeval sea that's within us all. It's also where the creative ideas often originate from. Your subconscious or the unconscious even can recognize these archetypal symbols, and those who understand these sciences (because they're very, very old sciences) can put them in sequences and repeat them, and your behavior can be altered or modified just by you casually viewing them on a regular basis.When you are conscious of what they are, you can deflect them. It takes a bit of practice but you can actually do it. It's much easier when you go into the symbols and you understand every level of what each one means, because they comprise a whole range of meanings, which alters again according to the sequence they're put together in. When you understand all of the degrees of the symbols, then you become – you have a shield up against their influence upon you, because your conscious mind thinks and recognizes them for what they are.
The LANGUAGE, on one level, which is all around you, is SYMBOLIC. It's all symbols.
You won't be taught this at school. In fact, you're taught not to think at school. You're taught to repeat but not to think. Critical thinking is taboo. They'd probably put you on Prozac today. They don't teach logic in school anymore. They teach "socialization processes" to go along with the group; group-think, which is just consensus led by a very well indoctrinated leader. But start off with Parliament buildings in any country, by the way. You'll see the same architectural structure. You'll see the spires which are just obelisks. Look at the tops of the windows. You'll see the arches - then count them. Everything is part of the Masonic language. It's all around you. Every place has got a Masonic Lodge under one name or another, and yet it's quiet, isn't it? So quiet. They have the outward sects all fighting each other. It's the Jesuits. No, it's the Billy Graham's and Protestants, and on it goes. And yet, amongst every group, here's these little quiet temples where every important member of every board, from the school board to the council board, to whatever, in your area, that's where they all go. That's where they meet, and unless you join them, you won't get inside on their meeting nights when they pull out all their "jewels," as they call them, and put all the stuff on the floor on the little chessboard. The yin and the yang. The male and the female. The spirit, the earth. There's a completely different world, all around you, shown in symbolism. That is why a Mason from any country, without knowing another's verbal language, can go into any other country and get the exact same meanings from the architecture, the logos all around them, by counting the flutes on pillars and cathedrals, et cetera.You live in a world where you have been taught -- not only taught to be blind, you have been blinded, because a child left to his own devices, without super-indoctrination from the parents or the school, would ask the right questions. Generally it starts with a simple word - "WHY?WHY IS THAT?" etc.
The shock of waking up is akin to the meaning that's always existed of being reborn. Born again, because you have to re-evaluate everything you have ever thought was true. In fact, you have to re-evaluate all of the foundational beliefs that you had, which kept you standing, basically. The props are gone. You're kind of floating above the floor a little bit but you're still in "Level One" reality. The first thing people will do is to grab all the information that's out there, and try and download this into people's minds around them, and they sound crazy, because they are. They're frantic. They're frantic and it shows. They sound crazy about all the things are happening, and they're telling this to people who are still watching the six o'clock news. You can't do that with people and expect to be believed. You have to go cautiously. So don't start to evangelize until you know far, far more than the stage that you're at, because then comes a form of calmness to deal with this. This has been ongoing, for thousands of years. You become calm, and you must remember that you can't hit people with a hundred problems at once. The human mind is not meant to cope with that kind of problem. It can only deal with one thing at a time, and to ramble all over the map, with "the sky is falling" will just ridicule yourself and ostracize yourself as being crazy.Accept the fact that change is happening.
REAL MEANING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG The blue stands for the open sky. All that is seen for the profane of intelligence is blue. The blue sky. However, the real work is done in the dark and the light that shines within the darkness or the luminaries who guide our cultures, the planet and the future is also the higher lodges too coming out of there with their different colors of purple. That's royalty. The dawn is purple. The purple dawn. And then you have the red lodge of course which is revolutionary lodges. Always have been and he who changes the world and gives his life for the world. Streaks across the sky gives brilliant white light then turning gradually to red shedding the blood the life of the world or for the world and this is a standard mystery religion which most religions the exoteric are based upon. The colors of the Revolution were red; and then they had the Blue Lodge for the color blue, for open freemasonry, because the sun is blue when everything is out in the open; and white is for the spirit that would really guide it. That's the colors of revolution: red, white and blue. Therefore, every country that had the revolution—Britain, United States and France—ended up with red, white and blue on their flag because it's Kabbalistic and only the Founders understood this religion. The lower peasantry didn't understand anything about it at all.
You'll often find with all the systems you'll find a color-coding of robes. That's standard, even in the Catholic Church, so you have black at the bottom because they're dealing with unwashed masses, those in the darkness; and the little bit of truth the priest is allowed to speak comes from the white part showing, but the rest of the neck is enclosed in black, so he's not allowed to show all information to the public. Then you go up the degrees; they all came from Pythagoras, by the way, who got it from Egypt, and then you have the different ones near the top, the Cardinals and so on. These colors are very important and you'll find the same thing in the Far Eastern religions with the different colored codings and you'll find it also with the rosary. The Catholics use the rosary. The Buddhists use the rosary exactly the same and every seventh bead of course is a planet et cetera, if you count them, one's bigger, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These are all adaptations from each other and even the little strap that rabbis will wear on their forehead with the little scroll in it, the saying for the day that he straps on, actually came from ancient China, long before Judaism had it. There's been priesthoods above the priesthoods all down through the ages organizing all the religions the people think are there own, but at the very top they're all interconnected and the followers who don't know and often the lower priests don't know themselves. You cannot have any kind of religion, even if it was pure, you could never have it in a commercialized society where you have money and power tied together and success. Obviously, the opposite of success is failure, which means poverty in a commercialized system, so they're all intertwined and you can't have honesty in commerce in a class system of winners and losers. You cannot have them co-existing with a true religion; it doesn't work.
The following talk is interspersed with some well-known songs that you’ve heard down through your life and I’ve attempted to show you how you’re being conditioned along with certain agendas with the songs you hear, just as you are with the movies you see. It’s all predictive programming along a certain path.
Well, just like that song there, we’re all living in the dark. We don’t know much about history. We don’t know much about social politics. We don’t know much about the movements which have been created down through history which appear to be DIFFERENT from each other on the OUTSIDE, but when you look at their policies and their goals, they all tend to go towards the same destination. When you find things all tending to come together, as the song goes, towards the same destination, then some people will clue into the fact there’s a common guiding hand here.
Societal changes are likened to a herd of sheep who’ve been in the same field for a few years or even a generation and the sheep themselves are totally unaware of what their purpose is. They think they are there to be happy and to chew the cud and they know the shepherds. They know the shepherd basically comes in and he’ll smile and he’ll take to them and he’ll even scratch some of their ears, you know. Of course, when he wants them to eventually move to another field, he has to motivate them and get them ready to move because something which has been static for a long time takes a while to get into gear, you might say, without losing control; and that’s what society is because society has been planned.
You might say we’re being farmed, like Charles Forte said. WE’VE BEEN FARMED basically down THROUGH the CENTURIES for DIFFERENT PURPOSES by a HIDDEN ELITE and a VERY HIGH ARISTOCRACY, which uses lower aristocracy to do the actual work you might say and when they need these people for wars they BREED them up.
They’ll allow them to have more food for themselves. They always allow them to have plenty of drink, alcohol and so on, and even encourage parties and festivals and that way they knew the population upped because during the festival time even religion would relax so people copulated and offspring were produced. Those guys would be the NEXT CROP for the NEXT WAR, which is maybe PLANNED 18 to 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD and this is pretty standard down through history.
You read about it from the days of Plato where he talks about the necessity of CULLING OFF the EXCESS POPULATION of the Grecian Islands because they were islands and they could only stand so much of a population and even the influx of slaves from all their wars would become a problem sometimes. They would arm these slaves and put them in the army and have them fight their neighbors and that way they culled down the herd, you might say, and in those days it was talked about quite openly by the aristocracy.
SLAVES WERE CHEAP. The aristocracy saw – there was of the known aristocracy as a separate animal you might say and nothing has changed that to the present.
