Is Alan Watt Credible?
- Thread starter wilecoyote
- Start date
Johnno
The Living Force
Been mainly on Sweet Liberty radio. He says since 1998 but I could only find
radio archives since 2003.
http://www.archive.org/details/AlanWattSweetLibertCollection
Interesting..... Watt claims to have been invited down to William (Bill)
Cooper's place in 2001 the weekend Cooper was killed in a shootout. Cooper
was hosting Hour of the Time around then I believe, perhaps Watt was a
guest?
http://tinyurl.com/38k3k4
Is Sweet Liberty one of those militia movements under a different guise?
Couple of Sweet Liberty radio's more concerning issues.
The South Was Right
The "Civil War" was not about slavery; it was instigated and financed by the
money lenders to divide and conquer. Is the Confederate flag a symbol of
racism or a reminder to all of us that the South WAS right? Should we spend
billions in reparations for people whose ancestors were slaves?
Guns ... or Not?
Gun control isn't gun 'control'. Gun control is the elimination of all
firearms except as stated in Article 1B Sec. 8 of the Proposed Constitution
for the NewStates of America - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the
police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law." ... and
let us not forget the judges who will have special self-defense privileges.
Gun control is being instituted by tyrannical leaders worldwide; millions of
disarmed and defenseless people have been easily slaughtered by the tyrants
as a result. Read real-life experiences of armed Americans - men and women -
who are alive today because of guns.
And a bit on Ron Paul the "liberty" pin up boy, his policies read pretty
welll the same as sweetliberties......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Ron Paul's political positions are largely in line with his stance as a
libertarian, Constitutionalist, and non-interventionist. He is an advocate
of free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, greater individual rights,
and stronger national sovereignty.[16]
Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As Congressman,
he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget. He has
long fought for the prohibition of federal individual income taxes by repeal
of the 16th Amendment. He has also called for the abolishment of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax, while
acknowledging that he could only do so as president with the backing of
Congress and the American public.[17] Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's
Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in
Congress.[18]
Paul supports strong national security but advocates a non-interventionist
foreign policy. He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to
have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[19][20] Paul believes in
a strong national defense and voted for the War in Afghanistan in 2001,[21]
but suggested alternatives including giving the President authority to grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow war to be carried out
against individuals rather than foreign countries and allow local bounty
hunters familiar with the Afghanistani terrain to be hired to capture Osama
bin Laden and his co-conspirators. Paul stated that the bill "would allow
Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his
associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible
for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and
reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or
elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S."[22]
In 2002 Paul also voted for the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act that
would create a program where commercial airline pilots would be deputized as
federal law enforcement officers and would then be permitted to carry guns
aboard airlines,[23] the bill was eventually amended to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 which Ron Paul voted against.[24] Paul has said he
would not support US involvement in the Darfur conflict[25] or in a conflict
between China and Taiwan.[26]
Paul supports secure borders and strong American sovereignty. He opposes the
North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the
United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence
Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of
double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal
immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants. He also introduced
legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic
citizenship to infants born in the United States to non-citizen parents,
which has been in effect since the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case in
1898 extended U.S. jurisdiction to include all aliens lawfully residing
within the United States, who were not explicitly protected from its
jurisdiction by treaty.[27]
Dr. Paul is a staunch defender of a right to self defense, a proponent of
individual Second Amendment rights and is the only 2008 Presidential
candidate with a voting record rated A+ by Gun Owners of America.
Ron Paul identifies himself as pro-life.[28] He introduced H.R. 776 titled
"Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" which would have defined life as beginning at
conception and would have prohibited the federal government from regulating
or funding abortions.[29] Paul believes that abortion rights should be in
the jurisdiction of the states citing that it is not an enumerated power of
the federal government.[30] Accordingly, he has challenged the
constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.[31] He has described the "rights of unborn
people" as "the greatest moral issue of our time" and called for a federal
ban on abortion via constitutional amendment, but does not support
litigation to overturn Roe v. Wade.[32]
He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying
in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a
"corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He contends that
prices decrease in industries with free markets due to technological
innovation. He opposes the universal health care.[33]
radio archives since 2003.
http://www.archive.org/details/AlanWattSweetLibertCollection
Interesting..... Watt claims to have been invited down to William (Bill)
Cooper's place in 2001 the weekend Cooper was killed in a shootout. Cooper
was hosting Hour of the Time around then I believe, perhaps Watt was a
guest?
http://tinyurl.com/38k3k4
Is Sweet Liberty one of those militia movements under a different guise?
Couple of Sweet Liberty radio's more concerning issues.
The South Was Right
The "Civil War" was not about slavery; it was instigated and financed by the
money lenders to divide and conquer. Is the Confederate flag a symbol of
racism or a reminder to all of us that the South WAS right? Should we spend
billions in reparations for people whose ancestors were slaves?
