Read the following, taken from transcripts of cutting through the matrix.
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
"Innovate, Don't Immolate" - Jan. 26, 2009
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
"Dream of Revolution through Evolution (Horus Unbound)" - Jan. 23, 2009http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts_Alan_Watt_2009.html
Winston Churchill, as I said yesterday, I read a bit from this particular book The Anglo-American Establishment, where he spoke about it in Parliament. He was not 'in', at that time, on the higher circles, he still had the same dream of a united Europe and it's so amazing to hear the old recordings of Churchill's speeches. He started it and Roosevelt started it in the US, their fireside chats to the people, you know, just cosy and just your next-door neighbour talking to you. That was the whole PR part behind it, the propaganda works well. When Churchill talked about uniting Europe, their age-old idea, to his peer group at night, during their parties. This was recorded in the book The Fringes of Power by his personal secretary John Colville, I think he's now Sir John Colville, I think he got knighted. So, here he is during the day, making Path newsreels for the general public, with good propaganda about going off to save your country, your way of life and all the rest of it, while, with his own peer group, he's talking about their age-old plan, "Our age-old plan". Who's 'We'? Who's we, because I think the people of Europe, the average person had never ever had dreamt of it; so, who are 'we'? Our age old-plan. Eventually, he was brought in as Prime Minister, to the higher workings, obviously, and he simply may have been peeved that a higher part of the circle had kept him out of the picture, because in 1946, in Zurich, Winston Churchill's speech was given to the academic youth and it says:
"Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am honoured to-day by being received in your ancient university and by the address which had been given to me on your behalf and which I greatly value.
I wish to speak to you to-day about the tragedy of Europe. This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth, enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world.
He goes on to say
It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics …
and so on, it was very important, at that time, to use religion, in your propaganda. He says:
It is the origin of most of the culture, the arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern time. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and the glory which its three or four million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this twentieth century and even in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and their homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror.
He goes on to talk about tyranny, terror and babbles of voices and so on because he's getting to the point. The point is, of course, that now with the threat of atom bomb, they couldn't have another war; and that sounds very nice and idealistic, we don't want wars, do we? Then he goes on to talk about the unification of Europe, as the only answer to it:
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family,
To re-create the European Family.
or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.
Doesn't that sort of hearken back to Marx again? And, to Benjamin Franklin; remember, Franklin was way into the revolutionary idea, of course, he was a Founding Father, he was also the Ambassador to France, he was the head, the Grand Master of the Nine Sisters Lodge. He initiated Voltaire into that Lodge and they were all about revolution. I'll be back with more of this, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, trying to find out why things are happening in our lifetime actually happen, only to find out they were planned long before we were born. And, much intrigue and manipulation went in to creating the wars, in fact Carroll Quigley mentions, in The Anglo-American Establishment, how the Milner-Rhodes Society, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations propped up Hitler, right up to the war started. We all know that, again, the same characters that ran and owned the big foundations were funding these particular groups, also created IG Farben, which created the German war machine. You think of the length of time Adolf Hitler was in, it was only a few years, from destitution to having a massive military machine; where did that come from? Read the Trials and Punishment of IG Farben, amongst other books, there's quite the trail, because, you'll find, it's the same people that’s been behind everything; and they're still at this world empire business today and if it takes wars to get there, they'll have them.
Getting back to this speech by Winston Churchill, he says:
We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
Much work, Ladies and Gentlemen, has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union
This was the precursor they tried for it.
which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and which commanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand.
He then goes on to talk about the League of Nations, he says:
The League of Nations did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because these principles were deserted by those States who had brought it into being.
He's calling them States here, remember, not Nations.
It failed because the governments of those days feared to face the facts, and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is therefore much knowledge and material with which to build; and also bitter dear bought experience to stir the builders.
Because they're builders; they love building bridges and things.
I was very glad to read in the newspapers two days ago that my friend President Truman had expressed his interest and sympathy with this great design.
Great Design and building.
There is no reason why a regional organization of Europe
They call it regions today, under the United Nations.
should in any way conflict with the world organization of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the western hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations.
Now, going back to The Anglo-American Establishment, the League of Nations and eventually the United Nations, were to be established on the British Commonwealth of Nations and the term 'Commonwealth of Nations' was termed, as Quigley said, by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, this private organisation that works outside of democracy, although it uses their institutions, since in pretty well dominates them. He says:
hese do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organization. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men?
The Grand Design, that's my term, from theirs of course, from other books.