For this particular talk, we’re looking at how society has being shaped from the 1800's in Europe and America, world over really, by different groups and one of these groups would be the Fabian Society, which was established in London, England in the late 1800's.
The founders of the Fabian Society consisted primarily – this is as far as the public is concerned, with Sydney Webb who was a lifelong bureaucrat for the British Government who tried his best to work up and kiss the feet of the guys above him, hoping that he would get accepted as an aristocrat one day. His wife really was called Beatrice and Beatrice Webb was from an aristocratic family called THE POTTERS. She wasBeatrice Potter.
It might sound familiar to people and Beatrice Potter her family – her father was this sort of Halliburton of his day because he would have contracts with the British Army with the Crown. Wherever they went abroad to slaughter people and kick them off their land, they would devastate and burn down houses and he would move in with these little huts he’d sell back to the British Government. The taxpayers would pay for them, of course, and they’ve got these little checks for the people that they simply dispossessed recently abroad.
The same system was in place then as it is today. Names change. Sometimes the names are actually the same family lineages but through marriage et cetera. We have different surnames from the female and the male lineages.
The founders of the Fabian were the Webb’s and of course we had George Bernard Shaw who was a playwright and just like today, the playwrights in those days were funded by the big corporations, charitable corporations as they call themselves or philanthropic organizations. They would tell the authors basically what themes to write upon on social issues and write them into novels so as the public who read them would have their opinions of things altered in such a direction that they would be all for a particular type of change.
Unsuspectingly, really, this system which has been organized by professional psychologists you might say at the top because they understand the human mind and through fiction we are programmed through emotion, where anything at all can be humanized in a way and drama as to make it palatable to the people.
The Webb’s and Bernard Shaw and a third member, H.G. Wells, another lowly born person. He was born into a family that had lost its wealth, a middle class family. His mother became a housemaid to an aristocratic family and H.G. Wells was brought up in this particular house where his mother was the maid basically and they have a terror – the domestic staff had a tremendous terror of poverty as they watched factory workers passing in the windows and they used to be terrified of having to join them one day, so they became more snobbish than the people who hired them, the actual owners of the home.
However, this thirst for power as they get up into a higher class enabled guys like Wells to be picked for that very craving, knowing that he had no conscience in getting up there and he was also employed as a FICTIONAL WRITER to BRAINWASH PEOPLE basically through FICTION and to certain directions and WAYS of THINKING. A planned society was his general theme through fictional works like "The Shape of Things to Come."
Most of his works actually were non-fiction like his "Outline of History" in two volumes. His son had finished the second volume because Wells died in about ’48 – 1948. Those three main founders, at least for the public image, were the front men for the Fabian Society.
The Fabian Society was funded by the British Aristocracy, not the British working class. The British working class were taught that this is actually formed for them is on the side of labor and out of that came the labor party of Britain in fact and at the top of the Labor Party of Britain, the Fabian Society still rules. On the stained glass window in the home of Mrs. Webb in London, you’ll see the actual stained glass portrait of the founders and two of them are hammering the world into shape on an anvil.
In other words, the elite, intellectual scientific elite are beating the world into a proper shape you might say. The way it should be. The reshaping of society as symbolized by the world.
Now Bertrand Russell was another member of this group. Bertrand Russell was an aristocrat. His father was Lord Amberley who was heavily involved in politics. He had a seat in the House of Lords, which is the British Senate basically, although you inherit the title and Bertrand Russell was born in the early 1870's.
The same man was running the anti-war movement in 1960. Still out in front of the crowd and he ran the "Committee of 100" they called it, which was the radical group of the anti-war protest movement. This particular group smashed down and cut through the fences at air bases and stormed onto the runway and destroyed things.
Here again you have an aristocrat funded through the Fabian Society, pretending to be on the working man’s side, leading vast amounts of people who had fallen for his spiel and these guys always have a very good spiel, you see, and yet this particular lord had nothing in common with the working class. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, he never mixed with them apart from the mobs that he was speaking from. He wouldn’t mix with them because he had nothing in common with them.
He was a eugenicist.He believed in superior breeding and the breeding of intellect into people. He believed in abortion, birth control and eugenics—meaning mandatory abortion for certain people with lower IQ levels or whatever. Lord Bertrand Russell was a big, big player as far as the public was concerned because he wrote so many books which gave you certain truths and certain facts to bring you to a preconceived conclusion knowing you must arrive by the way the information is presented. Most of facts you arrive at actually or conclusions you come to are arrived at because they omit other facts and that’s how most of these conclusions are reached.
Bertrand Russell was given a personal teacher, a tutor when he was very young and this tutor was a Darwinian, as Mr. Russell in his own autobiography says, and he was a crazy guy of course. He had chickens running all over the house and he wanted to study their various habits et cetera and maybe hoped it evolved into a higher type of dinosaur, but who can tell.
This is the era that Bertrand Russell was born into, where Darwinism had been pushed out by the Royal Society of England, London, the High Freemasonic Scientific Society who was really under the Darwinian guise of evolution pushing the ancient inner religion of freemasonry, which is really basic Hinduism because Freemasonry goes with Hinduism exactly along the lines that we just sort of evolved from amoebas and little animals and land or up the mud banks; and then, just through various chances et cetera in those billions of years, we sort of arrived at where we are and of course we’re not stopped at the moment.
We’ve got a "Great Leap Forward" to go through for the New Man for the New Age, which is AQUARIUS, and we’re right here now, you see, is where we’re coming up to. This all ties in together.
Here’s a little bit from Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand Russell’s own autobiography, one of the first volumes published actually. The later ones I don’t know if they’re exactly the same.
He said:
"My father, Lord Amberley, had recently died after a long period of gradually increasing debility. My mother and my sister had died of diphtheria about a year and a half sooner. My mother, as I came to know her later from her diary and her letters was vigorous, lively, witty, serious, original and fearless. Judging by her pictures she must have also been very beautiful."
It didn’t rub off on old Bertie here.
"My father was philosophical and studious and unworldly, morose, and priggish. Both were ardent theorists of reform and prepared to put into practice whatever theory they believed in. My father was a disciple and friend of John Stuart Mill, from whom both learned to believe in birth control and votes for women."
Because John Stuart Mill you see was a top economist and being in on the know and the plan and a High Mason et cetera, they had to double the work force by getting the women in too to destroy the family unit and bring in mandatory abortion, which has all been accomplished then since.
He says:
"My father lost his seat in Parliament through advocacy of birth control. My mother sometimes got into hot water for her radical opinions. At a garden party given by the parents of Queen Mary, the Duchess of Cambridge remarked in a loud voice: ‘Yes, I know who you are, you are the daughter-in-law. But now I hear you only like dirty Radicals and dirty Americans. All London is full of it; all the clubs are talking of it. I must look at your petticoats to see if they are dirty.’"
That’s the type of radicals we’re looking at. We’re looking at an aristocracy within an aristocracy with a mission and it does also tell you that Queen Mary the Duchess of Cambridge was not in on the ultimate plan, which makes sense in Freemasonry because the one at the top is irrelevant. The front man is not important. It’s number two that’s important. It’s the guy behind the Prime Minister or the President that’s important. It’s those behind the plan where often the one at the top is not.
It’s interesting to read that Bertrand Russell was a friend of John Stuart Mill, who believed in a world run by experts like himself on an economic system run by experts. A thick family planning world over where you would not be born unless you had a function for you, and of course the elite would decide what you would work at in between from school simply for that task.
This is in fact the Soviet System because the same aristocracy created behind communism. The created both systems and that’s why both systems run along the same paths. Today we have school to work, which is the Soviet System, so it’s here, people.
Now Albert Pike, who was the Grand Master of Freemasonry in the late 1800's, also called his organization – and he boasted about it. He said, the world’s revolutionary.
He says, we have (meaning the Freemasons, of course) been behind every revolution and he was very proud of it and modern Masonic books backed that up. Albert Pike trained the man who started a revolution in Italy whose name was Mazzini, Giuseppe Mazzini.
