Is Alan Watt Credible?

There is a new guy on the conspiracy theory circuit, and he is debunking Icke and references to the Lizzies claiming disinformation. Is he also an agent of disinformation, knowing the way the PTB operate. By playing 2 ends of the spectrum, Icke the extremist and Watt the conservative.....
Could this be direct disinformation or manipulation?
Visit Watt's website @ www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Well, I just read the transcript of his most recent interview on Coast to Coast... (now THAT's a whole other subject!) and I have to say that he says a lot of credible things, but then he mixes it with a lot of garbage and gross misunderstanding. But that's typical. Coast to Coast is a disinfo organ after all...

That's not to say that everyone that appears on Coast to Coast - or the companion show, Jeff Rense - is disinfo. Not at all. But generally, the "good folks" they have on are just simply not talking about the subjects that they wish to vector. In this way, they create an "aura of credibility" because they DO have good and sincere and legitimate people on their shows. Just not anyone working on anything that they wish to help suppress.

I read the "January 25, 2006 Sweet Liberty" rant. Wow, quite interesting, though frustratingly scattered, which I guess fits in with his "non-linear" (as he calls it) approach to thinking. He must've touched a hundred subjects, offering depth on none. I could sense his mind racing. Like someone who appears insane because he's glimpsed the truth and is overwhelmed. I agree, good points, some rubbish, but I didn't note any real direction or suggestion regarding what to do about all this control we're under, this mess we're in. The piece has an almost-mad, raving flavor to it with a streak of helplessness. The effect on readers, I would guess, if not outright numbing, might be to spin them off into myriad directions, depending on what they might be interested in actually trying to verify. Perhaps that's just the nature of ad-libbed monologue, though. That was my take, anyway.

I also discovered Alan Watt recently, but I think he has been around for a while. He claims that a lot of conspiracy researchers (such as icke) have ripped material off from him for years. He also claims Icke is a conscious agent of a London-based new-age disinfo operation that sends out operatives to spread their propaganda throughout the world (and that Alister Crowley was part of the same group). Which I personally find pretty doubtful.
I actually found a lot of his stuff very interesting, although some of the connections and explanations for things he gives seem like he's just used his imagination to put the pieces together in the only way he can see them possibly working.
An interesting point about him though is that he is also pushing the psychopath angle of things with regards to the PTB.

i came across alan watt recently, too and i agree with the sentiments here - some of his stuff is very interesting and other things are just all over the map.

i like listening to podcasts on my way to work so i downloaded his appearance on rbnlive.com (The Rick Adams Show) from july 7th.

i've never listened to rbnlive.com before and i found the host to be a carbon copy of the types that pollute the alternative talk-circuit. anyone calling himself the 'paul revere of [alternative radio]' or 'the radio avenger' sends up all kinds of warning flags with me.

at about 2/3 through the program a caller came on who tried to make watt sum up his beliefs and complaining that he was hard to pin down. then the subject turned to evil and sociopathy.
watts said that 'henderson and gillespie' (sp?) identified a new kind of psychopath in the late 1800's - early 1900's and they found out that the most successful psychopaths were actually the leaders of our economy.

the caller said (approvingly): here we go...

and then the host went to commercial.

when they came back, the caller was still on but the conversation didn't quite continue on the psychopathy subject.
i don't think anything was edited, but the host seemed to steer the talk away from the subject.

i found that quite interesting.

RBN seems to be obvious COINTELPRO, but i'm still on the fence about alan watt.
if he is legit, i wonder why he keeps going on these kinds of shows.

the show then disintegrated to a 'jesus-freak show' with a couple of disturbed (IMHO) people calling in, talking about jesus and scripture and whatnot and the host showed his true colors and disqualified himself completely in my eyes. (by agreeing on several points that were just ludicrous)

This is a bit out of subject, perhaps. It is just a comment I have been wanting to post and Iconoclast's post gived an option.
Go to wikipedia and type 'psycopath'. There is nothing! There are some results totally unrelated to psycopathy.
And the entrance 'psycopathy' is blank too.