In order that this should be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
Then, he goes into, they always use history to try, and again, this is explained in Carroll Quigley’s books, Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy & Hope, how they always slant history, to make it seem that we're moving towards a natural unification of the planet; and, that all religions are working, in some metaphysical way, towards this amalgamation and that all political processes are kind of evolving by themselves, towards this same goal. Therefore, they spin their history to leave you, again, with the conclusion, which is the technique of propaganda.
As I say, these same people, today, are telling us that we must unite under a planetary system, because the new war is man against the planet and the planet against man. The Gaia concept as they say. It's quite something to really understand what's happening, because we live in propaganda pretty well all of the time. How far back do these groups and societies go? Well, you have to go back into the 1800s, at least, to get an idea when they were doing a lot of writing about revolution, because it's to do, really, with revolution; and, you must go into the writings of people like Robespierre and Voltaire, Bakunin, Trotsky, Lenin, all these people who talked about world systems, world societies, using the Socialist front. Now, Socialism is an interesting term because it's like every other term that's used from God to Socialism, you get many different versions, according to who you ask. Here's an article here actually that ties right in with this, I'm just punching it up right now.
Let's go back to H.G. Wells, who was an official propagandist of this sect and the article says:
Nominally a socialist
We all think socialism is good, social is a nice word; they use these terms in propaganda that you'll relate to. Social is nice, we're all social beings. Socialist, 'ist', again, like 'ism', is a doctrine. Many people at the bottom think that if you're paying taxes into the system, you're supposed to get services back and that sounds pretty fair. If they're going to take it off you, why don't they give it back, in services; but it doesn't quite work that way, does it?
Now, remember, before the revolutions within the 1700s-1800s, governments simply taxed you and you got nothing back, nothing at all back; but you don't realise that even in Britain, there was no welfare system pretty well until the '50s. There was no unemployment insurance - that came through socialist movements, from the bottom. They went out on strike and a whole nation came to a standstill, because of miners and stuff like that. That's how they had to negotiate with those who ruled.
You take things for granted today, without knowing what really happened before, not so long before; and, this is a fact too: the only reason that you had all of these different schemes, including drug plans at work and stuff like that, little perks, was so that the West could say to their workers, see, we're pretty good here, we're pretty humane. If you've noticed since the Berlin Wall came down, they've all been gradually taken away, until there's very little left at the bottom. That's not by chance.
H.G. Wells, though nominally a socialist, was always in bed with the major Darwinist thinkers of the time.
They all were.
In this paragraph of New Worlds for Old, he talks about the theoretical similarities of what he terms true and noble anarchism, this is also the higher stage of Communism Marx and anarchists refer to. He states 'laboriously we mean to destroy false ideas of property and self.'
Property and self. Where do you find that same doctrine? Where do you find that? If you go into the writings of Pike and others, you'll find them there. The false ideas of property and self. Now, Communism too and Marxism blamed everything on property. You have to go back into the religions, down through the ages and the accompanying religions that always accompany them, often termed too, vaguely, as 'mystery religions' and we all go 'ooh' and 'ah' and we're scared and we're intrigued and so on; but there have always been fraternities down through the ages, that carry forth ideas. Plato was a member; he writes in his own books that he was a member of these sects. He studied in Egypt, that's where he was taught. His mentor was given hemlock for, supposedly, stirring up the young for revolution, revolution. Through revolution they get their way and Plato talked about a Utopia, for his own class, the intellectual elite, where they wouldn't have to maintain their own property, the State would maintain it for them. Therefore, you would have an abolition of private property. Having private property himself, he said was a problem: you had to repair stuff, keep it up, the upkeep of it, replace stolen goods, fix things that break. Why not get those that you rule over to do it for you; and, you're living a life of luxury, but all the peasants below wouldn't have the same life of luxury.
This same theme has come down through the ages, Wells himself said that Plato was his favourite author and his favourite book was The Republic, by Plato.
false ideas of property and self
What's your false ideas of the self? The false ideas of your self. Well, the old idea was that man was the pinnacle of all creation and, when atheism was pushed to the fore, using Darwinism, we see the outcomes today. You have people like Richard Dawkins being promoted all over the planet for his statements that there's no God, just taking up the banner from Nietzsche and others and a big Foundation behind him is funding him to put banners across London's buses saying "There's no God, get used to it". Why would you care so much about what other people thought or believed, to go to this extent to put banners across buses? This person obviously could not live and let live. What you're up against is a totalitarian mind-set and that's where utter pure complete atheism will take you.
