ALAN WATT

ON

"WORLD REVIEW COMMENTARY"

WITH

GEORGE BUTLER & CHARLOTTE LITTLEFIELD BROWN

November 25, 2007

(Originally Aired Live on

"We The People Radio Network" - Nov. 25, 2007)

WWW.CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIX.COM

www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu

George: Welcome to Waldorf Astoria. Today is April 27, 1961. I'm George Butler reporting and joining me is Charlotte Brown.

Charlotte: Thank you, George. In a few moments our President John Fitzgerald Kennedy will be addressing the Newspapers Publishers Association. Our President will be giving a speech entitled "The President and the Press."

George: Charlotte, according to our advanced copy it appears this speech might be somewhat controversial. What's your view of this speech?

Charlotte: Yes, George, I do believe it might be controversial.

George: Yes. It seems that it lays down in explicit terms the battles ahead. Now, the President of the United States.

JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27, 1961 SPEECH

The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York

Ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it's in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support an Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

George: Welcome to the "World Review Commentary" this 25th day of November 2007 and we're broadcasting live from the Texas School Book Depository. This program is dedicated to the memory of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I'm sitting here and on my left is Charlotte Littlefield Brown. Charlotte, what did you think about that speech?

Charlotte: It was outstanding. It was quite applicable to today even though it's a very old speech.

George: Yes. That speech was given on April 27th, 1961 and it was so, God, so prophetic. Welcome to our program, Alan Watt.

Alan: It's a pleasure to be here. I can hear you fine.

George: We dedicated this. We're sitting at the spot here. We’re sitting in the lobby of the Texas School Book Depository. We did a tour earlier of the grounds and so forth and Charlotte was down here last week. What did you think about that speech? I noticed you put this up, what, over a year ago in June of 2006? What did you say on your page back then?

Alan: I mentioned the fact that Kennedy basically knew. He mentions it in his talk of a conspiracy itself. A huge conspiracy and he mentioned the fact too that it was so well organized through economics, military and academia and the media that democratic nations could hardly stand against it, because democratic nations, really, that's the opponent of the particular group that runs the world, the reality as we know it. They run the media. They run the military. They're coordinated and they originated in Britain a long time ago and Professor Carroll Quigley called them the Anglo-American Establishment.

George: I believe Paul Dill Scott coined the term deep history. Is this the way you could characterize this also?

Alan: There's no doubt.

George: A history that is not written. What we're presented most of the time is just for our feedings, something like that? Is that your idea?

Alan: Here's a quote for instance from Professor Carroll Quigley who was a historian for one of the branches of this power and he believed in its goals but he was a bit weary of some of its methods, but he was the official historian. In Britain one of its main groups – there are many groups attached to it. It really originated hundreds of years ago in Britain but came to the fore in the last 1800’s when the British aristocracy saw this odd phenomenon called democracy coming along and people were demanding rights. They came to the conclusion after many, many meetings of the largest aristocratic families in Europe that there were too many irreconcilable differences in humanity, with racial differences, religious, economic and so on, ever to allow a plan or an agenda of progress to continue.

Therefore they came up with the idea of shaping the world's view of things while this real group would go ahead in their plan of progress. This is what Carroll Quigley said about it on page 197 of "The Anglo-American Establishment." Remember, he worked for one of the American branches called The Council on Foreign Relations, which is just the foreign branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs for Britain.

He says:

"A brief sketch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs does not by any means indicate the very considerable influence which the organization exerts in English-speaking countries in the sphere in which it is devoted. The extent of that influence must be obvious. The purpose of this chapter has been something else: to show that the Milner Group…"

Alan: This is part of the group that started it.

"…controls the Institute. Once that is established, the picture changes. The influence of Chatham House…"

Alan: That's their main house in London. The one in New York is called Harold Pratt Building.

"…appears in its true perspective, not as the influence of an autonomous body but as merely one of the many instruments in the arsenal of another power."

Alan: That's what he telling you there. There's an arsenal of another power. It's a power which co-exists alongside what you see as democracy. He says:

"When the influence which the Institute wields is combined with that controlled by the Milner Group in other fields in education…"

Alan: You see they run the educational system.

"…in administration…"

Alan: That's in politics and bureaucracy.