That's because you spelled it wrong ;). Try psychopath.

The Gardener said:

This is a bit out of subject, perhaps. It is just a comment I have been wanting to post and Iconoclast's post gived an option.
Go to wikipedia and type 'psycopath'. There is nothing! There are some results totally unrelated to psycopathy.
And the entrance 'psycopathy' is blank too.

Click to expand...

I heard Alan Watt speak for the first time today on an archive of a recent radio broadcast. He seems more focused on the psychopathic angle now, and has a clue about it. He believes that a psychopathic elite has controlled us for thousands of years and that nothing is going to change until people recognize that it is psychos who get to the top of the heap in our society.

You have to start the waking-up process somewhere. Whether it's so bad that people that get some disinfo from Watt in addition to the message of psychopathy, I don't know how bad it is. I sure fell under the sway of some pretty lame stuff before discovering Cass, but I could never have discovered Cass without the influence of that lesser material. He is associated with disinfo sources, like RBN, for sure, but Watt may be someone to watch, to see which way he goes.

Speaking of the formation of European elite, knights acquiring tremendous wealth for themselves and their kings by royally authorized plunder, Watt said:

They believed in a higher intellect that they possessed, and they believed that they were a different species, in a sense, from the rest of the public. The rest of the public were called commoners... who were treated like animals, and often called animals by the elite. It's important to realize that nothing has really changed. You have a psychopathic, inbred elite who pass on their genes, with the psychopathy, to their offspring, who are given special training in the art of controlling and governing the minds of the public. No different from the pharoahs of ancient Egypt, when they were young, they were instructed by the high priests around them on how the behavior of an ordinary person works, of what the needs are of the ordinary person, their desires and drives, and how easy it is to control them if you meet a minimum standard of those desires.

[...] An ancient society runs the world, based on selective breeding, picking their mates from qualities like Plato talked about in his book The Republic... Plato knew you could breed traits in or out of domesticated animals, and the same can be done with people. [...] Now, the psychopathic personality, is an interesting subject, because really, that is a system that gave us our culture, and it's not a humane culture. It's a competitive system where those with the most psychopathic traits are liable to succeed at the expense of others. A trait of the psychopath is, they have no conscience. Those who get up into the high levels of anything, in this system, do it over the bodies, or the lives, or the broken families of others, and that is called success. And the people tend to cheer them on. [...]

People will always give power to the beast, in the beast system is always the epitome of the basest things in human nature. Those who get to the top, by any means possible, are the beast. basically. We have no chance of altering anything unless people recognize this. [...]

[Talking about the secret planners and controllers of America, who created the US as a rich, ignorant bully to be used to gain control of the world] ... they knew that the culture and this way of life [American hegemony] would have to come to an end -- they knew themselves that their own corruption would spread down through the lowest orders of the public, and it has sounds like he's talking about ponerization. People are now terribly base as opposed to how they used to be. They've been made so through entertainment... So they planned a system where they start to eradicate the public. They knew they wouldn't need so many people to exist and live in a scientific era. This era is here...

Click to expand...

He goes on talk about depopulation, forced sterilization through tampering with food and water, the growth of the infertility-clinic industry, declining sperm count, allowance of atrocities to occur, etc. The mp3 of this monologue is in the archives of republicbroadcating.org, National Intel Report show, date June 18, 2007.

Although Watt has charged others with "ripping off" his ideas. I wonder who is influencing him?

AdPop said:

Speaking of the formation of European elite, knights acquiring tremendous wealth for themselves and their kings by royally authorized plunder, Watt said:

They believed in a higher intellect that they possessed, and they believed that they were a different species, in a sense, from the rest of the public. The rest of the public were called commoners... who were treated like animals, and often called animals by the elite.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It sounds very similar to the description given by Nietzsche in "Genealogy of morals".

