March 27, 2012 (#1052)

Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:


Poem Copyright Alan Watt March 27, 2012:

Austerity by Stealth Eats Your Wealth:

"The CFR's U.N. Brings You Rio Plus Twenty,
Bringing Severe Austerity to Lands of Plenty,
Government "Experts" to Rule on Every Decision,
Fixing a Home to Enviro-Impact or GPS Position,
There'll Be Raids on Houses by Enviro-Inspectors,
Testing Run-Off, Pollutants, Mould-Detectors,
Maintaining Rural Electricity is "Unsustainable",
Permits for Generators will Be Unobtainable,
To Overcrowded Cities We'll All Be Pointed,
Renting Hovels from Rich Cloud-Living Anointed,
Over Time with Disease We'll All Die Off,
Leaving a Pristine Hunting Ground for the Toff"
© Alan Watt March 27, 2012


Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - March 27, 2012 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
alternate sites:  ,   .us  ,   .ca

mirror site:
European site includes all audios & downloadable TRANSCRIPTS in European languages for print up:

Information for purchasing Alan’s books, CDs, DVDs and DONATIONS:

Canada and AmericaPayPal, Cash, personal checks &
 for the US, INTERNATIONAL postal money orders / for Canada, INTERNAL postal money orders
 (America:  Postal Money orders - Stress the INTERNATIONAL pink one, not the green internal one.)

Outside the AmericasPayPal, Cash, Western Union and Money Gram
(Money Gram is cheaper; even cheaper is a Money Gram check – in Canadian dollars:

 mail via the postal services worldwide.)

Send a separate email along with the donation (list your order, name and address)

Click the link below for your location (ordering info):
USA        Canada        Europe/Scandinavian        All Other Countries


Hi folks.  I’m Alan Watt.  This is Cutting Through the Matrix on the 27th of March of 2012.  For newcomers, I always suggest you make use of  There’s hundreds and hundreds of audios to choose from.  And if you do manage to struggle through them you’ll find a lot of answers to the big questions, like:  What kind of society are you born into?  Why is everything the way it simply is?  Why do most people simply accept all the organizations that run their lives?  How did your government come to be?  Or, how did you come to lose your government, for that matter?


So many questions are answered because we live through a script.  A script devised a long, long time ago and came out into the open at the turn of the 20th century under the guise of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and Council on Foreign Relations.  They have branches across the whole planet.  They draft up all the international treaties for governments to sign automatically.  The integration of Europe was their idea and the integration of the Americas, in fact, is also their idea.  They trialed that themselves, as the Council on Foreign Relations, on Canadian television in 2005.


So, we’re going through a planned change, to the planned society to the big global society.  And again too, it’s a vastly, vastly different society that they want to bring in, scientifically controlled.  And eventually, as we all pretty well know, I’m sure, out there, no one will be able to have a child on their own without genetic intervention, taking out what they call the “bad genes”, the ones that make you angry about things like having your cash taken off you via taxes until there’s nothing left for you, things like that, until you’re an obedient servant for the system.  That literally is the goal.  It’s as simple as that.


And of course, depopulation, they’ve been going under depopulation since the 1950s.  Since they first said, “My God, the baby boomers will bankrupt us”.  Even though the baby boomers were the biggest tax base they ever had, for all those years.  But of course they didn’t intend for them ever to really collect their pensions.  They want them to keel over with cancers before, which they’ve given of course, through inoculations, long before it’s time for the pensionable age.


And you are literally living through that kind of system.  To newcomers it might sound utterly paranoid but there’s plenty of evidence to back it all up.  The big boys don’t make wish lists and talk about depopulation.  They don’t have world meetings about it and do nothing at all, or send the list off to Santa Claus.  It doesn’t work that way.  They believe in taking action.  And of course, you can’t tell the public what you’re doing.  That literally is the system.  We’re kept like children.  Really, really like children.


So, help yourself to the audios.  Hopefully you’ll learn a lot and you can also buy the books and discs at because I don’t sell anything else.  I don’t bring on advertisers.  I’m not backed by advertisers to sell their products.  And that way I’ve got a freer hand to say what I want to say, I think.


If you want to support me you can buy the books and discs at; from the US to Canada you can use a personal check or an international postal money order, or you can use PayPal.  Some people just send cash from the States.  Again too, across the world, you’ve got Western Union, Money Gram and PayPal once again.