"…in newspapers and periodicals…"

Alan: They make sure the largest newspaper groups are owned by their members. He said:

"…a really terrifying picture begins to emerge. This picture is called terrifying not because the power of the Milner Group was used for evil ends. It was not. On the contrary, it was generally used with the best intentions in the world - even if those intentions were so idealistic as to be almost academic. The picture is terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it may be directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group."

Alan: Then he goes on to tell you why. This particular group in the book here he comes out with their histories and he was given access to their records and he tells you how they were behind the main world wars that we knew of, even before world wars, they started up the Boer War in South Africa. They are backed by the Royalty of Europe. They have been given an official royal charter and they'll say their idea was to combat and control in fact what we see as democracy or democratic governments and they've been doing it since the 1800’s.

Charlotte: Alan, what do you think they thought of our President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Alan: It's pretty obvious he was torn between two different ideals. He himself came from a family that made money like many of them did in certain rackets like many of the British imperialists did it top, involved in the various opium trades and eventually the alcohol trades and the prohibition.

George: We've got to cut away here for a second. We'll be right back. Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to World Review Commentary. This is George Butler reporting live from Dallas, Texas along with--

Charlotte: Charlotte Littlefield Brown.

George: Alan, let me give you more of a formal introduction here: In all ages, in all lands, there have been those who seek truth. This seeking is an individual's search for something more than self, and much more than the confines of this worldly system. It is the seeker, who understands there is more than what meets the eye, who is not afraid and makes the choice to go into the unknown. The process of awaking has begun, the discovery is underway. Written 2007 by Alan Watt. Welcome back to World Review Commentary, Alan.

Alan: It's a pleasure to be here.

George: We're really sitting here in a very historical place and I think the actual assassination anniversary would have been last Thursday, but the nearest that we could come in here would be today on Sunday on the World Review Commentary program and so we went out and toured the grounds earlier. The snipers, wherever they were, behind the picket fence or something, it wasn't 75 feet away. They were very, very close in shots and from the top of the building here the snipers nest was maybe 100 feet, 125 feet at the most. When we talk about these world systems, Kennedy had something to say about that in that speech. Anyway, I think Charlotte wanted to continue with her question earlier.

Charlotte: Alan, you were answering a question before the break about what the establishment, I’m going to call them the Anglo-American Establishment, possibly what their view was of our president?

Alan: He was not as they call it in Freemasonry "toeing the line". He was not "toeing the line." He had twinges of something which you cannot have if you're a member of the elite, and that's conscience; and he thought that the people should know and have more say in their own affairs. I mean at that level that he was in especially since his father was Joseph and Joseph was a close associate with royalty. He used to go over to Buckingham Palace with his wife and live there for weeks at a time, so he knew the agenda. I have no doubt about it, but he had a twinge of conscience being the son of Joseph and he tried to tell the people where it was heading. He saw the flaws in the agenda too, because from the elites’ point of view they're not flaws.

They want a world system and this is the same group that funded Karl Marx in the 1800’s from London, England. That's where he wrote the Communist Manifesto where he said later on in "Das Kapital" there will be three world trading blocs. A United Europe followed by a United Americas and then a Pacific Rim conglomerate which will be presided over by a single government and that's what the United Nations was set-up for. Carroll Quigley again verifies this in his books "Tragedy & Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment". He said that they funded and set-up the League of Nations, which became the United Nations, to do that actual thing, so they're all fronts actually including the United Nations. They're front groups for different purpose: a controlled society of a very wealthy elite of aristocracy who truly believe they are the most superior types on the planet through breeding, selective breeding and so on, accumulation of power, wealth, and that below them they have the commoners, the junk genes, as they laughingly call it, and they want to plan a future. They don't believe in societies simply evolving willy-nilly and piece meal. They plan the future like long-term business plans.

As I say, all the way back to the 1800’s you can find these organizations all coming out with royal charters and stamp of approval of the Crown of Britain behind them and to go even further, this group created what we call MI5 and 6. MI6 evolved really out of like the CIA evolved out of the OSS during World War II. The headquarters of this OSS was at Chatham House. That was the headquarters, so, in other words, the Royal Institute for International Affairs already was your world's largest CIA headquarters and it still is today. They're all intertwined with this one organization and so is the CIA and your media barons all belong to it at the top as well. They're all members of this and that's what Carroll Quigley was saying. We are given a fake reality through altered and distorted or very misleading news, and we have been for 100 years.

