Wednesday, June 4, 2008



I've talked before about the think tanks that plan the future. They market to the marketers the ideas that shape our minds towards a planned future. There are different think tanks to deal with different classes of people. There are different think tanks which deal with age groups. There are think tanks which deal with the gender groups and the subcultures. Everyone is marketed to, in turn; to ensure that the group that you believe you belong to (that which you identify with) will have a propaganda format, which you will believe. Therefore, as you grow up, live your life and grow old, regardless of the incredible changes that just seemed to happen—and nothing does just seem to happen, because everything takes long planning and finance and bureaucracies to get the ideas to the public—you'll accept those ideas as being natural.

People that suddenly have ideas sprung upon them and laws and regulations, without the build up and preparation of the mind for those laws to be accepted, the changes to be accepted, normally rebel against it. However, if you've been propagandized gradually, until it seems logical that what's being done is a logical step; then you passively accept it as being a natural occurrence in the "Great Evolution," as they call it, of things.

Think tanks are just like the CIA, MI6 or Mossad, or any of the other intelligence agencies; they have a layered strata—a degreed system of "need to know" compartmentalization. Those who get up the ladder know what "not to ask" their superiors. They take it as a given that they'll be told if they need to be told, and they don't ask questions. That's the prerequisite of the mentality necessary to work in these big organizations.

At the top, we have the foundations, the Great Foundations. In order for all of the think tanks to work in their own specialized area, and yet intermesh, network with the other organizations, they have a pyramid structure, where you have just a few, and ultimately one big think tank at the top that passes the ideas on to the various organizations that specialize in parts of it. That's why everything comes together worldwide, at the same time, when you see laws being passed, especially now with the environment and so on. They have the same agencies across the whole planet within governments; and they have NGO organizations (non-governmental organizations) working in concert with it; and then you have the media, who give out the same propaganda about the same topics, across the planet, at the same time.

At the top, you'll have clubs like "The Club of Rome", the foundations which were set-up under the present guise in the 1950’s. They plan the future. They simply met in Rome. They love different places to meet. Look at the organizations belonging to the United Nations and look at the big places where they meet. They're always the same places where they sign the big treaties, because there's an old history to all of this: an old, old history of empires and ancient empires and present empires.

The Club of Rome always looks towards the future, and they plan the future and pass on their ideas of "world unification" and techniques of how to unify the planet. How to designate and why they must designate certain enemies. The think tanks pick up on this and they simply work on it and find ways to market it to the public, through education right from the children, kindergarten right up through to the adult level on television; and they insert lots of stuff, too, in fiction and dramas. Little ideas that you start to repeat, little phrases and buzzwords, slogans, really as Lenin called them.

The one book published by The Club of Rome is called "The First Global Revolution," subtitled: "A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome". The authors were the founders, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. At least, these were the front men, because there are bigger guys behind them. Put out by Pantheon Books; P-A-N-T-H-E-O-N and this was published in New York, 1991. ISBN # to order is: 0-679-73825-8, and this is the First Edition I have, of this one.

On page 104, the chapter is called "The Vacuum". Now, listen carefully how they lead up to something, because persuasion is a propagandic technique. It's an art, which was taught in ancient times, of rhetoric and logic, to bring the listeners along a course of thinking, as Plato would do it in his dialogues. You'll see the techniques there, by the adding of certain information, the omission is very important of other parts of information, because you want the perception at the very end to be the one that you project to them. These are arts and techniques.

"The Vacuum.

Order in society is determined by the cohesion of its members. Until the middle of our century this was normally ensured by a natural patriotism, a sense of belonging to the community, reinforced by a moral discipline exerted by religion and respect for the state and its leaders, however remote they might be from the people."

Alan: You have an admission in there; they've always understood, because these characters have archives of previous generations, going back into the mists of time; and they're telling you a truth here, that: Order is determined by the cohesion of its members, but really enforced by religion and leaders, meaning the dominant minority that always exist at the top of any system.

