Jan. 15, 2015 (#1484)



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

Alan:  Yes.  Iím here. 

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

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

From then on through the Phoenicians, which also was related to all of the groups in the Middle East, they traveled the world again through trade and they tried to introduce their coinage everywhere too.  Initially they would do straight barter with folk theyíd meet in different shores and islands and eventually theyíd say no we donít want that, we want you to give us this stuff and start using this stuff.  But to get this coin youíll have to give us "x" amount of fur or grain or whatever it happens to be.  And thatís what they did.  Thatís what a lot of the ancient wars were about.† When they took over a country eventually and got a hierarchy in that country, like a king established, instead of a chief you create a hereditary king with a family; then he is out for his own self benefit and his familyís too.  To live better than the rest of the people you must live off of the people.  I donít care how else it is done; itís as simple as that.  And so they worked with the middlemen, the money managers, and so on.  They had to work always down through time together and create these long family lineages and so on. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan:  Oh yeah.  Long ago North Korea was too.  But you have to understand too that you are trained to think of yourself as a nation, every country is.  And you are taught to be proud of your nation, etcetera, etcetera.  Thatís the first lie you are taught because the bankers who might live in your country, some of them, also tell the top politicians, in fact they make sure they get them in, their boys get in, and they have their plans, this ongoing world domination thing, of taking over the whole world and getting it on one currency system down the road.  And in the process they will also want to incredibly enrich themselves.  Itís never enough, they canít satiate their hunger for power, these people.  They donít say well Iíve earned fifteen trillion dollars this year worldwide so Iíve got enough.  It doesnít work that way.  Power is an aberration.  This kind of power is an aberration.  But unfortunately in this system itís the normal aberration, so much so, that those down below, all the working slobs, are taught to try and emulate it too.  So they give you that kind of culture, a psychopathic type spillover culture, that trickles down and becomes your culture with the nonsense that anyone can make it, etcetera.      

But when they look at other countries, like I say, and draw up their plans for war for the future.  And they mean it; they donít draw them up in these big think tanks just to toss ideas around.  Then theyíve got to get a valid excuse seemingly to the public to go and invade those countries.  But they donít call it invasion, they always call it going to liberate them or spreading democracy.  And the ancient Romans said the same thing; they were going and spreading culture everywhere.  They were civilizing the people.  And of course we saw that after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq and so on.  They actually used the same terms, they were bringing them democracy into nations where this was a foreign concept.  And we forget it ourselves that a hundred-odd years ago democracy say in Europe, in Britain, was also a foreign concept.  You didnít have what you think of as democracy today, back then.  They may have called it a democratic government but it simply meant..., in fact a hundred years ago in Britain you had to own land to go and vote, and so many houses, etcetera.  Tenants couldnít vote up until about World War I, inside World War I.  Thatís where they gave them the vote by the way, the folk who were landless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan:  Well there is no doubt about it, to introduce anything which takes away freedoms and rights from the people, again it is ancient, you must terrify the people that you are all going to get killed or massacred in your beds by these nasty people.  And so if they donít create the instance themselves, which is a very common thing down through history, if they donít create it themselves, then they will certainly aid and abet it happening to some little group.  They will give them, they will finance them, they will help them get to their target in order to use the whole event.† You see there is a lot of strategy to do with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and it was fantastic to see how the psychology worked in the Soviet intelligence and MI5 and 6 because they were both the same.  And the idea on the Marxian side or Soviet side was to go into countries that are third world or they are sinking first world countries where there is lots of unemployment, agitate the people but donít help the people, attack all charities because charities give aid out to the people which alleviate their misery.  We donít want their misery alleviated, make it worse and then they will get really angry.  The whole point is to get people really angry and uprising to overthrow.  And then the group that was behind it all would jump in, just like the Bolsheviks jumped over all the socialist groups and became the leaders of Russia you see.  They used them all to get the leadership, it was a strategy.  And what the Soviets also said was, if we can get them agitated until the West, the so-called Fascist countries, responded in an overt heavy-handed manner by taking away all the rights of the people, we can then point and say, see, we told you so, thatís whatís really running your country, these monsters and power-mad crazy people, you know.  And then theyíd revolt again.  So this was the psychology of getting, using the masses of people to do your bidding for you.  Even down to making their misery worse to make sure they would revolt. 