What I do is match the latest news with parts of the agenda, which has been published many years ago.  Many, many publications have come out from the Council on Foreign Relations; there still are, every darn day.  They churn them out like crazy.  Telling you what they want done across the waters.  What countries we’ve got to invade next and all of that kind of stuff.  They tell you in advance what they’re doing.  Whatever they say goes into the mainstream newspapers because, you see, pretty well everyone who is in the mainstream belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, but they take their cues from the CFR’s pages themselves.  I’ve put up the list before of the so-called CFR experts; that manage all of what your news is going to be.  I might do the same again tonight.  Back with more after this break.


Hi folks.  I’m Alan Watt, we’re Cutting Through The Matrix.  We live through a script, as I say, a script.  Those who control the world, and we’ve been under a global government or governance system for a long time in fact; that was the whole idea of the agenda for the CFR and the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  Because a hundred years ago they decided to take the world over using Britain and the British Empire as the basis to build on, and the US was to take over eventually and the two integrate in managing it.  That happened a long time ago, as well. 


What’s interesting is they wanted to take over all the world’s wealth, all the natural wealth of raw resources across the planet.  We know that Cecil Rhodes, who belonged to the precursor group, the Cecil Rhodes Foundation, of course, he set up, along with Lord Rothschild, they set up their own organization to do that very thing.  And they sent their members and some of their own sons, because it was all made up, you see, of bankers and bankers’ sons, this initial organization; I’m talking about international bankers.  Eventually they turned into the Milner Group and then into the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  Their sons went across the world to take over vast areas, which they knew had diamonds or gold, silver and eventually into oil.  They also wanted to take over things they would use down the road.  You know, to park something, like you park your car; that’s what they did.  They parked whole areas for future use.


You’ll find that certain things are happening across the world, which they intended, in a hundred years time, to go into and that’s things like oil, for instance.  They let the US have a good run at it for many, many years, which kept America afloat, especially since they were moving all their factories to China.  Again, thanks to the CFR and all their organizations that drafted up the treaties for the World Trade Organization, which the CFR also set up.  Eventually they said that they’d use other countries too.  So, they already knew where all the oil was.   In an old school book, an old primary school book, in fact, I found at a yard sale in Canada – that’s for children five to twelve – it was talking about, and photographs it gives you too, of the capped oil fields across Ontario, just Ontario alone.  There was 200 of them left, that were all discovered around the 1920s.  They were bored and the whole thing, and then capped and left.  They haven’t been used yet.  Never been used yet.  And no doubt there’s many, many more in the wilds of Canada that we don’t know anything about. 


They also knew that Africa, apart from all its surface minerals, would be a real boom, eventually.  They knew there was going to be oil underneath it.  And here it comes, or course, today.  It says:


Kenya oil discovery after Tullow Oil drilling


Oil has been discovered in Kenya after exploratory drilling by Anglo-Irish firm Tullow Oil, President Mwai Kibaki has said.


The discovery was made in the country's north-western Turkana region.


Mr Kibaki said it was "the first time Kenya has made such a discovery" and called it a "major breakthrough".


(Alan:  So Kenya is going to go up there.  They won’t get it themselves, of course, because you know everything is always rigged.  The boys that say we have the equipment, the techniques, the professionals, they move in, make a deal and if they don’t get a civil war going, which they generally do, then they’ll just pay off the high officials, of course.  And sometimes they do get civil wars going and then they bring their own mercenaries in to guard their factory or their oil field or whatever it happens to be.  They’ve done it in Sierra Leone and different places when they wanted the diamonds.  That way too, all you have to pay off is some warlord and a warlord is far cheaper to handle than a whole government, you see, if you’re taking all the stuff out of their country.  It says:)


"This is an excellent start to our major exploration campaign in the East African rift basins of Kenya and Ethiopia," said Angus McCoss, the company's exploration director.


He added: "To make a good oil discovery in our first well


(A:  It’s in the first well they drilled.  Because they knew where to go, right?)


is beyond our expectations and bodes well for the material programme ahead of us."


(A:  It also mentions too:)


Tullow has found oil in, or off the coast of, a number of African countries, including Ghana and Sierra Leone.


So, it’s just astonishing.  They’ve also already discovered it in Uganda.  That’s why you had all that trouble in Uganda for many, many years, making sure that no one could drill there until it was time to drill, you see.  Now it’s time to drill there.  It’ll be interesting to see how they pull it off over in those countries.  They can literally park stuff for a hundred years, if they want to.  And they do.