Mazzini is just sort of an Italian version of Mason, so that probably wasn’t his real name, but he started a revolution in Italy because the idea was to unite the countries under one government and then unite the central government into one world government, but that would come later under the League of Nations and then the United Nations.
This is what Bertrand Russell says about Mazzini and it shows you the ties. Now Mazzini – who appears to be part of the communist party.
"Mazzini gave my mother his watch piece which is now in my possession. My mother use to address meetings in favor of votes for the women and I found one passage in her diary where she speaks of the Potter’s Sisterhood which included Mrs. Sydney Webb and Lady Courtney, a social butterfly."
What you’re seeing here are really it’s the same system of course as the illuminati where they had one sect for the males and females going out into society to create social organizations led again by people in the upper classes and the people followed them.
Here’s Bertrand Russell, he was a British Lord, who was given the watch piece of Mazzini. Now Mazzini’s organization was called the "World Revolutionary Party," which was a branch of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry set up by Albert Pike. The guy who took over from Mazzini was Lenin and they turned it into the Bolshevik Party.
Here’s a tie-in with the British aristocracy. They’re royalty, the communism and they needed the masses to believe in them that it was for the working man and through many front organizations and front speakers they conned the masses into this because it kept Britain from rioting by giving them a labor party, which they themselves had set up, and through governments you see setting up what you call democracy. They founded bureaucracies, which is the real government.
THE BUREAUCRACY is GOVERNMENT. THE BUREAUCRACY is NEVER ELECTED.
People worked in different bureaucracies their whole life on a single mission which they know, regardless of which political party is out in front. The political party really is the front organization to the keep the public amused and debating and hot-headed about, while the bureaucracies know what their missions are and they work fervently towards it. This is the real – that’s really what it’s all about.
The whole thing was to get the public from where they were, which was an industrial era, forced industrialism, which had through the laws like the Corn Laws were passed in England and put through by Lord Rothschild which keeps reins in Britain and keeps the farmers out of work and the farmers were all pushed into the cities. The cities now had the manpower to create this industrial revolution and on we go with heavy, heavy industry.
They also had wars going full-time, of course, because you’ve got to use industry for war machines and it culled off the population too, because the average person didn’t live much over 25 if they made it that far working in factories for 16 to 17 hours per day for a pittance which didn’t even buy you rent money.
You often slept in the factory and you could barely eat because they were kept at starvation levels.
That was Great Britain in its heyday you see. That was the British Empire. The British Empire certainly looked after the ones who owned the empire, but it used as chattel those beneath it and they knew they had to move on to a post-industrial era and so these guys like Bertrand Russell and Wells et cetera PREPARED THE MINDS OF PEOPLE THROUGH BOOKS.
Russell with his non-fiction, Wells with his fiction primarily, and of course we had Bernard Shaw with his idea of fiction promoting – changing certain values through their books hoping that the public would adopt them, as they upgraded the system to serve this purpose to get the public to serve a new purpose you see.
It was NEVER for the public’s benefit as they get the sheep from one field into the next field without causing too much panic and they – like Albert Pike said, the Grand Master of Freemasonry, the High Pope of Masonry, he said, "we never begin a premature revolution. We always, always prepare the groundwork before we even begin the launch of the revolution itself."
Now the Webb’s were interesting people because Sidney Webb was such a bureaucrat. He used to put the members of the Fabian Society through a hypnotic trance, in a sleep, a deep coma almost with this bureaucracies. He had a special language of his own which he was cultivating for all bureaucrats.
We’re all familiar with some of it today because it’s mentioned over television news stations quite frequently. They actually do talk like that amongst themselves, by the way, but the Webb’s led off what appeared to be this great left wing labor organization to get the HERD as they call the people moving into the next stage of scientific era, you see, a technological age. That was their job, was to con them and to get them to come along willingly thinking it was all on their behalf.
Here’s a statement from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography about the Webb’s themselves, just to let you know where these people really have their minds.
He said on page 115 of "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell."
He says:
"Both of them the Webb’s were fundamentally undemocratic and regarded it as a function of astatement to bamboozle or terrorize the populace. I realize the origins of Mrs. Webb’s conceptions of government when she repeated to me her father’s description ofSHAREHOLDERS MEETINGS.It is theRECOGNIZED FUNCTION of Directors TO KEEP SHAREHOLDERS in THEIR PLACEand she had a similar view of the government through the electorate."
That’s the kind of people who led, and still do, by the way, the labor party. It’s a con job over the working people because they’ve never had one of their own in the top and it NEVER WILL HAPPEN. Their leaders are always beside them.
She goes on to talk about her father Beatrice Webb. Her father’s story of his career had not given her any undue respect for the great – after he’d built huts for the winter's quarters for the French armies in the Crimea, he went to Paris to get paid. From then he of course talks about them putting up the huts and so on, as I said before, in the destroyed areas across the planet. He was the Halliburton of his day. He had all the contracts from government and that’s where the Potter family obtained the masses of their wealth. These characters were anything but working class.
Bertrand Russell also mentioned that THEYhated RAMSEY McDONALDwho was a front man for the Labor Party. He had nothing in common with them since they came from an upper class and they were rather hostile to him since he was uncouth and unlearned et cetera.
In other words, the Webb’s were incredibly snobbish, which is a very common as it is in Britain. Even the accent gives away your education to your state. You’re actually – you’re not at the state of birth or the level of birth. It’s a caste system. It has so much in common with India because England has a caste system pretty well identical to that of India and that maybe one day we’ll find out that the high Brahmans of India are the same bloodlines as those that run Britain, and I would be at the least surprised if that was the case.
Bertrand Russell, the Webb’s, H.G. Wells and Wells tried to take over the Fabian Society at one point and the Webb’s put him back in his place. Wells was a manic-depressive himself and he played with drugs et cetera. He had the usual upper class problems with sexual relations.
He had to have his wives – he had different wives and they had to sign contracts that they would do certain things for him in a sexual manner and promised to keep their mouth shut if they ever got divorced. I have no doubt that he had his fetishes and perhaps when his wife was beating him with the whip, maybe he thought of the working classes getting beaten. Who knows? Something turned this strange man on.
We have these types of characters running the left and the right wing. Now people who want to read the "Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" should think for themselves as they read it and remember there is much more information about Bertrand Russell than his own autobiography.
You’ll find another book called "In the Minds of Men." Excellent book. The subtitle is "Darwin and the New World Order," and that was written by Ian Taylor who’s a scientist in Canada and he goes through much more of these particular characters who changed society, changed history, created the fads that became touted as reality like Darwinism.
He said in fact in his own book, this one here, "In the Minds of Men," he’s commenting on Bertrand Russell.
He said:
Margaret Mead was of course put out there to push for abortion and so on and actually she was more than just an abortionist. She wanted to also to start the sterilization processes much like Margaret Sanger had done before her for the "mentally unfit" as they called them and of course once they have an IQ level which they claim is appropriate and everybody says that’s fine I’m above that.
Well of course, like every other law they have on the book, they then change it and they expand it and that would have been a horror show if that comes to pass.
"But Mead became the darling of sort of humanist such as Bertrand Russell in 1929 and have Havelock Ellis who have sighted her work often to promote their own ideas of sexual liberation."
Because this free sex is what they called it, "free love"was started in the 1800's by these same aristocratic people that they wanted the people to emulate.
THEY wanted to DESTROY the FAMILY UNIT. In fact, family units are the LAST VESTIGE of POWER which will STAND UP COLLECTIVELY against too much intrusion by an elite.
And so THE FAMILY HAD TO GO and then the STATE became the SUPREME RULER directed to the individual, which we see as state.
Many women now, it’s probably over half, have single parent families and there’s generally social workers from the state involved in their life all the time concerning the rearing of their children, or in removing of their children. This again was planned and DISCUSSED FREELY by guys like Bertrand Russell back in the 1800's, Margaret Mead and Havelock Ellis and so on.