It says:

"Meanwhile, generalized religious faith has evaporated in many countries. Respect for the political process has also faded owing partly to the media leading to indifference if not hostility, and partly to the inadequacy of the political parties in facing real problems. Minorities are less and less willing to respect the decisions of the majority, thus a vacuum has been created in which both order and objectives in society are being corroded. Today's approach is superficial. It is based on current events and dangers as they are perceived when a crisis government attempts to eliminate symptoms of causes that have not been diagnosed. This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet."

Alan: Very important little statement.

"This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet. We look in vain for wisdom, the opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism. Nothing within the governmental system and its decision making process seems capable of opposing or modifying these trends which raise questions about our common future and indeed about the very survival of the race."

Alan: Very important again, “the race.” You'll find in high, high Masonry and theosophy they talk about "The Race." It means a lot more than what it does to the average reader.

"We must ask whether these are signs of an individual and collective resignation in face of the vastness of the task facing humanity and the urgent need for action, or is this a sign of lack of imagination and incapacity to invent new ways and new means which will measure up to the globalization of the problems. The task is indeed formidable, but if we show no sign of accepting its challenge the people may well panic, lose faith in their leaders given to fear and offer support to those extremists who know well how to turn popular fear to their own advantage within incendiary charismatic speeches."

Alan: Now these guys know that because they've used these techniques, down through the past. They've used the psychopaths of other countries to become leaders, always with the idea that they're on the chessboard to begin with; and planned the end of this charismatic character, after they give him a few years of rampage. They understand it, because those at the top are psychopaths themselves.

It is a law of nature.

Alan: Now here again, they're always talking about laws of nature. You'll see this first occurring in the Rosicrucian manifestos of the 1500’s.

"It is a law of Nature…"

Alan: Capital N, very important.

"…that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. Nature, [Again, Capital N] as the saying goes, abhors a vacuum; and people as children of nature…"

Alan: So we're people and children, you see. Whenever you accept that little statement that you're a child (we are the children of the world type of thing), you're actually putting yourself in an immature setting, a capacity. Therefore, you're being subordinate; and the experts then will rule over your heads and you'll accept what they say. These are the psychological techniques we're reading here.

"How then is the vacuum to be eliminated, like the black holes of space which suck in everything that approaches, the vacuum of society seems to attract the best and the worst at random. We can but hope that the semi-chaos which is now taking over will eventually provide the material for a self-organized system with new possibilities. The system is not yet hopeless, but human wisdom must be marshaled quickly if we are to survive."

Alan: Now this is the fear tactics, again, and they'll explain why they're using it, in their own words, the fear tactics. You must always create fear in the public to get them to go along with your agenda. That's how it works at the top; and yet, remember, this think tank is a top think tank that comes up with these ideas and puts them out to the other lower think tanks.

"How simple things were when with Brezhnev, the European leader confided half-seriously and half- ironically. The collapse of communism in the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union constitutes a major and unsettling factor in this coming turn of the century. The new hands that are to be dealt in the card game of politics are unlikely to be assessed at their true value of the potential consequences evaluated, until at least two or three decades have gone by.

The implosion of the ideology that dominated the greater part of the 20th century was certainly spectacular, but was by no means the only one. It coincides with the end of the American dream, which lost its credibility with the painful Vietnam war that deeply scared the collective conscience, with the failure of Challenger, Hispanic migration, poverty within plenty, drugs, violence and AIDS and the fact that the melting pot no longer works, having lost its position of unique leadership in the world, a leadership compounded of a generosity laced with Puritan values and the cynicism worthy of the conquerors of the Far West, the American nation is plunged into doubt and facing the temptation so often resisted and no longer possible in the global village of withdrawing into itself.

Alan: Here's your premise: the American dream is over and we're now in the nightmare. They pick up on Vietnam, which was a set-up to begin with, to do exactly what it's meant to do, which was to scar, as he says, “the collective conscience.” Hispanic migration was set-up a long time ago. It's still funded by the same foundations that these guys belong to (and others of the Rockefeller Foundation); and they started writing about that in the 1900’s, they would bring this upon the U.S. at the end of the millennium. Therefore, they're pointing really their own handy work, although the Challenger one is debatable, although it could have been a set-up, too. Who knows? The rest of it was actually planned.