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

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

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

Alan:  But hereís the thing though.  Back in the early 80ís there was an attempt, something happened in London in England; there were a few terrorists that took over I think it was the British Petroleum tower building in London and that eventually got publicized widely when you brought the SAS.  Nobody had seen the SAS operating in their own country before.  And they were abseiling down the lines, they were all dressed in black and they smashed through windows and so on to rescue the hostages.  And at the time they said it was Iranian terrorists that were involved.  And even the SAS admitted they were supposed to kill every terrorist in there.  They didnít want anyone to stay alive to say why they had come or who sent them or anything else you know.  They didnít want it getting out to the press.   

Neil:  The same thing has happened in Paris. 

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

Now the Cold War was still going on as well and so they didnít want a ruckus.  Even when a policewoman, they broadcast that, she was out directing traffic outside the embassy while the Iranian staff were told to leave and for some reason one of the Iranians opened fire with an automatic pistol, machine pistol, and shot this policewoman.  Now, there was a lot of oh thatís terrible, oh what a shame, and so on in the media, but there was no call for say martial law techniques or everybody must be monitored now or the domestic population of Britain must give up all their rights, because the Cold War was still going on; Russia would have used that.  Now you donít have that anymore and itís out in the open where they always wanted to go.  So if they donít actually create the incidents to create more and more martial law technique and total surveillance, etcetera, then they certainly aid the groups that they know want to do these things.  They certainly aid them financially and with weapons and all the rest of it, there is no doubt about that. 

Neil:  Yeah and again you know we are getting it constantly, well I donít watch TV, but on TV and in the media itís constantly front-page news any time there is any slight incident involving "terrorism", there is always a Cobra meeting or you know somebody is having a special meeting to discuss how they could prevent it in the future.  And itís as you say twenty years ago or whenever that Iranian embassy siege was, well longer than that wasnít it, maybe thirty years ago, you know there was none of this.  There were no calls for shutting down London or you know patting everybody down at the train stations or whatever.  But these Oyster Card things that people have got in London that track you everywhere you go on the bus and the train.  You have to go through barriers with them.  I donít think we are too far away in London from certainly seeing barriers at the end of the street where youíve got to go through these things. †And thatís obviously what they are for.  I mean they are a form of an ID card basically.

Alan:  Well the oldest idea was always to, if you were going to say we are going to keep you safe but you can have no rights.  You canít have one without the other.  Itís as simple as that, thatís what they tell you.  And back in the 90ís, the late 90ís in Canada for instance, I knew something was coming up, the big plans.  I knew about the American Century Project and their own website as I say it was up there.  They published it twice with their whole agenda.  I think í93 then í97 they republished it.  And I thought well how are they going to get the world from this supposed flaccid era of peace to all of this and to take these countries over without a blowback?  And of course in í98 I think it was, 1998, the attorney general for Canada, a guy who was always appointed into jobs, Allan Rock his name was, suddenly put out an Omnibus Crime Bill which when analyzed, and the reporters said this too, this is completely an anti-terrorist and martial law type bill.  And in í98 nothing seemed to be happening to the general public, we were lulled to sleep and all the rest of it and kept entertained.  And then as soon as that was signed and put through he went off to work in the United Nations right off the bat immediately.  But it was never explained to anybody, including the journalists, why this kind of martial law thing was coming out, indefinite detention, etcetera.  There was, you see the plans were already made.  All the intelligence services knew hereís the agenda, the New American Century Project, here are the wars we are going to have in two or three years.  Here is the blowback you get.  Blowback is when you create radicals because if the folk start bombing your country and you see your family is constantly bombed up over ten, twenty years, youngsters growing up are going to be incredibly radicalized and full of hate.  Thatís natural in all wars, especially extended wars, and so blowback is when that will create the enemy that you didnít have in the first place.  I mean really if none of this had happened and you didnít have the New American Century Project and you didnít have this constant power grabs of oil and wealth from say Africa, diamonds, gold and all the rest of it and all the minerals and yada-yada-ya, and the oil across the Middle East.  If you didnít have all that problem going on with private wars going on, commercial wars, you wouldnít have had this physical war.  Thatís just basically it. 