I know a guy in Canada who went over to Nova Scotia, in the east coast.  He went to visit his grandmother.  He knew there was gold around some hills up in the areas there, and he chipped some gold off a hill.  He brought it back to Ontario, went to the assay office in Toronto, the guys put the acids in and the stuff that they mix it with for the color and he put it up to a chart.  He says, I’m afraid I have to confiscate these nuggets.  And Bob says, Why?  He says because you got that from hill so-and-so, and he just pointed to the map of Canada.  He said that hill belongs to Lord Rothschild.  The Rothschilds have never mined it, never mined that.  That’s just sitting parked, waiting for the future, but they could tell at a glance where it came from.


Everything is so minutely worked out and owned, a long, long time ago, by the big boys, you see.  It’s the same with oil, gold, diamonds and everything else.  That’s how it really works up there.  And as I say, unfortunately, it could be a good and a bad thing if you find something of interest to the big boys, who already probably knew it was all there.  But if you discover it too soon or it’s not part of a treaty pact or whatever, or a sharing pact, they’ll get a war going or something going to get it out of you for nothing. 


Here’s about a new treaty in the making.  It’s to do with really the content of Agenda 21, because they’re drafting up a new one at the moment, in fact, to do with the way they implement all the changes.  Now, it says here:


Covenant on Environment and Development


(A:  This one here was done in 1998.  It took that long to get all the stuff from the RIO conference signed into law by every country, like these treaties.  They’re calling it a “covenant” here, very interesting term to use too, on environment and development.  It says:)


(from eco-logic January/February, 1998)

Few people in America have seen Agenda 21. Even fewer have read it. It is a 288-page document, consisting of 40 chapters replete with "recommendations" that affect virtually every aspect of human life. Taken together, the recommendations, when fully implemented, constitute what is called "sustainable development." Agenda 21 is the Action Plan adopted at UNCED -- the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development -- in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.


(A:  Now again, it’s the private organizations that got together, but they’ve got the backing of the biggest boys on the planet, you see.  Maurice Strong was the one who headed it off on behalf of Mr. Rockefeller.  It says:)


The United States was one of 179 nations that signed the document.


(A:  So here’s your new democracy – private organizations all funded by foundations, putting their own front men out there like Maurice Strong who works at the United Nations.  179 nations signed it, you see.  The public never even heard of it or knew what was going on.  And they still call it democracy.  Now listen to this.)


It is a "soft-law document,"


(A:  Remember you’re the big herd.  They call you “the herd”.


meaning that it is not legally binding,


(A:  How many folk have lost their land and everything because of it?  “It is not legally binding.”  This is from the original document.)


and therefore, Congress has no reason to review or approve its content. Nevertheless, the recommendations contained in Agenda 21 are being implemented through two separate, but coordinated, initiatives: the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).


(A:  That’s this bunch, these ones that graft themselves onto your local council; they just appear in your area.  Generally, semi- or early-retired bureaucrats that are told to go out and do this in towns and villages, and even into cities.) 


Implementation is occurring through the promulgation of rules by federal agencies, and through the development of plans for "sustainable communities" at the local level.


(A:  This is 1998, remember.)


Recommendations from Agenda 21 are being implemented without the benefit of public debate by elected officials. Though many communities do not recognize it as such, a well-coordinated national effort is underway to transform America to conform to the principles set forth in Agenda 21.


(A:  And Canada and every other country as well, I should add to it.)


Although Agenda 21 is a soft-law document, it was, from the start, intended to be the precursor of an all-encompassing UN Treaty. The most recent iteration of that treaty has now been obtained and reviewed. It is called, in its present form, "Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development." It is organized into 11 parts, containing a total of 72 Articles.


(A:  Very interesting, that, because that used to be the old number of the Sanhedrin in ancient times.)


It will convert the "soft-law" recommendations of Agenda 21, into legally binding "hard" international law.


(A:  So, so far we’ve been getting conditioned to it, the terms, the names, “softly, softly”, like the song goes.  Now they’re going into legally binding it into hard international law, you see.  And of course, that will come about with Rio+20 in June.  It says:)


Before examining the document itself, it is helpful to realize that the procedure for making international law has evolved since 1948


(A:  That was their big treaty at the United Nations for all the countries.)


and is now recognized by the international community as the norm.


(A:  Now most of the international community, if they’re talking about us, are totally ignorant of it.  You do know that.)


The introduction to the Draft Covenant says:


"The progression of legal principles from recommendatory 'soft' to legally clear `hard' is well known in international law."