He also wrote the book The Selfish Gene and we laugh at this and think well, ‘so what?'. Well, you see, his whole thesis on the Selfish Gene, meaning you're not a person, you're just a culmination of billions of cells, all fighting for their own survival and whatever thought that you have, whatever you appear to be, is a culmination of all these genes fighting each other. That's the nihilism that it brings you to; and, nihilistic thought like this and you have alienation and they call it that at the top, alienation, when you're so far removed from some will to keep you alive, you become nihilistic; and, nihilistic people can destroy many and that's the type we have at the top. That theory, by the way, of you’re not a person, you're just the outcome of billion of cells, competing for survival, was adapted into Game Theory and used by the CIA and the Rand Corporation, through your computers, to analyse all of us as people and I'm sure we're all very disposable because we're really nothing special anymore, we're just a 'freak of nature.'
In H.G. Wells' New Worlds for Old, 1908, he says:
That Anarchist world, I admit, is our dream;
He's speaking on behalf of the Fabian Society. Remember George Bernard Shaw, that wrote Man and Superman, meaning the old man must die off, a new type will be created. Funded by the Astors, who are also part of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and funded them as well.
That Anarchist world, I admit, is our dream; we do believe - well, I, at any rate, believe this present world, this planet, will some day bear a race beyond our most exalted and temerarious dreams, a race begotten of our wills and the substance of our bodies, a race, so I have said it, "who will stand upon the earth as one stands upon a footstool and laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars," but the way to that is through education and discipline and law.
Education and discipline and law - that's the methods they would use to indoctrinate, towards their ideal.
Socialism is the preparation for that higher Anarchism; painfully, laboriously we mean to destroy false ideas of property and self, eliminate unjust laws and poisonous and hateful suggestions and prejudices, create a system of social right-dealing and a tradition of right feeling and action.
I guess that's the right stuff eh? What kind of rite does he belong to?
Socialism is the schoolroom of true and noble Anarchism, wherein by training and restraint we shall make free men.
Free from what? From being you. I don't know if you saw the outcome of the great experiment of the Sovietisation system that was carried out for an awful long time, where authors and poets were dragged up, because of certain words they'd use that were not in line with the Proletariat ideal; and, you were cross-examined and books were not allowed to be published, if a wrong phrase or word was put in there. Everything had to be for the one system, towards the one system, there was no self; there was no self, what does he say here? "To destroy the self".
In the cold light of day, H.G. Wells calls for eugenics and dictatorship through committees and can be seen as the hell so clearly portrayed in Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984. However unappealing to anarchists this vision may be, H.G. Wells's claims are no more objectionable than Kropotkin’s claim for The Beehive.
Read who Kropotkin was, because these are very important people, because their systems have all been combined. Claim for the beehive, that was his beehive, as his vision of Anarcho-syndicalism, they called it. Again, more circles coming together.
Although an anarchist may reject Scientific Socialism, it is a rejection of its means, not its ends. Bakunin is very clear on this in Catechisms of a Revolutionist.
That was printed in 1869. What does it say in that book? Now listen to this:
The Revolutionist is a doomed man.
This is a dedication here that Orwell put it in his own book 1984 as the oath they swear, showing you what the true revolutionist was.
He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution.
All that was, was to be totally destroyed.
Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world.
I'll be back with more of this very important stuff, it's happening today, after this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix and I'm reading part of a book, 1869, Catechism of a Revolutionist by Mikhail Bakunin and Sergi Nechayev. To continue where I left off, because this is the Catechism of a revolutionist. This is the true belief of the true revolutionist:
He is its merciless enemy
That's society and the world.
and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose - to destroy it. He despises public opinion. He hates and despises the social morality of his time,
What have we seen happening through the whole 20th Century? And remember what I said, from Carroll Quigley, when the CIA were into the Culture Creation business and the same members in the CIA were also in the CFR and people thought it was all the Communists who were bringing the system down and changing the mores of the public.
He despises public opinion. He hates and despises the social morality of his time, its motives and manifestations. Everything which promotes the success of the revolution is moral; everything which hinders it is immoral. The nature of the true revolutionist excludes all romanticism, all tenderness, all ecstasy, all love.
As I say: you'll find that Orwell put that in his book 1984, when O'Brien gives him the dictionary which has the double pages inside, he had to peel off and find out the revolutionist bible, basically, inside of it. It was the same ideal.
