ALAN WATT    BLURB (i.e. Educational Talk):




May 25, 2007


Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – May 25, 2007 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)





Hi folks.  I'm Alan Watt and this is and , on May 25th, 2007.


I'm going to start off with a little article that came out, the typical type of article that we're given, which is almost kindergarten language for the general public, from one of the many newspapers or magazines that are out there, which feeds you pieces of information given out by PR companies much higher above them.  There's no questioning of anything. It’s from them to us—down to us, as though God was speaking, and we're all stupid morons at the bottom.


This one is from "".  Again, as I say, it's something which is parroted, and it's for public consumption. This one is from the 4th of May 2007, by Andrea Thompson.  I’ve got to laugh at the way they even put this stuff up on their sites. When you look at it, it's your typical magazine you'd buy at the checkout counter in a grocery store.


"Add to; Digg it; Seed Newsvine; Add to reddit" (blah, blah, blah)


It's the silliness of it all, as they present this stuff to us. We're used to all this silliness now, so they have to wrap all this silliness into the stuff they want us to believe, as well.



Here's what it says here:


             "An extensive and previously unknown "twilight zone…"


Alan:  A twilight zone?


             "…of particles in the atmosphere could complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the Earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study finds."


Alan:  This is your standard intro spiel for the “unwashed masses.”


             "…a previously unknown "twilight zone" of particles."


Alan:  "Previously unknown." This is amazing, since they've been putting all these billions of bucks into the atmosphere, rockets, and NASA pilot projects to determine this.  These are the first guys that told us about the ozone layer. They are the only ones who can detect it, because they have the equipment. No one else can prove it, in fact, and we parrot “holes in ozone layer,” et cetera, as we parrot everything else that the scientists, you know, “the gods,” the new gods tell us.  We're so easily managed.


             "…previously unknown "twilight zone" of particles in the atmosphere."

Alan:  It just appeared. Yes, it's a new normal.


             "…could complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the Earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study finds."


Alan:  Didn't they know that already?  All this hype and drumbeat about how it's going to warm, what's going to go on to, and all the could-be's and should-be's, et cetera?  It's a huge business now.


             "In addition to greenhouse gases…"


Alan:  There are your buzzwords, you see. They get us to repeat the buzzwords.


             "…greenhouses gases which absorb infrared radiation, or heat, emitted from Earth's surface and send it back to the ground, cloud droplets and aerosols, such as dust and air pollutants, in the atmosphere also affect the planet's temperature."


Alan:  Oh, wow, like this is new. This is new that dust and air pollutants affect the planet's temperature, and also gives you a more beautiful sunset, the more pollutants that are in it.  In fact, when the volcanoes go off, you get tremendous sunsets across the world. I got that in kindergarten as well.


             "The exact overall effect of these two types of particles is still uncertain: while clouds block incoming solar radiation, water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas…"


Alan:  There it is again, highlighted.


             "…trapping heat like a blanket. Now, recent satellite observations have found a zone of "in-between particles" in the air around clouds that was previously considered clear."


Alan:  See, it's a "new normal."  It suddenly appeared. It suddenly appeared, and within a year it will have always have been "normal," as they scrub the old books away.  Where have these particles have come from?  Could it be the metallic stuff they're spraying all over the world, and have been for the last few years?  They won't mention that part of course, because, remember boys and girls, we're in kindergarten again.


             "The area around clouds has given us trouble," said study team member Lorraine Remer of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md."


Alan:  Goddard Space Center.  So if God's in it, it must true. 


             "The instruments detected something there, but it didn't match our understanding of what a cloud or an aerosol looked like."


Alan:  They didn't understand it. It was like a brand new, new normal phenomena.


             "What we think we're seeing is a transitional zone where clouds are beginning to form or are dying away, and where humidity causes dry particles to absorb water and get bigger."


Alan:  You can tell it wasn't the best PR spokesman that handed this spiel down for the lower ones to put out there to us unwashed masses to get bigger.


             "Scientists have been aware of an indistinct "halo" surrounding individual clouds, but the newly detected zone is much more extensive, taking up as much as 60 percent of the atmosphere previously labeled as cloud-free."


Alan:  “60 percent of it all”—It just appeared out of nowhere.   I wonder if their computers will eventually tell them, there are planes spraying this stuff, or, if it's not on their program, maybe they'll keep going around in circles and ask them for billions of bucks every year, while they investigate it.