(A:  Because we’re the herd, right?  Just get them used to hearing the terms.  Most of them will go along anyway, thinking it’s absolutely law, but it’s not; it’s “soft”.  You don’t have to comply.) legally clear `hard' is well known in international law.


(A:  That’s how they get the public to go along, the herd.)


I’ll continue on this article.  It’s very, very important for those who are following reality and what’s really happening, and the reasons for it.  Back with more, after this. 


Hi folks.  I’m back Cutting Through the Matrix.  Going through an article, well it’s actually the documents from the United Nations to do with Agenda 21 and how it’s implemented, and how they always bring it in under “soft” law first so countries, even counties or areas, could say, “No, we don’t want that,” if they only knew.  If they only knew they had that right.  And eventually they make it “hard” law, you see.  So they get you used to it; they familiarize you with the idea of these things coming.  They train you, in other words.  They say:


"The progression of legal principles from recommendatory 'soft' to legally clear 'hard' is well known in international law. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a 'soft law' instrument, was the precursor to the two 1966 UN Covenants on Human Rights."


(A:  So whenever you hear something coming out of the United Nations that the governments are going to sign, you know it’s only the beginning and they’ll build on it and build on it, in every area, so many topics you can’t keep up with them.)


Similarly, the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances was adopted and ratified as a treaty which required only that nations "monitor" substances thought to be ozone-depleting.


(A:  Remember? “Thought to be.”)


The Conference of the Parties,


(A:  Very legalistic.)


then adopted the Montreal Protocol which made the treaty legally binding.


(A:  So they ensure that down the road they’re going to make it legally binding; but they set you off thinking, well, we’ve got choices, you see.)


The same process is being used to convert the "voluntary" Framework Convention on Climate Change into a legally binding "hard law" document through the Kyoto Protocol. The Covenant on Environment and Development is following the same path.


(A:  They’re talking about every building project you could ever imagine and I’ve got articles from the United Nations on a lot of this stuff.  Because they’re into cities of the future, existing cities and the environment, all that kind of stuff.)


The first call for an international treaty on environment and development came from the 1983 World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the "Brundtland Commission." Their final report, published in 1987, entitled Our Common Future, recommended that the United Nations prepare


"a new and legally-binding universal Convention [which] should consolidate existing and establish new legal principles, and set out the associated rights and responsibilities of States individually and collectively for securing environmental protection and sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond."


The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assembled a working group under its Commission on Environmental Law (CEL), under the chairmanship of Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne, in November,1989. They produced a draft text containing 88 provisions. A second meeting of the IUCN group met in March 1991, under the chairmanship of Dr. Parvez Hassan. The Draft Covenant was translated into six official languages recognized by the UN and provided to PrepComm Working Group III, then preparing for UNCED in Rio.  (A:  For the Rio Conference.) The evolving Covenant then became the basis for the development of Agenda 21.


From the start, Agenda 21 was intended to be a "soft law" document.  (A:  Getting you familiar with it. Scared, but familiar with it.) Therefore, its ideas are presented in the form of recommendations with do discussion at all of compliance and enforcement.


(A:  Again, they know us so well, eh?  They know us so well.  They say, “Well, we don’t have to comply with that”.)


The Draft Covenant, however, does address those issues. A third meeting of the IUCN group was held shortly after UNCED to incorporate ideas presented in Rio into the Covenant. Two more meetings occurred, in April and September 1993. Both the Chairs of the IUCN's Ethics Commission and the IUCN's Species Survival Commission were invited to participate. The drafting committee met again in April, and September, 1994. While the IUCN is clearly the driving force behind the document, other organizations that participated in the development of the Covenant included the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL); and the United Nations Environmental Programme's Environmental Law and Institutions Programme Activity Center (UNEP/ELIPAC).


The current Draft Covenant was completed March, 1995, in Bonn, Germany.


Like all recent UN Treaties, the language is somewhat vague and seeks to establish principles which may be interpreted in the future by the treaty's Conference of the Parties.


(A:  So, in other words, it’s vague and they deliberately make it vague, because they know where they want to take it down the road.)


Part I, Article 1 sets forth the Covenant's objective:


(A:  It lists their objectives here and literally it’s to change your whole way of living.  It’s to create more government agencies which will literally go into all activities of humans.  Including pregnancy and giving birth and the right to birth and all that kind of stuff.  Everything is in here.  It says here:)


"The objective of this Covenant is to achieve environmental conservation and sustainable development by establishing integrated rights and obligations."


