Feb. 1, 2015 (#1488)

"Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt

(Blurb, i.e. Educational Talk)


"The Agenda's Been Slow but Now Here We Go"

© Alan Watt Feb. 1, 2015


Title & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Feb. 1, 2015 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)


Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on February 1, 2015.  On the night of September 11, 2001, I said on the radio that the hardest thing from now on that would happen to you, would be to hold onto your sanity as we go through massive changes. Because the changes were planned and published, often, long before the event, the changes that would follow to supposedly cope with the events and the damage control, etc. But long ago they were talking about doing all the things, of biometric scanning, the total communications over everybody's communications and copying them all, etc., and watching every single person, long before 9/11 came along. Because with every advance in technology, in fact, even the introduction of particular technologies, it's vastly changes the behavior and the way of thinking of society.


If you think about the changeover from the horse and cart to the steam engine for instance, the steam engine allowed massive freight to be carried into very remote areas, where existing villages were overwhelmed with the sudden influx of people, etc., etc, and they can also start other businesses and export stuff by train out of the area, mining stuff and so on.  Other villages cropped up alongside the rail road tracks and that's all people thought about at the time was prosperity, what was opening up.  And your behavior would adapt to the circumstances from an agricultural/agrarian society into a manufacturing society and so on. And those at the top with the big money and investments planned it that way with factory towns, etc.   Not the cowboy era, believe you me, it was mainly factory towns that sprung up all over the place.  Then you have the introduction of the automobile and the expansion of roads and the building of the roads across areas that had not existed before, except perhaps the occasional trail here and there for a cart.


With it all too comes governmental departments and bureaucracies to maintain these things through taxation and so on.  So your behavior always changes and you adapt to the changes, and eventually it's normal to you. That's why some generations look back on the previous generations and see them as old-fashioned and quaint, they can really fathom how they lived.  Somehow they also think they must have been awfully unhappy, stuck in rural areas and they couldn't travel very far and so on. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, the more isolated they were often and the slower news would take even reach them, the happier they were, they couldn't get so brainwashed by a big commercialized media.


So today you have the Internet, and you've had television for years that drastically, drastically altered behavior, because all governments used it as a tool to modify behaviors, to drum up patriotism when they have future wars on the table ready to go, things like that, and then during wars they would churn out the movies, paid by your tax money often, about the military might and how it was great fun and all the rest of it fighting the bad guys. So all technology is used.  It has its own particular effect on society. But it's also used by those who know how to rule over the minds of people, from the top.  And we live in a very Machiavellian time, more efficient that Machiavelli could have ever dreamed upon in his age, where again, it was town crier's that went around villages with propaganda and decrees from the top, they even use the churches too to put out what they claimed was news at the time, of impending invasions and of wars and why they had to go off and fight, etc. etc.


So everything is used by existing powers, and the existing powers expand their powers and grow massively during times of conflict and change, etc.  During the 50s in the 60s government was all gung ho for science to take over, to rule society in the sense, to rule society and guide society with all these miracles that would be introduced into the general population.  Microwave ovens and the television, eventually color television and so on, and the space programs, then all the science fiction movies which were flooded out the public to make some think it was, oh we're going to end up in space one day, every child thought he would end up in space going out for adventures and so on.  And of course nothing of the kind materialized, and it wasn't intended to either.


So fiction is heavily used by manipulators of the future. Always. Always, because we've got to remember that mythology itself is a very, very powerful tool, when it can be brought up from the darkest depth of ancient times, and back to the present, completely altered in fact. In fact, when we talk about this today in the movies they turn out using all mythological characters, the people who were alive in the day when these myths originated would not understand you at all because it would be nothing like the actual core gossip or beliefs or myths that were getting created at the time. 


So we live in constant changing times and every possible thing that's worked on people in the past, and various religions too, are used over and over again. You can create religion, which is just a common belief system, pushed from the top again, in any direction you want. You can have an atheistic/atheized religion like a communist religion, the future utopia, a heaven is going to be brought on earth by everyone being monitored and training themselves, self-monitoring, very puritanical in the sense, so make sure you had no counter revolutionary thoughts and you would all work for the greater good of the state. That was a religion, the Marxian religion. So never, ever discount other people's belief systems, and never go by the mainstream media because unfortunately they are a tool of the power structure that rules the world.


You'll be amazed at the amount of wars, for instance, that Britain during its Empire days got involved in, one after the other, in far-flung places, which they really did not understand at all. They didn't understand the peoples, they didn't understand the history of the peoples that they were going to dominate.  They didn't understand the way of life of the village, to the city, or whatever, in places like India, and even Afghanistan, and across Africa either.  Their answer to it always was just throwing missionaries, try to, what they called, civilize, or tame them. If that didn't work they'd bring in the troops.  So all techniques were used including threat of power and use of force, and then actual massive use of force to try and make it work.  Trying to make square pegs fit into round holes, that's the sadness of the so-called experts’ plans, they always end up with incredible consequences, and long-lasting consequences, and catastrophes.