H.G. Wells sees the New World Order as occurring basically outside his lifetime, Bakunin see this process and the goal of the extinction of self and property as its most urgent revolutionary aim. It in no small way recalls Orwell's fictional recruitment meeting for the brotherhood in 1984.
That's the recruitment meeting idea, the brotherhood, in a sense.
The initiate is expected to throw all caution to the wind, because he says in that book, you're prepared to give your lives, prepared to commit murder, to commit acts of sabotage, which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people, to betray your country to foreign powers.
What is it that Quigley says in the Anglo-American Establishment? These people, literally, have been involved in all the major wars, even setting them up, guiding them. What is it they said when 9/11 came down, at the CFR meeting, that was flashed all over the different videos on 9/11? They said at the CFR meeting, we can use this tragedy to our own good use, our own agenda. They always take things and use it for their agenda. Any disaster will do, because they do have an agenda.
Bakunin was unabashed in his encouragement for the worst excesses of the brotherhood's land-based piracy.
This is what he wrote in 1869.
The comrades of the International Working Men’s Association
And he goes on to talk about the middle classes and so on and Freemasonry, because there's no doubt about it, look at all your crests everywhere, and all the countries that came out of revolution. You've always got the pyramid; you've got obelisks all over the place. You have the Phoenix and what does the Phoenix symbolise: a new system arising, every few hundred years, out of the ashes of the old. What was it that Bakunin said? You destroy everything that's familiar – they hate it – to bring in the new.
I'll be back with more next week on the same topic and go in deeper. So, from Hamish and myself, from Ontario Canada, it's goodnight and may your god - or your gods - go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
Book Excerpts: [Continued] "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carroll Quigley.
"Catechism of a Revolutionist" by Sergei Nechayev and Mikhail Bakunin.
Speech: Winston Churchill's Speech to the Academic Youth (Zurich, 19.9.1946) (at europa-web.de).)
Last week, I talked about the revolution and how revolution has really been fairly continuous, since the 1500s, when the Rosicrucian Societies broke out, at that time in the Court of Queen Elizabeth 1st, and then pamphlets were plastered all over Paris, the following century; and then Germany too and other places, talking about a New World Order.
That was taken up by other people that are well-known in history, including Adam Weishaupt who coined the term that's used on the seal of the United States Novus ordo seclorum, a new world order. It wasn't a grass roots thing, it didn't come from the bottom. No rebellion ever came from the public at the bottom. You might see a rebellion comes, but not a revolution; revolutions are planned, because they want to succeed. It takes sometimes a generation or two to plan a revolution, all successful ones do it that way.
I read from Bakunin, who was one of the professional revolutionary and this is an article that he wrote in the Journal El Progress Geneva in 1869, to give you a clue about the associations that were involved and actually promoted revolution. It says:
In this epoch the bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie are, I'll just say, the middle-classes; they meant upper middle-classes in those days.
too had created an international association, a universal and formidable one, Freemasonry. It would be a substantial error to judge the Freemasonry of the last century, or even that of the first part of the present century,
That's the 1800s.
by what it is today. The bourgeois institution par excellence, Freemasonry, in its development, in its growing power at first and later in its decadence, represented in a way the development, power and moral and intellectual decadence of the bourgeoisie. Today, fallen to the sad position of a senile old intriguer, it is a useless, sometimes malevolent and always ridiculous nullity, whereas, before 1830 and especially before 1793, having gathered together at its core, with very few exceptions, all the minds of the elite,
See: it was an elite movement. Revolution was from the elite.
the most ardent hearts, the proudest spirits, the most audacious personalities, it had constituted an active, powerful, and truly beneficial institution.
Now, there are many books of the period written, and before that too, that were quite open about the fact that Freemasonry, it was through Freemasonry and their associations in the coffee houses in France and so on that they gradually worked the people up, getting them ready for revolution. It's no secret the United States was founded by professional, I call them professional Freemasons, active Freemasons and you can see their symbols everywhere. Bakunin goes on:
It is known that all the principal actors of the first revolution were Freemasons and that when this revolution broke out it was able to find, thanks to Freemasonry, friends and devoted and powerful collaborators in all other countries,
That's true, Thomas Paine was a professional revolutionary, he came over from England, to take part in the American Revolution; once it was over, he went to France, to help them set up and run their revolution.
a fact that was assuredly of great help in its victories. But it is equally clear that the triumph of the revolution killed Freemasonry, for once the revolution had largely fulfilled the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, and had enabled it to displace the old nobility, the bourgeoisie went on quite naturally, after having been an exploited and oppressed class for such a long time, to become in its turn a privileged class, a class of exploiters, oppressive, conservative and reactionary in nature, the most reliable friend and supporter of the State.