The casual reader might miss the import of this Article: " establishing integrated rights and obligations." This Article clearly illustrates the difference between the UN's concept of governance and America's concept of governance. America recognizes that humans have certain "inalienable" rights, among which is the right to create a government controlled by the people who are governed through representatives who are elected by the people who are governed. Inalienable rights are limited; obligations are accepted in America only with the consent of the people who are governed. The People who are governed retain the right to cast off any limitation on their rights or any obligation they may have previously accepted, simply by electing a new batch of representatives.


The Covenant, on the other hand, assumes that "rights" are granted by government, and that people to whom rights are granted "owe" certain obligations to government as may be prescribed by government. This concept of governance is the prevailing view held by most of the world. The American view is beyond the comprehension of most of the world's peoples. Even in nations that are described as "social democracies," it is assumed that government is the source of human rights.


This is an exceedingly important principle of governance that America has failed to advance in the international community.


(A:  And I’ll go into some other parts of what’s coming up, to do with Agenda 21, after this break.)


Hi folks.  I’m Alan Watt, Cutting Through the Matrix.  Talking about the new treaties that are coming along the pike and comparing them with the last treaties that were signed at the United Nations and all their many organizations that belong to the United Nations.  It says:


... (For example, Article 2 declares that: "Nature as a whole warrants respect; every form of life is unique and is to be safeguarded independent of its value to humanity.")


This principle replaces the anthropocentric world view with a biocentric world view. Historically, Americans have believed that human life is the supreme value aside from the creator of all life; that human beings are at the top of the food chain.


(A:  Well we are, we’re definitely paying the most for our food.  It’d be better to just hunt it, like most predators do.)


Americans have believed that human beings are creation's crowning jewel, that, ultimately, all species (natural resources) are available for human use. The biocentric world view holds that humans have no value greater than any other species and that all species -- including humans -- have equal rights.


(A:  And that came out of the last Rio conference.)


This biocentric view has been officially adopted by the U.S. Department of Interior, which, in its Ecosystem Management Policy, states that "in all ecosystem management activity, human beings shall be considered as a biological resource."


The "Precautionary Principle" is codified in Article 7. The same idea is expressed in Principle 15 of Agenda 21. It is the idea that policy action should not wait on scientific justification if "government" decides that a "threat" to the environment exists. Article 8 (Principle 3 in Agenda 21) declares that the "right" to development is accompanied by the "obligation" to meet environmental and "equity" needs -- as determined by non-elected government policy makers. Article 10 writes into international law "The elimination of unsustainable patterns of production and consumption..."


(A:  That’s a very important one, because they want to get rid of all meat, cattle and so on.  That’s part of their Agenda.)


again, as determined by non-elected government policy makers. Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of UNCED, and now, Executive Coordinator of UN Reform, declared in Rio that single family homes, air conditioning, and automobiles -- are not sustainable.


(A:  If you’re wondering where it all came from.)


Part III sets forth the general obligations. Article 11 declares that "States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to utilize their resources...." This article clearly establishes the United Nations Charter and the "principles of international law" as superior to national sovereignty. Moreover, the Article also sets forth specific "obligations" which include the obligation to "protect and preserve the environment."


This goes on and on and on.  I’ll put this up tonight, the link to this article here, this charter, at at the end of the broadcast.  You’ve got to look over this to understand what’s coming up at Rio because the hard power, the hard law comes in then and every country will sign it.  You can bet your bottom dollar and you better get on to every politician that you know.  Let them all know that you know what they’re up to and demanding to know what they’re going to vote. 


Because literally, if you think it’s bad now, with all the various taxes you pay for the environment and so on, you wait until this is signed into law with hard power to back it up.  It’s going to put a lot of folk off the land.  It’s determined to do that.  They don’t want you on the land.  They want to cram you all into the cities and then you’ll die off, they said that, up until the year 2050 or whatever; there’ll be a drastic drop in population.  They didn’t say how that would happen but I’m sure they’ve got something planned as well. 


This other article too is:


DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World

Control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,”


(A:  We were already going ahead, even before they’ve signed part 2 of the Rio Conference, to do with the redistribution of wealth; and strangely enough it came out when they collapsed the banks, first.  They collapsed the banks and then they take your tax money, reward the banks and then the rest of your tax money goes abroad.  It’s Marxism, isn’t it?  So:)


re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,”


(A:  They’ve got strange ways of seeing economic justice and equity, in the mindsets of the guys at the top.)


economic control, consumption control,


(A:  So you’re going to get consumption control, believe you me, in your food.  You’re going to get rationing down the way.)


land and water use control, and re-settlement control


(A:  Resettlement.  It says:)


DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World


I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. Some call the Draft Covenant “Agenda 21 on steroids” while others see it as the “Environmental Constitution of global governance.”