AIDS, we know, was made in laboratories (warfare laboratories), and even the requisition (the Congressional requisition) of money for it, is well documented: to create a disease which would destroy the immune system. These characters are in on all the things they then point out to you as being the problems—so that you'll go along with the next part.

"Most of the poorer countries are gradually relinquishing Marxist and Socialist incantations in favor of a more concrete and immediate preoccupations, such as economic development and the stabilization of their economies. Capitalist and free market economies have found it necessary to make adjustments for them to survive socially, while socialist systems also made adjustments belatedly but did not survive. Only materialism remains today a strong all-pervading counter-value. The grand political and economic theories, which motivated the action of some and aroused the opposition of others, appear to have run their course.

It is not easy to stimulate universal debate on ideas, but the lack of attempts to do so still further deepens the vacuum. There's pressing need for such debate, and the multitudinous occasions for international encounters with a cross-cultural discussions should indicate new and more global thinking. This period of absence of thought and lack for common vision, not of what the world of tomorrow will be, but what we want it to be- so that we can shape it- is one source of discouragement and even despair. How simple it was or should have been for France, Great Britain and their allies to immobilize against their common Nazi enemy; and was it not obvious during the period of the Cold War that the Western nations should accomplish a diplomatic, economic and technological mobilization against the Soviet Union and the satellite countries. Again, freedom fighters, despite tribal and ideological differences, were able to find unity and strengthen patriotism in a struggle for independence from the common enemy, the colonial power.

Alan: That's another joke.

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation…"

Alan: Now listen carefully.

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together."

Alan: The first time that was mentioned was in a speech by John Dewey. It was taken up by people later on, all the way from, “if only there were only aliens attacking us or something to unify the planet,” and so on. Here it is again.

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found."

Alan: They haven't found it yet. What a joke. Yes, they have; and they've been working on it very intently.

"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies."

Alan: Here are the guys who design wars, admitting it.

"A scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself, when things become too difficult at home divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."

Alan: Here are the top think tanks telling you what they do and always have done, from the archives, you see. It's interesting.

"With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptations to designate a scapegoat, religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing."

Alan: Here are the guys who also push integration of ethnic minorities, across the world, and they admit here that the differences are disturbing. They understand exactly what they're doing, as they sit back and watch the chaos.

"Can we live without enemies? Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbors as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined…"

Alan: Imagined, eh?

"…new weapons devised."

Alan: “New weapons devised,” now think about that.

"The new enemies may have changed the nature and location, but they are no less real. They threaten the whole human race and their names are: pollution, water shortage, famine, malnutrition, illiteracy, unemployment. However, it appears that awareness of the new enemies is as yet insufficient to illicit world cohesion and solidarity for the fight. Also, the collapse of the ideologies has removed some of the necessary points of reference."

Alan: Here are the characters telling you their plan here.

"Two axis of reference have made possible political evolution that has shaken the world these last years and led to the downfall of many dictatorships. These are human rights and democracy. We shall analyze their strengths and limitations. The concept of human rights has been, during the past decade, a factor of mobilization that became effective through its dissemination by the media and by word of mouth in the countries where those rights were disregarded and denied. When freedom was widely enjoyed in other countries, how could the people be divided of it indefinitely? This is especially the case in countries such as Poland or Brazil, where the Catholic Church, an ardent protagonist and supporter of human rights, was strong.

In some of the most totalitarian of countries, aspirations of freedom have been achieved as if the pressure of values has reached a yield point and the lid suddenly blew off the pot. Through various processes and with the painful cost of civil struggle, death, imprisonment, this thirst for freedom was expressed around men such as different as Martin Luther King, Lech Walessa, Vaclave Havel, Dom Helder Camara or Nelson Mandela, just as in earlier years Mahatma Gandhi paved the way.