             "The previously unknown ingredient in the atmospheric mixture of particles will have to be factored into models that try to predict how the atmosphere influences the change of global temperatures. The effects of this zone are not included in most computer models that estimate the impact of aerosols on climate," said lead author Ilan Koren of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel. "This could be one of the reasons why current measurements of this effect don't match our model estimates."


Alan:  I guess the clouds will have to reorganize themselves, to match the computers, to make these geezers understand what they're looking at.


             "The study was published in the April 18 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters."


Alan:  Then you can go on, to look up all the other stuff that they're going to terrify you with, like, "Timeline: The Frightening Future of Earth,” “The Definition of Cloud Gets Cloudy,” and “All About Global Warming,” as they jump on the bandwagon, and we're supposed to say, "My goodness, let's give everything up, because this is just too horrendous.   We're terrified,” like one of these disaster movies, and they take all your rights away, because after all, apparently we're causing it all. We're causing it all, you see, by breathing—breathing and living. 


That's how the standard nonsense is fed to the unwashed masses, who've been trained that, just like the old priesthoods of previous years, this new priesthood in the white coats speaks for God; or maybe they are God.  The only difference is they keep changing their minds, so I guess God keeps changing his mind, all the time, depending on what new program they have in their computer that finds things they never saw before. It's a blind God that can't see the spraying in the sky, to find out where the 60 percent space of the whole world's atmosphere suddenly has these particles in it, that wasn't known before. Maybe it didn't exist before. Maybe that's why it wasn't known before?  Maybe they should ask their computer that?


One of the last books that Carl Jung wrote was about the changes that he saw coming.  In his day, of course, there was a big Iron Curtain. We'll find that in history of the ancient system that came right up to the present.  It's the same system of builders, great builders that came into the countries with their system of money, power, bureaucracy, taxation, forcing the same system everywhere they went, and building things: Building capital cities, monuments and walls, great walls. They built walls everywhere; even across Britain, when the Romans went in there; China, the Great Wall of China; Wall Street, for the money guys.  The great builders of high, high, real Masonry, not the little stuff at the bottom.


Carl Jung likened the Iron Curtain of the communist system to what was happening across the whole world, as he saw it in the future, the near future, because he said, "power within any organization, even a bureaucracy which is started or begun with a legitimate purpose, or what seems to be legitimate, cannot help but grow like a cancer. It just expands."  If it weren't the case, a bureaucracy and even a special police department or anything that's formed to investigate something and check something, or scientists for that matter too, on global warming, they can't help it. Once they get grants coming in, they must try and justify their reason for continued existence, because everyone wants a permanent income; and the higher the better in this system.


Therefore, you find that bureaucracies of all kinds, and even non-governmental organizations that start getting grants from governments, they really are paid by governments and the big foundations that work with governments. It's all the same thing, really, one huge multi-faceted, multi-faced, world corporation with all these departments. Each one must and constantly keep justifying its need to exist another year, another year, another year, ad infinitum.  That's how it goes.  Every department, every organization is the same.


Carl Jung saw the people, the individualist, being stifled, totally suffocated by rules and regulations, as they all overlapped each other for power. Lenin saw the same thing, but he was in on the Big Plan, and wrote about it too, the same thing.  You see everyone is cashing in on the global warming, that they say, and keep saying, and will continue to say and hype up, until we parrot it as well, just as easily. That's how you introduce changes in the system. You keep saying it.  It is so; therefore it becomes so.


This is from "The Vancouver Sun, May 24th, 2007. That was Thursday.  I don't know why it says Monday, May 21st, 2007.



             "Future flood of 'climate refugees' ahead? 

             RCMP:  Police report warns of a potentially overwhelming influx of people if global warming forces millions to flee Bangladesh…"


Alan:  They picked Bangladesh.


             "…and other countries."


Alan:  This is by Chad Skelton of "The Vancouver Sun."   It says here it was published Tuesday, January 30th, 2007.  I don't know why they have all these dates on it.


             "Global climate change could pose serious challenges for police and B.C. (British Columbia) from public disorder…"


Alan:  Here they go.


             "…during natural disasters to climate refugees fleeing flooded countries, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by The Vancouver Sun."


Alan:  Why do police have all these secret reports, and you have to obtain it, if they're serving the public? –If they're serving the public. 


