ALAN WATT BLURB (i.e. Educational Talk):
"Great Britain, Embryo of World Government –
1938 Report from Royal Institute of International Affairs' Global Meeting"
May 4, 2007
Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – May 4, 2007 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)
WWW.CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIX.COM
Hi folks,
I’m Alan Watt. It is May 4th,
2007 at cuttingthroughthematrix.com
and
alanwattsentientsentinel.eu
People have asked me about some of the older books I have collected over the years, which were published and made available to the public. Some of them were even put into public libraries, but the mainstream media never made much of them. They didn’t mention them, because the mainstream media’s job is to make you think about things, which your betters have decided that you should think about, and they tell you all that they’ve decided you need to know. Legally, those who plan your lives in such an intricate spider-web, interconnecting way, are so legalistic they do allow their books to be put out into the hands of the public. Many of them are published, not all of them, obviously, because so much is still - and always will be - classified as top secret, and comes under “security”. Under the guise of security, they can keep everything stamped and put away in vaults, for as long as they wish to.
This is an ongoing process. Even after the main NAFTA, or Free Trade negotiations (the actual free trade negotiations was a pre-cursor of NAFTA - it was the major setting up of the unification for the Americas), only an actual edited report was given and made available to the public. The rest was sealed and not for public consumption, and put in a vault outside Ottawa where it’ll stay for 30–50 years. We don’t live in a society of freedom. That’s the illusion that we’re given from television. They keep telling you you’re so free – you live in the freest countries in the world. That’s all part of the illusion creation. The more they say it, the more people believe it, and when you show them something that’s not on the mainstream media, they disbelieve it. They truly have been trained, like Zbigniew Brzezinski said, to let the media do their reasoning and their thinking for them. That’s happened with most people. You can’t blame the people, since the indoctrination technique starts at birth and continues throughout your whole life.
One of the various books I have, was taken from the Royal Institute of International Affairs world meeting, one of their world meetings. This particular one, the topic was the British Commonwealth and the future. It was published by Humphrey Milford, and this was 1938. I think the meeting was 1937. However, at the beginning of the book it says:
“Issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs and the Indian Institute of International Affairs, for India.”
Alan: There are more now, and all the non-Commonwealth countries now, after ’45, are called Council on Foreign Relations, such as the one in the U.S. Underneath those listed, it says:
“The Institute of International Affairs in the British Commonwealth are precluded by their rules from expressing as institutes, an opinion on any aspect of international or imperial affairs. Any opinions expressed in this book are therefore not those of the institutes.”
Alan: It’s a disclaimer. They’re quite right, because they don’t talk about politics. They simply have a plan, which is world government. Politics is a lower show for the public to believe in - the Punch and Judy show that they used to show in the Middle Ages, going around the villages. I think this book, initially, was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
It has all the minutes of the meetings. It’s got all the lists of all the members in the back, who they are (there’s hundreds and hundreds of them), politicians from all countries as well and even labour unions. Carroll Quigley said, who was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations for a while, he said that we (that means the institute) have no problems conversing and working with communists, capitalists, dictators and so on, and frequently do so. They do, because they’re all part of it, you see, at the top.
The whole idea of this dominion, this political commonwealth they had of Britain, was set up not just to be a commonwealth, but also to eventually bring in other countries. They knew they had to change the name of their organisation, eventually creating the League of Nations. The League of Nations was funded into existence by the British government, even though the United States put capital in, as well, and pretended not to take part in it, after Wilson. They did take part in it; they had so-called “unofficial members” at every meeting.
The League of Nations was to be the embryo - based on the British system - of world government. They knew that they’d have a hard task, a very hard task to convince the populace of the world to accept it. They had to get a different name. It couldn’t be allied to Britain, or the United States, or any of the colonial powers, so they had to give it a new name, under the guise of a knight in shining armour. It’s a trick that’s been used down through the centuries. It was definitely set up to be the embryo of world government, based on the British system of free trade, and inter-dependence – a concept going back to John Dee, who first coined the term British, or “Brytish Empire”, and proposed this system to Queen Elizabeth I of a world empire. To sell the idea of a world empire, you must bring in all leaders from all groups, and when you don’t have enogroups to give it some sort of public official backing, then you create the groups that speak on the public’s behalf. You always make sure that you put in the leader – an old technique. At these meetings, anyone who was anyone in decision-making in the country, any country, was present. From left-ring, right-wing, far-left, far-right, and up and down - they all belonged to it, dictators, too.