I'm going to go into this deeper, after the following break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and Cutting Through The Matrix. History is always presented as little factions unrelated to the next faction, but nothing is further from the truth. We've had really perpetual revolution, sometimes bloody, but mainly through cultural alterations, for centuries; and, even though Bakunin decries Masonry as becoming kind of fat and obsolete, he's not telling quite the truth, because there are factions of it that kept going and Freemasonry was always subservient to the upper classes; the aristocracy you might say. You can go into the history through Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, you'll see just that, you'll find out who is supposedly the heads of the Grand Lodge of England for instance.
Yet, at all times, through history, you'll find that it doesn't matter what side that you think you're on, there’s another hand controlling both of them, and guiding it, because it's the outcome that's necessary for the thesis, antitheses and synthesis. The synthesis is the goal; the conflict between the first two brings you to that goal, that's the whole point of it in conflicts. It was the Intelligentsia that have been behind all the major revolutions, the successful revolutions. When the people at the bottom riot, that's what it is, it's an unorganised riot; it’s a last desperate stand to keep something that's being taken from them, generally. If we don't understand that this is truly an on-going intellectual war, which is very obvious today, then we'll never get the point at we’ll never understand it; because if you watch how the big foundations operate today, they use all the graduates of the universities, they fund the universities; the universities, in turn, become authorities and they advise governments and they're all on board across the whole planet with the same agenda.
Go into the writings of Sir Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley. Sir Thomas Huxley took up the banner of Darwinism and Darwinism is worth a good look at, because it was a religion, a religion created to destroy, once again, all that was, to bring in something new; and, they're still running on Darwinism today. Sir Thomas Huxley recruited lots of well-known writers of the period, including H.G. Wells, and trained them at the red tie school, red for revolution; and, their whole goal was bring to bring more intellectuals into the system for the revolution, to bring in a new world order.
What is a new world order? What does it really mean? What they mean is that, as Jefferson called them, the natural aristocracy, had the right to rule the world; the intelligentsia is what they're talking about.
During the Cold War, that finished around 1989, supposedly when the Berlin Wall came down, you'll find that pretty well all spies, all of them in fact, that were double spies, double agents that worked for the Soviets, and before that, go into Adolf Hitler's Germany, the ones who worked for Adolf Hitler, all came from Oxford and Cambridge, they'd all been to Eton. They all came from the privileged class. Not from the bottom ranks, the lower classes, never happened. Constant revolution by the intelligentsia; and, it's the young minds that are recruited at universities, it's still on-going, for revolution and they don't understand that very old people are conditioning their minds and giving them, what they think, is their generation's revolution. This is the constant technique that's always used.
It's a planned future we're going into and Sir Thomas Huxley, in his own writings, laid out the agenda in his book Man Stands Alone, he said that the problems of the future will be over-population. There's always been a mandate for this; eugenics is another thing. He talked about the creation of imbeciles and how many generations of imbeciles do you want. He said man is just an animal, basically, and would have to be treated as such.
He also talked about something called spirit, even though he was an atheist or a humanist, he talked about spirit. Well, he was talking about the Masonic revolutionary spirit of fire, that's what they mean by that, when they refer to spirit; and, where does the whole origin of fire come from? Ancient symbology, for the illumined ones, fire destroys that which is substance and releases a heat and a light at the same time. It alters everything, destroys all that was, but at the same time it is giving something off that is new; it stands for pure brilliant intellect as well.
There's a book that goes into this by James H. Billington called Fire in the Minds of Men and he was the official librarian for Congress, so he was no conspiracy nut and I'll read a bit of this, when I come back from this break.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix.
I'm going to read the introduction of Fire In The Minds of Men: Origins Of The Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington. At the time of writing it, he was the official librarian for Congress; and, just before I read this actually, I'd like to talk about, or just mention: I'm going to leave a link, at the end of the show where you can see how the London School of Economics gave us the 'trickle down' theory and how they ran, supposedly, the economy, this great intellectual group, that's attached to Oxford, of course, I think Oxford even set it up. Everything comes from Oxford and Cambridge. It's quite interesting and worth a little look at, it explains the Trickle Down Theory, of economics. Back to this book, he says:
This book seeks to trace the origins of a faith - perhaps the faith of our time. Modern revolutionaries are believers, no less committed and intense than were the Christians or Muslims of an earlier era. What is new is the belief that a perfect secular
order will emerge from the forcible overthrow of traditional authority. This inherently implausible idea gave dynamism to Europe in the nineteenth century, and has become the most successful ideological export of the West to the world in the twentieth.