Guns ... or Not?
Gun control isn't gun 'control'. Gun control is the elimination of all
firearms except as stated in Article 1B Sec. 8 of the Proposed Constitution
for the NewStates of America - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the
police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law." ... and
let us not forget the judges who will have special self-defense privileges.
Gun control is being instituted by tyrannical leaders worldwide; millions of
disarmed and defenseless people have been easily slaughtered by the tyrants
as a result. Read real-life experiences of armed Americans - men and women -
who are alive today because of guns.
And a bit on Ron Paul the "liberty" pin up boy, his policies read pretty
welll the same as sweetliberties......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Ron Paul's political positions are largely in line with his stance as a
libertarian, Constitutionalist, and non-interventionist. He is an advocate
of free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, greater individual rights,
and stronger national sovereignty.[16]
Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As Congressman,
he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget. He has
long fought for the prohibition of federal individual income taxes by repeal
of the 16th Amendment. He has also called for the abolishment of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax, while
acknowledging that he could only do so as president with the backing of
Congress and the American public.[17] Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's
Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in
Congress.[18]
Paul supports strong national security but advocates a non-interventionist
foreign policy. He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to
have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[19][20] Paul believes in
a strong national defense and voted for the War in Afghanistan in 2001,[21]
but suggested alternatives including giving the President authority to grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow war to be carried out
against individuals rather than foreign countries and allow local bounty
hunters familiar with the Afghanistani terrain to be hired to capture Osama
bin Laden and his co-conspirators. Paul stated that the bill "would allow
Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his
associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible
for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and
reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or
elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S."[22]
In 2002 Paul also voted for the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act that
would create a program where commercial airline pilots would be deputized as
federal law enforcement officers and would then be permitted to carry guns
aboard airlines,[23] the bill was eventually amended to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 which Ron Paul voted against.[24] Paul has said he
would not support US involvement in the Darfur conflict[25] or in a conflict
between China and Taiwan.[26]
Paul supports secure borders and strong American sovereignty. He opposes the
North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the
United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence
Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of
double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal
immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants. He also introduced
legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic
citizenship to infants born in the United States to non-citizen parents,
which has been in effect since the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case in
1898 extended U.S. jurisdiction to include all aliens lawfully residing
within the United States, who were not explicitly protected from its
jurisdiction by treaty.[27]
Dr. Paul is a staunch defender of a right to self defense, a proponent of
individual Second Amendment rights and is the only 2008 Presidential
candidate with a voting record rated A+ by Gun Owners of America.
Ron Paul identifies himself as pro-life.[28] He introduced H.R. 776 titled
"Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" which would have defined life as beginning at
conception and would have prohibited the federal government from regulating
or funding abortions.[29] Paul believes that abortion rights should be in
the jurisdiction of the states citing that it is not an enumerated power of
the federal government.[30] Accordingly, he has challenged the
constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.[31] He has described the "rights of unborn
people" as "the greatest moral issue of our time" and called for a federal
ban on abortion via constitutional amendment, but does not support
litigation to overturn Roe v. Wade.[32]
He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying
in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a
"corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He contends that
prices decrease in industries with free markets due to technological
innovation. He opposes the universal health care.[33]
A
Arthur Guy
Guest
Alan Watt, a genius of our time
I just want to inform sott readers if they do not already know about Alan Watt at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. This man is a brilliant mind, a genius of our times and has been talking about the psychopaths agenda for years now. He has tracked this agenda back thousands of years, in fact back to sumer and beyond. This nightmare we are living through now has been a long term plan, thousands of years of planning in fact. The plans these psychopaths has for us is not nice, but the funny thing is that the psychopaths publish their ongoing agenda in their own books that anyone can read but are far to boring for us normal humans to bother with, but are, out in the open. Alan Watt has done all the research for us and has loads of free mp3 talks to download for free. Listening to this man is a mind altering experience for the better of course.
I just want to inform sott readers if they do not already know about Alan Watt at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. This man is a brilliant mind, a genius of our times and has been talking about the psychopaths agenda for years now. He has tracked this agenda back thousands of years, in fact back to sumer and beyond. This nightmare we are living through now has been a long term plan, thousands of years of planning in fact. The plans these psychopaths has for us is not nice, but the funny thing is that the psychopaths publish their ongoing agenda in their own books that anyone can read but are far to boring for us normal humans to bother with, but are, out in the open. Alan Watt has done all the research for us and has loads of free mp3 talks to download for free. Listening to this man is a mind altering experience for the better of course.
henry
The Cosmic Force
According to someone I am in contact with, who says he is in regular contact with Watt, Watt is willing to do any of the radio shows. He wants to stay out of the disputes and concentrate on getting his message out.Johnno said:
That can be a strategy. It means that we can't necessarily judge his own ideas by the places he appears.
