Zeitgeist Deception - Producer no longer feels 9/11 was an inside job

[trailhound]

ou need to recognise that with collapse, comes their loss of control.

 I wish that was true unfortunately they got high technology that will turn your head into your asshole. I think they will probably maintain control for awhile.

[White Rose Sophie]

Jackson:
Brenton:
I'm sorry ... not following you.

War is ALWAYS engineered by elite families for their own aggrandizement and to further their agendas of control across generations.

 ... but I am glad that the Z PEOPLE have figured out how to do away with war by giving everybody everything. Why didn't I think of that?

I'm still waiting to find out if I get dibs on Hampton Court if I sign up.

And he still hasn't addressed if Rockefeller/Rothschild et al are going to pony up their resources in the big 'pot' for everyone. 

Who holds all these 'world resources' that will be distributed to anyone who wants them?  And why do I somehow doubt they give them up so easily? 

Ah, the idealism of youth.      Or of brainwashing. 

[BrentonEccles]

I wish that was true unfortunately they got high technology that will turn your head into your asshole. I think they will probably maintain control for awhile.

Only for as long as we allow it. You see, there's something I think perhaps you're not picking up on. We acknowledge that this change is something very ambitious. It'll literally have to be, in Joseph's words, the "largest mass-movement for social change the world has ever seen." We need to have numbers to the point that it doesn't matter where a protest is on this planet, we'll have members there. We need to grow to the point that we can push for an end to the monetary system on an organised and tangible global scale.

I'm still waiting to find out if I get dibs on Hampton Court if I sign up.

And he still hasn't addressed if Rockefeller/Rothschild et al are going to pony up their resources in the big 'pot' for everyone. 

Who holds all these 'world resources' that will be distributed to anyone who wants them?  And why do I somehow doubt they give them up so easily? 

Ah, the idealism of youth.       Or of brainwashing. 

Hampton Court is a symbol of power, and only affecting upon the symbol-minded. A symbol-minded person is overpowered by a symbol. There is no true "wealth" or "power" in his property anymore than there is in any other -- just that you associate his power/wealth and all that as something "powerful."
When power and control is lost. When the monetary system is recognised and understood as inherently obsolete, they wont control the resources anymore. It is the social structures that allows for them to do that, and put their resources to their name/as belonging to them. They don't -literally- own them, they're just rationing them themselves ... and in scarcity that implies ownership.
If they have institutions that aren't working, which allows them to cling to their resources, they wont be able to "hold onto" them anymore.

I'd like to thank you all for your discussion so far. I mean, you are all a little closed-minded (and I'll detail why), but thank-you all thus far.
Why do I call you closed-minded? Because some of you have instantly "jelled" on the idea that we are pushing for a dangerous New World Order, and there's no other possibility. I, on the other hand, AM open to the possibility that it COULD be a push for the Globalist-style New World Order but in face of an conditional analysis (evidence) I do not conclude that and here are some examples why:
-> The "NWO" is what we have and are heading into now, with corporations continually monopolising their domination of natural resources.
-> Technology would be used, in the "NWO", to control society in order to fortify and maintain the social structures which will only really benefit those in positions of control (differential advantage). Whereas, in a resource-based economy the only thing that would be monitored would be the environment not people.

So, what I'm saying is, you need to be open to the possibility that just because someone wants to apply the Scientific Method to society does not mean:
-> A system of control, output by high technology.
-> The dictates of scientists. No agenda of a scientist. Just application of the scientific method, which doesn't give a damn for agendas and opinions when applied correctly. This is where you need to recognise there is a pseudo-science and just mere applicable science.
-> One world religion. Just because we want people to unify in the sense of: "Okay, all our religions have common threads" does not mean that we want to absorb Islam, Christianity, Judaism and so forth into nothingness. Granted, it needs to lose it's materialism and basis in "the only right way" because this is a big cause of wars and destruction. Even further, recognising that religions have common threads doesn't mean saying that they are all absolutely exactly the same but rather looking at the common points in doctrine and tradition that they all share. For example all religions have memorials and shrines, and they all look different but at their core they serve exactly the same purposes.

[xTruthSeekerx]

cough cointel cough cough
excuse me i got a cold

[BrentonEccles]

cough cointel cough cough
excuse me i got a cold

Thanks for bumping. ;p

[xTruthSeekerx]

Thanks for bumping. ;p

bump i smell a rat a giant jack boot rat

[mr anderson]

cough cointel cough cough
excuse me i got a cold

I wouldn't say that...

The Venus project will collapse on it's own because nobody wants to live in a depopulated, cashless society with Artificial Intelligence doing the work we should be doing.

We are competitive by name and nature so the class structure-as unfair as it seems sometimes-will always remain whether it's a communist society or fascist society...they are merely two sides of the same coin.

And I can tell you as a person who loves technology and innovation...I'm not going to accept the day AI goes beyond a certain threshold of control. 

Toasters are toasters...not our guardians or masters.

[BrentonEccles]

I wouldn't say that...

The Venus project will collapse on it's own because nobody wants to live in a depopulated, cashless society with Artificial Intelligence doing the work we should be doing.

We are competitive by name and nature so the class structure-as unfair as it seems sometimes-will always remain whether it's a communist society or fascist society...they are merely two sides of the same coin.

And I can tell you as a person who loves technology and innovation...I'm not going to accept the day AI goes beyond a certain threshold of control. 

Toasters are toasters...not our guardians or masters.

There is no good reason for humans to work boring monotonous jobs, period.

And no, we aren't competitive by nature in the sense that you're trying to say we are.
Do some study on psychology, and if you have already, refresh it.

Toasters are toasters...not our guardians or masters.

We already assign decision making to machines. Do you know how fast your car is going? No, it tells you.
Do you know when someone is trying to contact you via telephone? No, your phone tells you?
Do you know how much 2kg of flour is by looking at it? No you use a measure.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i can end wars and poverty, i can help everybody all of the time, give everybody everything they want, all we gotta do is make me dictator with control over all the worlds resources, now just open your mind, cause dictators arent actually that bad, especially me, because i'll be working for the benefit of mankind.   

sarcasm aside, i wish to address one or two things that have been said that are deceptive.

first, is a free society, as prescribed by liberalism, also a planned society?

it depends on what you mean by planned...lets take the word "green" for instance, one could say "you look green" implying that they look sick, but they would not also mean they are green politically. i might paint my house green but that does not mean my house is sick.

it is apparent that a resource based economy would require central planning, in the sense of resources being allocated at a central level, that what is available to any given individual at any given time is planned in advance.