George: So this system is much larger than the average person could ever imagine and it's entangling us. It's psychological. It's mind washing. It's propagandizing. I guess Joseph Goebbels said the bigger the lie the easier to sell.

Alan: Yes, absolutely. The thing is these little people, ordinary people understand little lies and we laugh when we hear politicians give little lies out, but when they tell a real whopper of a lie it's so huge telling it to a whole world we can't imagine ourselves doing it, therefore we have to believe it. It's as simple as that.

George: Would you say 9/11 is one of those myths that has been created? The government version of it? It's so mind boggling that emotionally it's hard to accept.

Alan: Absolutely and yet they use the standard psychological techniques from Rumsfeld, Cheney, even Brzezinski came out. Eventually they had Condoleezza Rice when she came out and they all came out of these meetings talking to the press and using the same catch phrases; weapons of mass destruction. Repetitive stuff that they're taught to tell the public and they lied and they lied and they lied and they lied and then they were exposed lying and with counterintelligence news on mainstream as well and the following day the same characters are telling the same lies again. These are psychopathic types you see. They have no conscience and they don't blush when they lie to the world. They don't blush.

Charlotte: Could that be a part of the gene pool? No, I’m just kidding.

Alan: It probably is, yes.

Charlotte: Why does that particular trait seem to be so pervasive? And of course they screen people that they bring in from the damage – what did you call it? They call us--

George: The damaged genes.

Charlotte: The damaged genes or whatever, so they screen people through and if they meet a certain psychological profile then they'll be allowed to work or move in towards the center. Of course, nobody off the street ever gets in there.

George: Michael Andregg on his book "On the Causes of War" identified a psychopathic personality type that is attracted into these power groups. What do you think?

Alan: There's no doubt at all. Unfortunately the entire system we live in – you see psychopaths or pathocracy as it's been termed have always been here in a monied system because they crave power and money is power in this system, because the culture they give us and the system we live in is actually theirs. We emulate their system. We don't have all the psychopathic traits, but those even in the lower strata who are born occasionally with psychopathic traits will succeed. They'll claw up to the top. They're vicious, ruthless and cunning and they have no conscience, and therefore they do get to the top in this system. That's why they always gravitate into politics and political positions. They like the feelings of power. It's a craving that goes with being a psychopath because a psychopath who wants to control; they need to control to feel safe.

George: Is another characteristic they have no conscience whatsoever?

Alan: They have no conscience that's true. No empathy. They grow up almost like a camera studying people and watching the reactions and the emotions but not feeling the emotions of those people, but they're very good actors. In fact a lot of them go into acting.

George: They do. Some of our finest actors could be this way, right?

Alan: That's right.

Charlotte: At the time of John F. Kennedy's assassination there were a lot of things happening that people point to why he was assassinated. What were the forces during that time period in John F. Kennedy's administration that people point to and say that's why he got assassinated or this is who did it? For example, it's my understanding he was going after the deconstruction of the Federal Reserve System. I mean I don't know how true that was.

Alan: That would get anybody killed. That would get anybody killed, that one, because that was part of the whole structure too. People think it was just a group of bankers that got together on Jekyll Island under the leadership too of Mandell House that eventually was the advisor to President Wilson that rammed it through and all that was true, but what they don't tell you is that Mandell House was a member of this same organization based in London and he took his orders from Sir Earl Grey that was a member of The Royal Institute for International Affairs. It always, always goes back to the same group, whether it's the U.S. or any of the British Commonwealth countries we're talking about. It always goes back to the same group. They wanted control over the world's resources and the money supply of the entire planet.

George: We've got to cut away again, Alan. We’ll be back in just a few minutes. It's getting very interesting though. Welcome back to World Review Commentary. This is your host George Butler along with--

Charlotte: Charlotte Littlefield Brown.

George: Welcome back, Alan Watt.

Alan: It's a pleasure to hear you.

George: This system that we're describing and you so well describe, it was arrayed against him, was it not, against John Fitzgerald Kennedy these great powers and interest?

Alan: Absolutely. I mean he was called the Champion of Camelot, remember.

George: That's right. The Champion of Camelot.

Alan: He was idealistic and being idealistic and wanting to actually make changes and lead it yourself is taboo in this system where it's all done by consensus through this particular high organization. That was an unfortunate term they used. It was almost a death warrant in itself because we know what happened to King Arthur.