But the other thing is that when Laura has been invited onto one of these shows, such as Coast-to-Coast, there is always some last minute problem that arises, some change of schedule. She gets a message that says, "Oh, something has come up. We'll be in touch", and, of course, they never write back.
Watt doesn't appear to have this problem.
As you say, interesting....Johnno said:
Alan Watt, a genius of our time
Hi Arthur. Can you give us a link to some older published work of Alan's - or whatever facts will back up your statement above?Arthur Guy said:
Like I said, I want to see something on the web that shows that Alan has been doing this before 2002 at least. If he has, there is surely a paper/ internet trail.Arthur Guy said:
This is not a good sign. Apparently he is not aware of the fact that one can't get to any truth alone. The dialogue is needed. Did he ever have a dialogue with someone who may know at least as much as he knows, and perhaps more? Is he able to accept it? Can we find a common groundhenry said:
and enrich each other? For this he would have to read some of our material first. But does he have time and will to do it? Is he interested at all? It would be good to know answers.
ark wrote :<< Did he ever have a dialogue with someone who may know at least as much as he knows, and perhaps more? Is he able to accept it? Can we find a common ground and enrich each other? For this he would have to read some of our material first. But does he have time and will to do it? Is he interested at all? It would be good to know answers. >>
This is why I suggested inviting him as a guest on a SOTT podcast. Assuming he knows what SOTT is (probably), his answer would be interesting. As Henry relayed, he always accepts speaking invitations, so if he declined, it would be revealing, IMO. The fact that, as Henry pointed out, Watt doesn't have trouble getting booked, like Laura does, could suggest something as innocent as that his "strategy" of staying away from hyperdimensional or other "too far out there" topics works for him.
Kenlee wrote: << 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). >>
This is definitely not what I heard him say (not to say that he may have also said as you wrote, kenlee). Actually, I heard him say that the spray contains metallic elements that allow the bouncing of signals around the globe, close to what SOTT has deduced, and again, I've never heard this anywhere else, though he does quote a source for this idea that he says goes back to the 1950s, I think it was Edward Teller, but I'd have to listen through hours of material to find it again.
Does anyone have one of Watt's books? If so, can you tell us how well it is sourced/documented/footnoted? Thanks.
This is why I suggested inviting him as a guest on a SOTT podcast. Assuming he knows what SOTT is (probably), his answer would be interesting. As Henry relayed, he always accepts speaking invitations, so if he declined, it would be revealing, IMO. The fact that, as Henry pointed out, Watt doesn't have trouble getting booked, like Laura does, could suggest something as innocent as that his "strategy" of staying away from hyperdimensional or other "too far out there" topics works for him.
Kenlee wrote: << 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). >>
This is definitely not what I heard him say (not to say that he may have also said as you wrote, kenlee). Actually, I heard him say that the spray contains metallic elements that allow the bouncing of signals around the globe, close to what SOTT has deduced, and again, I've never heard this anywhere else, though he does quote a source for this idea that he says goes back to the 1950s, I think it was Edward Teller, but I'd have to listen through hours of material to find it again.
Does anyone have one of Watt's books? If so, can you tell us how well it is sourced/documented/footnoted? Thanks.
Yes, I heard him say this also. But I think I remember him also speaking of chemtrails in terms of weather changes. I don't have time at the moment to go thru his podcasts and writings but if I come across what he said about this I'll let you know.AdPop said:
I've been listening to several of his audio recordings, I get the impression he's does network with people, he'll often openly credit information he mentions with specialist he's met or talked with (although he never mentions names to verify it).ark said:
In recent audio podcasts, he mentions many radio stations often try to change his path of thinking, and talk solely about certain topics. He warns that these stations have their own agenda and are readying us into an uprising when the PTB are ready. This might suggest he's got the heads up on them, and just uses them to get his voice out there, and maybe why he's not interested in wasting time with the disputes the radio stations put forward.
I'd really like the SOTT team to test the water with this guy and try and get a good read on him. If he turns down say a simple invitation to do a podcast sometime, but willing to talk to people he's warning against, then that would say a lot.
R.
Ringo wrote: << In recent audio podcasts, he mentions many radio stations often try to change his path of thinking, and talk solely about certain topics. He warns that these stations have their own agenda and are readying us into an uprising when the PTB are ready. >>
Oh, Lord, I wonder if he's talking about RBN. I get that sneaky feeling, what with Stadtmiller and his supposed gun-waving. When people call Herzog and mention that they don't see any way but revolution or some such, the reply *very clearly* indicated a policy that such cannot be encouraged at all nor mentioned by the hosts (for reasons obvious), but I thought I detected a "wink wink, I hear you and sympathize, buddy" aspect to it ("I'll do whatever I have to do to protect my family") and no discouragement at all, which spooked me. I hope I'm wrong.