But freedom alone cannot reorganize the state, write a Constitution, create a market of economic growth, rebuild industry and agriculture or build a new social structure. It is a necessary and noble inspiration, but is far from being an operating manual for a new government. This is why the concept of human rights simply initiates but cannot implement the process of democratization. This is where the question must be raised, what democracy and for what purposes? The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation. It is to be hoped, with a new found enthusiasm for democracy in the liberated countries today, that people will not reproduce slavish copies of existing models that are unable to meet contemporary needs."

Alan: Then they go on about the limits of democracy.

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely…"

Alan: They're all Masons, you see, so they face things “squarely.”

"Sacrilegious although as this may sound, has never practiced democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time. Few politicians in office are sufficiently aware of the global nature of the problems in front of them and have little if any awareness of the interactions between the problems. Generally speaking, informed discussion on the main political, economic and social issues takes place on radio and television, rather than in Parliament, to the detriment of the latter. Political party activities are so intensely focused on election deadlines and party rivalries that they end up weakening the democracy they're supposed to serve.

Alan: That’s an old idea. In fact, this was all debated before they updated the democracies into its current state. Winston Churchill discussed this in the early 1900’s, with some friends. A high level bureaucrat wrote a book called, "The Whispering Gallery," well worth reading, when you read about the statements of what they then called democracy, how they saw it then, and from an elite’s point of view. Democracy and the meaning of democracy keeps changing; and people don't realize that. You're born into your own time. You've been given a definition for your time, not realizing that it's constantly changing. Democracy in Britain, in the 1700’s or 1800’s, meant that the wealthy elite ruled the system, on behalf of the commoners, in the House of Commons. Now it's just lawyers who want to get up the ladder. Some of them are already multimillionaires, on all sides, all parties. So, which bunch of multimillionaire lawyers do you want to vote for? That's what it boils down to. Carroll Quigley, remember, talked about a certain amount of competition being allowed at the lower levels of politics; however, the ones at the top in all parties, they all belong to the same club. Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs—same club.

"This confrontational approach gives an impression that party needs come before national interests. Strategies and tactics seem more important than objectives, and often a constituency is neglected as soon as it is conquered. The current mode of operation in western democracies are seeing their former role decline and public opinion drifting away from elected representatives. However, the crisis in the contemporary democratic system must not be allowed to serve as an excuse for rejecting democracy as such. In the countries now opening up to freedom…"

Alan: Now see the words they're using: "to freedom." Where have you hear this? This is before Bush gave his speeches on “the new freedom” and all this kind of stuff. This is all marketed from think tanks such as this, down to all the rest, including the advisers; who then parrot it off to presidents; who parrot it to us, little slogans.

"Democracy is being introduced in a situation which demands that the citizens greatly changed attitudes and patterns of behavior."

Alan: You better read that and understand that.

"…demands that the citizens greatly changed attitudes and patterns of behavior. The inevitable problems of phasing in democracy are difficult, but there is another still more serious question. Democracy does not necessarily build a bridge…"

Alan: They love building bridges because they're builders.

"…between a colonial or neo-colonial economy or a centralized bureaucratic economy towards a market economy based on competition and producing growth. In a transitional situation such as the present…"

Alan: That means a time of changes--

"…which because of sudden and unforeseen change…"

Alan: --Like “sudden unforeseen change,” as they push all this down our throats.

"…has been neither planned nor prepared for. The necessary structures attitudes market relations and managerial styles simply do not exist. If such a situation is allowed to go on too long, it is probable that democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other.

Winston Churchill was right when he quipped, “democracy is the worst of all systems, except for the rest,” yet we must be aware of its erosion, its fragility and its limitations. When persons say that the things that have to be done to improve our situation are perfectly obvious, they seldom ask “why aren't they done then?”, and if they do, they answer, “ because we lack the political will or because of habits or short sightedness or politics et cetera, et cetera.” Our inability to indicate how to overcome these sources of inertia and resistance makes it clear that what should be done is not obvious at all. We overlook, psychologically speaking, we deny it. We deny our ignorance and instead say all we lack is the political will."