This is a BIG RICH CLUB you see of RICH ELITISTS. In Darwin, "In the Minds of Men" it says:
"Mead and Benjamin Spock between them the pattern of North American child rearing was radically changed, and the fruits of their labors are now becoming evident in today's divorce statistics. Mead's own modest contribution to these statistics consisted of having had three husbands, which would seem to refute the promise of a happy and graceful life she claimed science showed to be possible with the liberated sexual lifestyle. Ironically, for both science and the alleged happy life, Mead, one of America's leading scientists and a purported Christian, died in 1978 in the arms of a psychic faith healer."
Another little clue that pops in down through the ages with meeting all these guys. They’re all Masons or Eastern Stars, the females. They all believe in the same channeling experiences from entities and they front for a Christian organization. That’s their cover.
Bertrand Russell espoused the total MASONIC DOCTRINE of evolution and great purpose behind this meaning of the great power of the Grand Architect of the Universe, and Mead was into the fortune telling and palm reading and channeling of course. These are the heroes who helped changed society, which they claimed was for the better.
Let's go back to another book of Bertrand Russell and this one is called "The Impact of Science on Society."
This was a treatise really on population control on one level and it was also a treatise on methods of creating population control. When we read here and this book was initially written or published I believe, let me see, 1952, this now is a good part of what became known as "The Earth Charter" that Maurice Strong put forward. Of course, it was one of the Rockefeller’s who actually wrote it for Maurice Strong, but in reality, Bertrand Russell put all this stuff down in the 1950's.
He said:
"Let us now bring together the conclusions which result from inquiring into the various kinds of conditions that a scientific society must fulfill if it is to be stable."
Now he’s talking about a society controlled by scientists. A world run by experts.
He says:
"First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries. Scientific progress is there for a condition, not merely a social progress, but even of maintaining the degree of prosperity already achieved. Given a stationary technique, the raw materials that it requires will be used up in no very long time. If raw materials are used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to solve our soil conservation."
Now here's that which got written into the Earth Charter and then into the "Agenda 21" from the U.N. Charter and now we find out that Bertrand Russell is writing it in the 1950's. Then, if go back to his friend that he mentions earlier, his particular friendship with John Stuart Mill, an economist in the 1800's, this is the same thing. This is reiterated over and over again. THEY HAD THE PLAN MADE UP IN THE 1800's to do exactly what they’re talking about here.
He goes on in "The Impact of Science on Society," Bertrand Russell:
"Second, as regards population. If there is not to be a permanent and increasing shortage of food, agriculture must be conducted by methods which are not wasteful of soil, and increase of population must not outrun the increase in food production rendered possible by technical improvements. At present neither condition is fulfilled. The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing. Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm."
Now of course this is all nonsense and if you go back even further to 1700's, where the precursor of John Stuart Mill was Malthus, who also was an economist for the British East India Company, who dealt with the very same nonsense and was always shouting fear, fear, fear about no food and the populations are just are growing out of proportions and he printed his book on population control; this is Malthus two years before the British did its first census. He even quoted FAKE FIGURES for his book because it hadn’t been done yet, (the census, that is).
Back to "The Impact of Science on Society," by Bertrand Russell:
"To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority."
My God, we hear the same thing over and over, eh?
"This authority should deal out the world’s food to various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each State to decide."
And each state is each country. It’s interesting that this is written in the 1950's and became a part of "Agenda 21" pretty well word-for-word. It tells you this is an old plan and run by the same people – the same elite group down through the ages.
Bertrand Russell, and if I’ll try and find it here, and this is all off the cuff, pretty well, by the way. Nothing is rehearsed here. Okay. He goes on, on page 116 of "The Impact of Science on Society."
He said:
"Our members who are so important that for their sake we should patiently permit this state of affairs to come about surely not what then can we do? Apart from certain deep seeded prejudices the answer would be obvious. The nations which are present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt methods by which the west the increase of population has been checked."
The increase of population has been checked. Now, REMEMBER that STATEMENT there. How did they check the population increase in the West?
It was because at that time in the 1800's right through THEY STARTED INOCULATIONS and if you follow the statistics of the British Medical Association, they did careful follow-ups on all those who got inoculated. Everybody who was inoculated against these particular diseases DIED of them.
THAT’S HOW THEY CHECKED THE POPULATION INCREASE.
I’ll go on here.
"Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so."
He was predicting here that by the year 2000 we’d be walking all over each other and crawling over each other to get to work. That’s if there is any work left.
He says:
"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect."
I'll repeat that for the hard of thinking.
"War as I remarked a moment ago has hitherto been disappointing in this respect."
He’s admitting they use war to kill off the people and if you look at the history of Britain since the Rothschild’s took over there’s been one war after another. So they’re very disappointed they hadn’t killed enough off you see.
He says:
"If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full."
Well, there’s a nice statement to make, isn’t it?
"The Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness."
Now I’ll repeat that part. "Really high-minded people," he’s talking about himself and his own class, you see, "are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."
"However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return. There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority."
Well, he’s in the powerful minority group so he can suggest it.
"All these methods have been practiced: The first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world is some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia. (It is not to be supposed that Indians and Chinese like starving, but they have to endure it because the armaments of the West are too strong for them.)"
They hadn’t built up China of course to be the manufacturer of the world; that wasn’t his department.
"Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and happiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government (he’s always repeating that thing again) there will be competition for power among the different nations. And an increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obvious the only way of avoiding starvation. They will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. This is the explanation of the victories of communism and China"
Now it’s interesting that Bertrand Russell, Lord Bertrand Russell who talks about the victory of communism in China. He went over to China in the 1920's and it wasn’t the Soviets who went over to train the Chinese in communism. Bertrand Russell was sent from England to do it and he taught in universities basic theories in communism to the very young. Those young students became the first leaders of the communist party and throughout China. Once again, we have the central hub London and the aristocracy running both sides of the fence here, capitalism and communism, because between the two of them it would terrorize the world into going to the third wave, which is the compromise between the two – which is a small dominant elite who would then rule over the minds of the people who would be run in a communistic fashion by layers and layers and layers of bureaucracies. This is the Fasci coming together you see with the sickle and the hammer of communism. This the Third Wave. This is it.
Now we find all these people these elitists you see ARE ALL MASONS and the daughters of Masons, Eastern Stars, who are giving you this Hindu-Masonic religion of theirs of evolution to the next Great Leap Forward where they believe truly – true believers of the inner religion, that they’re not hypocrites. They really believe their religion and that they have the right being ascended over others, ascended masters, to dictate the direction that everyone else should go in society. Of course they keep us as the "profane," they call them, "those in the darkness," because, well, we just can’t handle truth and we’re too stupid to handle truth and we couldn’t make these decisions for ourselves, so they treat us kindly like good shepherds and make all the decisions for us.
Mikhail Gorbachev who was the head of the KGB in the Soviet Union, you know those nice guys in the black outfits that kidnap people at night from their houses and torture them and kill them, and then became president of the Soviet Union and then was picked by Margaret Thatcher to come over to London where the press agreed not to ask him any nasty questions about his politics. He only talked about his new blue suit. Very trendy man and his wife's hair-dos. His wife at the time explained that you could get a free face-lift if you walked into a clinic on any Russian street you see. It was just a wonderland over there and yet abortion on demand. They couldn’t give you the pill. That costs money, but you can get an abortion in five minutes.
NOW THAT’S called EFFICIENCY under the COMMUNIST SYSTEM for the ORDINARY PEOPLE.
Mikhail Gorbachev who was eventually knighted by the Queen and became a Knight of Lazarus, which he wears the Templar Cross, only it’s a green cross. That’s his function, to side with Maurice Strong and push the Earth Charter et cetera. He wrote a book, or at least it had written for him, called "MikhailGorbachev, The Search for a New Beginning," subtitled "Developing a New Civilization," and he said, "the greening of politics" and that’s where the Green Party. People started in the Soviet blocks the Green Party; in fact, it was started up by a right hand man of Stalin. His granddaughter took it over to Europe.