Britain and the empire was to be the basis for a League of Nations, which was to transform with more power after a period of time, into the United Nations - mainly to convince the public in a long-term plan, that they must give up not just their national identity, but they must adopt a new culture which would be made for them, for a world system. The world system that others working for the British government and the British aristocracy at that time, like Bertrand Russell, called “a world run by experts”. It had to be sold to the public, mainly, as helping the public. That’s how you do it; you create a mouse-trap as they say in commerce, and allow the mouse to come in, then you grab them, and you use them for the real reason. That’s how this system works. In other words, the people are the last ones to know the real purposes behind it. We’re told all the good stuff, to get you in to the mouse-trap.
In this book it says on page 258, it’s under the title “A World Order”:
“Several delegates, more especially from the left political wing, urged that no world order could be built, save on a better social order. A world order, said one, implies a rule of justice, internal as well as international, social as well as political.”
Alan: He then went on to espouse the fact they would use the labour standards of Britain, to bring the working people on board, basically, to co-operate towards this order. Just above this on the same page, 258, it states here:
“More than one delegate remarked that once the commonwealth basis was achieved, there was no reason why the control should not be international, and many reasons why it should. And the members of the conference were brought back to their conceptions of a world order, by the question ‘how can you get international control without international government?’ “
Alan: Well, you see, they knew ultimately, it would evolve into international government.
In page 278, it goes on to say:
“The commonwealth order, we may surmise, is only a path to a world order. The conference discussion suggested that this gradual assimilation might happen in economic as well as the political sphere. Whether the commonwealth would then continue or pass away as having fulfilled its usefulness, would be for some British Commonwealth relations conference of the future to discuss.”
Alan: This was based, as well, remember, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, on another group, which had been born in the 1800’s, the Cecil Rhodes Society, and Foundation, given a Royal Charter to exist. They were, in effect, a front group, technically non-governmental, so they could get away with doing a lot in the world, without governments being blamed as backing them. Lord Milner, Alfred Milner, joined the Round Table societies with the Rhodes Foundation, and this made the nucleus for the League of Nations, which is the United Nations, and you still have the Round Table societies working on different problems, like think-tanks do, on how to make us all inter-dependent.
On page 260 it says:
“There did not appear however, to be any dissent from one proposition; that an eventual world order involved an encroachment on national sovereignty, and that this must be a slow and difficult business. Here was a highly important point in connection with the future of the commonwealth itself. For if the effort towards a world order is one of the unifying factors of the commonwealth, and if complete national sovereignty is antipathetic to a world order, then complete national sovereignty cannot be more than a transitional phase of commonwealth relations themselves. The essence of a true league was put to the conference, is that no member has the right of neutrality. One speaker, himself a strong believer in the domain’s right to neutrality, said plainly, that a real league must mean a super-state.”
Alan: He’s talking about world government.
“A delegate referred in an expressive phrase to a society of independent, inter-dependent states, among which, he said, association for mutual defence was quite possible. A similar phrase was indeed used of the British Commonwealth itself.”
Alan: On page 261 they discuss the following:
“Several delegates felt the problem of a world order to be intimately bound up with that of strengthening the friendly relations, which all agreed to be necessary between the nations of the British Commonwealth and the United States. A Canadian spoke of the paradox that while participation in collective security was impossible for the United States, her collaboration was more easily achieved, and her suspicion of British policy less acute, when the latter was directed to upholding the principle of collective security and a world order. One of those who would identify the steps towards a world order, with a leaguing of the democratic states against dictatorships, remarked that the United States and the commonwealth had a great common interest in the fact that the NAZI philosophy was death to them both.”
Alan: Remember that war wasn’t declared by that time. It was pre-World War II.
“A delegate with very different political ideas pointed out that American suspicions towards Great Britain and France, was nothing to American aversion towards dictatorship states. While some delegates drew attention to the growing participation of the United States in international organisation and action, a Canadian member of the conference argued that the breakdown of the political side of the league had made American participation in a revived league less likely, and that the way back was through a co-operative league, linking up different regional leagues of a very similar character, including no doubt the Pan-American union.”
Alan: 1938, hmm.
“A world order, as United Kingdom delegates pointed out, will not wash out their diversities and perhaps regional co-operation may be the means of finding unity in diversity.”--
Alan: You’ve heard that phrase before, “unity in diversity”. That’s a con game that’s been sold to all the countries that joined the European Union, and now will be sold to the public as we’re being merged into the American Union.
“‘I’m not interested in world unity,’ said the same delegate, ‘I just want enough unity to provide the good life.’”
Alan: That’s a term that Huxley and others used, and Bertrand Russell.
“This same idea was presumably in the mind of t