             "The report, External Trends Influencing Policing in British Columbia, was prepared in September 2005 for senior B.C. Mounties attending an annual planning meeting, and covers several topics.  It was obtained by The Sun through the Access to Information Act.  The report's section on climate change…"


Alan:  This is the police getting in on it.


             "…states that "effects on British Columbia's weather patterns are already occurring. Wetter winters and dryer summers in B.C. have increased the risk for flooding and forest fires."


Alan:  It's true they've had forest fires, two or three years ago. One of them was terrible.  It came out, after much bungling and much finger pointing, that also the forestry departments have stopped putting fires out, and they start them now, because apparently the "new policy," the "new normal" is that occasional forest fires are good for the land and the timber, to get rid of all the underbrush. So they start them. They drop this burning pitch from helicopters, which they show us on television, and it's amazing too, the pollution it causes. It’s massive. When there are thousands of acres going up in flames, you see this big black pall of smoke, but, you see, when government does it, it's good pollution.  When you burn your little wood stove, it's bad pollution.  This is the insanity we’re expected to accept, and unfortunately, lots of people do accept this nonsense.  Yes, they've been starting fires, and we've had lots more forest fires since. 


We also have the HAARP working overtime. With HAARP, it's amazing, because they can superheat the atmosphere, which they do, causing massive explosions.  We had that two or three years ago, when we heard bangs over British Columbia, down through Washington State, that set off fire alarms and car alarms all down through the places, for hundreds of miles. The experts flooded on the TV next day with all their opinions.  "It must have been a meteorite; didn't see it, but it must have been."  Then about a week later, we had the same thing happening over Australia—massive bangs in the sky, clear days, nothing seen. That was the HAARP technology superheating the atmosphere and causing explosions.  They can also cause lightning. The Wizard of Oz has all the tricks up his sleeve.


             "This report goes on to say that global warming is "likely to lead to more natural disasters [and] severe weather, as well as increased spread of disease and water-borne pathogens. And those natural disasters, the report states, are something the RCMP must be prepared for.  A growing number of natural disasters and extreme weather events both globally and in B.C. have increasingly focused attention on the need for extensive preparations for mitigating the effects and public disorder problems that attend such disasters," it states. Looking to the future, the report states that "Canada's north could become warmer and more hospitable to marine traffic, posing new security challenges" and that "climate refugees [are] a potential issue".


Alan:  “Climate refugees”—I wonder if they'll get grants for that. 


             "RCMP spokesman Staff Sgt. John Ward said in an interview Monday that climate change is one of many issues the force is monitoring."


Alan:  I guess they'll get another grant for that.


             "We think there may be an impact [on police] -- that it might be an issue," he said. "It's on our radar."  However, he said that -- unlike drug smuggling or organized crime -- the Mounties don't believe global warming requires an immediate police response."


Alan:  Hmm.


             "William Rees, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia, said while it is impossible to make precise predictions about climate change…"


Alan:  If that's impossible, to make precise predictions about climate change, why has the whole world signed all these different treaties to change us, if they can't predict or make precise predictions about climate change?


To continue:


             "…the fears raised in the RCMP report are a "credible scenario". 


Alan:  Now anything's credible, I mean, anything could be made possible; anything could be possible.


             "For example, said Rees, many climatologists predict global sea levels will rise by about one meter by the end of this century."


Alan:  Now many do predict that; and they're all working for the UN, because they live on grants, these scientists.  However, it also means if many climatologists predict it, it also means that many of the other ones don't.


             "Let's assume, for the sake of argument that we are talking about a one-meter sea level rise."


Alan:  So in other words, let's take a hypothesis that you can't predict, because the guy before said you can't predict; and so here they are, predicting anyway, and taking a figure out of the air, “one-meter at the end of the century.” This is old stuff, really; they're rehashing.


"Let's assume, for the sake of argument  that we are talking about a one-meter sea level rise."  Then you're talking about certainly tens -- possibly hundreds -- of millions…"


Alan:  Oh, so it starts off with tens, possibly hundreds or:


             "…millions of climate refugees globally," he said. "Most of the world's major seaports would be endangered. Much of Bangladesh would be inundated."


Alan:  It’s Bangladesh again.


             "Rees said current illegal migration along the U.S.-Mexico border will be "like a picnic compared to what might be ahead."


Alan:  Oh, they're always predicting, “We’re in a disaster mode. Everything could be a potential disaster, and you'll find the solution with lots and lots of taxpayers' money.”


