REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3
Okay, got it to work.
My general impression is that Alan does very shallow research (speaking from the perspective of academic research) and is guided by assumptions.
For example, in this talk he responds to a caller asking about Thomas Paine by saying that Paine was a descendant of Hugues de Payen (1070-1136), one of the founders of the Knights Templar.
First of all, he assumes that the KTs were psychopaths because they were involved in banking. That's not necessarily the truth.
Then, he assumes that Thomas Paine was a descendant of de Payen, which is also probably not true.
Notice the dates of the life of de Payen - (1070-1136) - and then consider the following:
The English surname Payne is patronymic origin, being one of those names derived from the first name of the original bearer's father. The source of the name can be traced to the Old English word "paien", which was derived from the Latin word "paganus" meaning "rustic or countryman". It later also came to mean "heathen". The surname was often given to children whose baptism was delayed or, indeed, to adults whose religious zeal was not what it should have been. By the twelfth century, Pagan(us) was a well established first-name in England which was given without any thought to its meaning and it is thus likely that the surname Payne is of patronymic origin rather than of nickname.
The surname is recorded in English documents as early as 1086. In that year one Edmund filius Pagen of Somerset is listed in the Domesday Book. In 1190 John Payne is listed in the Pipe Rolls for Worcestershire while Rotrotus Pagani is registered in the Pipe Rolls for Leicestershire. Variants of the name include Pain, Paines, Panes, Payan, Payen, Payn, Pagan and Pagon. Notable bearers of this surname include John Howard Payne (1792-1852), a dramatist and actor whose most successful plays were "Brutus or The Fall of Taruqin" and "Therese, the Orphan of Geneva".
and
Paine/Payne/Paynes meant the rustic or countryman, a pagan, or decendant of Payen (villager, later heathen)(Smith, Elsdon, New York: Gramercy Publishing Company, 1988.
Paganus was a favorite personal name among the Normans, and in French the name was reduced to Payen, Pain, and Paine. There was a Robert Payen or Paganus in Normandy in 1180, and 1108 (Magn. Rotul. Scaccarii Normannie in the Memoires de la Societe des Antiquaires de la Normandie).
There was a John Pain in England in 1272. From this line came the baronets Payne (Rotuli Hundrederum) (record publication).
Just a little bit of additional research would have revealed to Watt that there are likely many Paine/Payne/Payen lines, all begun by an individual taking his father's name as surname. There is no evidence whatsoever that Thomas Paine was descended from de Payen. And for Alan to say this leaves him wide open to attack from people who do more careful and thorough research.
While he may be able to communicate some ideas to some types of people, he fails to do deep, original research and does not give evidence of the necessary nuanced thinking required to navigate the tricks and traps of psy-ops.
The best disinformation is a lie wrapped in truth. And if a person propagates lies as truth, even if they are sincere and well-meaning, it's still furthering the agenda of psy-ops.
He also seems to be very much caught up in "black and white" thinking. I was reading a transcript of his interview with Richard Syrett Show (_http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Richard_Syrett_Interview_with_Alan_Watt.html), and there are so many holes that I wouldn't even know where to begin to fill them! Not only does he not pick through the mud to find the gems buried there, he tosses the baby out with the bathwater again and again.
For example, he says this:
We have. Initially thousands and thousands of years ago there were tribal societies and most of the information we have about them comes from the Romans who came into Europe and it explains an awful lot when you understand how society worked as opposed to the present day why things don’t work right down to the man and the woman and the single home. In tribal situations the women lived in the center of the tribe and they brought up the children communally and really the women picked the mates when they wanted them and they had many different ones.
First of all, most of the information we have about very ancient tribal societies never came from the Romans; it comes from more ancient sources like Strabo, Tacitus, Thucydides, Herodotus, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, Polybius, and so on. His comment about women picking whatever mate they wanted and having many different ones, is pure nonsense.
Then he says:
There was no such thing as a possession of another person and along came eventually the Catholic Church when they came into Europe and the first law that it passed was marriage with one partner for life and that was the kickoff of “The Agenda” and along with that came the moneyed system as well which hadn’t existed before and that’s what they called “civilization”.
That is a really twisted and distorted version of the facts.
"Possession of another person" is as old as humanity and was the way of life in many cultures. But that is in reference to slavery, which is not, I gather, what he meant. He obviously considers marriage - committment, bonded partners, to be a form of slavery. That's probably why he likes the idea of women being polygamous... he thinks men ought to be that way too.
And, if he thinks that the Catholic Church was the "kick-off" of the agenda, well... I don't know what to say to such ignorance.
I've been tracking that critter for 35 years and even with the 875 pages or so of Secret History, I can't pin it down. If the Cs are correct, the problem has existed for over 300K years.
He also remarks that the "moneyed system" came along with the Catholic church and its laws about "marriage with one partner for life" (which seems to boggle his mind), and that is not true either. Money (in various forms) has been in use a lot longer than that.
I think he means well, but if he would talk less and research more, he might get it closer to being right.
Which reminds me, I'm going to do the Richard Syrett show next Tuesday night (13th, I think). (It will be Wednesday morning for me.)
So anybody in the Toronto area who wants to call in, be ready!