This is a story not of revolutions, but of revolutionaries: the innovative creators of a new tradition. The historical frame is the century and a quarter that extends from the waning of the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century to the beginnings of the Russian Revolution in the early twentieth. The theatre was Europe of the industrial era; the main stage, journalistic offices within great European cities.
Because you see, the intelligentsia and journalism always worked hand in hand, as they still do today; and, their main method was propaganda. Propaganda was not invented by Bernays, by any means, it was well-understood as a science long before.
At centre stage stood the characteristic, nineteenth-century European revolutionary: a thinker lifted up by ideas, not a worker or peasant bent down by toil. He was part of a small elite whose story must be told "from above", much as it may displease those who believe that history in general (and revolutionary history in particular) is basically made by socio-economic pressures "from below".
The people below are always used for revolutions, but they don't design them; there's always an elite who does it for you.
This "elite" focus does not imply indifference to the mass human suffering which underlay the era of this narrative. It reflects only the special need to concentrate here on the spiritual thirst of those who think rather than on the material hunger of those who work. For it was passionate intellectuals who created and developed the revolutionary faith. This work seeks to explore concretely the tradition of revolutionaries, not to explain abstractly the process of revolution. My approach has been inductive rather than deductive, explorative rather than definitive: an attempt to open up rather than "cover" the subject.
My general conclusions can be stated simply at the outset - and, for the sake of argument, more bluntly than they may appear in the text that follows.
The revolutionary faith was shaped not so much by the critical rationalism of the French Enlightenment (as is generally believed) as by the occultism and proto-romanticism of Germany.
Occultism = that what’s hidden.
This faith was incubated in France during the revolutionary era within a small subculture of literary intellectuals, who were immersed in journalism,
fascinated by secret societies and subsequently infatuated with 'ideologies' as a secular surrogate for religious belief.
The professional revolutionaries who first appeared during the French Revolution sought, above all, radical simplicity.
Their deepest conflicts revolved around the simple worlds of their key slogan: liberty, equality, fraternity.
It's funny, because if you go into Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, you'll find that he goes through those three words and then he tells you that no thing could possibly exist, even though they used it to get the masses to go through revolutions for them. It says here:
Liberty has been the battle cry of earlier revolutions (in sixteenth-century Holland, seventeenth-century England, eighteenth-century America) which produced complex political structures to limit tyranny (separating powers, constituting rights, legitimising federation).
Well, that's getting lost and tossed out the window now.
The French Revolution also initially invoked similar ideas, but the new and more collectivist ideals of fraternity and equality soon arose to rival the older concept of liberty. The words nationalism and communism were first invented in the 1790s to define the simpler, more sublime, seemingly less selfish ideals of fraternity and equality, respectively. The basic struggle that subsequently emerged among committed revolutionaries was between advocates of national revolution for a new type of fraternity and those of social revolution for a new type of equality.
They always split you into two, even though you think you're on the same side, they will always do that, they get you into factions.
The French national example and republican ideal dominated the revolutionary imagination throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Exiled Francophile intellectuals from Poland and Italy largely fashioned the dominant concept of revolutionary nationalism - inventing most modern ideas of guerrilla violence and wars of national liberation, expressing their essentially emotional ideal best in mythic histories, vernacular poetry and operatic melodrama.
They used all of the arts, as they still do today, as a main method of propaganda, because, since people don't really think through things, they don't reason, through fiction, you'll find they're very-very influenced through fiction, emotion, so emotion fixed with a topic will stay in the mind and you will go along with the emotion that you saw in the play etc.
Rival social revolutionaries began to challenge the romantic nationalists after the revolutions of 1830; and this socialist tradition increasingly predominated after the forming of the First International in 1864 and the movement of the revolutionary cause from French to German and Russian leadership. Social revolutionaries expressed their essentially rationalistic ideal best in prose pamphlets and prosaic organisations. Their hidden model was the impersonal and dynamic machine of factory industry rather than the personalised but static lodge of the Masonic aristocracy.
The Masonic aristocracy.
No less fateful than the schism between national and social revolutionaries was the conflict among social revolutionaries that began in the 1840s between Marx and Proudhon. The former's focus was on destroying the capitalist economic system clashed with the latter's war on the centralised bureaucratic state.