But it's not just at home. When you get involved in war, and I've said this many times over the years, you will become in many respects what you're told your enemy is. You will become as vicious, you'll use the same techniques, which means that your moral, your initial moral authority that you had been told that you have, because you're always the good guys, when you invade somebody, that will dissipate as well until you become barbaric. In fact, you become more barbaric than your supposed enemy you’re fighting. And that comes home with the troops. It also infects the culture back home through all the propaganda too, when the fallout starts to begin and they become hard and bitter and more brutal towards each other at home as well. And governments themselves grab more and more and more power to try to contain this mess that they've made, that has ripple effect across the board, not just the countries that they are in to get their oil or to get their goods, or their jewels, or their diamonds, or their gold or whatever, for their big businesses at home, the big corporate businesses, and a few private families.  But it infects you back home and you have incredible fallout from it all.  It really is incredible fallout.


In a system that pretends to be Democratic, and I really mean pretends, they always have these kind of problems because in the so-called democracy you have a kind of laissez-faire capitalism to an extent where they will invest in anywhere, including slave nations, if the profits are good.  And then if they abolish slavery they simply give them a pitiful wage.  And often they will move these people, these workers across into islands, that still goes on today, and the workers put themselves down as paying off their transport to get to this island they're going to work in, and mine or whatever it is, and of course they never pay it off.  They can't pay it off so they're stuck there most of their lives digging in these rotten mines.  So slavery does exist today in many forms, in one form or another. 


Unfortunately the world is run by gangs.  We are taught, for instance, that the countries across, say, the Middle East and Asia are primitive. And they are not primitive. They are very ancient, and have survived awfully well under the circumstances and climate, etc., and conditions.  We are always taught that we are the moral authority, and troops are given the most basic indoctrination possible, so that they don't think too deeply about what they are being sent to do.  They don't know the history of the peoples, the cultures of the people.  They're taught to go in there and bring democracy, democracy.  This thing called democracy. It's a foreign concept to people abroad, never mind increasingly to the people at home.


But as I say, in democracy how can you have big business literally running the financial system of the country that you live in, and in other countries too, and creating their own world Empire by their own means, and governments going cap-in-hand to borrow from them all the time, which gives power to the lender, always, always to the lender, and terms to the lender?  And terms are not just paying it back with massive compound interest, it's also suggestions on how governments should handle their affairs, including the political affairs at home and abroad. And there you have private groups, or clubs you might say, a very powerfully wealthy people, and they have such pull and organizational abilities. They have massive bureaucracies in the corporations, and think tanks, often bigger than governments, and so much at their disposal to work their future plans in, and how to even use governments, and whole nations, for their own private businesses, including the troops and so on as well. It's a sad, sad state of affairs.


And this loose term of democracy is always elastic because it expands and contracts all the time, and gets stretched in all different directions, according to the needs of those who already rule, or any of the new groups who rule.  Like the bankers when they were given total power of deregulation back in the 80s under Reagan and Thatcher at the same time, then of course when you end up with the crashes in 2007 and 2008.  Then you find you have just as many gangs and criminals working inside the big massive banking system as the gang lords that they'd installed over in Afghanistan and places like this, that your own governments installed by the military.  And you don't understand the people at all in the countries that you're over there fighting in.  So you have a loose term called democracy. And when the bank crashes came the governments didn't know what to do about it.  Rather than arrest them all, which meant the whole collapse, total collapse of the banking industry, and the economy, and your governments, they just simply threw money at them.  And you have to accept that you're ruled, economically, by big powerful interrelated gangs.  That doesn't give you much confidence for the future, does it?  But meanwhile, so all the old myths, that why you existed as a nation, etc., the myths and the symbols have fallen flat, it doesn't work the same way anymore. It doesn't work the same way.


After World War I, for instance, it was so many millions of guys that were getting thrown over the trenches, every single day, 64,000 died in a day, more the next day and so on.  Throw in another battalion, throw in another battalion, that was the mentality of the officer corps at the time, who ruled the show at the top in the HQ's. Like a scorecard, how many did we lose today? Oh, 100,000 or 200,000, you know, throw in another one.  And out of that mythology that they created, they had to create it to keep it going, and win, try to win this war, the financial powers of the West had to invent these new mythologies and say, well it's for a future utopia, it's to bring in a more equitable world and more equality back home…  Because we were measuring in the West from the feudalistic system, where this term democracy had never been applied to everybody at all, the majority the folk had no vote if they didn't own property and so on.


So you think you win a little bit here and win a little bit there, but the big boys already had it planned when most folk got the vote, or all got to vote, they would simply create, through their big clubs of course, like the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations, private institutions that would then work with the governments to unite the banking systems across the world, the economies, but still own it privately.  And the public wouldn't elect these different organizations, they simply put themselves in place and worked with the powerful elite, because they were the powerful elite, they were members of it already. 


But I always think it's so ironic that, for instance, the US funded the initial setup of the guys who would become Al Qaeda to fight the Russians when they went into Afghanistan.  Then when the US went back into Afghanistan later to fight the Afghanis, they then funded different factions, warlords in other words, and they'd overthrow what they thought were the worst warlords by replacing them with other warlords, who'd behave in the same natural historical way of warlords all down through time, in Afghanistan. And they didn't understand it at all, what they were doing. They didn't understand it at all. As I say, so they've just fed the fire which should never have been started in the first place, and kept feeding it and feeding it until now it's out of control across all of these countries. All starting with Western interference long ago, and again, the domination of who's going to own the oil of the world.