Alan: This is what they're trying to say, which is nonsense, because the past was planned, just as the future is planned—by the same types of think tanks.

"The crucial need is to revitalize democracy and give it a breath of perspective that will enable it to cope with the evolving global situation. In other words, is this new world we find ourselves in governable? The answer is probably not with the existing structures and attitudes. Have we gathered the necessary means and wisdom to make decisions on the scale of the world problematique taking into account the exigencies of our time? There is an increasingly evident contradiction between the urgency of making some decisions and the democratic procedure founded on various dialogues, such as Parliamentary debate, public debate and negotiations with trade unions or professional organizations. The obvious advantage of this procedure is its achievement of consensus."

Alan: That's what they're after: consensus.

"It’s disadvantaged lies and the time it takes especially at the international level."

Alan: Now here's the crux of this thing, as this guy is leading you up to the perception that you’re suppose to glean from this or arrive at. It was put forth by Maggie Thatcher in a speech she gave a Massey Hall, one of many speeches across the world, entitled, "The New World Order," when she discussed that the war that would have to come on religion, especially fundamentalist orthodox religions. She mentioned, too, at the time, that she and many other ex-prime ministers, presidents, and dictators, leaders of countries—never leave office. They belong to a higher organization that works behind the scenes, networks with each other, because democracy, you see is too slow. The public show that we get is too slow; and that's really what they're pushing towards. The need for private organizations of experts, skilled people, to move quickly, more swiftly than democratic debates, and that's what we have today, in fact. We've had them for a long time, in reality. This book here, partly, is to get the public or the think tanks that will implement these ideas and market them to newspapers and journalists, who then market it back to us. It's to get them to go along with this, the reasoning in it, the reasonableness in it, in fact.

"Time in these matters has acquired a deep ethical content. The costs of delay are monstrous in terms of human life and hardship, as well of resources. The slowness of decision in a democratic system is particularly damaging at the international level. When dictators attack and international policing is required, delays of decisions can be fatal."

Alan: In other words, sending armies is now “policing,” you see. It sounds better.

"The problem then is to invent instruments of governance…"

Alan: “Governance.”

"…capable of mastering change without violence and of maintaining a quality of peace which encourages rather than inhibits the state of security, fairness and fulfilling growth for individuals and societies alike. Not only do we have to find better means of governance at national and international levels, but we have also determined the characteristics of a capacity to govern. Global governance, in our vocabulary, does not imply a global government, but rather the institutions of cooperation, coordination and common action between durable sovereign states."

Alan: This is like a preamble in a sense, which is more important, because you don't understand the preambles and the definitions of words which they give you; when they're using it in their context, it can mean something different to you. They're giving you the definition that they use at the United Nations here, because they run the United Nations.

"Global governance, in our vocabulary, does not imply a global government, but rather the institutions of cooperation, coordination and common action between durable sovereign states."

Alan: In other words, the system that has been set-up and is to be the modus operandi of the future is your public/private corporation. That really is what the U.N.—with all of its non-governmental organizations and think tanks and associated foundations—is. It's a form of collective expert government combined. We already have it. It's in place and it's been here for a while.

It goes on to state that:

"People and nations are beginning to agree to take next steps together. However, they're carefully avoiding to agree on why they're agreeing. This seems to be happening by practical consensus procedures, rather than by formal voting often instructed governmental representatives. Many international functions especially those requiring the most foresight and operational flexibility can be carried out through non-governmental arrangements."

Alan: That's how the Soviet system was run: with non-governmental organizations. This is the new worldwide Soviet, as Gorbachev talked about in his last speech, while he was in the Soviet Union as president.

"In many fields, governments have already come to realize that effective deployment of their most cherished right their sovereignty requires that it be pooled with the sovereignty of other nations in order to do things that none of them can do alone. In this sense, cooperation does not mean relinquishing sovereignty but rather exerting it through joint action instead of losing it or just not using it. Whether on the international scale at the national level or that of the corporation, the problem of governance presents itself in new terms. The growing complexity of the world and of its problems makes it necessary to have a complete grasp on tremendous amounts of information before coming to a decision. This immediately calls to account the quality of information, for it is under constant danger of rapid obsolescence, possible inaccuracy or outright propaganda."