             "And Western countries, as the main producers of greenhouse gases…"


Alan:  Oh, here we go again, "greenhouse gases"—that buzzword that just got into our vocabulary.


             "…would have a "serious moral obligation" to assist those refugees, he said. Such a global exodus would require a response from agencies like the RCMP, said Rees."


Alan:  What happens if Canada gets wiped out and we're all fleeing over to Bangladesh? Huh? Who's going to pay the RCMP then?  Think about that and put it in your report. You could have a meeting about it.


             "It's not impractical to think of the increasing military and policing actions that are necessarily going to accompany mass movements of that kind," he said. Morag Carter, director of the climate change program at the David Suzuki Foundation…"


Alan:  Ha! —the World Wildlife Fund.


             "…said while it's important for agencies like the RCMP to plan for global warming, governments and individuals should take measures now to reduce greenhouse gases. "Planning for catastrophic events in the future is a very important thing to do," she said.


Alan:  You know all these disaster movies started with, I think it was, The Blob.  Then they went into earthquake movies and burning infernos, like towers going down, and here we are, they're using the same techniques (probably the same scriptwriters) to put all this stuff out to us, from the top. It’s the same technique, actually.


             " Planning for catastrophic events in the future is a very important thing to do," she said. But it's the sort of thing you do while you're [also] doing your best to prevent the disaster happening in the first place."


Alan:  There you go with all this stuff you cannot predict, according to the other expert in the same write up, and here the rest of them are going on predicting it; and we're in limbo as the dialectic is played out on our minds. However, the one good thing is, above the report, “check out your horoscope and astrology.” That gives it a lot of credibility, you see, and that's from The Vancouver Sun.  Maybe it's in the stars, eh?


This next piece is from Parallel Normal, which I've read from before. Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 and it's about the microchip.


It says here:


             "The Sick and Elderly: First Targets for Chipping."


Alan:  There's a picture of a microchip. It's actually a large one from the VeriChip company. They have them much, much smaller now, which they can inject by needle—much smaller, a fraction of that size. You'll see it in the picture on Parallel Normal website.


It says


             'This won't hurt a bit. (At least, you won’t remember.) An Alzheimer’s care facility in Florida will implant RFID tags into its patients, to help identify them in case they stray from “campus.” Of course, it’s unlikely anyone who finds these test subjects wandering along the road will even think to scan them. Still, ABC News lapped it up.


Alan:  Well, abracadabra!


             "Dozens of diabetics in Boston and Georgia have also been implanted with the subcutaneous RFID chips made by VeriChip.  The ABC News piece reads: leading RFID opponent Katherine Albrecht."


Alan:  I think Mark has already written—he tells you he's written about Albrecht for Wired News and the Boston Globe.


             "Albrecht is an avowed Christian who believes that RFID tags (or arfids) may be a precursor to the Mark of the Beast described in the Book of Revelation. It’s an inconvenient angle for mainstream reporters, which, when the reporters quote her, invariably leave out of the story."


Alan:  They can't.  They can't connect the two, because if you connect the two, you have to start thinking off in different directions. Either Revelation was true, you see, predictions could be true, which means there's a God, and “oh, my goodness, you can't go there.” Or else, the other part of it, is the clique who control this world are following Revelations to the letter, which is a good ploy, because when you have millions of people convinced that if it's God's will, you can't do anything about it.  Then, the more you hype that propaganda up, the more they will just sit back and do nothing, and say, "there's nothing you can do." It's good psychological warfare.  One or the other, you can take your pick.


Then Mark goes on to talk about:


             "His relationship with Albrecht became strained after a Wired News editor reworded certain passages in my write-up of Spychips, a book Albrecht co-authored, and which includes quotes from me. The Wired News editor wanted the piece to appear more skeptical of Albrecht’s book. He also tagged it as a review (under Mark's byline), which it was never intended to be."


Alan:  In other words, he's telling you, yes, they will spin things and they will alter things which don't fit what they want the public to know. Or, they'll twist it to give you a different impression or lasting perception of something. That's to do with that. Therefore, they always go for the children first, and then the sick, eventually, and the elderly. The elderly, the ones who have the least power, is who they go for first, always.