The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.


The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.”

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.


(A:  If it’s signed, you see, which it will be.)


All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter


(A:  That’s from Maurice Strong.)


and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.


Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (A: and that was put through:) (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).


(A:  It’s wonderful living in a republic with a representative democracy, eh?  Isn’t it wonderful?)


The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”


(A:  They called it, by the way, this Covenant, a “living document”:)


The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations.  They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36) 


(A:  That’s how it words it.)


So, I’ll put this up too and you can work your way through that.  Because if you think it’s bad now, wait till they have the Rio Conference.  And they’re not going to sit there and hash out anything.  They simply go there to make it an official get-together and they get all the governments to sign the documents that were drafted up over many, many years.


So, one article, which is just hilarious, and I’m glad lots of people have noticed it too.  Bernanke got a sort of bad rep because of his shenanigans and passing cash back and forth before the collapse came to make sure that the proper banks survived.  Anyway it says:


Atlantic Magazine Cover Proclaims Ben Bernanke "THE HERO"

If you are looking for the most nauseating cover possible on Ben Bernanke, please consider the April 2012 issue of the Atlantic.


The cover asks the question "Ben Bernanke saved the global economy. So why does everyone hate him?"


For starters Ben Bernanke did not save the global economy. Making such a proclamation is like a football fans proclaiming victory at the end of the third quarter with the score 54-24 following a 24 point rally after being down 54-0.


Simply put, it is far too early to make a presumption the Fed "saved" anything given the global economy remains hugely imbalanced and highly vulnerable.


Furthermore, we can state without a doubt Bernanke is Inflationist Jackass, Devoid of Common Sense, and Clueless About Trade, Debt, History, and Gold.


So, anyway, I’ll put this up tonight too.  How PR, they got to bring out the PR boys from Hollywood to remake, you know a total makeover, for Ben Bernanke, the man who saved America.  And unfortunately, some folk, if they hear it often enough, will believe it.


When you see similar articles coming out all at once across the world, you’ve got a combination of people working to make it so.  A combination, you see.  Nothing happens just spontaneously in different countries at the same time unless it’s planned that way and organized.  Highly organized, in fact, with the cooperation of the media, who puts the articles straight into the papers.  Here’s one:


Britain Sees Race Towards Euthanasia – OpEd


(A:  This is in different countries all at the same time.)


By Dignitatis Humanae Institute


Proponents of euthanasia in Britain are once again trying to remove legal safeguards on assisted suicide. A motion from Richard Ottoway MP, patron of Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) has re-opened the debate on euthanasia in Britain, seeking an increasing leniency towards assisted suicide.


While Mr Ottoway has made a welcome climb-down from his original stance, an amendment from Joan Ruddock MP would lead to an inflexible requirement for leniency in all cases of assisted suicide; thus making prosecuting those with genuine malicious intent difficult, and give rise to increased numbers of unchecked assisted suicides.


In resistance to Joan Ruddock’s efforts to legitimise euthanasia, a further amendment has been tabled by Fiona Bruce MP, placing the emphasis instead on palliative care and hospice provision. This encouraging move, aimed at giving real dignity and respect to dying patients, has received the support of more than 80 MPs.


Anyway, there’s more and more to it, of course, as this well funded organization, well funded again through foundations and other means, will get its way eventually, like it has of course, in Holland; which is the flagship for it, where they trialed it out.  Holland is already, if you refuse to go under the needle, by your GP, or if your GP refuses to kill you in your house, the government now sends a van round to do it instead, against your wishes.  It’s like the articles I just read before.  Once you put them on the books as a first reading, it goes on to the second part and the third part builds onto it, until they get what they wanted in the first place.  Everything’s like that, everything is like that.


Government cannot be allowed, cannot be allowed to start putting human beings down like animals.  Now, families used to look after the ill.  And families, I’ve no doubt at all, with maybe the help of the occasional doctor, would be given a certain kind of substance or whatever, to help ease the pain and would help the person on their way, so to speak.  But that’s the person’s decision and the family too.  You can’t give this kind of power to the government because the government has a different agenda.