"The greening of politics is an affirmation of the priority of values common to humanity enriching education and up bringing with ecological content from childhood onwards in developing a new and modern attitude towards nature. At the same time, the greening of politics is a return to human kind of the awareness of humanity as a part of nature."
Now that rings a bell if you read the "Bio-Diversity Treaty" where you have no more rights than an ant. In fact, they have more rights than you do.
"The moral improvement in society and the maturation of civilization is inconceivable without it."
Mikhail goes on elsewhere to talk about the choices facing humankind.
"Today, humankind is facing a choice. It is time for every individual, nation and state to rethink its place and role in world affairs. We need an intellectual breakthrough into a new dimension."
This is the great leap forward of Masonry once again.
"And that means that the state of the human spirit assumes paramount importance. The roles of culture, religion, science, and education must grow enormously. The responsibility of the centers of humanity's intellectual, scientific, and religious development is immense and must be given preeminence."
And it sure has, because we have no say in anything at all.
"The future of human society will not be defined in terms of capitalism versus socialism. It was that dichotomy that caused the division of the world community into two blocs and brought about so many catastrophic consequences. We need to find a paradigm that will integrate all the achievements of the human mind and human action, irrespective of which ideology or political movement can be credited with them."
This is the coming together of the heads and tails of the coin that are both run by the same money men.
"This paradigm can only be based on the common values that humankind has developed over many centuries. The search for a new paradigm should be a search for synthesis,"
So you had the thesis, you see, capitalism, the antithesis of communism, and here’s the synthesis
". . . for what is common to and unites people, countries, and nations, rather than what divides them. The search for such a synthesis can succeed if the following conditions are met. First of all, we must return to the well-known human values that were embodied in the ideals of world religions and also in the socialist ideas that inherited much from those values."
He means the Fabian Society.
"Further, we need to search for a new paradigm of development, based on those values and capable of leading us all toward a genuinely humanistic (remember that word) or, more precisely, humanistic-ecological culture of living."
Humanism of course believes that man is God because there is nothing else, so that the most advanced intellectuals have the right to rule over those less advanced; and ecology of course is to do with the planet and economy as well, all lumped into one of scientific socialism what he’s talking about. He’s reiterating the very values that Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells and all the rest of the Fabian Society was spouting out back in the 1800's and still do actually. The descendents still run the Fabian Society today and he said, too, here that, Gorbachev:
"The philosophy of the twenty-first century must be grounded in a philosophy of diversity."
I wonder where we’ve heard that before.
"If life as such is the highest value, then even more precious is the singular identity of every nation and every race as a unique creation of nature and human history. At the same time, we must begin to define certain moral maxims or ethical commandments that constitute values common to all humankind."
Well, you’ll notice that the UN has its own version of Man in place and anyone can go on the website and see them. He’s going on about the fact that we must create a new religion which is based on earth worship. Earth worship. This of course will eventually, (these are my words but it’s from the book) reading between the lines, earth worship takes you into a controlled society like family planning only it’s global planning and worshipping the earth. You’ll have dumbed down populations who probably can’t read or write in the future and they’ll be given a religion where they’ll either have themselves going entirely sterilized, to save Mother Earth, of course, and to make sure that there’s no mouths or surplus that need feeding. Of course, the elite won’t have to bother with the ramifications of this intent of starving people.
Yes, this is the same agenda. Mikhail Gorbachev with his Presidio down in the States there where he runs this Green movement from. It’s all part of the Maurice Strong movement and Maurice of course was picked by the Rockefeller’s who are part of the same version of the Fabian Society of London intermixed with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the American Branch of Council on Foreign Relations and we are being managed just like animals and they’re breeding us up. They’re breeding us down. Dumbing us down for sure at the moment and they intend to cull us down to a manageable size and then hone different types for specific functions in the near future. That way they won’t need the media or sports to entertain us and then we won’t be wasteful of all the toys which we reward ourselves, all these little cheap things from China which don’t last very long.
This is the basic system which is running our world, and you and I and the public have absolutely no say in this agenda whatsoever.
Recall the words of H.G. Wells who provides a semantic underpinning of this theocracy.
"At first the realization of the ineffectiveness of our best thought and knowledge struck only a few people, like Mr. Maynard Keynes, for example… It is science and not men of science that we want to enlighten and animate our politics and rule the world"
This was quoted in "Mind Control, World Control," pages 306-307, 1997. The author was Jim Keith.
There’s a member of the Fabian Society giving you their goal of course which is to RULE THE WORLD. THEY want WORLD CONTROL. THEY ALWAYS DID and in reality they ALWAYS had WORLD CONTROL.
They were just updating their system to ensure that they kept control as they brought the sheep from one pasture to the next pasture for the next stage and that’s where we are now.
All of the systems which are set up through non-governmental organizations, which you think are speaking out as grass roots organizations speaking out for you,ARE ACTUALLY OWNED and CONTROLLED BY THE SAME ELITE.
The Rockefeller Foundation funds pretty well all of these organizations from Green Peace to you name it and in reality they are all leading us into the global village as they call it with the UN, the apparent authority, the front authority with its massive bureaucracy. An interbred bureaucracy, by the way, which has its own school and that’s where their children go too, the bureaucrats' children, and they’re not taughtANYTHING about DEMOCRACY or anything.
They believe they are ADMINISTRATORS. They administrate to the PUBLIC what we’re supposed to do in this expert control scientifically designed society that they’re bringing into being and so they come back – the evils which are coming up on the world and have been on the world for an awful long time.
We must think out everything anew because traditional methods of combating this evil don’t work. We must think anew and we’re not children.
PERPETUAL CHILDHOODis calledSOCIALISM, where a big brother or a big daddy takes care of all your problems for you.
That’s why THEY SING We ARE the WORLD you see. We are the children and of course, I don’t like being referred to as a child. I’m a thinking adult sentient being and I resent being called a child. I’m not part of a global village, either, that’s owned lock, stock and barrel with the UN fronting for it and all the big rich boys owning it.
I’m not a serf or a slave and that’s how we must take this forward is from that point of view.
INDIVIDUALISM is the way TO OVERCOME ALL OF THIS and INDIVIDUAL THINKERS. INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT and that takes tolerance from other people too.
The masses would like us all to be the same. There’s no doubt about it. Many people love socialism and will love having their decisions made for them; but for those who do not, we must accept the fact that amongst individuals there’ll be different opinions. That’s why we’re individuals and it’s more exciting to have a world full of individual opinions and different ways of looking at things than a single mass outlook, a supposedly correct outlook on things. That’s the kind of world we must work towards.
Thank you.
Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - February 25, 2006 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)
Wherever there's a television culture, people are pretty well standardized, the world over. Back in the '60’s, they talked about this, the creation of a world culture; then in the '70’s, they had meetings about it, between Britain and the U.S., to find out who would design the culture and who would lead the field in promoting it.
The Council on Foreign Relations went over to their parent organization, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, and that's where it was all debated, with other Council on Foreign Relations members from other countries (non-Commonwealth countries) joining in. It was discussed as to what methods would be used to propagate the culture, not that it was a mystery how to create culture. It was always understood. The BBC had known, right off the bat, when it was started up as a propagandic institution in World War I, via the radio. There was no need to relearn something, as far as promoting propaganda. All they had to do was to find out how to put it over quickly in a radio-type and then a television-type format.
They found that fiction, of course, was the easiest way to grab peoples attention, especially if you gave them dramas and serial type dramas, and left them with a cliff hanger where the hero was literally hanging on to life in some strange situation, knowing the public would tune in at the same time the next day to hear how it turned out. There’s nothing new, again, in this type of format. It had been used widely in ancient times on stage, even in ancient Greece, where traveling players came from the Middle East, across the Old World or the Ancient World. You find that towns and cities had to turn out to watch these dramas, because they were authorized by kings and queens, because it was a prop, generally there was always a story involved to prop up the religion prevalent at the time; and also, the king was the head of the country. That's why they had to do these particular type dramas.