this is not true for a liberal society (and please i use liberal in the correct sense - ie not socialist etc). the central planning ive described above is not prevalent in a liberal society. yes people on an individual level would have to "plan" when they wanted to go to the park, and due to the "Rule of Law" that is essential in a free (liberal) society, people would know in advance of their rights in society, but as these things are not subject to arbitrary change by a central authority, central planning is still not involved, if we are to keep to correct usage of the term central planning, which i have underlined.

next, i would like to take a moment to address the language used in describing a resource based economy, which i think needs clarification. it is unfair, unwise, and misleading to simply use phrases like "when we have a resource based economy we will end poverty" or "people will be able to do whatever they want in a resource based economy", even the term "resource based economy" is vague and not specific, as though somehow we are able not only to know exact quantities at all times but as to know exactly how to use those resources and to know and satisfy all individual needs and wants at the same time. obviously you do not have much regard for the saying you cant help all of the people all of the time.

simply saying "yes i know youve heard it before but it will be different this time, because of technology" is either ignorant or callous, ive yet to hear how a "resource based economy" would be any different from the societies set forth in books like "brave new world" "1984" and in documents by the UN and other governments, the georgia guidestones, and indeed, every single instance of collectivist idealsim ever know before. i cant tell the difference, the only difference is you are saying its technology that will make it different, to which i take as an insult to my intelligence quite frankly.

ive no doubt things like "free" energy will be of benefit to mankind, but to say that will stop evil people from doing evil things is as i say insulting to me, its like saying "dont worry, i'll fight for you, you just have to give me all your power" which ties neatly back into my opening spat of sarcasm.

[BrentonEccles]

it is apparent that a resource based economy would require central planning

No, but the central application of high technology would be required.

it is unfair, unwise, and misleading to simply use phrases like "when we have a resource based economy we will end poverty"

Poverty is easily defined as the uneven distribution to access to the necessities of life. Those in poverty, are generally those with the highest level of limited access.

the term "resource based economy" is vague and not specific

It's only vague, really, if you take it as a word in itself and not a highly tangible concept.

ive yet to hear how a "resource based economy" would be any different from the societies set forth in books like "brave new world" "1984" and in documents by the UN and other governments, the georgia guidestones, and indeed, every single instance of collectivist idealsim ever know before.

Those people, especially in the example of Orwell's 1984, have no idea what technology is about or what it can accomplish. Using an example like 1984, I-Robot or anything else to discredit this direction is like using Harry Potter as evidence for wizardry. I've read a lot of Orwell's material, and he had no idea what the hell he was talking about. It's all "I think this is what would be best..." rather than any appeals to any knowledge at all. That's the problem with all these past systems, is that they were created by people with nothing more than a philosophy ... their view of the how the world "should" be. With no tangible train to pursue.

but to say that will stop evil people from doing evil things

I don't have a right to tell you to just unequivocally realise that there is no such thing as pure evil. I would say that it's okay to say there's evil action, and I'd call evil action any behaviour that is detrimental to the wellbeing of others. But the understandings we have today, for the point of this concept especially in regard to Psychology, is that humans are not hard-wired "good" or "evil" regardless of what you have been taught by tradition. We must prefer relevant knowledge above opinion.

all we gotta do is make me dictator with control over all the worlds resources

That's the problem with giving people control over things. They cannot adequately allocate things evenly, and therefore equal rights are nothing more than a concept. Technology doesn't have an opinion. A server balances it's load evenly, without an opinion -- it doesn't "chose" to allocate more resources to a website that has it's needs filled.

I'd really like to continue this conversation in the mature manner that it's slowly progressing toward. Perhaps we can get together some "terms of reference" to clearly define the directions and concepts we're both talking about, so as to make our conversation clearer?

[squarepusher]

Those people, especially in the example of Orwell's 1984, have no idea what technology is about or what it can accomplish. Using an example like 1984, I-Robot or anything else to discredit this direction is like using Harry Potter as evidence for wizardry. I've read a lot of Orwell's material, and he had no idea what the hell he was talking about. It's all "I think this is what would be best..." rather than any appeals to any knowledge at all. That's the problem with all these past systems, is that they were created by people with nothing more than a philosophy ... their view of the how the world "should" be. With no tangible train to pursue.

How naive you are. 'George Orwell had no idea what the hell he was talking about'. And you and Mr Peter Joseph do, I suppose?

George Orwell WORKED for British intelligence. He was at the BBC censoring and rewriting news reports - convincing the people that the junk they were feeding the British public was really better than the ordinary food they used to eat before World War II. That's what the 'Ministry Of Truth' was 'based' on.

You do know that EVERYTHING in 1984 was based on personal experience, right? He had to go to incredible lengths (after turning against the system) to get his books published.

I really think it is YOU that don't know what the hell he is talking about. You have just been provided some PR material from Peter Joseph, and are now doing the rounds on the 'patriot' forums convincing forumites to sign up for carousel-utopia.

I am willing to bet you have not read Jacques Ellul's books on 'technique' - you have not seen the exposes on the Soviet Union - you have not seen the technocrat publications.

Hence it is you that is really naive - I want to reiterate it again - you are FALLING for regurgitated material. This has all been done before - it was called the Soviet Union. You just don't want that to sink in - but it is the truth. And the reason you DON'T WANT that to sink in - is because

a: you have not read the material, and thus are not able to connect the dots
b: this is your surrogate religion. You have to believe blindly in this stuff, or else your pipe dream dematerializes and you will have to actually face reality and come up with something that isn't 'pie-in-the-sky' nonsense.

[squarepusher]

That's the problem with giving people control over things. They cannot adequately allocate things evenly, and therefore equal rights are nothing more than a concept. Technology doesn't have an opinion. A server balances it's load evenly, without an opinion -- it doesn't "chose" to allocate more resources to a website that has it's needs filled.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Watch out people - it's the 'Soviet Union' all over again.

Soon 'the plan' will become 'the plan', and taxi cab drivers will need to ride in circles to meet their mileage quotas. Police will have to round up people to meet their daily quotas.

This is called 'technique', my friend. What you are proposing here, is that 'technique' becomes the master of its host - this is old stuff.

Here's what i find amazing - all the stuff you're putting out here is EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS TALKED ABOUT. I MEAN, ONE-TO-ONE. Everything was subjected to 'scientific' technique in the Soviet Union - 'opinions' and 'individuality' were nasty, bad things that needed to be done away with by 'science'.

[mr anderson]

There is no good reason for humans to work boring monotonous jobs, period.

Who are you to decide or anyone else for that matter?

I'm already seeing machines replace checkout employees at the supermarket! And even then a person is employed to help people when they are too stupid to operate it.

So far 4 checkouts on average per store have been removed for four automatic checkouts.

Yeah buddy let's sacrifice jobs so they can rest their heals in the unemployment line.

Perhaps the Venus project has Soma? 