Alan: They should know, eh?

"A second impediment to governance is caused by the increasing size and inertia of large bureaucracies that spread their tentacles around the centers of power and slow down or paralyze both decision making and implementation."

Alan: In other words, the democracy they're talking about is too slow and cumbersome to do fast business-type like decisions; and that's what all this pooling of NGOs and foundations will be able to do, behind the scenes, much more quickly. We'll pay through the nose for it; but it will happen.

"Other crucial impediments consist of the lack of education for competent citizenship…"

Alan: They're talking about world citizenship.

"…and inadequate intergenerational understanding."

Alan: They made sure of that, since they separated the generations, and have been for over 100 years.

"Yet another difficulty arises from the importance of the economy within the administration and its sectoral structures. If the different power centers do not learn to cooperate and instead insist in acting in ignorance or in opposition to one another, the resulting administrative sluggishness can provoke delays that can lead to inefficiency, wrong decisions and confrontation. So far, governance has operated by treating problems separately and in a vertical mode. Today, the interaction between problems is such that no single issue can even be approached to say nothing of resolved outside of the framework of the problematique. This in turn demands leaders of a new kind capable of treating problems both horizontally and vertically."

Alan: The compass and square, eh?

"In the world that is emerging, decision making can no longer be the monopoly of governments and their departments working in, yes, a vacuum. There is need to bring many partners into the process business and industry, research institutions, scientists, non-governmental organizations and private organizations."

Alan: Very democratic, isn't it?

"So that the widest available experience and skill is available, and of course an enlightened public support…"

Alan: So all you have to do is remember the public will support all these private organizations.

"…an enlightened public support aware of the new needs and of the possible consequences would be essential. A dynamic world needs an effective nervous system at the grass roots level."

Alan: We're all nervous, right enough, at the grass roots. We certainly are nervous.

"…not only to ensure the widest range of inputs, but to make possible the identification of all citizens with the common process of governance."

Alan: We've all to get brainwashed into it, as though it's normal.

"In the present vacuous situation, lack of identification of people with the processes of society is expressed as indifference, skepticism or outright rejection of governments and political parties seen as having little control over the problems of our times. These attitudes are indicated by a decreasing rate of participation in elections."

Alan: They've known all that. In fact, they wrote about that during the so-called Cold War, at the beginning, of how they would gradually indoctrinate the public into being indifferent to what the ones at the top (that really ran government) were actually doing; and that's the effect of it. What they complain about is the system that they had before. These same people had before, in place, because it served its purpose at the time. They then use its obsolescence to show you why they must go into the next phase; that, again, keeps the same people and families in power.

Now listen to this last part as they sum it up, in this chapter. Remember, going back when they said that the great movements and the great things that happened in society and the world, where people worked together towards common causes. Mind you, they gave us the common causes to work for. They never turned out to be exactly what we thought they were; but those guys that planned it certainly understood it. In other words, they can get great things happening without: either, as Gorbachev said, a religious movement or something really to believe in that becomes a dogma. That's when we all work together, like communism did when the ordinary folk thought they were going to create a utopia, never knowing there were 200 families that had moved in, at the beginning, to take over what became the Soviet Union; and they still run Russia today.

Here it is, summing it up. This is what all this is meant lead your mind to: coming to their conclusion.

"The common enemy of humanity is man."

Alan: Here's a beautiful psychopathic ability to double-think.

The common enemy of humanity is man."

Alan: This is the new enemy, you see, we always need enemies to come together to fight, to work, to strive towards, and to be taxed silly.

"…in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea…"

Alan: I'll read that again.

"…in searching…"

Alan: “In searching,” not in finding.

"…in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

Alan: Now for the hard of thinking, I'll repeat that part.