At the time I read it I didn't see all the ramifications of his reflexion since I hadn't gone through the literature relating to psychopathy and ponerology.

It explains the very biased dimension of morals that Gurdjieff or Castaneda emphasized.

BTW, Watt also claims, in this recording, that as part of the NWO, some high-level bureaucrats from Ottawa are allowed to apply for positions in Washington and vice versa, the RCIS and the CIA have already blended, and Montreal will be the new capital of the North American Union, "so it doesn't look like an American thing."

Interestingly, he's suspicious of the PTB collecting data about who is still smoking. He claims that smoking tobacco provides a protective effect against whatever it is that is numbing people's minds. I've heard this in only one other place before.

Just another FYI: interestingly, I just heard Watt in a recording talking about chemtrails, and he comes closer to the SOTT theory than anyone else I've heard. He stated that Edward Teller said in the 1950s that if we sprayed the skies with these barium, aluminum, etc. metallic particles in a carrier-type solution, we could create a great circuit across the world, and using standing wave-type technology, could send signals across the world, alter the weather, and even alter the moods, perceptions, and minds of the general public. It would be a fantastic weapon.

I should mention, though, that I find something quite suspicious about Watt's sudden fame. I did some searching on the 'net, and he is everywhere in the last year, featured prominently on some known disinfo outlets. Coast to Coast, Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, Republic Broadcasting, Red Ice, Google Video, all kinds of podcasts and vids are available, as if the speaking circuit has suddenly become his full-time job, though I don't see how he could be paid for any of this. All of this suggests that he either {1} reveals information to an acceptable limit (perhaps a newly heightened limit, thus the new voice to take us there -- but in any case, the idea behind this is to limit the growth of seekers), or {2} reveals information in a catchy way but slips in critical disinfo that the PTB is eager for people to swallow -- something that will vector them in some way. I'll need to hear more of him to get a handle on what he suggests people DO other than "understand this" or "understand that."

I could be wrong, of course. Maybe it's just so late in the game that it hardly matters to the PTB what gets said anymore.

AdPop said:

Interestingly, he's suspicious of the PTB collecting data about who is still smoking. He claims that smoking tobacco provides a protective effect against whatever it is that is numbing people's minds. I've heard this in only one other place before.

Click to expand...

Yes. Either he read Ponerology, or he's been skimming info from our work.

I got curious about Alan Watt so I did a little search just here on the forum and found something MOST interesting in this post: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1979.msg11071#msg11071

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some
things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones
we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense News Briefing

When I first heard this I was studying NLP and found simlar statements that are designed to confuse the mind and induce a tracelike state. This is what is being done and it's neat to recognize it. I want to learn to do it. That's power, magic really white or black? hmmm..... Perhaps Laura could expound on this! She seems to understand a lot of this, I want to learn it myself. I have seen hyposis used in very powerful ways. A story that comes to mind is from a David Ike, I keeee, reptile man, Alan Watt makes some good pints, about him, anyway. The story is about a hypnotist who hypnotised a guy and induced a beliefe that his dughter didn't exist or wasn't there. She stood concealing the watch. Then they held a watch concealed behind her and the guy could read the wtach. Physically impossible unless, pehaps this is proof that the material world is an illusion and it's all mind.

Click to expand...

Now, I think that my story about the Third Man is pretty widely known by now. You can find it on the Wayback Machine thing as early as September 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20000902195941/http://cassiopaea.org/cass/ascend.htm though it was on our free website at least two years earlier.

Now, I know that the story is not being attributed to Alan Watt, but the point is that a LOT of our stuff gets ripped off without attribution. And it's not attribution - in and of itself - that is important, it is honesty and networking and sharing and what lack of attribution, lack of honoring others laboring in the field, says about a person.

There is another mention of Alan Watt in an interesting context in this post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6515.msg45258#msg45258

and this one:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3145.msg20176#msg20176

Question is: Does Alan Watt list any sources and give credit to others for their ideas?