And no, we aren't competitive by nature in the sense that you're trying to say we are.

Do some study on psychology, and if you have already, refresh it.

And what sense am I trying to say we are competitive by nature?

We already assign decision making to machines. Do you know how fast your car is going? No, it tells you.
Do you know when someone is trying to contact you via telephone? No, your phone tells you?
Do you know how much 2kg of flour is by looking at it? No you use a measure.

...'machines would control government and industry and safeguard the planet’s fragile resources by means of an artificially intelligent “earthwide autonomic sensor system” — a super-brain of sorts connected to, yes, all human knowledge.' - Mr. Fresco

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=1

Do you want machines to control government and industry?

[squarepusher]

http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box

You need to watch this documentary, Brenton. Then go and connect the dots

The first episode is about the Soviet Union as a technocratic society. In the newly formed socialist nation, the burgeoisie-technicians of the pre-revolutionary Russia suddenly found themselves with free reign to explore their technical ambitions - plans which were mostly consigned to the drawing board under the Tsar. Initially, science was to be used to 'free' the masses and in turn develop them into scientific, rational beings. In order to accomplish this, Aleksei Gastev used social engineering, and even a social engineering machine, to re-educate people to behave in a rational way. This extended even to the music they played and listened to.

Eventually, the plan came to be the plan itself. Trains were kept on rolling even if there was nobody in them. Culture and fashion were regulated by a massive bureaucracy that attempted to balance needs with desires. It did this by combing through literally thousands / millions of data sources, including polls and enqueries. However, in one example, production could not keep up with the demand and need for platform shoes, and once in full supply, they were already out of fashion. Taxi drivers had to ride in circles to meet their daily mileage quotas.

What you are proposing - I'm sorry to say - it's old stuff. It has all been done before - probably by more able engineers than the lot assembled right now for the Venus Project. And it's absolute HELL. It's not supposed to work.

[squarepusher]

I don't have a right to tell you to just unequivocally realise that there is no such thing as pure evil. I would say that it's okay to say there's evil action, and I'd call evil action any behaviour that is detrimental to the wellbeing of others. But the understandings we have today, for the point of this concept especially in regard to Psychology, is that humans are not hard-wired "good" or "evil" regardless of what you have been taught by tradition. We must prefer relevant knowledge above opinion.

This is rich. Here is a technocrat with a 'new-age' philosophy - there's no 'good or bad' - just different conditioning. Why am I not surprised?

You are really a predictable lot - in fact, it's like you're not only regurgitating Marxism and Communism, but Peter Joseph in particular.

I guess the 'psychopath' does not exist too, right? The Stanley Milgram experiments had nothing to do with something 'innate' in the average person? It's all conditioning, right? It's all the environment, right? You know, the Lamarckists in the Soviet Union thought everything was down to environment too - as if everybody is a 'chameleon' that gets his colour from his environment. That kind of thinking was what led to the development of neurosciences and neuro-linguistical programming.

I guess I'd have a lot more respect for you if you were WILLING to acknowledge that most of the rhetoric you're using has a SOURCE as well - and it's called 'Communism'. And no pussy footing or making excuses about it - it's the same stuff.

[mr anderson]

This is rich. Here is a technocrat with a 'new-age' philosophy - there's no 'good or bad' - just different conditioning. Why am I not surprised?

You are really a predictable lot - in fact, it's like you're not only regurgitating Marxism and Communism, but Peter Joseph in particular.

I guess the 'psychopath' does not exist too, right? The Stanley Milgram experiments had nothing to do with something 'innate' in the average person? It's all conditioning, right? It's all the environment, right? You know, the Lamarckists in the Soviet Union thought everything was down to environment too - as if everybody is a 'chameleon' that gets his colour from his environment. That kind of thinking was what led to the development of neurosciences and neuro-linguistical programming.

I guess I'd have a lot more respect for you if you were WILLING to acknowledge that most of the rhetoric you're using has a SOURCE as well - and it's called 'Communism'. And no pussy footing or making excuses about it - it's the same stuff.

I'll play devils advocate here...

Are you saying that certain people are more susceptible to becoming a psychopath than others and that the environment is sometimes irrelevant to that person becoming psychopathic?

Just look at the Rockefeller & Rothschild family; An environment of conditioning from birth that they have a mandate to rule the cattle, world government is the answer, depopulation the means to an end.

[Parentsfortruth]

Oh dear. Oh dear. Watch out people - it's the 'Soviet Union' all over again.

Soon 'the plan' will become 'the plan', and taxi cab drivers will need to ride in circles to meet their mileage quotas. Police will have to round up people to meet their daily quotas.

This is called 'technique', my friend. What you are proposing here, is that 'technique' becomes the master of its host - this is old stuff.

Here's what i find amazing - all the stuff you're putting out here is EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS TALKED ABOUT. I MEAN, ONE-TO-ONE. Everything was subjected to 'scientific' technique in the Soviet Union - 'opinions' and 'individuality' were nasty, bad things that needed to be done away with by 'science'.

Maybe you should look at the KGB agent that was recently interviewed. The AP interviewed her, and when she was confronted with giving the KGB information on an audiotape of her conversation with the agent, her "handler" promptly stepped in and ended the interview.

Don't believe me? Here, look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_n6YF1UvQk

The KGB is alive and well.

[squarepusher]

I'll play devils advocate here...

Are you saying that certain people are more susceptible to becoming a psychopath than others and that the environment is sometimes irrelevant to that person becoming psychopathic?

Just look at the Rockefeller & Rothschild family; An environment of conditioning from birth that they have a mandate to rule the cattle, world government is the answer, depopulation the means to an end.

'An environment of conditioning from birth'  - but it had to began somewhere. And I am willing to bet that the guy who originated it all and 'conditioned' his firstborn to behave in a similar errant manner did not 'become' that way because of the environment he was living in. Most likely he was in a position of power or had clearly defined psychopathic goals - to become 'master over the world'. In fact, every leader -whether it be a Bonaparte, Alexander the Great or an Adolf Hitler - fits this description.

[squarepusher]

Maybe you should look at the KGB agent that was recently interviewed. The AP interviewed her, and when she was confronted with giving the KGB information on an audiotape of her conversation with the agent, her "handler" promptly stepped in and ended the interview.

Don't believe me? Here, look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_n6YF1UvQk

The KGB is alive and well.

Like I said before, the 'world' is to become a 'Soviet Union'. That was what the fall of the Berlin wall was all about.

You know, here in Europe several former presidents from Soviet states have already concluded that the European Union works pretty similar to the Soviet Union - including the 'Politburos'.

This is not by chance - it's not by chance a Soviet-term like 'political correctness' and 'anti-government' has seeped into the US mainstream.