This term interdependence is quite fascinating.  You see, under the big corporate big business structure that we live under they look to the future all the time.  That's why they employ all these futurist think tanks to try and see what's coming up down the road.  And to keep power in their hands, just like the government would do, big private corporations, private corporations make their big plans, geopolitical plans way in advance so that they will never lose power.  And because they were importing so much oil for such a long, long time from the Saudi's and different countries, they wanted the monopoly of it for themselves.  It was a nuisance to have the people inside those countries owning the oilfields.  It was an awful nuisance, when they could have it all to themselves in the West. And through many different techniques and trial and error they've tried to do this very, very thing.  As I say, since the 1980s, since the banks deregulated, the gangs inside the banks have planned all of these wars, and use the governments, and the troops, to try and grab all the oil for themselves as well. It's a sad state of affairs.  So when you're interdependent, whether you like it or not, if we live in a world where you didn't need oil, as I say, every invention has its consequences, everything is going to be promoted as an invention into the general public, into society, into transportation and so on, has got massive consequences.  And if it's run on oil and gasoline, petroleum derived from oil, then anything that happens across the waters which produces that oil can fluctuate and have devastating consequences back home.


So therefore, we live in a very unstable society.  Governments have abdicated more and more power, long ago actually, to the big banking system, and the banking systems themselves, as I say, often have such big bureaucracies they are equal to some governments across the world, and bigger budgets too, some of them. Yet we still push this term called democracy.  Even though with democracy when it was initially thrashed out in the public, and in Parliament in Britain, they came out with the idea eventually and said, well democracy can only end up having special interest groups, heavily funded by interested parties, which they now call stakeholders.  So, private parties, groups, of very powerful people, fund so many of the NGOs, for instance, that demand climate change taxes, and taxes for everything and so on.  This is part of the agenda for the global controllers who want total domination, not just over the Middle East and everywhere, but over the whole planet, folks, the whole planet. Not just over groups of people, but the minds of each individual across the world down the road. Actually, it's already here.  Everything you think, everything you utter, every little comment or quip has to be recorded, if possible, as you are monitored from birth to death to make it safe for the Masters of the world to go on into the future with their own offspring who will inherit the power and be exempt from all this monitoring and so on.


The chaos that ensues, they say, like Rockefeller said, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. That's what we're going through today as they're smashing up the eggs, and a lot of mess, a lot of eggshells in amongst the omelet.  And this is all accepted at the top, as we go into more intrusion into our private lives.  And this is only the start of it, I'll touch on this tonight in fact, because everything has consequences, as I said.  Never read the superficial lines in the news and just take it at face value and say, well they'll still be nice about things.  Because you see, that's not how humanity works.


Now, here's an article that has exactly to do with what I'm talking about, to do with the consequences of things.  And the consequences of what happens in one country, if they are all on board with the agendas, will be the same as another. You simply have to look at Britain to see the incredible police state that's formed in Britain.  At the same time, they're still living, everyone's coming in from all the countries that are supposedly radical, supposedly radical, and using that as an excuse to watch everyone inside Britain, and they expand its powers once it's on the books. Well in Canada, here's an article about the recent debate, it was actually all drafted up long ago I'm sure, the next step of anti-terrorist legislation for Canada.  I'm sure it was all done. They do it in phases, you see, so you accept one phase, well you get used to it and go back to eating the grass, you know, like cattle in the field, and then they bring in the next phase, and the next phase. It's all planned that way, because they understand how the general population tick. 


B.C. citizens should be wary of new anti-terrorism laws, officials say

theprovince.com / Nick Eagland / January 28, 2015


BC (Alan:  British Columbia, this is the west coast of Canada.)  Civil Liberties Association Policy Director Micheal Vonn, July 11th, with files of cases in the association's Vancouver office.  (A:  And that was when they first came out with some of this stuff.)


The federal government is expected to introduce new anti-terrorism legislation Friday (A: This was last Friday.), but experts say British Columbians should be wary of how it could affect their freedoms.  (A:  …well naturally. This is like a carbon copy, probably just taken off of the British paper that they put out years ago.)


The bill is expected to include provisions making it easier for police to arrest suspected radicals, a retooling of Canada’s no-fly list, reduced privacy limits on passport application information and a crackdown (A:  This is interesting…) on communication aimed at radicalization, according to recent comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and media reports.


Micheal Vonn, policy director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said while details of the bill aren’t yet clear (A:  …and that’s what they do with these massive omnibus bills that are thousands of pages, and deliberately made that way.), she’s concerned about how the introduction of “more extraordinary powers” to police and national security without “appropriate accountability and transparency” could hurt British Columbians.


“We’re looking at provisions that will undoubtedly violate the rights of Canadians and not make us one bit demonstrably safer,” Vonn said. 


Now, that's just one little article, it goes on and on but they get the feedback from the BCC Muslim Association. But who's talking to the average person here? Why do you have to belong to any group to say, this isn't right, this isn't right? I mean, it really is ridiculous, you know. And then out comes this one.   


Canada’s anti-terror bill needs to balance

religious expression and inciting terror, Kenney says

thestar.com / / Jan 28 2015


OTTAWA—There’s a fine line between legitimate religious expression and inciting terrorism, says Conservative cabinet minister Jason Kenney.  (A:  Well, that’s what he’s paid to say.)