I'm keeping an ear on Alan Watt because I wonder if he is moving closer and closer to Cass ideas with the effect of being colinear or with the effect of usurping to a point and then turning his listeners off the path (knowingly or not).

When Alan talks, he does do this blurting of mini-shockers, which has the effect of yanking the listener onto his fast-moving conveyor belt of "information." Tidbits both specific and general quickly go by that you wish were sourced or more-explored or that you could personally research, but hardly have time to scribble down before he's moved on. And he's not a fast talker, he simply presents in a densely substantive way. Now, I don't actually fault him for this, nor most speakers, because maybe it is part of the nature of delivering such big messages on such huge topics -- maybe the intent is to catch someone's ear so they'll research things themselves (he's not wildly scattered and full of esoteric references like Tsarion, for example) and I've never heard him mention Icke and he's very "nuts and bolts" and purely earthly. But...

Here's the thing. Alan talks A LOT and covers A LOT -- I mean, he's made loads and loads of alt-radio appearances in which he just talks, but always in friendly environs, not in positions in which he is challenged or asked to explain things in great depth. He's well practiced at this by now. Again, not a fault, just the way it is. He tends not to disagree with hosts, even if they say dumb stuff, but rather just moves on with his message. Again, maybe not a fault if he is eager to get his message out.

I haven't read or seen his books, so I don't know how well his research is documented in print. But he talks A LOT and sounds like he's read Ponerology, but he doesn't mention Lobeczewski. Laura asked,
<< Does Alan Watt list any sources and give credit to others for their ideas? >>

Yes, his monologues reference Carroll Quigley most regularly, also Jacques Attali, and certain other historians, but there's a lot more that comes out of him. And he sells CDs full of talking. His movies on DVD (also found on Google video) are 98% him, you guessed it, sitting and talking like he does on radio and podcasts, with only the usual amount of sourcing.

Here's an idea. Since he is so eager to speak, maybe invite him as a guest on a SOTT podcast. Maybe he'd go for it because he and Laura have in common the experience of being guests on RBN. On the topic of psychopathy, he sounds so much like one of us might sound that I'd be really surprised if he weren't a SOTT and/or Cass reader, but he may not mention it simply because it would limit his audience if he were associated with any "far out" topics like hyperdimensionality, spirituality, UFOs, ETs, New Age topics, etc.

His site has lots of links to his speaking engagements: _http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.ca/
His email address is there, though he says he has an enormous backlog and probably wouldn't answer for quite some time. BTW, I heard John Stadtmiller offer Watt his own show on RBN.

For the curious, hour-long blasts of Watt are downloadable in MP3 format here: _http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Stadtmiller/07/06/Stadtmiller_061807_160000.MP3
_http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Stadtmiller/07/06/Stadtmiller_061807_170000.MP3

I've listened to some of his audio's. I liked his interviews with Driving Miss Effie.

But these questions come to my mind.

Why no attribution to Cassiopaea and SOTT since it was this website that blazed the trail, especially on psychopaths. He seems to have come out of nowhere.

He seems to think that chemtrails are the cause of weather conditions and does not see the possibility of other factors (such as the Wave that may be causing it). It may be that he is even being sprayed with more of the stuff, specially designed for him, so he will believe it even more and talk about it more.

It seems to me he has no understanding of Hyperdimensional manipulation and how it acts through people and it's influence on history. He does not even need to talk about it but does does he see his “Masonic stuff"within this larger context? Does he acknowledges this greater reality or at least point to it in some way as a possibility? If not he will lose perspective especially as we head into the future and he will thusly be deflected.

If he is a truth seeker to the degree to which he appears then he should resonate immediately with the Wave material, Secret History, and of course Ponerology and fully acknowledge Lobaczewski.

Ditto above with reference to UFO’s. He leaves them out of the overall context. Doesn’t mean he has to talk about it, but at least acknowledge it in some way within overall context.

It might be that what he does not talk about is what he is "truly about."

I hope I'm wrong but this is what comes immediatly to my mind about him.