The ones in the middle are too busy running after the big carrot and enjoying themselves, and having lot of sex, and sometimes drugs, or whatever else they happen to be into. They have lots of hobbies, lots of little things to pass the time, or sports. They don't care about the young or the elderly. That's the sad truth about society. That's why this can be done, generation after generation, until it's your turn to join the latter category of the elderly, and then they come and whack you, and there's no one to stand up for you. You wonder where all the safety nets are. You find there are no safety nets, really. You have only one “authority” over you; and bang!, in goes the chip and they have you where they want you, at their mercy, and that's really what that's about. You're at their mercy.


I'm surprised the Mounties (from the last thing I talked about there, the last article) haven't jumped and asked for a grant on that, to see if they can get the trackers and a special team, where they could find these wandering people, who don't know who they are, supposedly. A tracking team, they could ride around on horses and lasso them and pull them in. There are grants everywhere, if you look hard enough.



This article I'm about to read is from BBC News Technology. and it says: BBC News 24, May 21, 2007.  I guess this is a new term they're using for the infrared system that runs the wireless Internet.  It’s the stuff they're dosing cities with now, and making wireless in big cities and whole areas, which is really tied in with the coming ID card with the active chip, so you'll be traced everywhere you go, and then down the road it will be used for the chip implant. That's why the big push is on to make everything wireless everywhere. It’s constant tracking, wherever you are. That's the real purpose of it, down the road.  It says here and they're calling it "wi-fi," very trendy, “wi-fi.” They love trendiness. It’s “wireless fidelity,” I guess; I have no idea. But anyway, it's infrared technology from the microwave systems.



             "Wi-fi health fears are 'unproven' -- Scientists…"


Alan:  Here’s that big conglomerate again, "scientists say."  You know the faceless ones. God has spoken.


"Scientists have said there is no evidence to suggest a link between the use of wi-fi and damage to health."


Alan:  There's your statement, right at the top, which will stay in your memory; after you read the rest of the stuff, it doesn't matter. It's the first part you'll retain. That's why it's at the top, and it's in bold at the top.


             "BBC programme Panorama…"


Alan:  This is their investigative bunch; really, the top guys always work for MI5.


             "…found that radiation levels from wi-fi in one school was up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation."


Alan:  In another article they put out, they said it's actually the main beam of the mobile phone mast radiation.  Perception is altered by the omission of that, "main beam."


             "The readings were 600 times below the government's safety limits…"


Alan:  What the heck is the safety limit of radiation, huh?


             "…but there is ongoing debate about wi-fi use. Sir William…"


AlanSir William Stewart.


             "…Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, has said there needs to be a review of wi-fi. He told Panorama that there was evidence that low-level radiation from devices like mobile phones and wi-fi…"


Alan:  Oh God, “wi-fi”, trendy words they put in, trendy little buzzwords.


             "…did cause adverse health effects. But some experts…"


Alan:  These are the "faceless ones" again.  


             "…some experts in the scientific community have disagreed with his assessment."


Alan:  Here's someone who’s not involved, eh? Independent?


             "Wi-fi seems unlikely to pose any risk to health," said Professor Lawrie Challis, of Nottingham University. Prof Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme management committee…"


Alan:  If he gave another honest opinion about it, he'd be out of a job, since he's the chairman of a whole industry, really, a part the research program. He'd put himself out of a job if he said the opposite, so he has to say this.


He says:


             "Wi-fi exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and some distance from the body. "They can be near to the body, however, when a laptop is on one's lap, and my own view is that just as we encourage young children not to use mobile phones, we should also encourage them to use their laptops on a table rather than their lap, if they are going online for a long time."


Alan:  I'd like to just point this little thing out here. Some countries such as Sweden have also put money into this research, and they have found that there's tremendous damage caused by microwave radiation, not this wi-fi, wi-fi. Wiffy, wiffy.  Isn’t it odd, that they even call it "laptop," like they didn't know this before they started, before they gave it to the public? The thing is called "laptop" to encourage the youngsters to put it on their lap.  What's in your lap, huh? 


What does radiation of that kind eventually do, long term, and maybe even short term, depending on the strength?  It makes you rather sterile. Hmm. Whose policy would that fit into?  Do you think they just dished this stuff out and it's not tested or they don't know?  We're expected to believe they just bungle once in a while (actually, quite often); they bungle things, when they eventually admit to you something. They just didn't know. That's rubbish. That's nonsense. They know darn well what they're doing at the top, because ALL TECHNOLOGY COMES FROM THE TOP INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, who had it long before the public gets it. In fact, THEY AUTHORIZE WHEN THE PUBLIC WILL GET IT, AT THE LOW END OF THE SPECTRUM. They know all this stuff.