It's not by chance that Mikhail Gorbachev set up shop in the US and wrote the book 'The Search For A New Beginning' where he lays out a plan for a green, earth worship religion.

[Parentsfortruth]

Like I said before, the 'world' is to become a 'Soviet Union'. That was what the fall of the Berlin wall was all about.

You know, here in Europe several former presidents from Soviet states have already concluded that the European Union works pretty similar to the Soviet Union - including the 'Politburos'.

This is not by chance - it's not by chance a Soviet-term like 'political correctness' and 'anti-government' has seeped into the US mainstream.

It's not by chance that Mikhail Gorbachev set up shop in the US and wrote the book 'Towards The New Beginning' where he lays out a plan for a green, earth worship religion.

I agree with you there.

And not many know that. Good for you. You should post the link to his website. Actually, I will. It's called the Earth Charter.

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

[mr anderson]

'An environment of conditioning from birth'  - but it had to began somewhere. And I am willing to bet that the guy who originated it all and 'conditioned' his firstborn to behave in a similar errant manner did not 'become' that way because of the environment he was living in. Most likely he was in a position of power or had clearly defined psychopathic goals - to become 'master over the world'. In fact, every leader -whether it be a Bonaparte, Alexander the Great or an Adolf Hitler - fits this description.

True.

I don't believe anyone is born evil but certainly given the right circumstances & environment a person may develop psychopathic tendencies.

However to be in a position of power one must realise that the environment does play a part. Simply because you've come to the conclusion that wealth is control and control is power.

To agree with you though, people who seek extravagant wealth know it brings control and therefore power.

I guess in a way those with psychopathic tendencies know their environment and can manipulate it to their liking and educate their offspring that they are the environment.  

[BrentonEccles]

How naive you are. 'George Orwell had no idea what the hell he was talking about'. And you and Mr Peter Joseph do, I suppose?

George Orwell WORKED for British intelligence. He was at the BBC censoring and rewriting news reports - convincing the people that the junk they were feeding the British public was really better than the ordinary food they used to eat before World War II. That's what the 'Ministry Of Truth' was 'based' on.

You do know that EVERYTHING in 1984 was based on personal experience, right? He had to go to incredible lengths (after turning against the system) to get his books published.

I really think it is YOU that don't know what the hell he is talking about. You have just been provided some PR material from Peter Joseph, and are now doing the rounds on the 'patriot' forums convincing forumites to sign up for carousel-utopia.

I am willing to bet you have not read Jacques Ellul's books on 'technique' - you have not seen the exposes on the Soviet Union - you have not seen the technocrat publications.

Hence it is you that is really naive - I want to reiterate it again - you are FALLING for regurgitated material. This has all been done before - it was called the Soviet Union. You just don't want that to sink in - but it is the truth. And the reason you DON'T WANT that to sink in - is because

a: you have not read the material, and thus are not able to connect the dots
b: this is your surrogate religion. You have to believe blindly in this stuff, or else your pipe dream dematerializes and you will have to actually face reality and come up with something that isn't 'pie-in-the-sky' nonsense.

I know plenty about George Orwell, the Soviets, etc,. I don't need to read every single book, cover to cover, on them - but I will make sure to read and analyse all of what you've presented to me in due time. Your assumptions are incorrect, though, I have given the suggested material sometime.

The answer is yes, me and Mr Joseph and anyone who cares to investigate the current state and potential of high technology do 'know' this.

You can call it Soviet, Socialist, Communist or whatever you want - but it's an appeal to absolute ignorance. The failure at certain values and aims of one system, does not mean the concept in and of itself is failed. It's merely an example of a failed social structure, just like our present monetary systems - they're intangible means, and will never produce an equitable and free human ends.

Every time we start to advance a little here, this same circular reasoning seems to befall us. ;P

[Dig]

I know plenty about George Orwell, the Soviets, etc,. I don't need to read every single book, cover to cover, on them - but I will make sure to read and analyse all of what you've presented to me in due time. Your assumptions are incorrect, though, I have given the suggested material sometime.

The answer is yes, me and Mr Joseph and anyone who cares to investigate the current state and potential of high technology do 'know' this.

You can call it Soviet, Socialist, Communist or whatever you want - but it's an appeal to absolute ignorance. The failure at certain values and aims of one system, does not mean the concept in and of itself is failed. It's merely an example of a failed social structure, just like our present monetary systems - they're intangible means, and will never produce an equitable and free human ends.

Every time we start to advance a little here, this same circular reasoning seems to befall us. ;P

oh wow, dude you are still here?

anyway, did you ever explain how this revolution will occur?

[squarepusher]

Every time we start to advance a little here, this same circular reasoning seems to befall us. ;P

The only circular reasoning I see here is you denying the entire Venus/Peter Joseph doctrine is based on communism. In fact, that is somewhat of an understatement - it is NOT BASED ON COMMUNISM, IT IS BASED ON THE EXACT APPLICATION OF IT AS SEEN IN THE SOVIET UNION.

That is the only circular reasoning that is going on here, my friend - your 'spiel' about 'failed social structures' - which is copied verbatim from Peter Joseph's interview with Alex Jones. This 'social structure' of ours - the current economic, monetary system - did NOT FAIL BY DESIGN. It is failing because they - the ruling oligarchy - want to bring in the type of system that Jacques Fresco and his ilk are proposing.

Can you actually 'explain' anything about your purported 'new' way of living without resorting to cliches, 'Earth Charter' soundbytes, slogans and such like? It is not a matter that 'we' are too ineducated and troglodyte to understand your plan - it's that you're talking in 'marketing-speak', 'Newspeak'. You are not able to succinctly lay it out - to succinctly allay any similarities to Communsim, Marxism.

BTW, 'everytime we advance a little here'. Advance to what, exactly? So you admit, as a rhetorical Venus zealot, that your single aim here is to 'advance' our thought, to 'inform' us of your utopia? You know, that sounds more like 'indoctrination' than actually 'informing' someone of the virtues of your system (which you have not been able to do so far). No wonder Peter Joseph doesn't explain how this thing is going to actually work - you're counting on the ignorance of easily manipulatable persons to jump on the bandwagon.

Just like the Communist movement, then.

[BrentonEccles]

Oh dear. Oh dear. Watch out people - it's the 'Soviet Union' all over again.

Soon 'the plan' will become 'the plan', and taxi cab drivers will need to ride in circles to meet their mileage quotas. Police will have to round up people to meet their daily quotas.

This is called 'technique', my friend. What you are proposing here, is that 'technique' becomes the master of its host - this is old stuff.

Here's what i find amazing - all the stuff you're putting out here is EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS TALKED ABOUT. I MEAN, ONE-TO-ONE. Everything was subjected to 'scientific' technique in the Soviet Union - 'opinions' and 'individuality' were nasty, bad things that needed to be done away with by 'science'.