George: What I see from my side of things is that these groups that were together, whether they're the mafia and the CFR, whatever, they started working together more closely after World War II or during World War II sometime.

Alan: It's true. They worked very close then, especially in Italy. Patton could not have gone through so quickly without the cooperation of the mafia units in that country.

George: In Sicily they sabotaged the Germans in Sicily I understand also. So I believe – here's my proposition. It's just sort of an idea. Was President Kennedy not fully aware of the full cooperation of these different interests that had arrayed against him?

Alan: Absolutely he was. There's no doubt about it. He was well aware of how it was completely interlocked.

George: Did he understand the power that they had together and did he understand the close cooperation or was he sort of a little bit too idealistic?

Alan: He understood the cooperation. Maybe he underestimated how ruthless they'd be even with himself. I don't know.

George: That's what I'm saying. Maybe the ruthlessness he underestimated.

Alan: It's very possible. Very, very possible or he could have probably have trusted all his bodyguards very, very well. A big mistake to make actually, but I'm sure he must of, and we know that day so many of the things just didn't make sense. It's much like 9/11. On 9/11 they were having a practice drill on planes hitting the tower. What a coincidence, just like with the bombs in London they were having practices with bombs going off exactly in those locations they went off. When Kennedy was assassinated all of the Air Force that was up, remember, in the Cold War supposedly with all their failsafe books and so on, their manuals, updated everyday; that was the one day that there was an exception. They were not given any books whatsoever, so they could not have attacked anything if someone had come in after Kennedy was killed and taken off and done something crazy.

George: So they didn't want a reaction, a nuclear reaction by the United States against anyone that was suspected of maybe the assassination.

Alan: In case someone lower down in the chain of command gave the orders, they couldn't have gone anywhere anyway because they had nothing to follow, so someone at the very top had taken care of that.

George: Colonel Fletcher Prouty was down in the Antarctic during that time.

Charlotte: At the time of Kennedy's assassination we have – he's wanting to close down and dismantle the CIA. He dismissed Allen Dulles, right? He had failed in Cuba. He was stepping on the oil interests. Of course, he was going up against the Mafioso. He was jailing the mafia.

George: Jimmy Hoffa was jailed.

Charlotte: And he was publicly speaking out against the secret societies. I mean that is – if you want to cause a synergy.

Alan: Exactly, because these things are all interconnected. Remember, the mafia itself is only an arm – actually it's an organizational arm of the same group at the top because they use the overworld, the legal system, and they use the illegal system. The mafia was set-up by Giuseppe Mazzini who was set-up to start the World Revolutionary Society on behalf of Britain and Albert Pike gave him the orders to take over the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. He was the head of it after Pike for a while. These are all authorized groups coming out of the same system under the guise of noble orders from Britain.

Charlotte: Is that when people say the tentacles of the octopus; is that kind of what they’re referring to? Each one of these is an arm? Anyways, I've heard that.

Alan: Absolutely. In fact as I say when you go into the Cecil Rhodes Will who was given again a Royal Charter and massive funding to make sure that the Rhodes Scholarship went on and some of your presidents have been Rhodes Scholars. You have about 200 high bureaucrats running your top departments who are all coming from Rhodes Scholarships and they were set-up for world government. That's what they swear allegiance to, world government, and they've been doing this in all the countries now for 100 years, so they run that system. They take over the resources of the world. That was another big, big mandate that they had. They set-up huge institutes, private institutions that you think are charitable like the Rockefeller Foundation all leading towards world government and giving out World Citizenship awards. They're after the wealth of the world. They run the military might of the world. They run the educational system of the world through UNESCO and through the national and international educational associations. They run the media of the world. They also, as Carroll Quigley said in his own book, they write the histories of the world, so they give you your whole reality.

George: But not the deep history, right? They write the shadow histories but not the deep ones, right?

Alan: Yes.

Charlotte: That's very powerful. This building I would like to encourage everybody if they are in Dallas to come down and they call it the sixth floor museum.

George: It's at 311 Elm Street.

Charlotte: It's right across the road between where the plaza is and George and I walked into it this morning and it's a very – in military terms it was a perfect ambush location. There were, I would say, at least five different angles to get in on the vehicle and the distance was very short and of course early in the morning there were already people down on the grounds selling magazines, selling newspapers.

George: We met one fellow that was actually here that day.

Charlotte: They have the COPA conference going on across the road.