             "As part of its investigation, Panorama visited a school in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of wi-fi in the classroom.  Readings taken for the programme, broadcast on BBC One on Monday, showed the height of wi-fi signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast."


AlanIt's three times higher in the school classroom than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast.


             "Sir William recommended to the government in 2002 that the beam of greatest intensity from a phone mast should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it."


Alan:  Yeah. Radiate us, please. Please radiate us. I can see the parents doing that, like they really care. The parents, really, the problem is, they're not involved at all. They expect the system to take care of their children for them. That's the new socialist system.  Keep them out of the parents’ hair.


             "Medical physics expert Professor Malcolm Sperrin told BBC News…"


Alan:  Again, he's a medical physics expert. Remember that. They love the experts, like Bertrand Russell, again.


             " Professor Malcolm Sperrin told BBC News that the fact wi-fi radiation in a particular school was three times higher than a mobile phone mast was irrelevant…"


Alan:  It's irrelevant, you see.


             "…unless there was any evidence of a link to health effects. Wi-fi is a technique using very low intensity radio waves. Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation…"


Alan:  What does a "domestic microwave" do?  Huh?  Does it cool things, perhaps?  No, no. It's to cook things.


He says:


             "Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation the intensity of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times less than that of a domestic microwave oven."


Alan:  What size of oven is he talking about?  I've seen some huge ones with some incredible power. But that's how they word it, you see.


             "Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."


Alan:  I can remember too, when the microwaves hadn't been out for a few years. The same programs in Britain were doing investigations into secretaries, who had gone blind in the eye closest to their office microwave that had been put in. Both of them, in at least one of them, went blind in the eye nearest to them.  Of course those microwaves, we’re told, were said to be very, very safe; and they were sold to the public. There was a big hullabaloo about that at the time; and that was hushed up by big industry, et cetera. 


Plus, back in those days, they knew that down the road, they'd eventually put implants in people and track them with the cell phone technology, before they even heard the cell phones. It was all planned out, and they couldn't give microwave a bad image. It was essential for this tracking, and they’re not going to change their minds, no matter what evidence actually could come up, even if it was allowed into the public limelight. Contrary evidence, counter evidence or evidence that simply says this is bad for you and proves it, they simply won't make it, because this is a "must be", a "must be" in the system.



             "The type of radiation emitted by radio waves (wi-fi), visible light, microwaves and mobile phones has been shown to raise the temperature of tissue at very high levels of exposure - called a thermal interaction - but there is no evidence that low levels cause damage."


Alan:  Really? It's like radiation and all the early experimenters into the field of radiation and isotopes, for x-rays and various other things. Even Madame Curry's husband, I mean he really was an inventor. She simply took it over. He died, like many of them did, with radiation contamination, and they were dealing with very low levels compared to what they have today.  Eventually it came into the medical field. There's no safe level of x-rays or radiation. There simply isn't, it's accumulative, in a sense, the effects.  We're going through the same nonsense with this one; but it's a "must be," so they're not going to give you any contrary evidence. 


             "The Health Protection Agency has said that sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year results in receiving the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call."


Alan:  That's what they said. Should we believe them, I wonder?  It's kind of like the other agencies they have there.  At the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S., you find all the employees go into the Food and Drug Agencies to work. They come back out into the Protection Agency, and then they go back out, and back and forth. One of them actually has gone back and forth five times, a woman, she's been in the Congress and then back to work for the Food and Drug Administration Bureau.  Guess whose side she's on?  It's the same with all these agencies, the health protection agency. So they're trying to tell us it's just like making a 20-minute mobile phone call, which I have never done, by the way. I don't have a mobile phone and I won't have one.


Then it goes on to say:


             "Some people suspect a non-thermal interaction, but there is no evidence to suggest that this exists and indeed it is unlikely," said Professor Sperrin."


Alan:  “A non-thermal interaction,” there's no evidence, hmm. I wonder if that first report I read about the new particles in the atmosphere will change that.  Then they'll have a new report on this.


             "Research proceeding."


Alan:  This is the same article.


             "He added: "Radio waves (wi-fi) and other non-ionising radiations have been part of our lives for a century or more and if such effects were occurring then damage or other untoward effects would have been recorded and studied."