Propaganda can be put across in many ways, and the best propaganda doesn’t come across as blatant. The best type dresses itself in what you think is normalcy. To be more precise, it's what you think you accept as normalcy, because most people don't really question where anything comes from, if everyone else is doing it, wearing it or dancing to it. They think it's just what is. It never dawns on them, that nothing within the structural system simply appears by itself, happenstance, out of the blue.
Culture creation is part of standardization. Even during the toughest times, when the church was “the big stick” controlling your mind, your thoughts, what you believed you knew, which was generally all that you did know and that was from the Bible or not even so much from the Bible, because before Protestantism came along (or Lutherism) there really was no alternative to the Catholic Church. There had been some organizations formed, which tried to be, but they were wiped out pretty swiftly with the aid of kings and queens, armies, knights and commanders. However, before that, there was no position to what was taught and authorized to be taught by the church.
It was fairly easy to keep a population ignorant with a ruling literally elite, at least a scribe faction to give stories to the public. Much of what the people were taught wasn't even in the Bible. It was dogma that was inherited from an Ancient Rome, from a Pagan Rome, which, although it had stamped out or thought it had stamped out most of the paganism, it couldn't help but reabsorb it back in, because there's was so many elements in the paganism that people liked. A lot of it was to do with the human psyche. It was almost indispensable to have brought back in to the church. Therefore, much dogma was taught, and for centuries the public were told all the stories from Adam to Eve onwards, and that's all they knew about anything. They never heard of the old philosophers that had existed thousands of years ago or the other cultures that had existed in ancient times. They didn't know any of this. Their whole reality was revolved around the stories from priests, and selective stories at that, and often altered stories.
For centuries in fact, the traveling players who were authorized and licensed to travel, because those who can alter your mindset must be licensed and authorized by the State, all the way back to Plato's day. Plato advocated that even singers and poets and musicians should be licensed, because they yielded such tremendous power and influence over the young.
In the Middle Ages, the traveling troops went from castle to castle or city-state to city-state, with approval, and they put on religious dramas. The same types, over and over, which you would think would get monotonous, but when you only had some kind of entertainment coming in, maybe twice a year or once a year, it was something the people looked forward to, because people liked fares. That’s why the church made sure they always had specific holy days or holidays. That's where it comes from.
The world holy itself still comes from the pagan roots, from the holly—the holly and the ivy, and the Old Grove, the ancient groves where worship was done. That's why you have Hollywood, and the staff of Merlin is made of holly. The staff has always been a tradition in all ancient religions, predating Christianity and still existing today. It's even evident in the great brass bands, the military bands of Europe that are led by the man with the great big stick in the front, with a symbol on top, which he throws up in the air and spins.
The great meetings in ancient times were begun with the wrapping of the staff on a log or a stone. This transformed into the gavel of the judge, as he starts and commences the court and closes the court with his decision. The gavel strikes the block. All ancient traditions, coming down in a sublimated form through society and time, but understood by those who go up degrees. Therefore, you are what you think you know. What you think you know is bounced off of others around you, and if they all agree with your thoughts and share the same thoughts and same ideas and opinions, you judge yourself as being sane and normal.
It's very simple to alter culture, because culture is to grow. You grow something. You culture it, like you'd culture bacterium or viruses in a Petri dish. It's plastic. What is made right can be made wrong, in a single generation, if the proper sequences are understood and carried out and followed like formula, because that's all they are is formula; the people will react in the same way as they have in the past. Anything that's happened in ages gone past can be reintroduced, and much of it has been reintroduced. If you give something a different name—the fact or the act, being the same, is disguised by terminology alteration.
An example of how the same situations can reoccur and be disguised, something really which should be in the “Control Freaks Handbook.” I'm sure it is, in many archives, how to cow the people and terrify the people into obeyance, a technique which was used generally in times of war, which again are strategies laid out by elites, war and far reaching plans for alteration and wars to change cultures on all sides. You always found the kings and queens of ancient countries would then marry after the war. I’m sure the marriages were arranged before the wars had even begun. Whole countries fought to save their supposed ways of life, only to be given away—a country given away in marriage. That was a normal thing at that time, not too long ago. However, it shows you the insanity of the mass-minded person to go along with it all and learn nothing. We know they learn nothing, because, generally, every 18 years to 20 years the same thing could be repeated, and they'd go off and fight again when they're told to; and then watch their kings and queens marry each other all over again; and this nonsense happened down through time.
In World War I, one of the bloodiest wars, each one getting bloodier than the last, thanks to science and democracy. Democracy allows taxation on a massive scale, which creates standing armies and keeps them supplied and paid. World War I had Germany, Britain, France and all the rest of these countries and you'll find the royalty on all sides were related—first cousins. The posters for the Kaiser in Germany were identical to the poster for the King of England, except for the hats. The faces and features were identical. That's when the name of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha in England was changed to Windsor, a name they pulled out of the hat from a King of England, from many centuries earlier.
Terror is a tremendous instrument to cow the people as you're creating great changes. In World War II and prior to World War II, really since the industrial age, the end of the end of the industrial age when the machine and the mass-man, the mass-factories; mass became the word for everything. Mass-production and mass-armies, that all became the rage. Every great old country of Europe armed themselves to the teeth and just itched to get wars going, because WARS are very profitable for the BANKERS and the INVESTORS and THOSE WHO SUPPLY massive armies with everything they wear, carry and use.
It's a great way for disposable income for debt creation. Every bullet, every shell fired has to be replaced. It's replaced when kings or prime ministers or presidents go to the bankers and borrow, and the debt is passed on to the next generation. Long-term strategies of enslavement, which were known in ancient, ancient times and discussed massively during the 1700’s during the periods of upcoming revolutions, well discussed. It's not discussed at all today. Debt is taken nationally and individually as a matter of normalcy, as though it were natural like gravity. However, the fearsome sight of the mass-armies from World War I, and then followed through to World War II, and the creation of special combat teams and regiments with their military outfits and their boots. Then came the special, special ones with the black outfits to terrorize the public, because black, being the color traditionally used for the executioner and death, is now worn across the Western Hemisphere by police (that used to be blue, for the Blue Lodge). Now they are the executioners, because they are no longer the servants. They are the enforcers.
Today, coming back from a little town, (they call it a city, but it's a bit of a boast,) of Sudbury, a town that really is still a mining town, although most of the ore today is shipped to China as its biggest export. At one time, it was owned by the Rothschild's, because the biggest building there in the 1800’s was “Rothschild Square,” they called it—a massive building. Wherever there was any kind of mineral that was known to be needed for the time or the future coming up, oddly enough, the Rothschild's had it, all across Canada and the U.S., and I'm sure the world. Everything had already been tested and explored, long ago.
However, coming back from Sudbury, sure enough it's a long weekend, because Canada Day is coming up. For about 10 or 15 years now, gradually, very gradually the public have been trained; they're being stopped on the highway, it has become a natural phenomena “for your own good and safety.” It began initially with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, another not-for-profit non-governmental organization, heavily funded by the big foundations. The woman who started it up in Ontario, an excuse really to get this ball rolling, to get the public used to being stopped until they don't complain anymore. The woman who started it up was given a promotion at the end, as head of a non-governmental branch for Ontario, and put on the Board of the Liquor Licensing—the government organization that runs the booze. Nice seat. Nice job if you can get it. Of course, they'd never say it was a payoff.