Who are you to decide or anyone else for that matter?

Nobody. If you really wanted to work in one of those positions in a resource-based economy there would be nothing to stop you from creating it. There'd just be no "I HAVE to do this."

And what sense am I trying to say we are competitive by nature?

From what I gather, something to the effect that we have the natural propensity to fight against one another in some form or another be it competing for a job, a carpark, etc,.

Do you want machines to control government and industry?

I absolutely do. The machines would "be" the government, but they'd only govern what needs to be - and that is certainly NOT people.
If you have people in the government, they'll just keep messing things up.

I will watch that film, but already I see the flaws from Soviet Russia that I would be able to point out before even watching it -- because unlike what you are attempting to say -- I do know about Soviet Russia.

consigned to the drawing board under the Tsar

Wouldn't be so in a resource-based economy. There wont be people running a resource based economy. We give it all over to technology, with no charismatic Lenin's or Stalin's or Obama's or Rudd's or anyone else.
If there's a problem, we look for the technical solution not the political one. This is not the Soviet Union.

This is rich. Here is a technocrat with a 'new-age' philosophy - there's no 'good or bad' - just different conditioning. Why am I not surprised?

This isn't new age philosophy mate, it's psychological study.

I guess I'd have a lot more respect for you if you were WILLING to acknowledge that most of the rhetoric you're using has a SOURCE as well - and it's called 'Communism'. And no pussy footing or making excuses about it - it's the same stuff.

Here we go again. Just because a concept may share in some ways with Communism, does not mean it's Communism. If I say that I want to see everyone having equal access, that doesn't mean Socialism.
Socialism, Communism and all the others use social institutions such as money, politics, and the legal system. Why? Because they never had a tangible method of implementing their proposals in the slightest, they just used science and technology as buzz-words. This is what you're conveniently accusing us of, but what you fail to realise is that we have the actual designs. We have the technology right now, it's not just some idea -- it's already here. Energy is just one example, and I needn't natter on about the real right-now potential of renewable energy because I'm sure you know plenty about it.

I don't know how many times this will have to be said, but here goes again. The Communists, the Socialists, "us", and all the others - have had their idealistic concepts, but they have not had the existing technical capabilities to even slightly implement their proposals. We do now.

It is absolutely unfair to compare this to Communism, in the face of what we have the technological capability to do. In the time of Communism, these technological capabilities did not exist they quite literally were just empty promises.

Regardless of how much you say "that's just an insult to our intelligence" and all that other nonsense, you have to face the fact that we DO have the technological capabilities to do this. There are other aspects of this system that you could criticise, but the means (technology) is no longer one of them.

That, is a valid criticism of Communism - because what they needed wasn't available to them, and they chose to operate within structures that are the root causes in the first place. So ofcourse they couldn't achieve what they were proposing.

It's all the environment, right?

Not absolutely and entirely, but environment is by far the one we can change the most.
But, on top of that it's easy to see how an environment can make a psychopath. Abuse a child every day for 10 years, and see what you get.

'An environment of conditioning from birth'  - but it had to began somewhere. And I am willing to bet that the guy who originated it all and 'conditioned' his firstborn to behave in a similar errant manner did not 'become' that way because of the environment he was living in. Most likely he was in a position of power or had clearly defined psychopathic goals - to become 'master over the world'. In fact, every leader -whether it be a Bonaparte, Alexander the Great or an Adolf Hitler - fits this description.

The structure creates them, plainly and simply. If there were no political institutions in the first place, no banks, no advertising -- you wouldn't be able to manipulated, men wouldn't be able to use "vote for me - i'll save you" rhetoric, etc,. Because there'd be no basis for it.

The mission of the Earth Charter Initiative is to promote the transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework that includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace.

And reading on...

Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

They have the right idea, we have resources and capabilities - but they are jelling on wrong systems. Our problems aren't political, for example.

10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.
c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently(Oh my, I don't like the sound of that!!) in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

As I've said of Communism, Socialism, The U.N., they all have nice ideas about a sustainable peaceful world -- but they don't have a solution. They're just empty promises without anything to work towards -- it's just as bad as recognising there is a problem, and then stopping there without saying "Well, what can we do about it?"

[BrentonEccles]

anyway, did you ever explain how this revolution will occur?

Quite simply, by all of us  moving away from our present system. It wont last long if no one is relying on it, it just can't work.

The only circular reasoning I see here is you denying the entire Venus/Peter Joseph doctrine is based on communism. In fact, that is somewhat of an understatement - it is NOT BASED ON COMMUNISM, IT IS BASED ON THE EXACT APPLICATION OF IT AS SEEN IN THE SOVIET UNION.

That is the only circular reasoning that is going on here, my friend - your 'spiel' about 'failed social structures' - which is copied verbatim from Peter Joseph's interview with Alex Jones. This 'social structure' of ours - the current economic, monetary system - did NOT FAIL BY DESIGN. It is failing because they - the ruling oligarchy - want to bring in the type of system that Jacques Fresco and his ilk are proposing.

Can you actually 'explain' anything about your purported 'new' way of living without resorting to cliches, 'Earth Charter' soundbytes, slogans and such like? It is not a matter that 'we' are too ineducated and troglodyte to understand your plan - it's that you're talking in 'marketing-speak', 'Newspeak'. You are not able to succinctly lay it out - to succinctly allay any similarities to Communsim, Marxism.

BTW, 'everytime we advance a little here'. Advance to what, exactly? So you admit, as a rhetorical Venus zealot, that your single aim here is to 'advance' our thought, to 'inform' us of your utopia? You know, that sounds more like 'indoctrination' than actually 'informing' someone of the virtues of your system (which you have not been able to do so far). No wonder Peter Joseph doesn't explain how this thing is going to actually work - you're counting on the ignorance of easily manipulatable persons to jump on the bandwagon.

Just like the Communist movement, then.

It is failing because they - the ruling oligarchy - want to bring in the type of system that Jacques Fresco and his ilk are proposing.

And where have you ever seen Jacque advocate RFID chips? What about laws, servitude, social stratification and so forth?

IT IS BASED ON THE EXACT APPLICATION OF IT AS SEEN IN THE SOVIET UNION.

Empty words.

without resorting to cliches

If you could comprehensively list out all that you consider cliche, I'll do my best for you.

Advance to what, exactly?

Sometimes some of the posts go a little open minded, that's all.

[squarepusher]

I absolutely do. The machines would "be" the government, but they'd only govern what needs to be - and that is certainly NOT people.

They already attempted this in the Soviet Union - it's also in the documentary. Just like you, they regarded it as 'perfect government'.