If you notice the system that's coming in now, it’s a new economic system and it's been shouted from the highest hilltops, in the last few weeks; and, it will be a new economic system, a planned society is what they're taking us to, where those at the top will live in incredible luxury, even though, technically, a lot of them will still serve the state; but, they won't have to pay for anything, they'll still live in palaces and have servants etc.
The word intelligentsia and the thirst for ideology migrated east from Poland to Russia (and from a national to a social revolutionary cause) through the Russian student radicals of the 1860s, who developed a now ascetic type of terrorism. Lenin drew both on this Russian tradition of violence and on German concepts of organisation to create the Bolshevism that eventually brought the revolutionary tradition out of the wilderness and into power.
The revolutionary faith developed in nineteenth-century Europe only within those societies that had not previously (1) legitimised ideological dissent by breaking with medieval forms of religious authority and (2) modified monarchical power by accepting some form of organised political opposition. In northern Europe and North America, where these conditions were met by Protestant and parliamentary traditions, the revolutionary faith attracted almost no indigenous adherents. Thus, the revolutionary tradition can be seen as a form of political-ideological opposition that arose first against authoritarian Catholicism (in France, Italy and Poland) and then against other religiously-based autocracies (in Lutheran Prussia, Orthodox Russia).
What they did you see, first, to change everything, they looked at the system as it was and the main opponent at one time, in fact the only real opponent was the Roman Catholic system; and, therefore, they went to war with that first. Very intense wars, you have to look at the histories of the wars, the religious wars, to see how horrific and for how long they went on.
Once that was done, the same groups that had courted any opposition and eventually the Protestant sects, they used them too. They had to destroy them as well, in turn. So, you're used and then you're destroyed, because the goal is a completely different new world order than the one you think. That's why you don't follow leaders; do your homework and know what on earth is going on.
It's interesting too that Lenin himself, who took over from Mazzini, now Mazzini was a revolutionary professional, again trained, and he also took over as the head of Masonry for one point, from Albert Pike and who took over from him was Lenin, who then set up the Bolshevik, ultimately called the Soviet system, in Russia. I've also gone through the fact that the Royal Institute of International Affairs was heavily involved all during that era. The Milner Group and those boys were heavily involved in it. Russia was called the second great experiment; the United States was the first. They studied what they'd done, the kind of outcomes that they had and would they suit the purposes or would they have to go further. How would they get to their next objective? That's why they're called experiments; who does experiments? Scientists do experiments. Think of the words that you read.
Before attempting to chronicle the drama, the dogmas and the disputes of this new, secular religion-in-the-making,
And it is a religion
it is important to linger on the mystery and the majesty of faith itself. The heart of revolutionary faith, like any faith, is fire
Back to fire again.
ordinary material transformed into extraordinary form, quantities of warmth suddenly changing the quality of substance. If we do not know what fire is, we know what it does. It burns. It destroys life; but it also supports it as source of heat, light and - above all - fascination.
Man, who works with fire as homo faber, also seems foredoomed in his freedom to play with it as homo ludens.
Now, if you remember - those that have not been so jaded by all the recent slaughter that's gone on across the planet - if you can remember the slaughter at Waco, when, the government sent people and the BATF just to wipe out a whole bunch of families and children. That was literally a symbolic act as well, to tell everybody that religion is over. You do not longer have any special privileges, it's over; and, not only that, they hate you, they utterly hate you; those who rule hate you. At the end, when they set fire to it all and burned the whole place down, with the people in it (there are videos out there where you'll see) the BATF bowing to the flames. Ask what kind of brotherhood they belong to; bowing to the flames, they love fire.
Our particular chapter in history unfolds at a time of physical transformation in Europe that was almost as momentous as the first discovery of fire must have been in the mists of antiquity. The industrial revolution was permitting men to leash fire to machines - and to unleash fire power on each other - with a force undreamed of in earlier ages. In the midst of those fires appeared the more elusive flame that Dostoevsky described in the most searching work of fiction ever written about the revolutionary movement: The Possessed.
He wrote about it in a fictional work, but there’s more written about often in fiction than they'll tell you in reality. The story, basically, was about a small provincial town that was suddenly inspired by new ideas and then afterwards, a fire broke out and a local official shouted in the middle of night:
"The fire is in the minds of men, not in the roofs of building"
Hence the title of this book.