Since then, we've had encroaching powers put upon the people, and they now have regular “blitzes,” a term now used. There’s black-clad characters with their combat boots. This is a policeman with combat boots, guys who've been reared with GI Joe and Rambo and video games. They now become the cartoons, but the dangerous and scary thing is they can't tell the difference, because they've never really grown up. Here they are wearing this outfit—outfits that people would run from in World War II, because only special units of the German Army, the Gestapo or the SS wore them. Now it's prevalent all over Europe, and that's no coincidence, this same outfit and the little cap. Everything is black, and then the pants are tucked into the boots, as if they're ready to go to war. They call it a “Blitz,” borrowed from the Blitzkriegs of Germany, World War II. The very term is borrowed, so they're making war upon drivers.
We've watched governments have wars upon poverty, and poverty increased. Wars on drugs, and drugs increased. Wars on everything: Now it's war on drivers and war on smokers, and now it's to be war on obese people, according to the United Nations where all these wars seem to originate from, as we're all trained in this massive global sheep pen; trained not to “bleat” too much as we're bled a lot. We watch as, even driving into Sudbury, a little mining place, really, the big signs across the road, the electronic signs flash all these sayings to you telling you what to do, and “slow down” and “don't drink,” and on and on it goes. You got used to the face being stuck through our windows and someone asking us to breathe in their face. If they didn't tell you that, they pretended that they were just shortsighted perhaps, to get very close to you, an intimidating thing, you see, and it's intentional, because when people invade your space, you get edgy. It's an animalistic natural response not to, or to push them away, so you know you can't push this fellow away, so you're being intimidated by a bully. That's why it's good when you’re having holiday weekends to eat lots of garlic, lots and lots of garlic before you go out on the road, and you'll find that these particular stops will be a breeze.
The public don't react now. They're used to being stopped with the Blitzes; and come Tuesday, they'll have their PR. Yes, even the police have PR spokespeople, trained in public relations to double speak to the public, as they will give us a few jokes on some made-up things concerning drivers that they supposedly stopped, with ridiculous stories, which are like jokes to make us laugh as they tell us how many tickets they handed out. How many cars they pulled off the road and how much money they pulled in for the government and themselves, because you see, all these organizations and these businesses (and law is a business) are not only in the business of being paid by the taxpayer, they're all there to bring in more money, a form of profit. You see, there's no overtime pay—no overtime, no crime, and that's lots of money being made on these weekends, as they pull in all the different people and the part-timers for their Blitzes on the roads.
Sure enough, you'll always have the crazy ones who will speed and crash; and life is a gamble, we live amongst crazy people. However, to intimidate millions for every crazy person out there, it's not an act of safety. It's an act of subjugating everyone else and punishing everyone else for the crimes of a few.
The training of the masses along the lines of the collectivist policies was decided a long time ago, when they decided it was far easier to use collectivism, the Soviet style, not just to manage, and not just to control, but to create an obedient population. Not a free population, an obedient population. When the religions, which were bad enough at times in history, were gradually phased out, the scientific one took over. It was decided to use psychology and traits of zoology, and techniques of zoology and anthropology to be used on the people. In other words, “you’re a higher animal but still animal—you'll be treated like one and trained like one, and if you obey, you won't be given the rod.” You'll be spared the rod, perhaps. Collectivism is the easiest way, with mass psychology being used and instilled and trained scientifically, since the 1920’s onward. Now it's in to the technetronic era, coupled with other techniques to dumb us down physically, as well as mentally. You do see the effects all around you.
The war on obesity that's coming up now is used as excuse of people losing control of themselves. “You're obese because you lose control,” they say. However, the same “they,” who are pushing all of that know darn well, at the top levels, the culture was created to make people obese, never mind the alteration through the inoculations, they also altered the food. They gave a lifestyle where both parents are working; and food, if it's eaten at all, at home, comes out of cans or packages, but mainly now it's ordered in, fast-foods. That is the culture that was created. Now they blame the people for eating the food at the troth that's being dished out to them. We do see the effects all around us, never mind the psychological effects, because people stuffed into small crowded areas will have aberrant behavior. The aberrance is generally turned inward, hence all the eating and all the different addictions that people go into. The authorities would prefer that—rather than aggression. Yet, now, just like breaking the legs of the cattle, they kick the cattle because the cattle can't get up. These same people who took all the nutrients out of the food, and advertised to the hilt for you to buy that food, are blaming the public for eating it.
Now with all this terrorism business, and it is a business, a huge multibillion-dollar business, which everyone makes the weapons of war and the war mentality, is involved with high technology employees and gadgets, listening devices, cameras and snooping devices. This Brave New World, a cleverly camouflaged totalitarianism under different words; but as I say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, regardless of the age, you can be assured it is a duck.
Ancient tyrants used terrorism or the threat of terrorism to do exactly what is being done today. Everyone in a culture wants to be good. Good, being, following the rules that are given at that time from the elite down. Being good is a form of indoctrination par excellence, because being good eventually, always in all ages ends up—is to turn in your neighbor. Turn in anyone who looks suspicious. Turn in anyone you don't like. Turn them in if there hair is long, short, if they’re tall, tiny, thin or fat. Whatever your main problem is in yourself, project it on someone else and turn them in. The good citizen who's been instilled with all the right things to obey, and who wants brownie stamps or little gold stars from the teacher, they will unhesitatingly tend to do.
When everyone becomes a policeman on everyone else, we are in trouble. Suspicion breeds suspicion and ultimately paranoia. Paranoia is psychotic, and people who are psychotically paranoid do incredibly, incredibly terrible things, be it from the top or be it from the bottom. It spreads like wildfire. We've seen it in the crazies of the past. When inquisitions went around towns and villages, and everyone panicked and turned everyone else in, and watched the people and their friends and neighbors being burned alive. Now we just watch them being whisked off to some camp in some other country where they're tortured. Centuries later, the same thing, tortured by the same psychopathic recruits, which we find in all ages, male and female. We call this “furthering democracy” and “bringing freedom to the world,” a technique that's guaranteed to destroy what was left of society and the bonds of trust that's necessary for society to healthily maintain itself.
I'm going to read a quote here from Carl Jung, a book I've mentioned a few times called "The Undiscovered Self," because it was the first time, at least to the general population, someone who understood these techniques was allowed to write them down and sell the books to the public. He understood the projection of guilt or anger within yourself that you can put on other people and point the finger, a technique that is childish, but you'll find many adults using it today, in this day and age. This is what he says about the reasons that governments use—one of the many reasons governments use for creating a police state.
"Fear that anarchic instincts will thereby be let loose is a possibility that is greatly exaggerated, seeing that obvious safeguards exist within and without. Above all, there is the natural cowardice of most men to be reckoned with, not to mention morality, good taste and last but not least the penal code. This fear is nothing compared with the enormous effort it usually costs people to help the first stirrings of individuality into consciousness, let alone put them into effect. And where these individual impulses have broken through too impetuously and unthinkingly, the doctor must protect them from the patient's own clumsy recourse to shortsightedness, ruthlessness and cynicism.
As the dialectical discussion proceeds, a point is reached where an evaluation of these individual impulses becomes necessary. By that time the patient should have acquired enough certainty of judgment to enable him to act on his own insight and decision, and not from the mere wish to copy convention even if he happens to agree with collective opinion. Unless he stands firmly on his own feet, the so called objective values profit him nothing since they then only serve as a substitute for character and so help to suppress his individuality. Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but insofar as society itself is composed of de-individualized persons."
Alan: See, this is a truth. A society itself is composed of de-individualized persons. It is completely at the mercy of the ruthless individualists. Here's your dialectic you see.
"Let it band together into groups and organizations as much as it likes -- it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator.
Alan: Therefore, when you think you're fighting something, and you're fighting for individual rights, and you begin to join all these groups—you'll find quickly, the group mind takes over; the group mentality takes over, because it forms dogmas and rules right away. You lose your individual ability to reason and think; and then when these rules become concretized in your mind, the man who comes along (or the woman who comes along) and has allowed its voice, and can put it over with the most drama and persuasiveness—becomes your dictator. This is the same for the mob, for millions of people, for a nation or for a world state. From those who think they're rebelling, to those who pretend that they're keeping charge of what is, it's the same thing which happens. We have a multitude of organizations all working under the United Nations, and a multitude more which belong as non-governmental organizations to the United Nations; and they’re ripe for a world dictator, never mind the people at the bottom. They are too disorganized with all their groups and all their in-fighting to band together for anything.