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

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

Back in the 90ís I think it was called the year of the gun was the big topic because there were gangs, Jamaican gangs, Trinidadian gangs and so on all fighting each other in Toronto for drug territory.  And they were all shooting each other.  There was hardly a day that went by in the paper that you didnít hear something until the public got used to it again.  But after that year they did surveys on all the populations of Toronto and after one incident where a white girl was shot, it was great publicity for them.  She was shot by a Jamaican who was an illegal immigrant who had been caught three or four times and revolving-door justice and put back on the streets.  They wanted this guy to do something eventually and he did.  So he shot this white girl who was out, she was engaged and getting married that next week or something, beautiful story for the papers and the media and to get outrage going amongst the people and then the anti-gun campaign kicked in on the act.  They said we have to ban all guns from all people, including all hunting guns, and so on, and so on, and so on.  That was used, one person was killed, therefore letís ban all hunters, etcetera, and register all hunting rifles, etcetera. 

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

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

Alan:  Their own personal lives.  It creates apathy.

Neil:  Yeah.  Well I mean apathy, we are well aware of how apathetic people have become and whether itís a combination of what you were just talking about there and the fluoride and all the rest of it.  People have certainly, Iíd say, given up hope.  And I canít imagine being a young person these days and looking at the world and thinking Iíve got a great future ahead of me.

Alan:  I know.

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

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

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

Neil:  Yeah.  In terms of the techniques they use, do the exact same techniques work in every culture, or do they have to kind of doctor it a little to push certain, Iíll call it, races or cultures in a certain way because the culture doesnít allow them to be kind of so easily talked into doing certain things?

Alan:  What they did actually in earlier writings in fact, itís interesting to see the earlier writings, because around 1900 the big organizations that formed say the Alfred Milner Group and his group joined with the Cecile Rhodes Group which is Rothschildís Group too.  And they merged together into the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  But they did studies on that kind of future.  And what they had found already, Britain remember was into India and Africa and all across the globe dealing with other cultures to dominate them under the pretense again of oh weíre bringing in civilization to them and order, etcetera, and as they looted the countries.  But what they found was if they could, the easiest thing to do they said was to look at the gender, what works with a woman in one country will work with a woman in any country.  So donít just look at them as a group of people, start looking at gender and age groups, etcetera. 

But they also said the same thing that Marx said before that and Lenin said afterwards and even Mao Tse-tung said for China, what they said was, the only thing that could defeat this technique of gradualistic change, planned change for domination, was a religion.  We forget that religion was an embodiment of the whole culture of the people.  If you look at the Muslim people, the religion is their culture, you canít separate the two.  Itís their way of life, it keeps their order and everything else going amongst them and so on and you canít separate it. 

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

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

So they had to tweak it and tweak it and tweak it.  The other way is to bribe leaders and try to take over that way, straight forward bribes just like how Britain set up Saudi Arabia for folk who donít know that, Britain set it up, London did I should say.  And Philby was involved in that too by the way, the double agent.  But they set it up and in Saudi Arabia they made sure that those guys at the top, the Saudis, the princes and so on, would be awfully rich and they would have dynasties, and when dynasties form unfortunately they start to lose their identity with the general public.  And they become an elite group and then theyíre your man basically for life as long as you make sure theyíre safe as well, they will play ball with you.  So if they canít try and bribe you outrightly, if they canít bribe you, theyíll try and have a coup as the CIA is in charge for doing and simply eliminate you and replace you.  So thatís the real world we are talking about.  This is the real world. 