It didn't work.

Why is it that every so-called 'new proposal' Jacque, Peter Joseph and you put forth is actually old, old stuff from the Soviet Union? How come we keep coming back to the same source?

[squarepusher]

They have the right idea, we have resources and capabilities - but they are jelling on wrong systems. Our problems aren't political, for example.

The guys from the Earth Charter have the right idea, but their implementation is wrong, right?

OK, I rest my case. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

[BrentonEccles]

They already attempted this in the Soviet Union - it's also in the documentary. Just like you, they regarded it as 'perfect government'.

It didn't work.

Why is it that every so-called 'new proposal' Jacque, Peter Joseph and you put forth is actually old, old stuff from the Soviet Union? How come we keep coming back to the same source?

These are weak accusations. The Soviet Union was not 'tested' in 2009, and you need to take into account how much technology has advanced.

[BrentonEccles]

The guys from the Earth Charter have the right idea, but their implementation is wrong, right?

OK, I rest my case. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Ofcourse they have the right idea. Intelligent management of the Earth's resources, but they're talking about PEOPLE doing it -- which will continue what we've got. Uneven distribution, war, poverty, crime and so forth.

[Dig]

Quite simply, by all of us  moving away from our present system. It wont last long if no one is relying on it, it just can't work.

I will agree that it is simle.

Could you elaborate?  I mean part of our present system involves breathing oxygen.  So could you clarify what you are talking about?

[squarepusher]

Ofcourse they have the right idea. Intelligent management of the Earth's resources, but they're talking about PEOPLE doing it -- which will continue what we've got. Uneven distribution, war, poverty, crime and so forth.

You do know that just like every religion has an exoteric and esoteric message, so does political movements, right?

The exoteric here is that 'everyone is going to benefit from it', and you're going to use the Earth's resources in a 'sustainable way'.

The esoteric is that you will have a Byzantine Empire 2, but unlike the Byzantine Empire 1, technology will not be suppressed, but will merge with religion to create a 'perfect' belief system. If you think you were enslaved now, just wait until the Earth Charters get their freak on. Like Maurice Strong said, you will WISH you have the same rights as a TREE.

[BrentonEccles]

I will agree that it is simle.

Could you elaborate?  I mean part of our present system involves breathing oxygen.  So could you clarify what you are talking about?

What would you like me to elaborate on? How we're going to get from here to "there"?

I have to ask you all, since you're essentially concluding that our proposal to create a society based on Science and Technology is unworkable, tell me - what aspect of technological application specifically?
I am left to say that we're already doing exactly that now, applying Science and Technology for human and environmental concern, but on a very paralysed level.

P.S; You might find the trailers for this upcoming film of some interest http://futureblog.net/wordpress/trailer/

[BrentonEccles]

You do know that just like every religion has an exoteric and esoteric message, so does political movements, right?

There would be no restriction on religion, believe whatever you like - just don't expect belief to be applied to society. Oh and, there's nothing political about us.

I think I see here, what the issue is. We've seen throughout history, the promise of applying technology to improve the lives of all people but it's failed. Feeling that, you are all very scared at the repeat of that.
This is understandable, I feel, but I must ask you to explain on -your terms- why the proposals of the Soviet Union (and others) failed to correctly materialise (everyone seems to have a different opinion, so go ahead).

[squarepusher]

There would be no restriction on religion, believe whatever you like - just don't expect belief to be applied to society. Oh and, there's nothing political about us.

I think I see here, what the issue is. We've seen throughout history, the promise of applying technology to improve the lives of all people but it's failed. Feeling that, you are all very scared at the repeat of that.
This is understandable, I feel, but I must ask you to explain on -your terms- why the proposals of the Soviet Union (and others) failed to correctly materialise (everyone seems to have a different opinion, so go ahead).

Because communism was never intended to work - and in truth it was never about 'enabling' people or 'freeing them'. it was all about killing people and a 'boot stamping on a human face forever'. Marx regarded certain nationalities and ethnic tribes as 'racial thrash' that needed to be exterminated. In one year, they systematically exterminated 7 million Ukrainians.

You really need to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited. Here is a quip from his letter to George Orwell:

'My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World."

When you talk about psychology and psychiatry and science, I don't think you realize that these social sciences have replaced 'religion' as a control mechanism - it is meant as a 'boot' to stamp on your 'human face forever'. Aldous Huxley, Arthur Koestler and Jacques Ellul will freely admit to this.

So when you talk about psychological 'studies' as if it's a good thing, I have to wonder how far your level of research into this matter reaches - or what your intentions really are.

[BrentonEccles]

Because communism was never intended to work - and in truth it was never about 'enabling' people or 'freeing them'. it was all about killing people and a 'boot stamping on a human face forever'. Marx regarded certain nationalities and ethnic tribes as 'racial thrash' that needed to be exterminated. In one year, they systematically exterminated 7 million Ukrainians.

You really need to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited. Here is a quip from his letter to George Orwell:

'My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World."

When you talk about psychology and psychiatry and science, I don't think you realize that these social sciences have replaced 'religion' as a control mechanism - it is meant as a 'boot' to stamp on your 'human face forever'. Aldous Huxley, Arthur Koestler and Jacques Ellul will freely admit to this.

So when you talk about psychological 'studies' as if it's a good thing, I have to wonder how far your level of research into this matter reaches - or what your intentions really are.

I know that psychology is used to manipulate people. That's why I feel it's important to understand it.

Communism was never intended to work

I was hoping you would say something to that effect, and there you have it. Science and technology were, to them, just mere buzzwords to manipulate people and they never had any intention of creating an equitable society. It was a scam to gain more power.
But with our movement, we actually have the technology we're not just 'talking' about this. A lot of technology we propose is already in use sporadically across the globe, for example, Geothermal power in Iceland (free heating, and a certain percent of power at this point). There is a really clear difference, and I hope that even just for a moment, you'll try to see it.

[BrentonEccles]

In regards to the Communism statement, could you please comment on the words of Roxanne Meadows in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2412549670594153152 at about the 14 minute point.

I think that's about as plain as it can get.

[Freeski]

Well, he said: "it is apparent that a resource based economy would require central planning"

And you responded: "No, but the central application of high technology would be required."

I say: "someone" has to plan the central application of the technology, hence, central planning, hence a very bad idea.

[Dig]

I have to ask you all, since you're essentially concluding that our proposal to create a society based on Science and Technology is unworkable, tell me - what aspect of technological application specifically?

[Dig]

There is an agenda to have the population implanted with microchips, and ultimately, with brain chips.  The necessary research for this agenda has been done over the last few decades, involving experimenting with inserting electrodes and implants into the brains of animals, and humans, and interfacing with computers.