He says here:
"It is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one. Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but the fatally shortsighted habit of our age is to think only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations, though one would think that the world has seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hands of a single madman.
Unfortunately, this realization does not seem to have penetrated very far and our blindness in this respect is extremely dangerous. People go on blithely organizing and believing in the sovereign remedy of mass action, without the least consciousness of the fact that the most powerful organizations can be maintained only by the greatest ruthlessness of their leaders and the cheapest of slogans." Alan: It doesn't matter if it’s something that opposing or something that's pretending to keep a hold of and preserve. We're hearing all of that today, but we're hearing it mainly from those who are pretending to preserve it, at the tops of governments, and that's terribly frightening. We're hearing propaganda blared every day across the planet with the cheapest of slogans. With old, old slogans too, which have worked in many tongues, down through the ages.
To continue on page 56: For those who still believe that if they're good and they obey the rules they'll some how be saved through religion:
"Curiously enough, the Churches too want to avail themselves of mass action in order to cast out the devil with Beelzebub--the very Churches whose care is the salvation of the individual soul. They too do not appear to have heard anything of the elementary axiom of mass psychology, that the individual becomes morally and spiritually inferior in the mass, and for this reason they do not burden themselves over much with their real task of helping the individual to achieve a metanoia, or rebirth of the spirit--deo concedente.
It is, unfortunately, only too clear that if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either, for society is the sum total of individuals in need of redemption. I can therefore see it only as a delusion when the Churches try as they apparently do to rope the individual into a social organization and reduce him to a condition of diminished responsibility, instead of raising him out of the torpid, mindless mass and making clear to him that he is the one important factor and that the salvation of the world consists in the salvation of the individual soul."
It is true that mass meetings parade such ideas before him and seek to impress them on him by dint of mass suggestion, with the unedifying result that when the intoxication has worn off, the mass man promptly succumbs to another even more obvious and still louder slogan. His individual relation to God would be an effective shield against these pernicious influences. Did Christ ever call his disciples to him at a mass meeting? Did the feeding of five thousand bring him any followers who did not afterwards cry "Crucify him?" with the rest, when even the rock named Peter showed signs of wavering? And are not Jesus and Paul prototypes of those who, trusting their inner experience, have gone their own individual ways, disregarding public opinion?
This argument should certainly not cause us to overlook the reality of the situation confronting the Church. When the Church tries to give shape to the amorphous mass by uniting individuals into a community of believers with the help of suggestion and tries to hold such an organization together, it is not only performing a great social service, but it also secures for the individual the inestimable boon of a meaningful life form. These, however, are gifts which as a rule confirm certain tendencies and do not change them. As experience unfortunately shows, the inner man remains unchanged however much community he has. His environment cannot give him as a gift that which he can win for himself only with effort and suffering. On the contrary, a favorable environment merely strengthens the dangerous tendency to expect everything to originate from outside."
On page 59 he says:
"Where the many are there is security."
Alan: He's talking about how mass-movements think. "Where the many are there is security; what the many believe must of course be true; what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary and therefore good. In the clamor of the many there lies the power to snatch wish fulfillments by force; sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise of parental care, into happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top; to all questions there is an answer; and for all needs the necessary provision is made. The infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic that he never thinks to ask who is paying for this paradise. The balancing of accounts is left to a higher political or social authority, which welcomes the task, for its power is thereby increased; and the more power it has, the weaker and more helpless the individual becomes.
Wherever social conditions of this type develop on a large scale, the road to tyranny lies open and the freedom of the individual turns into spiritual and physical slavery. Since every tyranny is ipso facto immoral and ruthless, it has much more freedom in the choice of its methods than an institution which still takes account of the individual. Should such an institution come into conflict with the organized State, it is soon made aware of the very real disadvantage of its morality and therefore feels compelled to avail itself of the same methods as its opponent. In this way, the evil spreads almost of necessity, even when direct infection might be avoided. The danger of infection is greater where decisive importance is attached to large numbers and statistical values, as is everywhere the case in our Western world. The suffocating power of the masses is paraded before our eyes in one form or another every day in the newspapers, and the insignificance of the individual is rubbed into him so thoroughly that he loses all hope of making himself heard. The outworn ideals of liberté, égalité, fraternité help him not at all, as he can direct this appeal only to his executioners, the spokesmen of the masses.
Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself."
Alan: I would add to that: not only well organized in your individuality, but you're comfortable with your individuality. Most people lose it because they're not comfortable being an individual. It becomes a burden to them. They want acceptance.
It's thundering and lightening outside now and the weather has broken a little, which is not bad because it was really building up to be really hot and sticky and humid, although this rain is loved by the mosquitoes, who cheer when it rains. They cheer. They kept saying, "we're winning, we're winning, we're winning." They all start croaking when it's too much sun, and they drop out of the air, then I shout back at them, "you're losing, you're losing, you're losing." That’s the only way you can get your own back. I've given enough blood to them this year.
It's also no coincidence, by the way, if you look at the holidays between countries, like Canada and the U.S., how close together they are, because they are all based on old solstices and special holy days and magic days, which those at the top—at the very top know. I don't mean the guys you vote in. Those at the top know. The societies, the secret societies and the big foundations run by members of these secret societies know.
I keep telling people not to put their faith in the lone hero who's going to come out of Hollywood and save everyone. Each person is their own champion, and your first battle is with yourself. To be an individual will take some sacrifice. To be an individual will not win friends from the bulk of the populace. To be an individual, you might be very lonely. Can you stand loneliness? What's the other side of it? See, a person who really should be an individual and knows it themselves will often marry and do all the things and live miserably ever after, to try and conform and to have those things he wants or she wants to have. Yes, they will be accepted, and yes, there will be a face put on in public, but inside they're depressed. That's why true individuality is not for everyone. That's why there's always been the mass.
Studies down through the ages have shown that the masses enjoy being the masses. Witch-hunts don't have to be done by churches, because the mass can turn on anyone they don't like. This happened down through history. It's still happening today. The mass wants to be one. The same as the elite want them to be one. The purpose of life is not to lose yourself; it's to find yourself, regardless of public opinion, because life must be meaningful to you.
This is happy Canada weekend, for Canada Day coming it. Eat lots of garlic and don't speed. Next Wednesday, I believe it's the U.S. turn for their July break, the big one, same thing there. So close, as well, it’s merging already, if you notice, you'll see them. They're merging everything. The money is becoming standardized both sides of the borders, and the holidays are pretty well so close, they're good enough, they can make a United Americas Day if they want to. It's pretty interesting, I've told people before, go along the borders and look at all the stones put up, the obelisks across the border, both sides to mark the border. It's a Masonic agreement between the big boys to begin with; as they create countries and use them for a few hundred years to oppose each other, and tax the people and create armies, and further the agenda, then take down the borders again. The Order of the Bees—that's was a border is: Border = BEE-ORDER, big obelisks across the border.
You'll find, too, that the final arbitration regarding where exactly the border should be was decided with Rothschild, who was sent over from England, eventually in the final analysis, to create the border—to draw the line. It's quite amazing when you think about they draw lines through worlds and countries, and tell you who you then are, and then we, who are brought up and conditioned, are trying to preserve what we thought we had. We never had it in the first place. The ancestors of the present crews’ world gave us the borders. It's quite amazing. The Romans loved to build walls across countries like Scotland, to keep the hairy highland men from attacking them, from coast to coast. The big building projects of the Masons, they love building projects, ongoing, like Highway 69, NAFTA. Same techniques, same con, same ancient religion at the top. For those who can catch on to it, do your homework, study and don't be afraid to be different.
Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – June 29, 2007 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)