George: The COPA is the Coalition On Political Assassinations. That's meeting here in Dallas this weekend.

Charlotte: And so one of the gentlemen that was attending the conference had come over and I suppose he was just looking at the site; he's from out of town, up north somewhere. It's a historical place. This is a non-profit organization. Right now they do not take any government grants. They do not have donations. Basically, the museum continues to go based on the admissions so it's an independent entity and I for one am very grateful that they stepped forward to restore this part of our history or to maintain it. Up on the sixth floor is a very interesting exhibit. Of course you pay your money and you get a set of headphones and you go up and they walk you through a very elaborate presentation and you get to – part of the presentation is you actually look out the sixth floor window and then they also at the very end they present to you just about seven or eight conspiracy theories.

George: So they are beginning to open up I think to several different possible situations that did occur here.

Charlotte: No conclusions can be drawn from the museum as far as that goes and then there was a display about the John Birch Society and then a gentlemen by the name of Edwin Walker. I guess he was an army officer that was disciplined for passing out John Birch Society. So it's very historical the things that were happening in the newspapers. It's all there on display. It's very interesting and I encourage everybody to come down and see this part of our history. So there's my plug for the museum.

Alan: Did you go around to the courthouse?

George: No, we didn't make it over there yet, but it's real close by.

Alan: It’s interesting. You stand opposite it and look at the dragons on top of the courthouse. Then look to your left there. Look to the left and you'll see a pyramid; the top of the building is a big pyramid to the left. Then look at the triad, the three roads, the trident that goes into Dealey Plaza with the bridge over it. The arc always goes over the trident in the mystery religions.

George: Would this also represent an occultic type of terms killing of the king?

Alan: Yes. Killing of the king, in fact, if you go into the history of Dealey Plaza and you'll get quite the history on the land that those three roads were built over. A lot of people died there before, so it was already ritualized you might say. However, the Killing of the King was always when – even in the high mystery religions when you take the oath in the very high ones you say that your skull will be opened and the light of the sun will be on your brain; and they literally opened up his skull as he was driving into the sun.

Charlotte: It's fascinating and these types of things could be prepared decades years in advance. This is our little execution alley. Give them a dally.

George: So the killing of the king would relate back in my understanding is if a king fails to bring good crops in or rain or something, this is more of the ancient primitive idea, then they kill the king and put in a new king in.

Alan: It's also called Saturn, the Saturnalia. Sometimes they had “King for a Day,” they called it, or a term, and a person who had all the benefits of a king and during that reign he was called “the author of misrule” because he would be doing whatever he wanted to do. Kennedy really thought he was president for a while and he was doing what he wanted to do, and then of course they kill him on the appointed time.

George: So this would be in this case if he was out of favor then killing of the king was commenced. Something like that. We're going to be leaving here for a few minutes. We have but a one minute break at the top of the hour and we'll bring you right back in and this is getting – this occult connection is very, very interesting and we'll talk a little bit more about that when we return. Thank you, Alan.

HOUR 2:

George: Welcome back to World Review Commentary. This is your host George Butler along with…

Charlotte: Charlotte Littlefield-Brown and I’d like to invite the listening audience to visit our websites. We have We the People Radio Network, which is WTPRN.com. Our guest, Alan Watt, his website is cuttingthroughthematrix.com and of course our website is the secrettruth.com and that's for the benefit of people who are driving and maybe they want to go home and get on the computer…

George: We also have World Review.tv that we're broadcasting on right today. Charlotte and I--

Charlotte: Oh, yes, I did that wrong.

George: We have a couple of programs. We have the secrettruth.com and worldreview.tv.

Charlotte: And they're blending together on there, sorry.

George: Welcome back, Alan Watt, to the program.

Alan: It's a pleasure.

George: This occultic system of rule is very powerful, is it not?

Alan: Incredibly powerful when you look at it – you see, people are so detached now from even recent history. They don't get much recent history. In fact, their children are taught now that history is irrelevant and that's intentional, and yet if you don’t know your history you don’t know what's going on today because the past controls the future, as George Orwell said. The feudal system that ran us for a thousand years in Europe never left us. It never left us and it was all based on better blood, special breeding and selection of mates to have this special blood, this special gene, and they called them "bluebloods" of course. It goes all the way up to royalty, the best of all, supposedly, and they have orders within there, knightly orders and Knights of the Garter and so on. These orders at the bottom are for good works towards the Great Work as they call it. The Great Work is the foundation of a new governmental system – a system for the entire planet, run by those who deem themselves the fittest to rule over the people.