The government is on and on about overpopulation, for a start.  The government also can pass laws to seize that person’s possessions etc for the treatment they’ve had in the past for their illnesses, which they do in Canada.  If you don’t have a living will and you end up in the hospital, the government come in and seize everything you’ve got, if you’re an elderly person – that’s house, everything – leaving nothing to your family, your offspring.


So you can’t give this kind of power to the state, a political institution with its own policies and directions.  It’s never the directions of the public anyway, as you well know.  But it would fit right into Agenda 21 and much, much more.  Also, at the same time you see:


Locked up and sedated: Huge rise in number of dementia patients being 'restrained' by hospital staff and carers


(A:  Why is that in the paper, alongside dementia?  Why do you think that’s in the same paper, at the same time?)


Dementia patients are increasingly being ‘restrained’ by hospital staff and carers, a report warns.


(A:  Well, what they do is get them in and drug them.  That’s what they do.)


The report, by health watchdog Care Quality Commission, reveals that 4,951 ‘restraining orders’ were granted to hospitals and care homes last year, up from 3,297 in 2009/10.


(A:  That’s where they’re allowed to sort of restrain them by straps to the bed or whatever, or to chairs and things like that.)


It’s to build up an impression in your head that suddenly there’s a massive problem with the hospitals and the elderly.  Mind you, the elderly get a bad bash to begin with because they don’t like the elderly.  They want us all to die off before we get that old.  Every movie that you’ll see, the elderly person is a doddering idiot, mumbling to themselves.  Have you noticed that?   It’s been like that for years and years and years, and years and years.  And people can’t put it together because the people who are pushing all the euthanasia and everything else, or who run for office, are generally people of a minimum age of about 60.


These are the folk who run your countries, sixties and seventy-year-olds.  It’s doublethink, isn’t it?  “Yeah, we’re okay but, see, the rest of the people out there are dumb and they’re senile.”  People can’t put it together.  They just can’t do it.


Another article too from the Rolling Stone is:


Gangster Banks Keep Winning Public Business. Why?


(A:  It’s quite interesting how they go through it here.)


A friend of mine sent this article from Bloomberg, along with the simple comment: "Perfect." What's perfect? That the banks that have been caught repeatedly ripping off communities and municipalities -- banks that have paid hefty settlements for rigging bids, bribery and other sordid misdeeds -- keep winning the most public business. Apparently, our public officials aren't concerned about whom they hire to serve as the people's investment bankers.

From the piece, entitled "JPMorgan Claims No. 1 for Government Debt After Jefferson County":


JPMorgan, which emerged from the worst financial crisis since the 1930s as the most profitable U.S. bank, has parlayed crisis-era loans to cities and states and a willingness to outbid other firms in local government bond auctions into becoming the top underwriter of municipal debt last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was the first time the firm held that rank.


The turnaround was a milestone for JPMorgan’s municipal- bond department, which has been marred by its involvement in two of the biggest scandals in the history of U.S. public finance: a so-called pay-to-play scheme in Jefferson County, Alabama, that contributed to the biggest-ever U.S. municipal bankruptcy, and a federal probe that uncovered bid rigging of municipal-bond investment products.


I’ll put this one up tonight.  You got to understand, the whole system, it’s America, Canada, everywhere – which is the same system, by the way, if you haven’t noticed; I don’t care what they call it, it’s the same system – it’s utterly corrupt.  It was created that way, utterly, utterly corrupt – when governments give out massive contracts to their favorite pals.  There’s no doubt about it, they’re big pals.  Remember Halliburton, with Iraq and all the rest of it?  Halliburton really just took the biggest chunk of money they’d get from the government and subcontracted it all down the line.  Until the ones at the bottom, that were doing the work, were getting a tiny fraction.  Which meant that tiny fraction was all that should’ve been paid out in the first place.  It just goes straight into pockets and that’s how government does things through the big contractors that subcontract, subcontract, subcontract, all the way down to the guys that actually do the work.  I’ll put this link up as well. 


And a good article, which again dispels that manmade global warming, CO2 and all that, is responsible for it – that man’s got nothing to do with it.  It says:


Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

  Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures


(A:  It seems to be well done, a very good study, by various scientists.  And as they say it was nothing to do with CO2 or man at all.  It was led by:)


A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.


(A:  They tried to say that Europe was the problem with all the people.  They found it happened across the globe because its crystals [of ikaite] are found everywhere.)


Back with more after this.