It’s that line the government will be walking — carefully — in its new anti-terrorism bill, expected to be unveiled Friday.


The bill is the government’s much-awaited legislative response to two attacks carried out on Canadian soldiers last fall by men believed to have been influenced by radical Islam — attacks the government considers acts of terrorism.


Though police already have the power to go after those suspecting of being on the verge of committing terrorist attacks, the new bill is partially aimed at stopping the seeds of those attacks from germinating altogether.


“Our objective is not to diminish legitimate expression of political or religious views, but rather incitement to terrorism — and there is a fine line there that the legislation will try to draw,” Kenney said in an interview Tuesday.


“Obviously there are some malevolent religious influences that can add to the process of radicalization towards violent extremism, and we have to be extremely mindful of that.”


How to effectively combat radicalization is a struggle facing governments and security agencies the world over.


The RCMP is currently rolling out its own strategy, which includes working more closely with community groups in order to identify and divert people who may be susceptible to extreme views that could eventually lead to violence. 


(A:  Well, they've used that in Britain now for years, so they're just copying what has been done, you see. This is the sad thing, when something goes awry and people panic, near the top, they tend to look at what's been done already elsewhere.  And if it hasn't worked elsewhere it doesn't matter, they have to grab it and try and use it.  And it won't work anywhere else either. And too, what it is aimed at then becomes almost watered-down, because it's expanded to include anyone with an opinion contrary to any government policy or specific government policies on anything. If they don't like you, in other words, they can go after you. That's humanity. Humans are not anything but, anything but some perfect species, believe you me.)


But the police need broader powers to deal with those doing the radicalizing, suggested Conservative MP Tim Uppal, who is also the minister of state for multiculturalism.


“If the police are doing their investigation and they come across people who are trying to radicalize others, before any type of violence . . . I think that’s somewhere where we do need some action,” Uppal told The Canadian Press recently.


The other problem facing legislators is how to handle radicalization online, which many acknowledge is the primary source of information for young men and women who later end up joining violent causes.


“We need to be able to follow up on and see how we can ensure that we are able to either stop those messages that people are getting, or at least be able to follow up on it in some way,” Uppal said.


But Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter said he wonders why existing anti-terror laws of various kinds haven’t been put to full use.


Now, here's the reason why you haven't 'been put to full use'. When legislation is introduced it has to be pushed from the top to radicalize the police forces and all the other agencies, that are overseers you might say, of society. Because there's no doubt it radicalize them, there's no doubt whatsoever.  And they introduced things piece by piece of it for years until you accept, and accept, little bits and little bit, and then they push for the big one.  Because this is going to change all relationships between the public, believe you me, and police and so on who will become ultra-paranoid.  It will also… Unfortunately it's going to go the way of the US with these massive internal armies and agencies, with all their SWAT teams and everything else, who just storm in and, anything that will be left alive at the end of it, they'll ask questions later.  This is the way the cowboy mentality that gets pushed.  Really, there's so many Canadians who really hope that it's not going to happen the same way here, and I hope it doesn't. Because if I saw the signs of that happening I would just move immediately to some other place, and anywhere at all.  Because then, once that starts it's never going to stop, you understand, for your whole life long.  And do you want to live in a police state your whole life? Do you want to live in a society where every little comments you've made is going to be misconstrued, by someone who has got it in for you?  Or an agency, which again, just like the ticket police, has to fulfill its quotas?  And that's what happens too, you know, the drug enforcement agencies do this in the States as well, they've got quotas to meet and so on and it doesn't matter if the guy is innocent or guilty, if he's left alive, you know, he'll be charged for something and put on the books and so on.


We don't want that in the rest of the world. We don't want this at all.  But unfortunately the Masters who are in cahoots with each other across the world, I think they actually do. I think they actually do. Because they themselves at the very, very top never had any belief whatsoever that democracy would ever work.  And there's lots of University papers and books that have been put out over many, many years on that very, very fact. The Club of Rome said the same thing in The First Global Revolution, one of the books they put out. They said that democracy would never work, there's too many conflicting parties, conflicting groups, all demanding their own particular rights, that nothing would ever get done.  And at the top when you're run by big massive commerce, that runs everything, our whole way of life is based around commerce, your whole culture, everything is based around commerce. So the masters who rule commerce want more and more say in how things all work, including how you behave, and how you think, and what you think, and what you believe and everything else. They want to make sure they can create you like a robot, and that will come down the road too.  So the omelettes are being created, the eggs are bring all smashed, and you’re living… The generations who are living now have this for their whole life to contend with. Because the big boys never stop their plans and say, this is not working, this is not working. 


The old myth that they pushed out there, and it really was a myth, that if you just simply bring people into a country they'll all adapt, for prosperity, and get along.  It hasn't really worked. I think it was Angela Merkel who said the same thing in Germany a while back, it had failed. Because people tend to drift and create their own communities, they like their own kind unfortunately, and the more there are of them, because they are familiar with their own culture, naturally, they want to keep it, rather than come into this new kind of materialistic culture that's been fostered and created by Hollywood, and another group who wanted to dominate everybody else. 


A lot of folk won't like what I'm saying, but this is what is.  It's realistic, this is realism that I'm talking about here. Not mythologies, not idealism's, it's what IS. It's not over my head, I'm not guessing at any of this stuff. There's lots of publications from universities, as I say, and many professors and many so-called experts at the top who have published this stuff, even so many members of the Council on Foreign Relations who helped set up this structural system, including what's taught in universities and colleges and schools, which give you your idea of reality. It's not yours at all. It's not yours whatsoever.


So what's happening in Canada is not that they're really putting out new laws that they have not enforced before.  It's the order to start enforcing, and that changes the mentality of the agencies that will start to enforce it all. It puts pressure on them, they must produce, they must show results of what they're up to, and that can cause absolute hell on the road to it. I read recently about, it was called the Rise of the Warrior Cop, in America, and the drug wars and all the other things that they used for the rise of this military kind of policemen.  And this is what they're going to bring across the whole world. And that's not right. You cannot possibly still call yourself democracies when you have this going on. Because there's folk in the States who get killed all the time, who have nothing to do with drugs, the wrong places get raided, and whole families wiped out.  It's been happening for years and years and years, and yet it goes on. It just goes on and on and on.


That's why you should always never demand anything from governments.  Never demand it. The average person is taught to say, oh that's wrong they should do something about that.  Who should do something about that? Because if the government gets involved you might regret it, because it always goes awry.  Always. This is the history of the world, when force and government work their big ideas across nations. Now, this article goes on to say…


RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson has said Zehaf Bibeau appeared “lucid” and “purposeful” in spelling out his motives (A:  This is one of the guys that did the shooting I think.), which Paulson described as being rooted in his religious beliefs and opinion of Canada’s foreign policy.


Paulson initially said he wanted to see the footage released to the public, but has since signaled that may not happen.


Easter said he’d like to know if the message on the video lines up with what federal officials have said about it.


“Maybe it doesn’t match with the prime minister’s messaging,” he said. “Now, that would be a sad commentary, if the commissioner of the RCMP is being led down that path. But we’ll see.”


That's one article and in this article here it says…


Canadian Government Continues to Expand State Powers While Leaving Privacy by the Wayside

eff.org / January 29, 2015 / Kimberly Carlson


The Canadian government is scheduled to release new security legislation on Friday that would grant even more power to its police and domestic security agencies. This proposal comes in response to a string of "lone wolf" shootings of soldiers in Canada last October.


This isn’t the first over-broad anti-terror legislation we’ve seen proposed or enacted in Canada—and that’s what’s concerning. The country has been playing catch up post-9/11, hastily increasing state surveillance powers, particularly during this past year. Bills that grant a broad range of policing and intelligence powers to government agencies, as well as speech restrictions on ordinary citizens, have already been brought forward, but we have yet to see the implications of these laws as many of them are still navigating through the legislature or just coming into effect now.  Tamir Israel, staff lawyer at the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), cautions the Canadian government in creating yet another set of new powers before the dust has even settled on the last set of expansions.


Top Canadian judges agree, saying there are laws in place, such as provisions in Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, that were crafted for this purpose. Retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci, cautioned about:


the "spillover effects" that any rush to expand police powers would have on freedom of religion, association and expression; the possible "tainting" of Canada’s Muslim community, and the risk of "overreaching" by security intelligence agencies when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.


To pile on more anti-terror legislation is simply reactionary and a recipe for disaster. (A:  Then all the other politicians are getting in on it.)  Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, however, asserts that this proposal will contain the proper tools Canadian police and security agencies need in order to keep citizens safe as new threats arise.


Why the need for more legislation if the country’s state surveillance powers are already so robust? Documents released by The Intercept this week from the files leaked by Edward Snowden show that the Communications Security Establishment (CSE, formally known as Communications Security Establishment Canada or CSEC) is already using very invasive surveillance tools. The revelations that CSE tracked millions of downloads each day, all over the globe, as part of its foreign intelligence spying and Five Eyes information sharing initiative exposes an overreaching surveillance state with little to no oversight.


You understand, when you have these kind of reactions from governments and orders are issued that must be fulfilled, this part about little or no oversight will get worse and worse and worse as the various agencies are told to perform, to produce, to show how many arrests they've made or whatever.  And I'll tell you another thing too, unfortunately, there's a lot of middlemen in the ways that they use, and assets that they use, that will lie their teeth off to make up the stories.  We found this in the past too, tickets for convicted, that might be in the hole for years and years and years before it's admitted that the CIA asset or whoever it happened to be, whatever country that use them, this little snitch got time off himself or got paid for all the stories he made up. This is what happens when the need to produce results to show their superiors overrides factual evidence.  And then you're in a sorry, sorry state, believe you me. And since government goes around corners on square wheels, to stop all this and change it can take generations, if ever again. And personally, with the Internet and so on, I don't think it ever will. I think this had to go along with this, again, the introduction of this technology into society, how we adapt and it changes us as it goes along. It changes society, your behavior, everything, and it also allows all this nonsense to continue as well.  Sad, isn't it, but that's where we are with all of this stuff.


Now, you combine the last article with this article from the Globe and Mail and it says…


Canadians support increased security powers, poll suggests

theglobeandmail.com / DANIEL LEBLANC / Jan. 29 2015


OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians are ready to give new powers to the government (A:  …this is from a poll.  And polls are a joke, as we all know.) to combat security threats, including blocking websites that promote the proliferation of terrorism, a new poll suggests.


Over all, the Globe and Mail/Nanos Research survey found the federal government has strong support to introduce legislation that would limit Charter rights such as freedom of expression (A:  …so there ya go, freedom of expression…), within certain limits (A:  …which is… as vague as they want it to be, because they can use it for anything…), after a series of attacks at home and abroad.


The prime minister says he is looking at strengthening powers to "survey, detain and arrest" after an attack on Parliament Hill Wednesday. Stephen Harper says Parliamentary security will work with other police agencies.   


Now the thing is, the way that even this is worded, it gives them wide scope for everything really. Why aren't they just aiming it at, and be specific and say, okay for this group here because that's where it seems to be coming from?  rather than putting a broad ban across the whole network with people just simply voicing opinions about other things altogether that the government is up too, and not liking that either?  They have reasons for this. They're not stupid, completely, at the top. They're not stupid, it's not that. It's not that. And I know where it's all going to go too, because you understand, I don't know if people know this, but in Afghanistan and Iraq and different places where the British and US military have been for a while, when they go into villages and they make every male take biometric scanning, their irises, fingerprints, everything, DNA, you name it.  And they want this globally, including at home too.  And big business is always involved in this system, which we think is democracy, guiding it. They're always guiding it, you see, for their own sales, etc. And these big businesses have been supplying the militaries of the world for a long time with all the biometric scanning stuff, that's portable stuff too that they can carry into the battlefield with them.  So they want to do it at home as well, for your own safety, naturally. And it's great sales. But this says…


IBIA and SIA Declare Support For New Biometric Exit Provisions

findbiometrics.com / January 21, 2015


The International Biometrics and Identification Association (IBIA), (A: Another big club, you see, a big business.)  in concert with the Security Industry Association (SIA) (A:  The guys that make all the war industries and so on.), has issued an open letter in support of provisions set forth in Section 13 of H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act.


The statement, addressed to Michael McCaul and Bennie Thompson – the chairman and a ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, respectively – comes nearly a year after the IBIA voiced its concern that the mandate for biometric exit had remained unfulfilled. (A:  In other words, they have not gotten all of the orders that they wanted.  [Alan chuckles.]  Nothing to do with right or wrong.)  The new letter makes it clear that the original vision of a comprehensive border security regime is still unfulfilled, but that the Biometric Exit Data Systems provisions contained in Section 13 of H.R. 399 are a solid first step in the right direction. 


Biometric time and attendance solution concerns Air Canada workers

biometricupdate.com / Stephen Mayhew / January 27, 2015


…you see.  And the next article here, it says…


New security bill aimed at

combating 'lone wolf' attacks coming this week

cbc.ca / Jan 25, 2015


Legislation will expand powers of domestic security agencies in wake of last year's attacks.


(A:  So, lone wolf attacks, you see.  Now, a lot of the lone wolf idea, or ideology, comes from people who are mentally unstable, which they are well aware of, often with a history of having been treated for schizophrenia and various things like that, paranoia. And if it wasn't one thing that would radicalize them, it might be something else. They're given a cause, you see… or they grab a cause.  And they can be used, actually, by existing groups to commit various acts as well.  This says…)


Harper said the new legislation will "contain a range of measures to ensure that our police and security agencies have the tools" necessary to combat domestic threats.


But so far they haven't got the whole bill, I guess it was passed on Friday, and we'll have to wait and see. It will be such a long thing, it will take months to go through all of it.  We might not even get it all dished out to the public for a long time, it might even be a year or two before we get access to it all; we'll get some very, very basic principles and so on. 


Just to change topics, you remember, everything is thought out at the top through think tanks and so on, how to use everything to their advantage, a particular thing that happens or, say, the gas prices going down.  Immediately the big car or truck manufacturers get in on the act, oh we're going to go back to the 70s or 60s and time to buy a truck, not telling you that this is a temporary little geopolitical war glitch that they've got on the go to lower the prices. And also the reason a lot of the prices are lowered right now, by the way, is that, you see, this is the ideal time to put in a carbon tax on top of it, and up the price, the taxes on gasoline.  Because you won't grumble, you see, if your gas goes down to about, under one dollar, you'll say oh well it's still cheaper than it was before. Believe you me, once they've got a carbon tax on it, and up the percentage of taxes on gasoline, and then the jack it up to the old price and beyond, then you’ll really see it, folks. Because you are getting trained to go into austerity, remember, that's part of the world solution, they claim, is experts running your lives to make sure, because you're just too stupid to manage your life yourself, you see, and so on. But this says…


Hoping for a heist at the gas pumps

thestar.com / John Barber  / Jan 25 2015


Clawing back just a few of the many cents per litre the price of gas has dropped recently would set provincial (A:  … this is for Ontario.) finances on a whole new course while still allowing drivers to benefit from historically low prices, writes John Barber.


What could be dreary about a month that brings a fresh jolt of pleasure every time you pass a gas station? 


(A:  Then they give you the usual kind of happy, happy, happy stuff before they hit you, that it's time for government to get more money, to keep it afloat of course, so they can fix the roads and that, which never happens, etc. You all know, it's the same in the States and Britain and everywhere else across the world, the same cons are used.)


But that unexpected and unearned happiness makes this the perfect time for a significant and long-overdue hike in provincial fuel taxes. (A:  Oh, it's overdue? Really?)  Clawing back just a few of the many cents per litre the price of gas has dropped in recent months — even recent weeks — would set provincial finances on a whole new course while still allowing drivers to benefit from historically low prices. 


(A:  Whether it's local, provincial, in the US it's state, or federal taxes, but very little of any of it will ever go to the reasons that they're supposed to. That's why we're in the mess we're in. And they've always got new projects on the go all the time, and there's a lot of money, through the corruption, that just goes missing all the time too, folks.  But we're always given some fairytale story, because we like fairytale stories, you see, we feel safer about it, that it's to help us all that they put more taxes on. Because I mean, government always needs more taxes, doesn't it?  You know, their wages keep increasing, and they have to keep up with the cost of living, up at the top.)


Last summer we were paying $1.25 a litre or more.  (A:  I think it was more, way more, up here.)  Today we’re paying 82 cents. With a stiff new tax hike, we might be paying as much as 87 cents. (A:  Up here it's about 97 cent to a dollar, where I live here, and this is still Ontario.)   Could any tax grab be more painless — or potentially beneficial — than that?  (A:  So that's how they word it to the average Joe…  Ah so, what's a few cents? )


And then again, another article from the Globe and Mail. Because this is how they use it. Remember, never let a good crisis go to waste, get your agenda through.


A provincial patchwork is the worst way to tax carbon

theglobeandmail.com / DAVID MCLAUGHLIN / Jan. 27 2015


Canadian climate change policy is characterized by inadequacy at the federal level and fragmentation at the provincial level.


Now, two major recent Liberal announcements will exacerbate both these problems.


First, Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne announced her government would implement a provincial carbon pricing policy. Then, federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau (A:  He's trying to become what his dad was.) stated that it was up to provincial governments to implement carbon pricing policy, not the federal government. As prime minister, he would “co-ordinate” provincial actions rather than formulate his own.


(A:  So it's not a matter of, should they even do it? It's either going to be federal OR provincial, you see. That's how they do these little fake, you know, arguments.)


The politics of this are plain. Mr. Trudeau has deftly but significantly undercut his own previous declarations on carbon pricing in an attempt to shield himself from Conservative party attacks. . .  (A:  Than they go into the usual nonsense about politics. This is a done deal, folks. It's been… We signed agreements year after year for donkey's years, and a donkey's life is a long time, and donkeys years are, oh, awfully long. They keep signing us deeper and deeper; we're committed to it.  You never got a vote on any of it, and you never will. That's democracy, you see.)


The policy ramifications are also plain. It is the provinces that are filling the federal policy vacuum on climate change with all its attendant economic and environmental consequences. Ontario will join British Columbia, Quebec, and Alberta with some form of carbon pricing policy (likely cap-and-trade) touching an increasingly vast swath of economic activity. 


It would even be your standard of living activity, right down to can heat yourself or not, and what with. So that's how they introduced this kind of nonsense, they try and make it as though, well it's just going to be the corporations that will start trading more and more carbon credits to each other, etc. etc.    And then the Guardian says…


10 signs the stars are aligning for a climate deal in Paris

theguardian.com / Adam Vaughan / 21 January 2015


Following Al Gore and Pharrell Williams’ Live Earth 2015 announcement, we round up nine other reasons to feel happy ahead of crunch climate talks in Paris in December. 


So it's all, it's a done deal. It's a done deal, folks, as you’re brought into austerity. It's not just to take money off you, it's going to decide how much you're left with.  And what you're going to be left with is pretty well zilch once your bare essentials are paid. That's what I'm talking about. I kept saying, you're going to get put into austerity. How do you think they're going to do it? All this was also discussed at the World Economic Forum, where it's thousands of dollars for a ticket, of course, as they keep all the general population out, because they’re so Democratic.  But all the NGOs are funded, again, they're just fronts for the big international corporations that run the foundations that pay them, you see, they pay these NGOs to get their policies through, by demanding, just another lobby group really, the governments do what they're told, by the private corporations.


And then this one here [Alan chuckles.]  This guy just, ha, he just can’t fad off into the sunset. It's Prince Charles of course and it says…


Prince Charles:

global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for Earth

theguardian.com / Fiona Harvey / 26 January 2015


A new global pact on climate change, due to be signed this year in Paris, should be a “Magna Carta for the Earth” (A:  See, it's not just for little old you.), Prince Charles has urged. 


He said this year marked potentially the “last chance” to save the world from the perils of global warming (A:  I can remember when he said we had months to do it, a few years back, it was only months then that we would all die.  But here we are.  You know, lies don't matter, they can always regurgitate them, especially when you're someone like Charles who has no imagination.), with the Paris conference and the United Nations’ plan to replace the millennium development goals with a new set of sustainable development targets.  (A:  …as they keep upping the quota.)   “We simply cannot let this opportunity go to waste.”  (A:  Never ever forget that term. That's from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs which is their parent organization, all private clubs by the way, that help run the world, and they run the government, and they put their own members into politics all the time, and they vet anybody who runs for politics, to make sure that it's always one of their guys in, regardless of the party. And you vote because you think you're Democratic.)


He told a meeting of forestry and climate experts in London: “In the 800th anniversary year of the Magna Carta, perhaps this year’s agreement of the new sustainable development goals and a new climate agreement in Paris should be seen as a new Magna Carta for the Earth, and humanity’s relationship with it.”


But he warned of difficulties ahead as the negotiations build up: “[This is] an absolutely crucial opportunity, if not the last chance before we end up in an irreversible situation, for the international community to establish a new set of interlocking, coherent and ambitious frameworks governing human development, poverty (A:  He doesn't give a damn about poverty. His folk have been living off the public for, phew, generations… hundreds of years.), disaster risk reduction, the natural environment and climate change(A:  …you know, the weather that is always changing.)  We could, and should, see an agenda set for the coming decades that is capable of transforming the prospects for humanity by improving and nurturing the state of the planet upon which we all depend.”


His insistence that 2015 will be a make-or-break year for the climate, and environmental sustainability, were echoed by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and now the UN’s special envoy for climate change. . .


…jobs for the boys and girls, eh.  They just go on and on, eh, from one little international job to the next. We’ll make you the President of Ireland, and then we'll put you up at the United Nations for the planet.  And you know, that's how it goes, folks. These people are little pawns in the game, the yes men, paid awfully well to get their Master's voice put into words in bills and action and law.  And that's democracy.  That's democracy in action.


And you have to think about it too, that the Club of Rome writes... That's another division of the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations, you know, a big massive think tank designed also to change the policies and cultures of the people by introducing indoctrination in different areas, into the schools, to add to all the other indoctrination's that you're given.  But they did say that, there were too many conflicting sides and groups and parties. Well, they make sure of that you see, because they are all [Alan chuckles.] given all their groups are paid by big foundations, that's where they get the big massive paychecks from.  So they don't believe in democracy anyway.


Everything is privately owned that rules our lives. And we have pretty well no say in it at all.  None at all. The only say we'll have shortly is, how do you want to freeze to death.  Because you'll say, well I've got to use wood to heat. Oh you can't anymore, it's a law. And you say, well I can afford the oil. Well it's not our fault sir, you know there are alternative fuels. And then you go back into this loop again, well I can't afford the alternative fuels. You go back into a constant loop, you see, where they're not saying you've got to die, but they know darn well you do have to die.  You see, that's how it's done.


And you have been taught that humans are rational?  There are so many lying deceiving humans out there.  Most folk have a bit of it in them, maybe more so today than ever before.  And especially folk who are paid to force it upon you, they have to lie, because they never take responsibility for what they're going to cause.  And then you're in chaos, real chaos.  And it's a sad state of affairs, indeed.


But I've never seen anything sent out by governments saying, would you like to go along with this agenda or that agenda or this policy, and so on?   And if not, why not? And what are your criticisms of it?  Before anything goes any further and gets passed into laws.  You see, that would be democracy. But they can't even risk that because their excuses for what they do are so flimsy to start with they know they couldn't succeed.


Charles Galton Darwin said in his book The Next Million Years, that slavery has always existed in one form or another, it's all to do with how you perceive it, you see, and he says, we're now in the process of creating a more sophisticated form of slavery.  And that was back in the 1950s that he wrote that book. He was already part of that the global futurist organizations planning, with the big movers and shakers, the future, and the cultures, and the changes for the world, along with many other well-known figures. And they were not kidding, folks. You don't pay people millions of pounds for an individual salary to put jokes out to the public.


Well, I hope you're climate change is treating you better than mine. Mine is just, oh, as I say the Fahrenheit scale that most of the US uses, I'm hitting 30 below quite often at night here.  And I check the major media for the area, including the federal weather report stations and so on, and I’m telling you, they are under-reporting every night by 10 to 16°. Every night. Because it doesn't look good when you're globally freezing, and yet they’re telling you, you open the papers the next day, you're actually warming.  We live in a zoo, a manufactured zoo of Machiavellian proportions and beyond.  And beyond, because everything is now deception, said by very straight faces, by well-paid "experts". 


I hope you hang in there and you keep your sanity. Don't fall for anything. Don't go nuts.  And don't be terrified to death, just be aware of things. As I say, you've got lots to think about.  And especially if you're young, it's probably time to look elsewhere in the world to live, that might have a few years left before the big boys decide they want something in that country and take it over.  Snatch the few years of happiness you might be able to get. 


From Hamish and myself in Ontario Canada, it's good night and may your God or your gods go with you.


Topics of show covered in following links:

B.C. citizens should be wary of new anti-terrorism laws, officials say

Canada’s anti-terror bill needs to balance religious expression and inciting terror, Kenney says

Canadian Government Continues to Expand State Powers While Leaving Privacy by the Wayside

Canadians support increased security powers, poll suggests

New security bill aimed at combating 'lone wolf' attacks coming this week

IBIA and SIA Declare Support For New Biometric Exit Provisions

Biometric time and attendance solution concerns Air Canada workers

Hoping for a heist at the gas pumps

A provincial patchwork is the worst way to tax carbon

10 signs the stars are aligning for a climate deal in Paris

Prince Charles: global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for Earth