On a socio-cultural level, this agenda has also involved the normalisation of various new technologies - in conjunction with the gradual alteration of certain behavioural norms - as a step-by-step tip-toeing towards this goal of mass microchip implantation, all pre-planned in advance.  These technologies include the personal computer and the videogames console (along with the internet), the mobile phone, the iPod (and its predecessors), RFID-tags and of course, the implantable microchip itself.

It takes many years to implement these changes successfully.  From the perspective of the ruling elite, all necessary steps must be overseen properly and everything must be done thoroughly, and in the right order.  Any particular step cannot be missed out, and corners cannot be cut, because doing so could create unpredictable consequences which may threaten the success of their agenda - an agenda which is increasingly obviously a "must be".  Such long-term goals take decades to bring about and because they come in so gradually over such a long period of time - much longer than the average person’s plans - most people don’t ever realise that they are actually witnessing a long-term agenda unfolding in their own lifetime.

Thousands of people have already taken microchip implants in their arms.  We are now seeing the end stages of this particular long-term agenda.  We must fight it.

The brain chip is now ready, and has been for years.  There have been annual international science meetings held at Loyola University, Louisiana, starting in 2001.  Scientists attending these meetings have said that the brain chip is ready, and that it is now just a matter of conditioning the public to accept them.  They said that one way in which this would be achieved - not could be, would be - is by promoting them in movies, books and cartoons for children.  Since then there have been cartoons in which the heroes have brain chips that give them special powers, such as Galaxy Rangers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiA9RLmwPKY

And we have also had movies like The Final Cut, with Robin Williams, and The Stepford Wives, with Christopher Walken, Bette Midler, Nicole Kidman, etc. both featuring brain chips.  And in 2006 we saw James Bond being chipped in Casino Royale, although not with a brain chip – yet!

There are many other movies featuring microchip implants, to varying degrees e.g. Demolition Man, A Beautiful Mind, and other movies featuring brain chips e.g. Johnny Mnemonic.  There have also been movies incorporating technology which interacts with the brain to create an alternate reality e.g. eXistenZ, The Lawnmower Man and of course, The Matrix trilogy.

So we should be on our guard against the continuation of this propaganda campaign aimed at promoting the idea of microchip implants to the people, and then later, the brain chip.  We should keep in mind the fact that the ruling elite want us to be chipped, for their benefit, not for ours.

There will almost certainly be many people who will agree to be chipped.  Maybe they will take a chip out of fear of not being able to function within the system without one, or maybe they will want a brain chip to provide an escape from the ever-increasing levels of terror, or just because they like the idea of being a cyborg.  Whatever the reason, once the brain chip is in, it's staying in.  And given their track record throughout the ages, I don't trust the ruling elite to put anything harmless into our brains.  Do you?

Scientists at the Loyola University meetings also said that when everything is finalised and the people are brain chipped, it would be more like a hive mind situation.  A Japanese scientist said that you would no longer be able to perceive yourself as a distinct, separate individual.  He said that you would constantly hear the buzz of thoughts going back and forth between the chips and the regional super-computers (which are also ready now) and you would not be able to distinguish this from your own thoughts.  So the importance of fighting this agenda cannot be overstated - ultimately it is about individual consciousness, the enemy of the enemy.

The scientists didn’t discuss politics, as they are well aware that this is an agenda, and it is above politics.  They know that politics is nothing more than a wrestling match, a Punch and Judy show for the dumbed-down masses.

These meetings and much more are discussed by Alan Watt in the mp3s posted below.

There are dozens of free downloadable mp3s on Alan Watt's website detailing various aspects of the global agenda - or New World Order, or whatever label you want to use - including several about the microchip agenda.

Here are some of the relevant mp3s and transcripts:

Dec 13, 2006 Alan Watt Blurb
"A Chip Off the Ashlar or the Old Masonic Block" - mp3 - transcript
Alan reads from a highly revealing article about the microchipping agenda, which was in the Toronto Star on December 10th.

Dec 20, 2006 Alan Watt Blurb
"Brain Implant Familiarization and the Front-Men Who Plug-It" - mp3 - transcript
Frontman Professor Kevin Warwick is discussed - also see this video.

December 31, 2006 Alan Watt on Red-Ice Radio
"The Microchip & Technocracy" - mp3 - transcript

Jan 18, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Masons, Microchips and the Battle for the Mind" - mp3 - transcript
Jan 19, 2007 Alan Watt Mini Blurb
"Mason's Microchip" - mp3 - transcript

Feb 22, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"IBM = Eye-Bee-M(A Son) = Eye-Beam = I Am Bee.
Bee = Cell = Cell Phone" - mp3 - transcript

March 14, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Abandonment of Self for Programmed Security and Management (Existing as Non-Comprehending Peaceful Citizens)" - mp3 - transcript
Alan Reads from the Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal
The Implantable Brainchips: Ethical and Policy Issues, Winter 2001, by Ellen M McGee PhD, Director of Long Island Centre for Ethics, Long Island University, and Gerald Q Maguire Jr PhD, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.

May 3, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Authorized Voice-to-Skull Advertising Preparing You for Brain-Chipped Hive - Happy Habitats and Concentration-Slum Areas (Camps)" - mp3 - transcript

June 13, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Stop This Program, I Want to Get Off! - Better Living through Borgism" - mp3 - transcript

June 27, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Sentient Asylum for a Depraved New World" - mp3 - transcript
Watt reads Mark Baard's article "Sentient world: war games on the grandest scale"

July 25, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb
"Chertoff's CREATE-ORS of Chaos, Paranoia and Control" - mp3 - transcript

Dec. 17, 2007 - Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed)
"Exodus from Physical Slavery to Virtual Slavery - The Surrender of Consciousness" - mp3 - transcript
(Article: "'Exodus' to virtual worlds predicted" BBC News, bbc.co.uk - Dec. 11, 2007.)

Dec. 21, 2007
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN:
"It's a Big Eye Dea," quote from Bush Sr..   RF Eye Dea (Eye of God/dess) - RFID Industry Targets Christian Opposition" - mp3 - transcript
(Article: "Christian endtimers leave their "Mark" on the RFID industry" by Mark Baard, parallelnormal.com - Dec. 21, 2007.)

Feb. 8, 2008 - Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed)
"Technique of Intergenerational Reality Alteration and Guidance - (a) I Know, (b) That's Possible, (c) I'm Now Unsure, (d) What's Everyone Thinking? (e) I'll Follow Them." - mp3 - transcript
(Article: "Life is one big computer game" Metro (metro.co.uk) - Feb. 5, 2008.)
(Article: "Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business" by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive Magazine (progressive.org) - February 7, 2008.)