That's what it's all based on and Cecil Rhodes when he set-up the main organization to start where all the rest of them came from. They all belonged to the main organization, the Rhodes Foundation. He said, "We shall base this on a secret society similar to the Jesuits," and they have, and they also give out awards just like the Jesuits do with higher orders to those who play the game. You'll notice that many of your presidents after they left the presidency went over and got knighted by the Queen. Kissinger even went over and got knighted by the Queen. Giuliani in New York went over and got knighted by the Queen. It seems to be a very, very important thing for them to be knighted by the Queen and the higher up the orders in the knighthood they become, eventually they're eligible to intermarry into that "better stock" as they call it. They're given the right to do so.

George: Alan Greenspan when he retired went over there and took a job at Her Majesty's treasury.

Alan: We're already international. Really the U.S. and Britain have been joined at the hip – Carroll Quigley said that this, he called it "the parallel government." He said, "this parallel government has existed for 50-odd years." That was back in the '60’s he said that. We've got 100 years of it. It's already there and really politics is just a sideshow for the public because he said that every president who's picked in the United States from either party, including their advisers, are always members of the same Council on Foreign Relations.

George: Today one of those subgroups is out of Chicago as I understand. The Chicago Foreign Relations I think.

Alan: Yes, and they have the Roundtable Societies and many other groups are all in a pyramid type structure all belong to it and give allegiance to it.

George: I think Barack Obama's wife is the director of that subgroup up there in Chicago, Michelle. So they tie them in. How do you see this presidential race shaping up? Some people have told me and the rumors are that Hillary has been sort of picked to go into the White House.

Alan: I've no doubt that she's been groomed whenever she does get in, but they're always groomed. They're groomed long before the public ever hear their names in fact, many years, many years before; and again that's backed up by Carroll Quigley and others. These people are vetted. They never allow someone who is not vetted and is not part of this same organization, this structure that Kennedy was talking about there and Quigley was talking about. They never let an outsider get in. They just can't get in.

George: Even Kennedy attended as a young man the London School of Economics.

Alan: That's right and that's only of the same group because the Oxford that runs the Rhode Scholarship also runs the London School of Economics.

George: You know what they always leave out, Alan? London School of Economics and Political Science. And political science. They always leave that out for some reason. I don't know. Do they purposely leave that out or do they just shorten the name of it?

Alan: They just shorten the name. You tend to find that the ones that come out of the Rhodes Scholarships end up as presidents and high bureaucrats in charge of State Departments especially and foreign offices and your intelligence services. The ones who are sent to the London School of Economics they can still end up as presidents but their role mainly is to push the socialization of society by incurring more debt. They play the left wing. That's their job. They play both sides, the dialectic, but they both belong to Oxford University.

Charlotte: Not to divert the conversation too far off, but what about Jacqueline Kennedy and her son and why did he have to die? You know the peripheral people associated with John F. Kennedy. What about Jacqueline?

Alan: Jacqueline is an interesting person because you see in the high religions too and remember old Joseph had worked his way up through nefarious means himself to get to a position just like the pirates used to do. When you take Yale University and most of the big guys there belong to this British society at the time, too, set up by Elihu Yale in the U.S. He goes back a long, long ways. They made their money in the opium wars, including Kerry and the Bush's family, against China; while the Kennedy's made their money through prohibition and smuggling cocaine and alcohol in with the Bronfman's from Canada into the U.S. Then when Canada put in prohibition and the U.S. stopped it they simply reversed the flow. They used Cuba as their main base, so Cuba was always very important to them for drugs and booze and they actually ran ocean liners to smuggle all this stuff in, so he done great work old Joseph.

As I say, he was always over to see the Royal Family and stay with them, so he was given permission to intermarry into higher genetic stock. Jacqueline Kennedy is very interesting because Benjamin Franklin when he joined the Hellfire Club in England, a higher Masonic group that also went under the name of the Order of Misrule because they had orgies and so on, they had a particular type of brothel attached to them. Not ordinary prostitutes, these women were from selected families and the honor was given to an occasional person who set up the Great Work. They could mate with them for the offspring and the one he mentioned that was the head of that particular house attached to the Hellfire Club was Madame Bouvier, and that's the great, great, great-grandmother of Jacqueline Kennedy, so she came from that stock, the high breeding stock.