Alan:  He doesn't go on to say that they still actually have been. In fact, Toronto on the CBC television, it could have been part of the national news; "The National" they call it. They do their little daily specials. It was on a doctor in Toronto, who had a microwave detector, who was going around Toronto picking up signals from all the different cell phones towers that were scattered through the city. These small rectangular ones are all microwave towers that they stick on the tall buildings. They're all over the place, because there's a new phenomena called "cell phone poisoning" basically.  People are having tremendous reactions to them, including massive lethargy and mood swings, physical symptoms. The ones who've moved out of the city were followed up, and they've recovered.  This is a phenomenon which does exist, and yes, studies have gone into it, and they are ongoing; so this guy isn't quite telling the truth. He's telling a "fib," as they say in Britain. It's a very polite word, when you're “fibbing.”


             "Research is still proceeding in this area at leading centres in many countries, but evidence points to wi-fi transmissions being well below any likely threshold for human effects."


Alan:  I can remember when Thalidomide was given out (when I was really small) to women who were pregnant. They tried this stuff, initially, on people who had problems, with the elderly, in fact. They used it for the elderly at first, Thalidomide (the drug), by the drug companies, for giving tone to the bladder for attention of urine at night, so they wouldn't be up and down to the washrooms and the bathroom. Then, it didn't work too well, with the side effects.  They tried the next target, and claimed it would do tremendous things for women who were pregnant, and it certainly did, when they gave birth to children with arms and legs missing, and all the rest of it.  Then it was “oops, we didn't know, yah-de-yah.”  They've actually reintroduced Thalidomide again, a few years ago, for its next con game, which is: “It might help women and prevent breast cancer.”

You see, you can't keep these guys down with a good con. They keep at it and bring it back under different names and stuff. So here they are. It's the same deal here.


"Research is still proceeding in this area at leading centres in many countries but evidence points to wi-fi transmissions being well below any likely threshold for human effects."


Alan:  “Any likely,” that's very reassuring.


             "Professor Malcolm Sperrin said "it's impossible to prove that something has no effect."


Alan:  “It's impossible to prove,” you see.


             "Panorama spoke to Professor Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who said there had been many recorded effects such as chromosome damage from low-level radiation."


Alan:  That is true. It's only true when you want to know, though. If you don't want to know, it's not true.


             "Professor Henry Lai, from Washington state university, also quoted in Panorama, said he had found health effects at similar levels of radiation to wi-fi. He estimated that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all."


Alan:  One half is being paid by the guys that make all this stuff, and the other ones are not; and that's why you come up with your findings.


             "But Professor Will J Stewart, fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "Science has studied the safety of mobile phones for many years and the overwhelming body of evidence shows little cause for concern."


Alan:  There's another “independent” character: Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the big society that makes big dollars from all these agencies, and gets grants and stuff, that makes the cell phones and towers. However, it's a "must be" as I say.


             "As for wi-fi, although these devices operate at a modestly different frequency to mobiles…"


Alan:  “Modestly different.” You see, modestly is not a lot.


             "…they also operate at a lower power level over a much shorter-range."


Alan:  How much radiation do you want?


             'No issue': "Add to the fact that high-bandwidth wi-fi devices are less likely to be head-mounted and there really is no issue here."


Alan:  It's kind of like, if you don't touch the isotope, you'll be fine.


             "This is not to say that all electromagnetic radiation is necessarily harmless - sunlight, for example, poses a significant cancer risk; so if you are using your laptop on the beach…"


Alan:  Ha, ha, ha! Oh! Excuse me. Why would you take a laptop to the beach? You can imagine the sand that would get in it and all the rest of it, and it would be scratched to blazes. It’s addictions, indeed. What would you be looking at the beach, huh?  Why would you be staring at a computer screen? 


"So if you're using a laptop on the beach make sure and get some shade."


Alan:  Yeah, put the laptop over your head, like a book.


             "Professor Sperrin said one of the difficulties around wi-fi research…"


Alan:  That could only come from Britain.


             "Professor Sperrin said one of the difficulties around wi-fi research was that it was impossible to prove a negative. "It's impossible to prove that something has no effect," he said. He said there was no justification in discarding wi-fi until it could be proved unsafe. The educational benefits from using laptops and having access to information far outweigh any unproven fears over the safety of wi-fi. I am more concerned about the heat laptops generate and the impact that could on sensitive parts of the body."