Hi folks.  I’m back Cutting Through the Matrix and we’ll go to the callers.  There’s Steve from New York City on the line.  Are you there Steve?  Hello Steve.


Steve:  I’m in New York.  The aerosol spraying is going on here at night.  It’s all-white skies, all day, every day and there’s no more blue like I remember when I was a child.  But I wanted to say, anybody who’s worried about their country’s personal financials, just realize the North American Union plan.  You can get caught up in the current situation, you know, collapsed economy, rising prices of food and fuel.  Realize it’s all part of a bigger picture that you kind of spell out.  So, it’s really kind of like a regional corruption thing going on, you know, and to tell people not to panic because it’s all written down.  It’s written.


Alan:  It’s all planned.  You’re simply living through a plan.  They’ve already said, they want to bring in rationing down the road too.  Well, once they get rid of all the farms that are left, basically, except the big corporate farms that just grow their own GM grain, then you’ll have ration cards and limited meat, if any at all.  Or a meat substitute, perhaps.  This is planned.  Again too, you’ve lived years of your life already in their plan and most folk never knew it, you know.


Steve:  I’m even rationing myself with electricity, switching to the LED lights and trying to lower the electricity bill to save money but realizing that, you know, the goal is to make as much money as possible with whatever they give us, the crumbs on the plate, in terms of energy and all that.  As you said in 2008, when I called you, it’s all a big joke on the public.  And we’re just living through it, this plan.  And the end game really is to kill us or to kill our grandchildren or whatever.  I’m just kind of totally in tune with you and I really appreciate your work.  I have your books and videos.  I just wanted to say I appreciate it.  Thanks a lot.


Alan:  Thanks for calling.  We’re living through a script, as I say.  It’s a script.  And the wars, even the times of the beginnings of wars, are all scripted years ahead.  The script for the New American Century group was put up in the 90s, twice.  In the early 90s and then in the later 90s by Wolfowitz, and he had on it, for the New American Century, all the countries that they have bombed so far.  It was the same one as Israel put out at the same time.  Look up the Israeli papers, you’ll see it.  Same list.  Identical.  And that’s what we’ve been living through for years now.  Right down to Iran and Syria.  So, what can you say? you’re living through a script.  It’s that simple.  Now there’s Jane from Ontario on the line.  Are you still there Jane?


Jane:  I am.  I just was thinking about the anthropocentric view of nature and the change to the biocentric or ecocentric view.  Do you think the anthropocentric view – do you think the elite have sort of altered the way we perceive that?  Like say if you compare it to the Native Americans, how they see themselves or how they traditionally saw themselves and the animals?


Alan:  We’re always being altered to suit the times.  The American Indians weren’t really into what we think of as a deep religion.  They used to drive buffalo off cliff tops by the hundreds sometimes, just to get a few of them.  Again, that’s a Hollywood-type creation.  But definitely, we’ve all been trained for a long time that we’re just another animal and they’ve been doing that since at least the early 1900s; many of their big boys, who wrote their books at the time, talked about that, that “man is just another animal”.  In fact, the guy in charge of UNESCO, at the United Nations, first, Julian Huxley, he said that.  He said we’ve got to knock man off his pedestal and bring him down to the level of the animal, but not for the elite.  They were superior in genetics, etc.  That’s what we’re in today.  Thanks for calling.


From Hamish and myself, from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods go with you.



Topics of show covered in following links:

CFR Experts Guide

Kenya Oil Discovery

Covenant on Environment and Development

DICED is UN's Environmental Constitution for the World

Atlantic Magazine Cover Proclaims Ben Bernanke----The Hero!

Push is On in UK for "Assisted" Suicide

Quebec will Issue Report on "Assisted" Suicide

Number of Dementia Patients Restrained by Staff Jumps 50%

Gangster Banksters Keep Winning Public Business--Why?

Last Earth Warming Period Heated Whole Planet Without help from Co2


Alan's Materials Available for Purchase and Ordering Information:


"Cutting Through"
  Volumes 1, 2, 3


"Waiting for the Miracle....."
Also available in Spanish or Portuguese translation: "Esperando el Milagro....." (Español) & "Esperando um Milagre....." (Português)


Ancient Religions and History MP3 CDs:
Part 1 (1998) and Part 2 (1998-2000)


Blurbs and 'Cutting Through the Matrix' Shows on MP3 CDs (Up to 50 Hours per Disc)


"Reality Check Part 1"   &   "Reality Check Part 2 - Wisdom, Esoterica and ...TIME"