Dostoevsky was writing under the impact of two great fires that disturbed him deeply and heralded the transfer of revolutionary leadership from France to Russia. These fires had broken out in imperial St. Petersburg in the spring of 1861 (where the emancipation of the serfs seemed to have inflamed rather than calmed passions) and in imperial Paris ten years later (where the flaming defeat of the Paris Commune ended forever the era of romantic illusions).
The flame of faith had begun its migrations a century earlier, when some European aristocrats transferred their lighted candles from Christian alters to Masonic lodges. The flame of occult alchemists, which had promised to turn dross into gold, reappeared at the centre of new 'circles'
Now, what did I call those groups within the Royal Institute of International Affairs? They call them circles.
seeking to recreate a golden age:
To recreate a golden age, we hear that over and over, with the idealists of the day and past-times as well, to recreate a golden age.
Bavarian Illuminists conspiring against the Jesuits, French Philadelphians against Napoleon, Italian charcoal burners against the Hapsburgs. When the most important anti-Napoleonic conspiracy was ridiculed for attempting "to use as a lever something which is only a match" its leader replied that: With a match one has no need of a lever; one does not lift up the world, one burns it.
You burn the world.
The leader in spreading the conspiracy to Italy soon noted that "the Italian flame" had spread "the fire of freedom
That's what they called it: the fire of freedom.
to the most frozen land of Petersburg". There the first Russian revolution occurred in December 1825. Its slogan "From the spark comes the flame!" was originated by the first man to predict an egalitarian social revolution in the eighteenth-century (Sylvain Marechal) and revived by the first man to realise such a revolution in the twentieth (Lenin, who used it as the epigram for his journal, The Spark).
Always fire; always fire.
A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries - early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time - was
Prometheus, remember it was he -
who stole the fire from the god for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modern belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light.
A world run by a scientific elite.
Back in a moment, after these messages.
=== BREAK ===
Hi folks, I am Alan Watt and we're Cutting Through The Matrix, continuing with the some of the book Fire in the Minds of Men by James H. Billington. He says:
But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning,
The new day that was dawning and they've got lots of paintings with the sun rising. You'll see that in the portrait of Benjamin Franklin toasting the new president, the first president of the United States and he says, in his own works mind you, that's Benjamin Franklin that is, in his own letters, he says we toast this grandmaster of these United States. Getting back to the book, it says:
the sun would never set.
Meaning light, intellect would always rule from then on.
Early, during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the revolution" suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever.
This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality." The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balance complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity - adopting pagan names like "Anaxagorus" Chaumette and "Anacharsis" Cloots, idealising above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers,
That's how they communicate.
geometric forms and the higher harmonies of music.
That's the tones, in fact, from Pythagoras, you get ton, the weight measurement; the tone, the sound etc.
Many of the same Strasbourg musicians who first played La Marseillasie in 1792 had introduced Mozart's
Mozart was a Freemason; and, if you've ever seen the Magic Flute, you'll see an awful lot in that particular show.
Magic Flute to French audiences in the same city only a few months earlier and Mozart's illuminist message seemed to explain the fuller meaning of the jour de gloire
Day of glory.
that Rouget de Lisle's anthem had proclaimed: The rays of the sun have vanquished the night, The powers of darkness have yielded to the light. The rising sun brought heat as well as light, for the fire was generally lit not at high noon on a tabula rasa by some philosopher-king, but rather by some unknown guest arriving at midnight amidst the excesses of Don Giovanni's banquet, "Communism" the label Lenin finally adopted, was invented not by the great Rousseau but by a Rousseau du ruisseau (Rousseau of the gutter): the indulgent fetishist and nocturnal street-walker in pre-revolutionary Paris, Restif de la Bretonne. Thus the revolutionary label that now controls the destiny of more than one billion people in the contemporary world sprang from the erotic imagination of an eccentric writer.
And, by the way, you'll find an awful lot of their main writers were highly neurotic, some had been kicked out of different countries for, literally exposing themselves, although they couldn’t help it, it seems, and they were the greatest propagandists of all that were used, look into Voltaire, very interesting history.
I hear the music coming in for tonight; and, so, from Hamish and myself, in Ontario Canada, it's goodnight and may your god, or your gods, go with you.
Transcribed by Bill Scott.
Article: "World warned of 'food crunch' threat" by Javier Blas, Financial Times (ft.com) - Jan. 25, 2009.
Video: "London School of Economics 'Trickle-Down Theory' " (youtube.com).)
Letter in "Journal El Progress of Geneva" (1869) by Mikhail Bakunin.
Book: "Fire in the Minds of Men" by James H. Billington.