Alan:  Some of the heat impact could affect sensitive parts of the body.  There you have the usual stuff. The dialectic: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no: until you're punch drunk. Most folk give up and accept it as being okay, because they wouldn't give you anything that wasn't, right?  That's now you think. That's how your logic goes and that's how you've been trained—trained not to think for yourself.  If lots of folk are doing it, it must be good, because your neighbors are all doing it and using it, or whatever. 





Now in closing, I've talked before about counter-intelligence and how heroes are often given to the public, who take the intelligence, the facts that are being passed around, the questions that come to discussions and producing facts and various theories, which are very plausible and probably correct. That's called "intelligence" that circulates amongst people.


Counter-intelligence takes that, attaches it to something ridiculous, and spins it off into outer space, which discredits the facts.  When you try and tell people the facts, once more, without the incredulous stuff, they laugh at you, thinking you're one of those strange guys who sees certain things which most folk don't.  It's a good ploy, but it's been used so often. 

Here to finish up is a letter from Gary in England. He emailed me with this. He said:


             "Family and I just got back from a weekend in Blackpool…"


Alan:  Blackpool is a coastal city where people used to go, the working class used to go for their occasional weekend with the family. It has shows and things for the children; and that was a big deal at one time, it still is, to an extent.


He says:


             "The first night I was there I spotted a big sign saying "Conspiracies Exposed."  It was advertising an exhibition about 9/11 and how we’ve been lied to about our history, et cetera. I had a look around and there was some good info, but it seemed to be heavily influenced by (and I won't say the word, that would be ticky-a-tacky), by this certain person's work. It cost me and my lass four quid each (that's four pounds) and a couple of quid for the bairns. (The bairns are the children).  The bloke (the fellow, that's the guy) who showed us around seemed canny, but within about five minutes he was getting into the reptile stuff. That type of thing is just going to turn off the average Joe, who would otherwise maybe go further down the rabbit hole, but then it's supposed to, right?  Just thought I'd let you know about that."


Alan:  That's exactly right. They attach the facts with the incredible fiction, spin it into outer space and ridicule all of it, so it's all in a twilight zone. That's counter-intelligence and the word even "conspiracy," you see, the big boys want the people who are talking about the facts to go along and have themselves labeled as conspiracy theorists. The big boys put that term out for those to adopt. In fact, many people who are having been around exposing things have quite happily accepted the term, "conspiracy theorists".  It's now like a big new hobby of weirdoes.


So don't discredit your stuff. Stick to the facts. Don't discredit yourself in the process. Just stick to the facts and you will get through to people, if you just simply stick to the facts. So that's very, very true, and this kind of thing is happening all over. These kinds of shows are obviously funded as well.


That's it for me for the weekend. I'll still be busy this weekend, as I always am. So from Hamish and myself, it's good night, and may your god or your gods go with you.



Orwellian Clip:


             "There is always hope.

             "Only because it's the one thing that no one has figured out how to kill yet."




"The Great American Novel"

By Larry Norman


I was born and raised an orphan
In a land that once was free
In a land that poured its love out on the moon
And I grew up in the shadows
Of your silos filled with grain
But you never helped to fill my empty spoon

And when I was ten you murdered law
With courtroom politics
And you learned to make a lie sound just like truth
But I know you better now
And I don't fall for all your tricks
And you've lost the one advantage of my youth

You killed a black man at midnight
Just for talking to your daughter
Then you make his wife your mistress
And you leave her without water
And the sheet you wear upon your face
Is the sheet your children sleep on
And at every meal you say a prayer
You don't believe but still you keep on

And your money says in God we trust
But it's against the law to pray in school
You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it

You are far across the ocean
In a war that's not your own
And while you're winning theirs
You're gonna lose the one at home
Do you really think the only way
To bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children
And kill all your enemies

The politicians all make speeches
While the news men all take notes
And they exaggerate the issues
As they shove it down our throats
Is it really up to them
Whether this country sinks or floats
Well I wonder who would lead us
If none of us would vote

Well my phone is tapped and my lips are chapped
From whispering through the fence
You know every move I make
Or is that just coincidence
Will you try to make my way of life
A little less like jail
If I promise to make tapes and slides
And send them through the mail

And your money says in God we trust
But it's against the law to pray in school
You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it
You say all men are equal all men are brothers
Then why are the rich more equal than others
Don't ask me for the answers I've only got one
That a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son


(Transcribed by Linda)