Charlotte: I'm speechless.

George: Boy, I'll tell you that is something. Alan, how long have you studied this world system, how long have you been at this really studying it in detail?

Alan: Since I was born.

George: You said once that when you were just an infant you started looking around and noticing that the way it worked, right? The way it really worked? Is that sort of a way you sort of got onto some of these systems?

Alan: I did. I saw. I knew intuitively. I saw people arguing and fighting for basic necessities in a country that supposedly had gone through not just world wars but perpetual wars for about 200 years, all for the sake of the Bank of England and debt and so on, and I wondered why so many people were simply poor. They plundered the planet, which they had, how come the majority of the public in England and Scotland, Ireland or Wales were basically poor but you had this incredibly wealthy elite living in and around London, very old families? I realized then very young that the system was totally controlled right down through economics. They knew just how much to pay the working families to keep them in poverty and never get ahead and how to use them in warfare. I studied that in detail and when I got access to – and I was given access to adult libraries at a very early age and I went into the old libraries. I used to walk four or five miles sometimes on weekends to get into them when I was about six and seven and read books that had been printed in the 1700’s in reference parts of libraries that told you the histories as they happened at the time. I compared it to what I was being taught at school at my time and they were completely different histories. Completely different histories.

The schools already had their histories completely altered to suit the times and later on when I read George Orwell's "1984," the main character was Winston whose job it was working for this big bureaucracy, his job was to eradicate certain parts of history and alter it, and I realized they've always been doing this. They've always been doing it and again Professor Carroll Quigley backs that up in his own book because he takes the records of the Council on Foreign Relations from their records department, he was the historian for them, and fills in all the blank parts of history that you're not told in your regular books. You see most of the mainstream authors that you had for 50-odd years have been authorized to write what they write. They're told what to write and another book has come out recently with declassified documentation stating that very thing, from your poets to your artists to your authors, the main characters that you had for 50-odd years were run by the CIA.

Charlotte: Right, and additionally the people aren't just told what to do. They're given money. They're given an easy life. Things all of a sudden become easy.

George: A comfort zone, right?

Charlotte: Right, exactly. So it's persuasion. It's threats. It's bribery. It's these types of antics. Not a genuine desire to serve or however you want to frame it. They're bribed.

George: Most people though are in sort of a delusional state and they're not fully awake and aware of the way it really works.

Alan: They don’t know. I'll give you a little story of how it really works because a man phoned me up. He was an author and a registered author. He'd written other books before. Now most folk think that you as a little writer send off your stuff to the publishers and they review it and say yes or no and then maybe they'll back you and give you some funding and publish the book. It doesn't work that way. This guy was phoned by Penguin Books who told him to write the Dummy's book on Revelations, like these Dummy's books for this and so on.

George: I have a whole collection of those.

Alan: They told him the format and the whole thing and he asked me if I'd bring him on my program and give him an expose, and so I said I don't want to fool people at all. I know exactly where you'll go with this book, predictive programming, and at the end he tried and tried and says eventually I'll tell you – he was desperate to get me to do this. He says I believe in helping widows and orphans; and I said I don't care, I'm not a Mason. That was a plea for help. That's what happened. Penguin phoned him to write the book on it.

George: Penguin is tied to the Financial Times of London and all that, right? That's who owns the Penguin print house.

Alan: I was phoned, too, on more than one occasion by big powers, big powers.

George: You know who published Greenspan's book? Penguin did.

Alan: I was offered, too, if I would just go along with this alien agenda that's very important to confuse the public, they'd publish all by books on it and so on and I'd be riding high and I said no.

George: Well you have integrity Alan. That's it.

Alan: I also got a threat after that from a big publisher who said he'd phone radio stations and tell them not to have me on anymore.

George: They can phone me all day. I'll have you on any time if you want to be on my show, on our program.

Charlotte: Gentlemen, I have something. In John F. Kennedy's speech, the one we just played, "The President and the Press," he talked about a lot of things but one of the things that he talked about it was important that we talk about the international news; and of course we know that we don't communicate. The public of Canada doesn't directly communicate with the public of America or Mexico or Paraguay or pick your country. What type of – is there any informal communication between these countries that’s not regulated that you are aware? I can't think of any.