"…in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we…"

Alan: We--

"…we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

Alan: That should be chiseled in your stone or painted on your living room walls; you could read it everyday, because if you forget this, you'll fall for everything else that just comes your way in your lifetime.

To continue:

"In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands solidarity."

Alan: Their goal is solidarity, like a religious movement.

"…of all peoples, but in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome."

Alan: Behavior changes, behavior modification, you see.

Then they sum it up:

"The real enemy…"

Alan: --Which they have chosen, remember, to make you believe in.

"The real enemy then is humanity itself."

This is a summary of a religion that's been indoctrinated and has been over the years, many years, which will bring in their new idealized society; but we have to believe in it, like a religion, to make it happen. And you think that your governments are making all these decisions for you.

Since the 1960’s, massive funding went into preaching the new environmentalism, the Gaia [or Gaea] worship, the overpopulation, “the sky is falling” attitudes that we've been brought along with. Now you do have a generation that's grown up hearing nothing but this, who believe it's all true. Their reality is induced through propaganda and indoctrination, and reinforced by further propaganda, ongoing propaganda. A term they used in circles at the top, back in the 1940’s and '30’s even, they called it "continuing education." That was their couching term for it, which would confuse Joe Average, but it literally meant: beginning with early childhood indoctrination at school and furthered down through time with newspapers, magazines, the radio and eventually television, to reinforce their original lies, until Joe Average and Jane Average think it’s all real and they behave accordingly.

It’s no different than the way religion was used before that, where you'd run through the forest, terrified of all the demons behind every tree; and shadows, as the sun would move and cast the shadows; and it would get dark and you'd run into that big church, where it’s full of light and God was there to dispel all the darkness. It made you feel better and safe, and you clung to the holy men because they could save you.

Any reality can be induced, given time, reinforcement and promulgated from the top down, as the ancients talked about in Greece, when they discussed this many times in the writings of various philosophers. How many generations have lived, died, fought in wars, had moments of pleasure and masses of misery, never knowing that their reality and their belief system (and everything else) was given by a small dominant minority with the history of the ages and the sciences therein? Nothing has changed.

Eventually, you will see children who will volunteer for sterilization, thinking they're doing the world a great deed (or if they're singled out), because they will be told; and this is coming. It's been discussed, written about and published that they have defective genes. They might even have an allergy, “oh, my,” and they shouldn't really put that on to another generation of inflicting misery. You'll see the first generation being "enhanced," as they call it. That's was put forth to the public, through fiction again; the Star Trek series and the eventual space station series (I don’t know what they called it). "Genetic enhancement,” see the movie, "Gattaca," good predictive programming.

However, they will volunteer for sterilization, and probably get some social benefits if they go ahead and do this. Ultimately, of course, they won't need humans to breed, at the low levels. They've discussed this and published it too. Charles Galton Darwin talked about the elite not altering themselves or altering their brains, because they must retain survival capabilities and instincts, since they will be steering the ship of Earth. Whereas Koestler, by the way, for all his so called leading of the left-wing worked for MI6 (declassified now). He said "the masses of people won't need their survival capabilities because the state will be making their decisions for them."

Therefore, we're going through just one part of an ongoing process. It was ongoing and planned for your parents, grandparents and back through time. Masses of people have lived and died, never knowing reality; and that's what we're up against—those who steal our ability to be sentient. They decide what we will be, by giving us a scripted version of reality. They often, in their arrogance, do come out with statements, psychopathically, because they are psychopaths, you see. Psychopaths have tremendous ego. They love to say, "Well, we really told you. It's just that you didn't listen," and they do tell us, and they chuckle that we don't get it because we cannot imagine people being so evil as to do what they do. That's why they get away with it. They're helped by myriads of bureaucrats, who, once again are conditioned in their little tunnel and they can't think outside of it either. They will rationalize what they do, no matter what it is and no matter who suffers.

Get the book. Read through it, and you certainly will learn, by their own admissions that: the reality that you've had, and the one they're going to give you, was designed by them.

Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt