May 4, 2025 "Cutting Through the Matrix" with Alan Watt --- Redux (Educational Talk From the Past): "The System is Babylon, Still in Control, Disguised by Time, Hell-on-Earth the Goal"
01:46:01 Share

This is Melissa and today is the 4th of May 2025. I hope that you're all doing well. A couple of things real quickly. If you see this on a video channel, you're just going to get literally half a dozen images to illustrate it and apologies for that, but

I don't have time. I do like surprises, or I should say I'm not opposed to them. And I had one yesterday when my cousin, a cousin from Florida, just arrived. She had been talking about coming out for a week or so to help me with my aunt's project, kind of wind that down and

and then she couldn't get time off from work and she was going to let me know if and when she could come and she just arrived yesterday. So I am just shifting everything around so that I can really give this project a big push and we recorded this morning on the book club covering Waiting for the Miracle and I'll get that up when I can but I think for the next week

I probably won't be at my desk much because I got up early this morning before we did the book club and I kind of made a punch list, you know, room by room at Betty's, what remains to be done, what needs to be moved where, thrown out, etc. And then I made a copy of that for my cousin. So we're off and running and we've already been in the garage for several hours this afternoon.

But I did have things on my mind all week before the surprise arrived, and I wanted to just share a few things and then give you the redux. I kept trying to come up with what I wanted to play today for you, but my mind returned over and over to the redux that I chose last week, which I thought would be the first hour. It was about the first hour and a half of

a four-hour plus talk that Alan gave November 22, 2020, Hidden Masters Bring Disasters. And it was an excellent talk, and I appreciated, I needed to hear what Alan had to say about who is behind this agenda. Secrets, the owl who sees in the night and knows what's going on, and

What do we see when we're looking at a psychopath and possession? What is that? How do we recognize the inhuman qualities in other people? Because that really is what it is. It's these qualities that are so repetitive in these types of people. And this is, you know, your family that may...

possess these qualities or politicians who feel your pain, they are psychopaths. And we can say that, we can say that until the word means nothing and tells us nothing. But it is, it isn't human. It is inhuman and it is inhumane. And so what I thought I would do is maybe leap ahead and pull out some other sections of that talk and

But I kept returning to the first hour and a half I gave you. I just, I needed to hear it a couple more times. I needed, I need to hear it a couple more times from Alan because it was, he just gave a really strong talk and I was benefiting from it. And ultimately I couldn't find what section to go to next. And so since my mind was on the book club and covering Waiting for the Miracle, I

and Laura and I did create this syllabus which has a lot of nice extras of all sorts including Alan Watts talks. I listened to the talks that were a few of the talks that were on this syllabus and I finally settled on playing this one for you again which is from May 6, 2018.

And the title was The System is Babylon, Still in Control, Disguised by Time, Hell on Earth, The Goal. And it is a good talk. The reason why it made the syllabus is because in Waiting for the Miracle, Alan is giving us a system. How does the system work? What are the techniques of this ancient system? And how old is it?

And this talk touched on Sumer, how old is man? How old is the system of control? How do we know that? But it's a good talk in a lot of other ways. Now, I'll tell you straight up that I may have to cut a few offensive words out because the year is 2018 and Alan is talking about

how they might depopulate. I'll let you figure that one out. What they might do and what would the delivery vector be? And, you know, I laugh ruefully, but it isn't funny because we saw it. We did see it in action. We lived through it and many of us might have suffered from

losses and of one kind or another during this exercise so the I won't I'll just leave you with the talk and I won't highlight much of it for you and like I said I will be spending pretty much all of my time for the next week with my cousin helping and I have to say you know she's

um she's the the alpha can do female and the two of us together will do can do will do and i think we can get a lot done and so this is good because it needs to be brought to a close in as much as that is possible so again the talk is from may 6 2018 the system is babylon still in control disguised by time hell on earth the goal

Babylon. And I happened to scroll down and highlight on the link, and I saw that it was his blurb number. This is the truth. 1666. And I thought, how fitting that is in talking about Babylon and hell on earth, that it be blurb number 1666.

So there's so much in there, how sustainability and smart cities are used. How does that come into being? How is it kind of snuck in there? And I watched, I didn't watch the Pope's funeral.

But I watched the first list of possible cardinals that might be considered for the job. And I also saw some pictures of all of the different heads of state who attended Pope Francis's funeral. And I was just thinking of, you know, oh, he was called a real pastor and how he visited the prisons and so forth. But when I think of him, I always think of some of the really important

important agenda work that he was able to get done, the bringing together of different sustainability and climate change experts for panels. He brought over Jeffrey Sachs as his climate expert for the Vatican Summit on Sustainability. And Jeffrey Sachs

was the director of the Earth Institute. He was involved in different things like the UN's Sustainable Development Network or whatever that was called, but he was appointed by the UN to be an SDG, and that's a Sustainable Development Goal Advocate. He had a similar role

advisory capacity on the earlier millennium development goals and so he's in there on the whole sustainable development well I'll leave it to you to supply the the words there but that well con I guess is a short way of saying it and the pope had him there you know the pope the pope

One headline that I saw after he passed away was that he had been he had converted to sustainability. And indeed, he went a long way towards promoting that agenda. But when I saw Trump at the funeral and and Macron and all the different, you know, former President Biden at

all of the heads of state there to show their respect. You're looking at the funeral of another head of state. And this is something that we're going to be covering a lot over the next few months is how religions work with the state to promote an agenda.

And I saw the short list of cardinals who were being proposed as possible replacements. And I thought when I saw Cardinal Pizzabala, you know, they mock us. The Cardinal Pizzabala, who was the bishop or cardinal or whatever his role was there of Jerusalem, and one who...

you know, has advocated for peace, but has he? And I don't think he's on the really short list, but there you go. Pizzabala, he could be the next Pope. It's possible. And speaking of the Middle East, it just goes on and on and on. And that is part of the technique of how they'd like us to not care about anything.

Because what can you do? And, oh, look how long it's been this way in the Middle East. And, you know, sure enough, we're well over a year and a half since this October event in Israel, Gaza, and on and on it goes. There's short-lived ceasefire, surprise, surprise. And it's the same horrific human tragedy happening

where you're shown starving children who don't have aid coming to them, and the Israeli government saying, you know, we're doing everything we can, but Hamas won't release these hostages, and it's their fault. And Hamas is saying, we want to sign this peace agreement, but we also want the Israeli troops out of there. We, you know...

We're not going to free any more hostages until Israel says that this war is totally over and they withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. And we know that's not going to happen. And, you know, you've got Trump over there saying, well, I don't know, was he going to build a hotel and casino there? So there's such an element of ugliness. It's not human. It's just so ugly and

when most everything is proposed by everyone. And it's the ability, I think, to look at that and to see it for what it is and to ask some questions about what that ugliness might be, that it isn't human, that you would not allow that.

to starve, if you could do something about it, you would not support that. And yet there are, there's our tax dollars at work supporting this, this evil. And, um, you know, the one thing about my alpha female cousin, she's, you know, very, she's very normal, very normal. And, um, meaning, um,

you know, it's all real as presented. And she's got lots of opinions about it. And one of her opinions is, you know, Trump should not have withdrawn funding for USAID. And I'm not really political, but I did point out that USAID has, you know, it's pretty much an admitted arm of the CIA and has been forever. And, you know,

She said, but the churches don't get the money they need, et cetera, et cetera. And I, you know, I'm like, well, what, what business really do churches have answering to or reporting to even, you know, supposedly innocently to, you know, being debriefed by the CIA. This came out in the church committee reports back in the seventies. I mean,

It was George Bush Sr. when he was in the CIA who said, well, okay, we're not going to be using missionaries as spies. He may not have used the word spies, but we're not going to debrief and talk to missionaries anymore. But, you know, my cousin didn't have a problem with that. And, you know, I didn't want to get involved.

heated about it, right? Because she was pretty entrenched in it. But I did, you know, she said, well, we're bringing democracy and what chance do they have against the strongmen and the dictators and the blah, blah, blah. But no, no fact really matters. You know, I did point out, you know, not, not in Africa, not in this situation with USAID, but I did give her some very specific particulars about, you

the CIA's involvement in toppling democratically elected presidents. And she had some awareness of this or that, but still, you know, we're bringing democracy. So, you know, she has, she's really, she really believes that that's what we're doing. We're bringing democracy and it's okay for churches also to be working in that capacity. So, you know, what, what can you do that this is,

This is what Alan has touched on so many times in talks is that we have to ask all of these questions. One that I've replayed recently, he was talking about if you have a conscientious objective and maybe they end up even being put out on the battlefield in the line of fire, you know, rescuing soldiers.

fallen soldiers who've been injured. And, you know, in other words, they're really at risk. So there's no lack of bravery there. There's no cowardice involved in their decision. Their decision was a moral objection to the war. And he said, so you can count them out as psychopaths because they have stood by their conviction. But

When you've got people volunteering for this, the questions have to be asked about the state of mind of someone who has justified that. Where was their head at the time that they did this? And so there's a disconnect there, you know, in talking to normal people because I was with my cousin and my aunt. We had grabbed a bite for lunch in the midst of our work and I, you know,

It's just interesting to hear the justifications that are given. Well, we're doing the best that we can. We're bringing them democracy. We're giving them a different way. And, you know, she said, well, then what is the solution? And I said, well, it just it can't be political. It can't be.

If churches want to be down there, they have to be down there without government support, and they're not willing to do that. We touched on that. I don't remember now if it was a Redux or a book club, but the whole 501c3 thing, where churches are just funded to the eyeballs with government money, and you think that they're not going to...

push a government agenda? Of course they are. I mean, it would be ludicrous to think that they weren't. So that's what I see. I mean, that's part of what I see when I see heads of state paying their respect to the Pope.

And I had just covered the faith department and Paula White Cane, you know, so, you know, we don't let the Protestants off the hook here. You know, what we're seeing is the ancient, ancient system that Alan, you know, tried to describe in many, many ways over many years to us.

that the military and government and churches religion your religious leaders they work hand and glove together and i i just that's very it's very evident to me so it will be interesting when the smoke goes up at the vatican who who they've got who they're trotting out and

how he will be furthering some aspect of the agenda because indeed he will and just something else that popped up this week was somebody talking about trump's sovereign wealth fund and of course the way it was spun it was kind of hyperbole you know everybody is going to get a million dollars if they know how to invest and where to invest and when to invest and so forth and

I kind of, you know, as I said, as you know, I have had my focus elsewhere away from my desk. And so I wasn't aware that in February, Trump had proposed this sovereign wealth fund. And indeed, some congressman or senator somewhere, I think she has gone ahead and put this bill forward. But

Here's something from Forbes in February. Trump's sovereign wealth fund will be a disaster. Just ask Malaysia. After decades of Washington telling Asia to improve economic fundamentals, it's Asia's turn to worry the U.S. is trashing its own.

The dollar and U.S. Treasury securities are, after all, the circulatory system of global trade and finance, and no region is arguably more on the front lines of the ways Donald Trump is imperiling Washington's credit rating by making policy chaos and opacity great again.

So great, in fact, that five former Treasury secretaries, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Jacob Lew, and Janet Yellen, sounded the alarm in New York Times last week. Okay, well, I feel so much better, don't you? Knowing that the Treasury secretaries are upset about this and they've sounded an alarm. But it's just rubbish. Any way you look, it's rubbish. One great irony.

is that Rubin, Summers, and Geithner were neck deep in efforts to end the 1997 Asian crisis, one largely caused by crony capitalism run amok. Now Asia is watching Trump world appearing to retrofit many of the problems behind its meltdown into the U.S. economy. This might sound alarmist to some, yet as a Washington-based reporter back then,

I had a seat on many of the airplanes shuttling those would-be financial firefighters to and from Bangkok, Jakarta, and Seoul. Admittedly, officials at the Treasury, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank made plenty of errors. You think? Were those errors?

Demands for fiscal austerity and higher interest rates as economies crashed didn't age well. It's mind-boggling, though, to watch Trump 2.0 and peril institutions needed to safeguard America's leading economic role and maintain the dollar's reserve currency status. Rapidly, too, as Republicans controlling Congress look the other way and the courts struggle to keep up with a tsunami of Trump executive orders.

Pundits often compare the exploits of Trump, Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, and Vice President J.D. Vance to Vladimir Putin's Russia or Viktor Orban's Hungary. To me, lenses here in Asia are also worth looking through to make sense of where Trump 2.0 might be taking America.

Anyone who followed Asia's last 40 years understands that handing greater power to politically connected billionaires, empowering family dynasties, neutering anti-corruption efforts, attacking press freedom, villainizing the judiciary, and gaslighting investors who know better tends to end badly.

The Ferdinand Marcos Sr. era in the Philippines from 1965 to 1986 is an obvious case study. The father of the current president drove an economy destined to be the Japan of Southeast Asia off the road into authoritarianism and rampant corruption. Students of the Philippines last

five-plus decades will find familiar the ways that Trump 2.0 seems to view the U.S. government as an extension of the family business. The cautionary tale emanating from Manila is worth keeping an eye on as Trump tosses basic transparency and checks and balances to the curb. Increasingly, though, Trump is veering in Malaysia's direction with his plan to create a sovereign wealth fund.

Investors' PTSD is being triggered as Trump risks orchestrating his own One Malaysia Development Bearhard scandal, or Bearhard-like scandal. That episode shook Southeast Asia in 2015, landing then-Prime Minister Najib Razak in prison.

Back in 2009, Najib thought for some baffling reason that Malaysia needed another state investment scheme on top of Kazanah Nasional Berhad, the real sovereign wealth fund. Such entities are fairly common for resource-rich nations looking to, in theory, maximize the economic benefits. More than 90 countries have one.

Malaysia, for example, has enviable stores of bauxite aluminum, copper, gas, gold, hardwoods, iron, mercury, palm oil, tin, and other products. Yet one MDB was more of a Najib vanity project than an entity Malaysia needed. And wow, did it blow up on his United Malays National Organization party.

In 2015, the public learned billions of dollars were missing. That launched international probes into corruption, bribery, and money laundering from Singapore to New York to Zurich. It also put Goldman Sachs in global headlines for all the wrong reasons. Cash tied to 1MDB found its way into high-end art, real estate, super yachts, the jewelry box of model Miranda Kerr,

and the production budget of Leonardo DiCaprio's hit movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, among other unlikely places. To be sure, the 1MDB debacle isn't an ideal comparison to what Trump is envisioning, but there are echoes that are worth exploring as Trump veers down a path typically trafficked by developing nations with poor ratings on the global corruption tables.

No one can say if a Trump White House sovereign wealth fund would trigger a bull market in global investigations, but the motivations and mechanisms Trump has in mind are plenty troubling. Trump's fund, as far as anyone can tell, will be funded by debt and largely bet on domestic assets. This is important. Domestic assets. What are they? This would be a departure from how such funds typically work.

It could increase the budget deficit and a national debt careening toward $37 trillion. Now hardly seems the time to exacerbate America's imbalances and excesses, particularly since all too many sovereign wealth pools lead to cronyism.

The purpose they're supposed to serve, here, think Norway, is helping a nation invest embarrassment of riches from, say, vast oil exports that earn profits far and above and beyond what today's governments require. But funding one to fresh debt, when one of America's top exports is already government debt, boggles the mind.

So does Trump's suggestion that his fund could end up buying TikTok. Talk about state media. As Malaysia showed, a national fund that's more about power and vanity than reinvesting the proceeds of underground treasures is a recipe for disaster. Trump 2.0 has enough scandals in its hands. Why create another? Asia is rich with reminders that just because a president thinks he has the power to do something doesn't mean he should.

Now, the sovereign wealth fund idea that is being proposed here is very interesting. I'm going to post a couple of articles for you. One is from AmericanProgress.org, and I think that's kind of left-leaning from what I know of it.

But it's still good information there because they talk about Norway's fund. This is kind of held up as an exemplar. And then where would that fund come from? What are those national assets? So when we're talking about national assets here, what Trump seems to be talking about are assets.

Our national parks, our national lands, and other of our infrastructure could fund this, our infrastructure, if it draws on a resource. I was thinking, I wonder if that even could be water. And I was digging around. I missed it back in 2017 because this didn't happen.

But back in 2017, there was a big push to privatize a lot. Now, remember, PP3 or public-private partnership, this is not all. This isn't.

This doesn't really serve people generally. It serves cronies. It serves your buddies. But it does take something which was publicly held, maybe public wealth, public resources, public asset, in theory, you know, at least it's public, and it privatizes it. And Alan gave a big example often, which was Ontario Hydro.

Maurice Strong's involvement in that. Maurice, who was Rockefeller trained and went back and forth between different appointments in the Canadian government and the United Nations and then doing things like privatizing

um, Ontario Hydro. And when any told us, as Alan told us repeatedly, you know, oh, you're, you know, you're just going to be able to use your electricity all the time, you know, we're just going to have so much electricity, it'll be virtually free, and we have as much as you want, you know, to, I'm up there, and, you know, getting the mail, and there's, uh,

regularly come in from hydro, you know, saying, now, if you use your electricity between, um,

1 p.m and 3 p.m in the afternoon this is what your rate's going to be if you use it between you know 10 p.m and midnight you get this discount and you know i literally had it tacked up on the wall because i was thinking well what's the best time for me to um to have the lights on you know what's the not that we use that much electricity because

We did not have a washer or dryer or anything like that, but still you use it and still you get a bill. I mean, it's amazing how steep a bill could be for how little that you use. But this is the great privatization plan. So not a lot seemed to come out of that 2017 plan. You know, now the latest thing is that Trump is talking about privatizing the U.S. Postal Service. So

We shall see. We shall see. But the reason why I started thinking about water in the first place in terms of how might this wealth, you know, this sovereign wealth, how might that be funded and what could be at jeopardy and what might we not be, you know, being told. And I had noticed, as some of you might have noticed, that the villain,

Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum stepped down, resigned. And, you know, now there are allegations of corruption and abuse of money and privilege and position and so forth. And he had private massages in his room. I mean, it's like, really? That's because they all do this.

they all abuse the money and position. You know, he asked people on his staff to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, you know, I can think of a lot of reasons not to like that man. And, and to think he is, you know, a James Bond villain, but

Asking his employees to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize is just not the most villainous thing that he's done. But they're not going to talk about that, are they? So meanwhile, we've got this interim chairman here.

an Austrian businessman, um, with a, a weird eye and it's already been noted in the, you know, different alternative media sites, you know, sites that does every head of the world economic forum have to look like a villain, you know, a James Bond villain. And yes, evidently they do. So there's, he's got an eye thing and it's, all we know is it's fixable, but he lives with it. He doesn't, he hasn't fixed it and that's fine. I mean, it's,

but it does give them an odd look. So Peter Brabeck-Lettmath, I don't know how you say it, but Peter Brabeck-Lettmath, an Austrian businessman serving since 2025 as chairman ad interim of the World Economic Forum. He is the chairman emeritus, former chairman and CEO between the years 1997 and 2008 of the Nestle Group.

and a former chairman of Formula One group, and that's the formula racing and sports and so forth. So he was born in Villach, Germany into a Jewish family with its origins in Iserlohn-Lettmath in northwestern Germany. He studied economics at the University of World Trade, which is today Vienna University of Economics and Business.

Now, you can read up about him. He worked at Nestle. But he famously was featured in a 2005 documentary entitled We Feed the World. And while speaking on the subject of water, he said it's a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on that matter.

The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being, you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff, like any other. And like any other foodstuff, it should have a market value. He added...

Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water.

Following controversy on social media about these remarks, he stated that he does believe that water for basic hygiene and drinking is indeed a human right. So he backpedaled, and I think that backpedaling was fairly recently. I'll come back to that. But he went on to say that his remarks were intended to address overconsumption. So it's if you drink more than eight glasses a day, you're an overconsumer. Now, you've got to have that water registered on your smartphone, right?

And your smart meter in your house. So to address overconsumption by some while others suffered from lack of water and further that his remarks were taken out of context by the documentary. So I wonder if his gin and tonic water is going to fall into the category of overconsumption or his, um,

whiskey on the rocks. Is that overconsumption? I mean, ice is water too. That's beyond your basic hygiene and drinking need, right? Well, when I first saw that he was the interim chairman of the World Economic Forum and I first saw his comments about water and that it was extreme to say that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. His words, out of context or not, I...

This was covered in many mainstream papers, but now when you look it up, like two weeks later, it's all being debunked and fact-checked, and they're making sure to say, oh, it was taken out of context. Yeah.

I don't know. I saw it with my own eyes. Sadly, I didn't save those initial articles, but I saw it. I saw what he said and the documentaries out there. And, you know, he can backtrack and say that basic hygiene is OK, but we've got to make sure that people don't over consume water. So I wonder, does he live on a golf course?

It's his second home and a golf course in some arid climate in Arizona or, you know. See, these people are not really human. And it's not because they wear weird, you know, shape of things to come tunics like Klaus Schwab or have, you know, odd eye syndrome that I say that. They're not. There's something different.

missing in them that we call basic humanity and that's why we have to look at it so when the the people who get excited about trump's sovereign wealth fund and tell us why it's exciting because it's bullish for bitcoin and look you know um norway they had theirs um hooked up to

Bitcoin, they lost 40 billion last quarter, but that's not, you know, it's trillion, so it's okay. So I was investigating, you know, Norway's held up as this, you know, they have an amazing sovereign wealth fund. And to read some of this coverage on it, you would think that every Norwegian is a millionaire, but I know people who are Norwegian. I know people who live in Norway. And as far as I know, they're not millionaires.

So this is from Fortune magazine from last month. It says Norway's government is being pushed to rethink its illogical ethical ban on its 1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund investing in defense. So Norway is being criticized for

Because they're not spending enough money defending Europe. It says that the Norwegian sovereign fund worth 1.8 trillion designed to help Norway's government manage revenue from its oil and gas reserves is being urged to invest in weapon makers as the security environment in Europe becomes dour.

Norwich Bank Investment Management has steered clear of backing certain defense and weapon companies as they violate its ethical standards. So that's not okay. You know, if you're a sovereign nation with a sovereign wealth fund,

It's not okay to have ethical standards. The Oslo-based fund maintains a long list of roughly 250 companies it excludes from its investments, including defense giants like Boeing, Airbus, BAE Systems, and Lockheed Martin.

Other companies have been barred owing to corruption, manufacturing harmful products like tobacco, or causing environmental damage. However, as Europe enters a new era of fending for itself on all matters, including security, its two opposition political parties are urging the Norwegian government to reconsider its ban on such industries. We are currently facing the most serious security crisis since World War II.

"There is an urgent need for increased investment in the Western defense industry to safeguard our own security and that of our allies," Tina Bru, deputy leader of Norway's conservation party, told Fortune in an email. "It's illogical that Norway's pension fund is prohibited from investing in the same companies that the government procures from through the state budget."

Norge Bank's executive board, which currently consists of nine members, makes decisions on exclusions. The Norwegian sovereign fund, led by CEO Nikolai Tangent, is the world's largest of its kind and has overseen where Norway pours its investments over the last 27 years.

It has emphasized responsible investment when backing companies. The fund owns the equivalent of 1.5% of all shares in the world's listed companies, with holdings of nearly 9,000 of them. It posted a record 2020 for-profit of $222 billion thanks to the strong performance of tech stocks.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen characterized the security landscape in Europe as momentous and dangerous last month. Europe has witnessed a series of recent events that have put geopolitics and security front and center, whether that's Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or President Donald Trump's

signaling that the U.S. might not protect allies the same way it previously did. This has forced a rethink in the Norwegian government's hesitation to park money in the defense sector. It's hypocritical. We are a NATO member. We are very dependent on the security that the U.S. can give us. We buy equipment from the same companies, but we can't invest in them.

Faced with these shifts, Europe has proposed an 840 billion rearmament plan that will strengthen the continent's security and reduce its reliance on transatlantic favors. As the demand for defense grows, increasing production would be an extraordinary effort given the bare-bones stockpiles of today. An analysis by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel found might be brule.

If the rearmament plan were to be implemented, countries in the 27-member European Union, which Norway is not a part of, would have to ramp up defense spending to 1.5% of their GDP on average. Brew pointed out to Fortune that the restrictions on weapon investments are outdated, given that they were drafted in 2004 when the geopolitical landscape was very different. So...

It's, you know, it's interesting. There's so much more, I think, going on than tariffs and this whole theater that we're being given on a superficial level. And it's kind of hard right now to see the forest for the trees. So it will be interesting to see what comes of this

sovereign wealth fund. But, you know, if we, if there is something that we can do about it, I encourage people to think long and hard about the carrot of Bitcoin. And, you know, every, every sovereign American could be a millionaire because of this fund, but to really look at what public resource might be taken away and privatized in this whole process.

Well, like I say, just a few little illustrations on this one. And I will be scarce this following week. And I wish you all well. And I'll be checking in with you soon, at least on the weekend, if not in a little midweek update on one front or another. And I hope that you take care and keep your eyes open.

Hi folks, I'm Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through the Matrix on the 6th of May 2018. Quite the times we live in. Quite the times. I was talking to someone this week on the incredible amount of management we have over us. The general public have no idea at all what's going on with the multi-layered strata, really, of specialised departments and

Really forms of bureaucracies that are added on, tacked on, tacked on, tacked on. And a lot of them don't get elected, of course. They're, as you well know, they're actually farmed out to private organizations by government, to managers. This is a new form of governance, as they call it. And we're really well into it, you know, well into it. But the public, again, are kept running and not running and working, they're playing games.

And when they're playing, they're being indoctrinated. And when they're playing, they want to get zonked out too. They don't want you to think about all the nasty, nasty stuff that's going on in the world because it's too much, the way it's presented to them, especially because it's all perception management. You're given the perceptions you're supposed to have and how you're supposed to think about things and how you're supposed to see things. It's quite the system we live in, quite the system. But when you look at it all, it makes a lot of sense the way they do it.

on behalf of the controllers and owners, we're owned. We truly are owned. When you see the arrogance, that incredible arrogance that has come out of universities with the new courses in managing us all, from the eco this and eco that and sustainability this and sustainability that, it's just phenomenal, isn't it? They've all got to get jobs. And they get jobs through massive grants to the private organizations that manage us.

But as I say, people have been weaned out of democracy with, but still in the illusion that they have it because they're allowed to vote every four or five years. But in reality, it's your governance, the governance system is not democratic. It's not intended to be democratic. It's intended to have the appearance of democracy. The old Soviet system, remember Soviet system meant rule by council.

and these councils were appointed by the people at the top of the Soviet system naturally, but they had the appearance of almost voluntary panels you might say for unions or for different stratagem of working class people. Workers put it that way, this nonsense about it was for the workers as if it's a good con indeed the Soviet system because it wasn't, but nothing ever is, nothing really ever is.

Power and technique of governing billions of people across the world has never been lost. And since we've been here for an awful long time with this system we call civilization, and by that I really just mean that we have records of writing at the very least, because writing seems to have come in not to entertain yourselves and read good novels in ancient days, to chipping away in the cave there on your stone tablets,

And no, nothing to do with that at all. It was to do, if you look at Sumer, for instance, about record keeping, monetary record keeping especially. Law, the transference of property, the dividing of property, land property, and so on. Incredible system, so incredibly old. But along with it came governance. How do you govern the people? And naturally, those who had the education and those who had the time

to study how to con people, basically, how to manage the people. And it's an art in itself, a big art. Machiavelli wasn't the first person to come along with techniques of being awfully devious. I think from the beginning of time, this whole idea of governance has always been there. It's always been there. And so what you get, really, is a system where school is taught to the few.

And school comes from the Greek word, the old Greek term, for leisure. Because only those with leisure could learn anything. The rest of the people were toiling away or slaving away, literally slaving away at times. But the people who would end up governing the people and managing big businesses, the old corporations of their day, the big corporations,

to do with trade and so on they were taught how to manage the general public in a sense too that's what also philosophy old ancient philosophy was all about maybe even not so much ancient either by the way it's a substitute especially in a post-christian era today of how to manage people how people tick what life's about according always from a ruling class's point of view and how to manage the people and Plato was was more open about it

because he wrote about it in the Republic, basically. He put into it the questions that he and his own particular class at the time had been asking and throwing around amongst each other about governing the people, how to do it and so on. What do people want? How do you keep them happy? How do you even mislead them? And also, along with it comes the arrogance of trying to find a reason for being so arrogant. Ha, ha, ha.

Which is, of course, and this is the thing with Plato, he said, is it possible that we, the governors, basically, have lived before? Since we can understand the geometry very quickly, we pick it up very quickly, mathematics and so on. But these other people can't. So they rationalize it. Well, that's because we're superior in that case. Anything that makes you feel superior is a good technique for being really rotten to everybody else. That's never changed. Never changed.

But today, getting back to today, in an atheistic system of secular humanism and the humanistic philosophies, and along with it comes eugenics and everything else. You don't have the barriers which kept you from implementing real in-depth eugenics. They're gone now. They've gone completely. The moral barriers are gone.

because now the general population are pretty well the same. They're atheistic. They've been brought up and raised by television, where they get so much of their opinions from. And opinions, remember, to have a fully informed opinion, you'd have to have access to every possible piece of information on the subject. And you'd have to have an honest presentation, which I've never heard an honest presentation in my life on anything.

Because presentations are generally slanted in such a way by omission of others. It's like drugs, for instance, for medications. Such a massive scam goes on about it. And I've done the articles before, years ago, from the mainstream newspapers, from people who didn't give their names out, but they wrote a lot of the write-ups for the claim they did all the testing for a particular drug or whatever. And they fudged it all for big money.

And this is a common practice, of course. So you never get an honest presentation on anything, especially, especially when it comes from your own government. It won't happen. There's always mass... See, the agendas in government are always preset before the public even hear what they're on about. The agendas are set pretty well in stone. How do we get from the mass we've heard from sitting in this field to that field over yonder?

And then they work, and this is old technique, mind you. They work in tandem with other governments because they're all run by the same system. There's only one system here to do with, again, with the big banking powers. And underneath the banking comes, again, the ledger class that can do all the professions. They can work away at all the professions through good education. They already have the universities sewn up to make sure that their own selected people will get in to them.

And that's why you have varieties of various clubs, you might call them, which select who gets into the universities and the high levels and who doesn't. And who gets scholarships today too, especially in the US, it's very open about how it's run. You've had all the clues in your lifetime, although it's probably gone over your head. You're taught that anything that invalidates this whole idea of we're just stumbling along day by day and

people just come along get elected and start fixing things and working things out for you if you come up with a different version of that because again you've got to have access to all the information on any particular topic right then only then can you come to a really a really informed conclusion everything is slanted though some countries are so open up i i when i was a child i used to because my dad was into electronics

as a hobby. Not very good at it because he really didn't have the, you know, he just didn't have the basics. He sent off these kits for making radios and something would always go wrong when he's reading the diagrams and so on. But occasionally I would pick up an old one they'd been working on and got it going. And you could pick up shortwave, which was terrific at that time. But I listened to the BBC as well on the radio.

And there's a very obvious technique and format which BBC used. But it was like a system dictating to the public. The Bureau of blah, blah, blah, and the Department of blah, blah, blah has decided that blah, blah, blah. And the Ministry of Agriculture has decided that blah, blah, blah. It was like diktats to the public. But what got me was as time went on, the Soviets, Radio Moscow, began to sound exactly like the BBC.

The Supremes blah blah blah of the people have decided blah blah blah and the same thing departments of departments of departments of. And that format is even in China now. It's across the whole planet. And of course you could definitely see it with CBC Canada and Australia, Radio Australia and so on. Because see all information must be standardized. That's how you, it's going to form the opinions that your masters want you to have.

So you must all get the same information. No more, just the same information at the same time on the same topics to make sure you all have the same standardized opinion. And it works awfully well. When you've aimed at world domination a long time ago, and there's definitely a group, by the way, that's been here for an awful long time, with different strata of deceptions across the world, with the money ones at the top, since everything must run on this money system,

and this money system must go work in hand with the world bank in this day and age and the bank for international settlements that carl quigley talked about they'd be the arbiters across the whole planet for currency and the value of each nation's currency but also means you must have central banks to draw from which are all privately owned too by the same people across the whole planet and because everything runs on this money system and this money decides if you live die

or you get a good education, or you don't, or you get an incredibly good income, even if you're pretty dumb with a good education, and lots of folk are. Therefore, most folk want to get more money, and they'll do anything to get it. And that's where you come into this class idea. And it is true. I've listened to different classes, and I've got an ability to stand out of things and just observe and remember. And it's fascinating to me, always fascinating, to hear the different perspectives

opinions for different classes that they'll parrot. Guaranteed they'll parrot too. It's quite fascinating to see how it works and what those opinions are going to be on different topics. This is just me doing that, but then I did all the studies that the big boys do all the time on all of us. They've got all the universities in this day and age completely involved, using our tax money of course, to give them grants to study everything to do with humans. Everything.

sexual habits, all kinds of things, likes, dislikes, even passing fads that you're given from the top. What do you think about this passing fad? And come up with the percentages and all the rest of it and so on. And that's what George Orwell had, of course, in 1984 with the percentage game too. Every government in the world has this percentage department now, which is meant to make you bend one way or another. Well, most folk have decided, even 60% decide, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, therefore they won in a sense. So do you want to be on board with the winners? It's so simple a technique, but it actually works because humans are not quite logical like Bertrand Russell said. He knew this and he was one of the planners for the masters at the top. So getting back to what I'm saying, in the system, pretty well everybody wants to get up on the top as much money as they can. And because of that, those who rule the money

guaranteed to keep the same system going with him in the top even though as they change it for all those down below as it goes along the origin for instance of Freemasonry regardless of the rubbish they give you is very old and there's no doubt about it that in the Middle Ages we were given lots and lots of data about this organization the organization again was based on wealth and power at the top

It also had to bring in people from different strata of the classes and society to make it work more harmoniously without too many rebellions on different levels. So they gave you organizations. Rosicrucianism, for instance. And when they created the bigger system of Freemasonry from Rosicrucian, they adopted a degree into it of the Rosicrucian system. But you can definitely find it in the 1500s and 1600s. And the U.S.,

basically took, not by accident by the way, but it took the same agenda of the new Atlantis before it became the United States of America. And if you understand that, you'll understand the money system, the money people. You'll understand how it was to take over the world system and manage the whole world system of money, bring it all under its control. But the bulk of the population were always to be kept in the dark.

They were to be given a plausible but fake reality for themselves to believe in as to what their system was, but a secret elite would manage the system. And that's how things really are. And that's how they've always been since then. The old idea about John Dee, for instance, he brought too much disrepute upon himself and the clique that he was in with.

by what he did with the calling down of different spirits and so on. And he used Kabbalah. It was too well open and in the calling up of the dead and so on. It did not go well in a time when there's a Christian church on the go. Francis Bacon picked it up, still used Kabbalah, and he tried to camouflage a little bit, make it more palatable and intriguing, of course. A good story is always intriguing. And they came out with a more...

acceptable version, put it that way, for the people who become members of it down the road, right to this present day. And in London, of course, they already had the group in there, and they created the City of London, which is the banking centre, and it became the banking centre for the whole planet at one point. After it was getting used and used and used, they moved the centre of power, especially the gopher side of it, the army side of it,

Because weaponry gets more and more expensive. Britain had its sponge wrung out by two world wars. But they moved it to the US. And I think it was always meant to be that way. The US was set up to take over. And the US only has a few things to do today. Before it sells, it'll be wrung out too. And it must submerge into the world system that it forced upon everybody else. And it did force it.

The U.S. has never had peace, really, for any length of time. Even in peacetime, they've had many covert wars on the go. And most folk today are trained. We're trained that it's normal. There are people today who were born into the first big attack on the Middle East, after World War II, there is, the first big attack with Saddam Hussein going into Kuwait. And the reasons were quite clear at the time. It's in articles in major journals.

magazines about it before it all happened because he looked for permission to go in and stop the Kuwaitis from doing parallel drawing under the ground into Iraqi territory. That's what happened. I think, and some of the science magazines had diagrams showing you how it was done. And he thought he'd get permission to go in and stop it all. And he did go in and then they turned on him, of course.

because Kuwait really was set up, the oil fields in Kuwait were set up by the Bush family, for those who didn't know that. That was one of the first projects of the father, who also was the head of the CIA at one point. So you're dealing with strategies where most people think, here's the goal. We're short-term thinkers and very close view, you might say, projects. We can't understand things that will do this first, which will lead to this, which will lead to that, which will lead to this. That's exactly how the world is run.

Therefore, Saddam Hussein had to be taken out. And this went on for years. Now, there are people born about 1991, and all they've ever known is war against different places in the Middle East, which, again, revamped even further. Don't forget, it hadn't even stopped from about 1991 onwards, but it got revamped more so with 9-11 happening, you know, the Pearl Harbor event that the PNAC group talked about.

that they would need to happen and they got it and you find that literally a pretty well a generation has grown up thinking it's all quite normal i think it's quite normal especially since 9 11 that everything is monitored everything they do is monitored everything they say is monitored everything the email right or whatever is all monitored and kept i think it's all quite normal because they've grown up in it and that's how easy it is that's how easy it is to take rights away from the people

It's just too easy, isn't it? So incredibly easy. And they've always known this too, that people will do with less to eat, for instance, during wartime, like World War II, or I, for that matter. They did have rationing to an extent in World War I in Britain. Then they went straight into Great Depression. And then they went straight into World War II. And it wasn't until the 1950s that they got them off the ration cards. You're a malnourished generation there. And I remember reading on the air at the time,

an article from the Green Party leader in Britain who said if only we can have something like the Blitz in Britain where they'd obey government and they'd do with less and become like austerity, she's done with preaching austerity, and do with not expecting as much financially, with less money, less buying power for things, and just do what they were told. Obey, obey, obey. She thought this was great. If only I could bring it back in.

She's not unique. I hope folk never think, they never fall for the TV version of the decent people. I hope they don't. There's a duality pretty well in everybody. We all have our choices, don't we? And most folk will always take the choice that benefits them directly first and foremost, regardless of the expense of other people. And talking about so many different deceptions, all working together in strata,

with a whole long-term agenda to fulfill. And wars galore, always around the same area, you'll notice. Why is that? Unraveling what happens in the world. It's a simple detective story. And you have to find who the players are. What do they have in common? That's what detectives do on anything. That's what governments do all the time.

If they find there are people who are upset about things and sending in petitions and this and that and the other, what do they all have in common? What ethnic group are they from? What religious group are they from? What this, what that, what gender, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what they do. So why are you always over there in the Middle East? Money. A money system worldwide. A system talked about in the Middle Ages. A system that could create Freemasonry, bring...

a larger group in to help with it all, who will personally profit from it one way or another. They get privileges. And depending on the rank within masonry, and it's a rank system, you would get more privileges if you're higher up the rank, obviously. And yet it's forbidden for this group to discuss themselves what their so-called secrets are to the general public. And you accept that, don't you?

Yeah, everybody's got people and friends who have been or are masons or relatives pretty well. And there are generations you're going to find somebody. And some were working class people, mainly from World War I onwards. That's when they started bringing the working class in more so. Before that, it was strictly a pretty well professional type system. People who would govern the people. But you still need a bigger, bigger percentage of them.

Especially when you have so many wars to fight and plan, you see. And that's where we are today. 20 years ago, the group that took over America, who were very vocal about their intentions, a group that could take a whole nation and all its taxpayers and put them to war. It's a very powerful group indeed. And they knew they'd only have one run at it, one go. And they knew too that they'd have to come back in again. This is before they started at all.

They knew how long they'd last, pretty accurately. They didn't get it all done the first time. They had a whole list drafted up, and that's common knowledge what the list is. And the general, Clark, talked about it too. And I remember at the time, all that time ago, the countries they wanted to take out. And Saddam Hussein really had nothing to do with 9-11, remember. And they'd made that later. But it didn't matter. It was someone else's agenda. It wasn't what the people thought it was.

And other countries went all the way, all the way, all through all the rest of the countries, including Libya, and into Syria and finishing them off as well. Rather adamant about it. And we're still going through it again today. They knew they'd have to bring in someone else again, almost covertly, to get the public to back it. Because they would never vote in the PNAC group again. A group that can change its name when they want to, and they did, of course. But what a power, what a power to use nations.

their armies and their finances and their complete military setup to advance a goal that the public are basically ignorant of and how they can take 20 years 20 years to build up or actually to take over a whole movement of people in I can remember the Patriot movement in the US there are all kinds of stations which filled in all the different blanks to do with what the ordinary people thought America was about and it was

At one point, a kind of beacon on rights to the rest of the world. Regardless of, by that time, the governments didn't follow it, the laws and so on. But at least the people knew, and they would stand up and complain together and demand, which is an awful nuisance to governments. You don't get so much of it today, you notice. Again, because you're under a form of warfare-type scenario. Just like the Green Party member in Britain said, you'll put up with more and accept it. But that group way back then, with 9-11...

knew their time would be short. And they had a second plan to get someone else in way down the road under guys, deception guys. And how do you get a big, big backing? Well, you take over the natural movement of the people that really was across the whole country, of people with their rights and so on. Copy it. What you do is make a copy of it. That's what you do. And then you start...

After a while, start bending it a bit more, bending it a bit more, until you can take them in 180 degrees, all the followers, to their actually, they've actually changed positions of where they all were before without even knowing it. It's so slick. And they're used as a massive voting bloc. Not that the people had any chance of a decent vote in the first place with what's presented to them like last time by different parties. Because there's only one system. And it's Quigley's set.

speaking on behalf of the CFR, the Royal Institute for International Affairs. He said himself that the leaders and a few around the leaders are allowed competition of parties, but the agendas must be the same. They all belong to the same organisation. They all know it. Communism, for instance, had many front groups with wonderful sounding names and national sounding names like Federalist and, you know,

stacks and stacks of them see afar as another front organization not run by the Communists they're run by the folk around the Congress as well because one group run all sites and I've gone through the histories of how fascinated they were with all the different systems they were trying out at the time they were fascinated by the communist system they studied it because it showed you how to manage millions of people

and how to overcome difficulties in managing millions of people and making them really obedient and sacrificing for a belief. That's all incredibly well studied. And they also studied the Nazi system, another socialist system. Don't forget the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was a Soviet system, and the National Socialist Movement of Germany. Don't forget it. And what you're in today is

under this wonderful sounding well so the word social it means it means you're friendly doesn't it social i'm a social person i like mix i'm gregarious are you does that mean you've got to be gregarious to be social think about it but it's hard to fight against isn't it terminology is awfully important for brainwashing and deceiving the people you're living in an incredibly well-organized total system

where you've never had a time where so much propaganda is inserted in novels for books, children's books as well. The entire school system with the teachers' toolkits on how to get everybody's brain wrapped around this central pole you want to give to them to believe in and how to bypass or overcome those who were resistant to the indoctrination. It's amazing.

But what's more amazing is that people don't even realize what's happened. It's sad, isn't it? Very, very sad how you can be deceived, that you can be used. I mentioned before about how the old Illuminati system, how it copied the Jesuit technique, confession of its own priests.

But the Jesuits did it in order to find the weak spots, to make them strong. Because we're going to send these guys off around the world into places where people would still eat you. So they have to be incredibly strong. And any weakness they had, it couldn't be a chink in the armor to bring them down. Whereas Weishaupt thought he would use a similar system, get the confession. Again, give the recruits, his recruits, another system to believe in and a cause to believe in.

which sounded awfully good really you know the brotherhood of man and all that stuff but in reality it'd be a world domination by a secret clique at the top and that's why it's been copied ever since and anyone who eventually clued in or being used could be blackmailed because they confessed so once again the the mirror image copy a system where the people really believe for the good of humanity they go out and help the poor

If you'd just stick all that stuff and give them a strength so they couldn't get a chink in the armour and collapse. Because if you collapsed, you could bring other ones down with you. But Weishaupt's technique was to use a managerial class, get the same thing going, threaten them if they decided to leave, for instance. You'll find the poets, for instance, Shelley, for instance, he was part of that later group too. He talked about it quite openly, how he believed he was a member of this organisation. At that time, they saw it as a revolutionary force.

You have so many statements from members or ex-members of different organisations, all umbrellaed under the same group, by the way. And they all have charitable works to help their own people, supposedly. And they also believe, even the lower orders, that they're somehow special. Even a few basic ideas that they'd never dreamt of on their own, left to themselves. And they now feel superior to everybody else who they're called the profane. Utter arrogance.

The same kind of arrogance, as I say, you find from professors, for instance. Professors who want to manage us, cull down the herd of humanity, who openly discuss it in some television stations in other countries, that they've got to start thinning out the herd and sterilizing compulsorily the general population. And there are humane ways of getting people, so they won't know they're being culled. You could put it in your food, you could put it in an oculator. Disgust. Bertrand Russell talked about it. He says, by use of the needle. Ha ha.

for instance, water. And yes, they do discuss these things. They do. And that hasn't changed. That hasn't stopped. Incredible arrogance. Today, and like last week too, I mentioned about the identity politics and difference, splitting off of all kinds of people, things that would keep people together, to stand up together. Now they're all in their own little compartments. I'm a this, I'm a that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And you really need, do you really need someone? And think about it.

who is a professor to tell you that a man is a man and a woman is a woman? Do you really need that? You better think about that too and think, why do you need that? Don't you trust yourself? If a man is XY, chromosomes, and a woman is XX, they'll be that way till they die. But we're in such an age that the more divisions you can create within society, and manage each division, by the way, then you can really stop people uniting to fight for their basic rights.

Without basic rights you have none at all. None whatsoever. And you must have the right of privacy for one. It's incredible how far it's gone taking away your privacy. Incredible. And open, so open today. They can do whatever they want with your information. Yahoo's come out with it now. Incredible. Everything you put out there that they can see is theirs. Everything. They can take it, use it as they wish and sell it to who they want to be. You have no comeback on any grounds whatsoever.

And you pay for this. But by the way, they're all going the same way. Most of them are already that way anyway. They just lie about it. Do you think Facebook's changed? Do you really think that? That's a good con, that one. That's a good con. There's nothing better than to put folk back to sleep when they're starting to see, is this all kosher, you know? There's nothing better than pretending a lot of inquiries have gone underway. And you've changed. Now,

how we're managed today, right? And you still think you're democratic. If you're democratic, then anything that should affect the general public, I don't care about all the different groups, all of you, right, should be put to the vote, like Switzerland does on major... They really do. How long they've got to continue like this, I don't know. It might be a long time yet. They are the Red Cross, remember. Here are some articles, for instance, to show you about this incredible...

behemoth of a strata, multilevel strata of new management all on top of us, all to manage us. And they call it management. They mean total mind management too, by the way. So we'll touch on some of them here tonight. I hate reading. I'm not going to read the news for you, the general news with the wars to come, because we all know it's set in stone. We know this. We've seen other ones get slaughtered.

Bomb to the Stone Age. You know this. So why repeat what the major media is going to tell you? Because they're all on board with it, obviously. Now here, I'm going to use Canada as an example because Canada is awfully avant-garde about it. About the management of everybody and everything. Completely on board with it. Don't forget too, Canada was signed on for world government before anybody else was. And we've had prime ministers in Canada said they're all for world government and giving up national sovereignty. So why do we bother voting for a nation in that case?

Anyway, Impact Canada Initiative is an example because you all have the same organizations working in your countries. It's global, remember. It was announced in Budget 2017, the Impact Canada Initiative. It's a whole, this is what they call it, it's a whole-off government hyphenated effort. Whole-off government. You don't understand what they're saying here. They're talking about the multistrategic layer that I just mentioned to you, about people management.

Effort that will help departments accelerate the adoption of outcomes-based funding approaches. Outcomes-based funding approaches to deliver meaningful results to Canadians. You understand how it's purposely vague as well. Except they're going to give lots of your tax money to all these other groups. I might mention some of them tonight. They're going to manage you, just like the Soviet system. This is a new super-Soviet, the way it's supposed to have been, but never got to in Russia.

and the states is the same they've got it working out too under sustainability and so on anyway it says outcomes based funding approaches represent a new way of managing grants your grants to give them massive grants these private organizations and contribution funding that shifts the traditional emphasis on process and outputs towards one where payments are tied to the achievement of measurable economic environmental and or social outcomes see so these are organizations private organizations getting massive funding

to change society on behalf of the masses, which means they already know where they're going to change you to. You know, way of thinking, living, and all the rest of it. A big article in itself, and everyone who belongs to these organisations will understand perfectly well what they're on about, but will be partly vague to the general public. Now here are some of the different subdivisions within this article here. Innovative funding and partnership approaches.

They even talk about laundering large-scale challenges to crowdsource out their solutions and pressing problems, getting the public to participate in something in other words that they haven't got a clue what it's all about. They think they will, just like the Illuminati did. The members all thought they knew, but they were getting used by a very powerful group at the top. But also they mention about how they've got the private sector involved, drawn together, government, private sector, philanthropic and non-profit sectors. Philanthropy, remember,

is an article to do i read that a few years back in fact to do with the cfr for instance and the big foundations and this is why you're seeing the rise of these what you what you think are self-made people which are and they're not at all the bill gates and the zuckerbergs and so on did participate in how you should live and how your life should be run and all the rest of it you don't vote these folk in but see i've slickly made it sort of almost normal that they're involved and they

they get in the world, whether people want it or not, and things like that. How come they're all on board in the same agenda? You set a magic number of income, and then you're a philanthropist, and then you're all on board with the same thing. Bring down the population, and you promote this and that and the other things. It's rather odd, isn't it? It must be like a religious experience when it all comes over them all of a sudden. I've got to help the people and make sure they all get...

food that's going to poison them etc. Impact measurement the team has worked with partners co-design co-develop evidence-based approaches to ensure improved program outcomes so there's even got specialized departments just making sure that how it all works how you can implement it and make it work and other ones that come along and study them to make sure that it works like this behavioural insights for instance they've got behavioural insights teams

And this team has extensive experience supporting the execution and delivery of experiments and projects incorporating behavioural insight methodologies. When you bring in new things into society, for instance, if they want you off the land, which of course under Agenda 21 they do, and Agenda 21 isn't out the window with 2030 and so on. 2030s are subdivisions of the implementation goals of Agenda 21.

The 21 is for the whole century. Things that must be put across and finished off in the one century. And they want you off the land. So how will the people behave about it? How would you put across to fool them and make them go along with it and convince them that they should really just give it all up, you know? Well, you bring in your special behavioural insights team. They have experience and studies on large and small scales, it says here.

experiments that have run before and the strategic application of behavioral science see to policy development in direct support of government of Canada's core mandate and commitments why doesn't the government come out and just tell the general population that pays their wages awfully good wages at that what their big goals are eh and that will be the day

The other initiatives that the IIU is working on include increasing recruitment of women into the Canadian Armed Forces etc. That again goes right along with Plato's idea of bringing in women into the forces too. And then you breed the male and female together to create an army, a constant army, an intergenerational army. Interesting that too. I'll put that up anyway. You have to read it for yourselves. It's really interesting. Really, really interesting.

And it says previously statement that the information you provide through the surveys and so on is collected under the authority of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act for the purpose of measuring the performance of Canada.ca and continually improving the website, that's their website and so on. But it doesn't really go into detail for the general public who are out with the picture. It's meant to be, you're meant to be out with the picture. They don't want the general public looking into their websites in Canada. Or it's meant to be so vague you would never catch on what they're up to.

Another one too is this article here. It's basically a message from the minister. It says to do with smart cities, the smart cities challenge. For those who don't know what it is, it's where you bring forth the Google and all the other Wi-Fi and internet systems together and manage all information on every single person 24 hours a day, no matter where they are within their smart cities. What heat they've got their heat turned to.

air conditioning perhaps how much artists have used that week on what nor yadda yadda yadda yeah total total management and you still think you are democracies what planet are you from so anyway and do they ask the people if they want this no and do big payoffs get made to even council members and stuff of course they do yeah big time so anyway i've got that article there about that two smart cities challenge overview

And again, the big massive grants getting given out your tax money. It ties in with the last article. It's a competition, Smart Cities Challenge. It's a competition owned to all municipalities, local or regional governments, and indigenous communities. By the way, they can win millions of dollars. They find ways to start implementing it in their own little areas. Not bad, eh?

What is a smart cities approach? What is it? Openness. When communities make their data truly accessible, that's all your data. Usable and barrier-free, their decision-making processes become transparent, empowering citizens and strengthening the relationship between residents and public organisations. Public organisations? Is that these little NGOs, the new Soviet systems? Of course it is, folks. That is the employment for the future for the psychopaths who are listening out there who want to jump on the bandwagon.

and become very wealthy. You won't get it in any, actually making and producing things anymore. This is where the big money is. Also, Hanoi studies Canada, Vietnam, because Canada is showing them how to develop a smart city development. Not good, eh? So we got a delegation over from Hanoi, and they visit Canada from April 18 to 20 to learn about the operation of people-elected agencies. People-elected agencies, there you go.

and development of smart cities in North American countries. Hmm, not bad eh? Canada's ahead of all these old communist countries. And then you have the area called, they say called Moncton taking part in the Smart Cities Challenge again. And it gives you ideas, incredible amount of money they're putting up there for tax money. Millions and millions and millions of dollars to really make sure they can bring on board those who have any say and sway over the general public in their own area.

is that called a payoff oshawa and ontario the next city to join bell's all-fiber broadband network is not no wonderful it's got 100 million dollars plus investment deliver world's best internet technology to approximately 60 000 residences and businesses now i'm going to tell you something right now through a stair here where i am you uh two or three years ago actually the polls went up new big polls for electricity and cable and the rest of it

and the big, big fiber optic cables that go all the way through this little village here, but they're not going to take any off for high-speed internet to the general population in this little area. Why? Because...

And I've read the articles from winners and losers in the coming New World Order, Jack's Italian, all these subsequent books as well. And he said that, that the winners would be those who get high-speed internet and so on, and those who are in the countryside and can't get it and can't afford high-speed because you've been paying hundreds of dollars a month to get even, say, 50 gigs in the country. And if you've got a family, they'll go through that rather quickly.

So nag, nag, nag, can we go to the city? There you go. Bang, Agenda 21. Anyway, here's an article that says the Bell's all-fibre broadband network. How wonderful it would be and how we're going to tie that in too to all the big smart cities too, etc., etc. Although Bell has the monopoly on everything in Canada and everything else is basically sold off and rented out to other companies. Also, Tesla's experiments with smart power grids. Again, they're doing it in Canada and Nova Scotia.

Some pilot projects will use Tesla's Powerwall 2 home batteries. It's amazing how we pay for setting up the factories to build all this stuff for these private individuals. And it's not a bad deal, being a big, big multi... Obviously, a very specially elected person at a very high level. There's a way that above what the public can... They can't even get near them, for instance, these people.

with their electric cars. It just happens to be, this is the agenda. Here's the front man to pretend it's all his. And here is your government money, your taxpayers' money to make their big businesses flourish. Quite something, eh? And the whole world's under this. South Australia, two Tesla partner on world's largest virtual power plant. Again, it's a virtual one too. I guess you may pay them in virtual money, maybe monopoly money or something. And then you have this article too, I-C-L-E-I.

Awfully important. I've mentioned this many times before in the past about how they all granted themselves on your local councils, even the smallest towns, and how they're managing you too. Awfully, awfully well, in fact, aren't they, really, as we bring in their whole system. And it really is the local governments for sustainability again, massive grants again.

Founded in 1990 as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. International Council? Do you vote for an International Council of People? No, you don't. So, it's an international organisation of local governments and national and regional local government organisations, private, private, private, you don't vote for them, that have made a commitment to sustainable development. Agenda 21. And they're on every board of every council across the country. And you don't elect them in.

But they're there. And they get paid now. Initially it was free. You know, they were voluntary, voluntary initially. We're do-gooders and we're here to help you. And now you've got all these different... To build even a small hut somewhere, you're going to need an environmental study and this, that and the other and impact studies, yadda, yadda, yadda, before you can do anything. And then wait for permission.

Another one too has become part of a national programme focused on resilience and adaptation, the Building Adaptive and Resilient Committees, BARC, a programme or a comprehensive way to respond to the impacts of climate change. Everything's mixed in together. And don't forget climate change, which has always been here from, I guess, the day the earth just popped out, whatever you want to call it, it could be. And here we all are. We've always had climate change.

But now it's all your fault for climate change. Apparently it was supposed to be static all the time, just bright sun, a nice 75 degrees and, you know, forever and ever and ever. But it doesn't seem that. So it must be all your fault. And you're going to pay for it dearly and go into austerity and do what you're told for the future, forever and ever. Amen. Because that's how it's planned.

So anyway, you have this BARC, so they give you an online tool, etc, etc. Why join? It says build internal capacity and work collaboratively. That's with all the Soviet systems. Prepare for more costly and extreme weather events. Oh, they'll make that happen since weather control is routine today. Collaborate with peers and other municipalities. But don't ever go to the public and tell them what you're up to or that you even exist.

and receive support of the ICLEI's proven adaptation frameworks, foster enhanced stakeholder engagement, and make informed decisions and improve resilience. I can't stand bureaucraties' speech. Can you? This is where we're all going. You have no say in this. So why bother voting, folks? Why bother even voting? And so, about changing climates and all the rest of it too, it stacks articles actually from ICLEI Canada.

And increasingly urban world cities and their surrounding regions have a growing influence on global patterns of production, consumption, innovation and technological development. At the same time, they're experiencing rapid change brought about by urbanization, climate change, shifting demographics and growing inequities that will continue to impact the urban environment. It's all your fault, you see.

What happens now in and around urban areas will define the course of global sustainable development this century. Collective action in the most pressing urban issues over time is critical. So there you go, you've got your hand into all these private organisations. It's a great, that strata and layers and layers of this that you have no idea even exist anymore, that did not exist a few years back.

Also, new charity child sex abuse scandal sparked after UN launches probe into 60-year-old former WHO and UNICEF official, naturally it's UNICEF, arrested after being found with two boys at his home in Nepal. I've read so many articles over the years of this kind of nonsense, it just makes you sick of it. So Peter Dalglish, I think he's from Canada of course, got caught with his two little boys and he's here to help you from the United Nations.

but got earth care thunder bay this is an interior again in partnership with lakehead university has launched a new climate change website and launched the website coincides with earth day which was sunday april 22nd i think everything works together you just tap must appear in your calendar and next thing you know you're the website's resource hub that brings together carefully slightly locally relevant information regarding climate change right so there you go all these supra

national organisations running us all. And we don't elect any of them. Bill Gates calls on the US to lead a fight against a pandemic that could kill 33 million people. No kidding, Bill, eh? Isn't that terrible? Isn't that scary, that stuff? Quite amazing. And then China, for its workers, you see, have got helmets that measure emotional state.

If you don't like your job and that, they'll notice it. There's a term brains for surveillance sound security. Well, some companies in China are hoping to make that potential nightmare into reality. This is this electric company, Hanzhou Zhongying. Electric is one of several companies equipping its laboratories with helmets that read the brain activity. The idea is that managers at these companies can see with cold hard data whether workers are stressed, happy, angry or sad and adjust the workflow accordingly. I think they can do it off your computer actually.

I'm sure it can sense a lot of things off you too. I really can. I really believe that they could do that. Of course, they could always say that it wasn't intentional and they would just give a certain frequency out, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm sure everything always sounds plausible, doesn't it? Also, I put up also GIRFEC, the organisation that runs Scotland and everybody's families in Scotland. Scotland is so much of a testbed for all this total Sovietised eugenics system.

And they've got a petition in there to actually complain about the effect it's had on the public appointing, when the government appoints agents for every child that's born, who must get into the home every so often, assess everything, to make sure the child's got the proper opinions growing up on different things that you're supposed to have. And they could always readjust your brain if you don't have them. It's this incredible totalitarianism. It truly is. It truly is.

So I'll put a couple of articles on that up as well. And I'm sorry for rushing through this last part, but it's important that we do this because we really, really are in a massive totalitarian system. We really honestly are. And I hate to say it, for myself, Alan Watt from Ontario, Canada, it's good night. I mean, your God or your God's going with you. ♪