Alan: You mean press wise?

Charlotte: Right.

Alan: No. Everything is controlled. All the big newspapers are all controlled again and authorized to be there and even Quigley mentions all the papers. He mentions the top characters who own them and what allegiance they have to which societies.

Charlotte: So we can't communicate as a people? No state, no nation, none of that, but just people to people. We're very isolated in that sense. We're kept in our little boxes.

Alan: Yes, intentionally so.

George: The internet, that's a big, big source of communicating today.

Alan: It's a source but again even Brzezinski talked about that long before we heard of the computer. He said eventually a form of communication would be given to the public which they will think is to help them communicate to each other but in fact will actually develop a new world culture. It will be controlled in other words, because the biggest sites out there are in to the young and it's to tantalize and fascinate them and also to put ideas in their heads towards this new system that's coming in.

George: It's like the semantic web. It's another level of control and creating ideas and invoking them. We've got to cut away here for a second. We’ll be right back, Alan. Welcome back to World Review Commentary. This is your host George Butler along with…

Charlotte: Charlotte Littlefield Brown.

George: Welcome back, Alan Watt.

Alan: It's a pleasure to talk to you.

George: I think Charlotte was trying to make a point, maybe like email or something on the web. Hasn't that opened up the world a little bit more than before as far as – we know that the internet can be used for good and for bad purposes but would email be – like what is the kind of feedback you're getting on your sites today? Are you getting some positive feedback in trying to progress this thing towards more truth or what?

Alan: Yes, especially from those with more of an open mind. They don't just jump in and pick sides and all this kind of thing. They don't go into chatrooms and just argue. That's very disturbing when people get into these things. They follow them like football teams.

George: They really want to take sides.

Alan: Yes and that's intentional. They understand humanity very well. However, what I'm getting is a lot of positive feedback from young people who are open and they're standing back and watching and learning and asking the right questions because they're going to live through the brunt of these changes, the big changes that are coming upon us right now as we go into this global system with the scientific dictatorship styles. See, part of this big institution that runs the world also uses the sciences to the limit and they decided long ago when they put out people like Huxley and others and Galton Darwin that they would create a new type of peasantry. A more improved peasantry of the world and actually genetically alter them to be better workers. We see the rush through genetics. That's why the incredible funding since the early 1900’s towards genetics has gone on; it’s to fulfill this agenda because to the elite WE, the ordinary people now are obsolete. The old system is gone. We're post-industrial. We're post-agricultural. We're post-industrial and really post-technological. All the technology now is in China. They don't need the people in the West so they’re going to drastically reduce the populations. It's all through their literature that they put out themselves.

In fact the Royal Institute for International Affairs if you look into their websites you'll see where they've had international meetings on the control of all foodstuffs in the world and you wouldn't believe that every facet of your life: political, economic, social, career wise is all controlled. The future is being controlled by the decisions of these organizations within the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. They run the whole system and they have unlimited financing to do so and they publish a lot their findings in their own magazine, the Foreign Affairs Magazine they put out every month.

Charlotte: The one thing that's always got me is unlimited financing. It's like when you create the money out of thin air.

Alan: It's quite simple, absolutely.

George: You have a document on your site, the UK Department of Defence document. If you go into cuttingthroughthematrix.com on Alan Watt's site, you'll find a document there you can download and read and what it is it predicts the future. They're trying to predict the future about different aspects of the world system, the problems?

Alan: Yes they know and this is from the Department of Defence for Britain which is also the head of NATO and we're part of NATO charters and so is the U.S. What they've come up with is gradually escalating riots amongst the general public across the western world for the next 30 years. They don't tell you why there'll be riots, but, of course, if you read their plans you'll understand it. The whole way of life that we're so used to, families – the families have been under attack for a long time. They declared it obsolete back in the 1920’s, they'd have to destroy the family unit, so you had a war on families. They also talked about a new scientifically controlled future where you wouldn't get born unless there was a job for you to fulfill. In other words they needed you. They talked about killing off the inferior types that were mentally below par because eugenics – they run the eugenics societies, which are now called “bioethics committees” by the way. That's the same Eugenics Society run by Rockefeller Foundation.

George: Sounds a lot better, bioethics, doesn't it?

Alan: It's much more fuzzy and warm.

George: It makes me feel so good, and it's 40 degrees outside up here in Dallas today.

Alan: The world