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

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

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

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

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

But youíll find that standardization is the key.  Rockefeller as he was getting rid of all the competition in oil, said weíll get the shareholders all onboard with the same one company and thatís why they called it Standard Oil, to standardize prices, price fixing, and everything else.  And if you didnít join him heíd put you under by every means possible and he did.  Great documentaries have been put out in the past about him.  And even today David Rockefeller has talked on the history of his family, he justifies it all saying well if this guy had taken our offer he would have been okay you know.  He has no regrets at all. 

Neil:  Itís almost like the Godfather movie and the horseís head in the bed, isnít it?  He made them an offer they couldnít refuse. 

Alan:  Itís exactly like that.And then youíve got also, youíve got the fact that it isnít just there.  Rockefeller got into the standardization of the American culture.  And he took over the culture industry across America and helped finance it.  He created the American Medical Association, standardized the Big Pharma, heís still got five Big Pharma companies worldwide.  And they run the Medical Association.  They run the training for the doctors what they are going to get taught, what they are going to believe right down to the same old treatment for cancer, radiation and poison chemotherapy.  They have standardized everything.  You see they donít come in and say we are going to get rich, no, they came in with a mission to take everything over until they monopolize everything that you need to survive, food, water, medicine, everything, and work itself in fact, and government. 

Neil:  Yeah and of course that the American culture as you said was created and thatís the culture that they are now trying to spread everywhere.  I donít know was Japan one of the early experiments of that because they seem to get into all this Elvis Presley stuff and all the teenagers started clipping their hair and the leather jackets. 

Alan:  Itís a fascinating story, a fascinating story with Japan.  As I have mentioned before, after World War II they immediately set up because they had been planning it to set up these cultural influencers they called them across the old warring factions, or they were their enemies in fact, they were enemies.  They completely rebuilt the whole culture for Germany, right down to you couldnít get taught history before 1945 you know.  Thatís a big feat when you think about it and they called it the Denazification of Germany.  Any old ideas that led to had to be completely eliminated from memory.  And the youth were told a whole different, different story. 

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

Neil:  Yeah, there is a great documentary on Japan called, "Love and Hate in Japan".  I donít know if you have seen that one, itís on YouTube.  Thereís a guy there and heís living with this younger girl, and sheís home to be an escort agency.  Theyíve got like two or three jobs each you know just to try to survive in this shoebox.  And he was quite an activist back then in the 80ís I think it was.  And he had like ten thousand people in the street and they really clamped down with the kind of martial law and everything there against him.  And thatís well worth the watch.  And it shows you where they are trying to take us.  Literally these people were living in what can only be described as a cupboard you know and it was awful. 

Alan:  What was the title of that one?

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

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

Neil:  Yeah thatís the way they are in Japan, they kind of see it as the home of robotics so I guess thatís a logical step forward for them, isnít it? 

Alan:  It is, yeah. 

Neil:  More than this way.  But again thatís, I mean how do you persuade somebody to have affection for a machine?  I suppose people like their cars.  You know they donít want to get rid of that particular car because they love it or whatever or whatever it may be, their favorite piece of jewelry, or whatever.  But inanimate objects.  I guess in these days these things wonít be inanimate, will they?  But I mean how do you train the human mind to do that? 

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

Youíd also masculinize the women so that they wouldnít be attractive to the men, they could be more aggressive.  But he also said, itís so interesting what he said, by the use of hormones, he said, we can alter the mentality of the male, he can become more effeminate.  And he says you can also make the women more aggressive.  So almost a role reversal, so he is talking about bioengineering the people.  And this was in the 50ís and I guarantee you if that was being said in the 50ís at the top think tanks they were already trying it out in different areas.  And he said the same thing, weíll put it in the food and the water, etcetera. 

Neil:  Yeah.  I mean the ultimate result of all this psychological stampeding if you want to use that term is that your 2.4 children family, your average family or whatever, they are all going in different directions.  You know the woman has now become the man, the man has become the woman, and the children donít know who they are or where they are going.

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

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

Alan:  And itís worked awfully well, hasnít it?

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

Alan:  Okay. 

Neil:  And Iíll talk to you later.  Take care.

Alan:  Thanks very much. 

Neil:  Cheers.  Bye.

Alan:  Bye now. 

{Closing Music ♫}