March 24, 2008 - Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed):
"Major Moves on Minors - Government Wants Predictability for Totalitarian Society" - mp3 - transcript
(Article: "DNA database plans for children who 'could become criminals'" by Simon Johnson (telegraph.co.uk) - March 18, 2008.)
(Article: "Cellphones to keep track of your purchases -- and you" by David Lazarus (latimes.com) - March 16, 2008.)

July 21, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (ads removed):
"A Promising Future, Oh What a Joke,
As Futurists Present Their Vision to Folk,
Part-Machine, Part-Robot, Not Quite Virtual nor Real,
No Mind of Your Own, Man What a Deal,
To Escape Building Stress, You'll Enter Enticed,
A Promise of Eternity, All Childlike and Nice,
Forgetting Yourself, You'll be One, All Same,
Because a Benevolent Dictator is Programming Your Brain" - mp3 - transcript

(Articles: "Scientists: Humans and machines will merge in future" by Lara Farrar (cnn.com) - July 15, 2008.)
"Climate documentary 'broke rules'" by Richard Black, Environment correspondent (bbc.co.uk) - July 21, 2008.)

Sept. 22, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN:
"Going to School is Such a Pain,
But Wait! There's Something New for My Brain,
Experts Say It's What we Need,
To Help us Count, Learn and Read,
A Type of Amphetamine, Some Say Speed,
Makes Docile Boys from Those Who Lead,
Continued Use May Shrink my Brain,
But it's All A-Plus for Short-Term Gain" - mp3
(Articles: "Schoolchildren could be given 'smart drugs' in a bid to boost brainpower" by Laura Clark (dailymail.co.uk) - Sept. 19, 2008.)
"Sperm warfare - From radio-controlled valves to ultrasound, male contraception is going high-tech" (timesonline.co.uk) - Sept. 20, 2008.)

Feb. 9, 2009
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN:
Public Persuasion, Ain't It Amazin':
"Soaring on Wings, Propaganda, You Find,
Is Sponged Up by Osmosis into Your Mind,
Globalism, Environment, Neuroscience, Genetics,
While Eugenics is Softened by Word 'Bioethics,'
Through Education, Repetition, All This Attainable,
So the Elite in Near Future have World Sustainable,
For Their Children the Products of Master Class,
Playing Over the Vanquished Under the Grass,
Enhanced Servants to Serve, Chipped and Undaunted,
Unable to Rebel if Even They Wanted,
A Manipulator to Children, the Grinning Al Gore
States, 'On Global Warming, Children Know More' " - mp3 - transcript
[See link below.]

Topics of show covered in following links:
"Pentagon Spending Billions on PR to Sway World Opinion" Associated Press (foxnews.com) - Feb. 5, 2009.
"Quit call over blocked green ad" (news.bbc.co.uk) - Feb 9, 2009.
"Humans 'will be implanted with microchips' " by Josephine Asher (news.ninemsn.com.au) - Jan. 30, 2009.
"Al Gore Speaks to Kids: Don't listen to your parents" (youtube.com).


There are some relevant articles in the articles section of Alan Watt's website.  There are also several more mp3s in which this agenda is briefly discussed, e.g. the Red Ice interviews from October 22nd (Part 2) and June 25th (Part 2), and the blurbs from December 1st and December 6th, and others - available here (transcripts).

Another important blurb is April 13, 2007 "Pathocrats' Conspiracy AGENDA for Upcoming Generation (from Ministry of Defence)" - mp3 - transcript - in which Watt discusses a document released by the Ministry of Defense, mentioned in The Guardian, which discusses a brainchipped population by 2035, "flashmobs", revolutionary middle classes, and the possible use of neutron bombs on the population.

Someone has made a video corresponding to this blurb and put it up on google video.

There are other free Alan Watt videos there (not to be confused with Alan Watts).

There is also a downloadable 405-page NBIC report (as mentioned in the July 23 2002 article "US report foretells of brave new world Nathan Cochrane") in Watt's article section, entitled "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance"
National Science Foundation / Department Of Commerce-sponsored report - June 2002 (PDF file approx. 7 MB)
(NBIC = nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and cognitive sciences)

And there is also a downloadable 280-page NSET report entitled "Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology"
NSET Workshop Report - National Science Foundation - March 2001
Logistical, Editing and Management Assistance by:
International Technology Research Institute, World Technology (WTEC) Division, Loyola College (PDF file approx. 3 MB)
(NSET = Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Videos:

The implantable Microchip (9mins 20s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVw5XSWbjA

IBM, Verichip, and the Fouth Reich (8mins 29s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2udoNmQkR4

Operation Lie and Deceive Verichip Style (8mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKHtyuzuKUA

Mind Control Microchip Verichip - Welcome to the Machines (6mins 40s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKx1gLCQef8

The Biochip (9mins 14s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e43CPkw-2uY

BBC Money Programme: The Real Big Brother

BBC Microchip pt.1 (9mins 58s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHhyiq3jJDY
BBC Microchip pt.2 (9mins 58s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dx1HKcTD7A
BBC Microchip pt.3 (9mins 4s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpBslQR2Ll0

(Youtube videos can be downloaded as FLV or mp4 files from http://keepvid.com)

Katherine Albrecht - Big Brother, The Chip and the Mark of The Beast (4mins 21s)

Freedom to Fascism the Microchip (9mins 38s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClxR-8VLxD8

MicroChip ID - National Geografic Channel ® Pt.1 (5mins 25s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88L6WUkZvGE
MIcroChip ID - National Geografic Channel ® Pt.2 (2mins 37s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWOso6pfyY

MIcrochipping the Troops!! ® (2mins 28s)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qYUlCKFHeAQ

Predictive programming (transcript 1 and 2) and propaganda from PBS:

PBS documentary: 22nd Century - World Wide Mind (56mins)
This video was up on youtube in 6 parts, but it has been removed.  Here are 6 links to the corresponding FLV files, from megaupload.

Part 1 of 6, Part 2 of 6, Part 3 of 6, Part 4 of 6, Part 5 of 6, Part 6 of 6

Alan Watt discusses the above video in his Jan 18, 2007 blurb - "Masons, Microchips and the Battle for the Mind" - transcript.
 

BBC Horizon - Human 2.0 (44mins 57s)

Aaron Russo discusses the long-term global agenda (revealed to him by Nick Rockefeller) including plans to microchip the population (1hr 9mins)

Shorter 15-minute version

Aaron Russo has sadly passed away. Rest in Peace.



MKULTRA Military Intelligence (#13) (9mins 32s)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b2ecI3ErhY8(Implanted brain chips discussed at the end.)


MKULTRA Scientists (#14) (7mins 50s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUd1EeoRrY4

More at Verichip's Website, including CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight (3mins 13s)