Oh, Lord, I wonder if he's talking about RBN. I get that sneaky feeling, what with Stadtmiller and his supposed gun-waving. When people call Herzog and mention that they don't see any way but revolution or some such, the reply *very clearly* indicated a policy that such cannot be encouraged at all nor mentioned by the hosts (for reasons obvious), but I thought I detected a "wink wink, I hear you and sympathize, buddy" aspect to it ("I'll do whatever I have to do to protect my family") and no discouragement at all, which spooked me. I hope I'm wrong.
Alan Watt, a genius of our time
Hi Laura, want to thank you on many levels for your strength and perseverance of bringing knowledge forth and continuing to do so. You are greatly appreciated, even though I have not made it known to you before, it is so. I have a question - though not regarding Alan Watt, even though his first name is interesting I have not heard of him nor have I done research on his work at this point. It was the right of ownership that caught my attention.
Seeing what is real and what is not takes research, discipline, and being - as we know. There are many that slid into the scene that are placed there for the purpose of misdirecting the light - growing the lie – their myths. Along with those that make out-and-out claims, that are lies, claiming the work of others for their own at the most opportune time.
Nonetheless, for me the subject of ownership has always held traits of STS - which can be subtle - as a double-edged sword. If and when higher knowledge is given it has no ownership per say, it is freely given by those of higher knowledge to those that ask, based on ones ability to receive and retain. If one is rightly born or suffers though the work, achieving to be an able receiver their receiver ability is greatly amplified – purer as it were with less interference or less limitations, distortions. Which greatly affects their ability to discern or distinguish falsehood and anchor even greater knowledge. If one receives higher knowledge throughout their life and dose not publish their information, work, or experiences - only sharing information with others one-on-one or a select few, there would be no paper trail. If that information was brought forth twenty or even thirty plus years later into the current time frame, would this be looked at or seen as copy work – red flags - because there was no paper trail? Is higher knowledge a matter of ownership or who can prove who had the information first or is it a matter of the kind of knowledge if any, the information carries?
I ask because through life I have noticed how the rare few threads of light do and can build upon eachother. Creating a tapestry of its own origin, which if known, connects units with units, knowledge with knowledge and so forth – the collinear effect then would be in action, if not co-opt by STS forces - even for the subtlest of reason.
_______________________________
"A free man? —There is no such thing! All men are slaves; some, slaves of money; some, of chance; others are forced, either by mass opinion, or the threatening law, to act against their nature." —[Hecabe to Agamemnon. Euripides, Hecabe 864]
Hi Laura, want to thank you on many levels for your strength and perseverance of bringing knowledge forth and continuing to do so. You are greatly appreciated, even though I have not made it known to you before, it is so. I have a question - though not regarding Alan Watt, even though his first name is interesting I have not heard of him nor have I done research on his work at this point. It was the right of ownership that caught my attention.
Seeing what is real and what is not takes research, discipline, and being - as we know. There are many that slid into the scene that are placed there for the purpose of misdirecting the light - growing the lie – their myths. Along with those that make out-and-out claims, that are lies, claiming the work of others for their own at the most opportune time.
Nonetheless, for me the subject of ownership has always held traits of STS - which can be subtle - as a double-edged sword. If and when higher knowledge is given it has no ownership per say, it is freely given by those of higher knowledge to those that ask, based on ones ability to receive and retain. If one is rightly born or suffers though the work, achieving to be an able receiver their receiver ability is greatly amplified – purer as it were with less interference or less limitations, distortions. Which greatly affects their ability to discern or distinguish falsehood and anchor even greater knowledge. If one receives higher knowledge throughout their life and dose not publish their information, work, or experiences - only sharing information with others one-on-one or a select few, there would be no paper trail. If that information was brought forth twenty or even thirty plus years later into the current time frame, would this be looked at or seen as copy work – red flags - because there was no paper trail? Is higher knowledge a matter of ownership or who can prove who had the information first or is it a matter of the kind of knowledge if any, the information carries?
I ask because through life I have noticed how the rare few threads of light do and can build upon eachother. Creating a tapestry of its own origin, which if known, connects units with units, knowledge with knowledge and so forth – the collinear effect then would be in action, if not co-opt by STS forces - even for the subtlest of reason.
_______________________________
"A free man? —There is no such thing! All men are slaves; some, slaves of money; some, of chance; others are forced, either by mass opinion, or the threatening law, to act against their nature." —[Hecabe to Agamemnon. Euripides, Hecabe 864]
vinny
The Living Force
Alan Watt, a genius of our time
I think the reason Laura is asking about a 'paper trail' has nothing to do with ownership (at least in the normally understood way, and as you clearly described it), and everything to do with credibility (or maybe 'ownership of responsibility'): in this age of ultra-sophisticated cointelpro it is vital to find out the origins and motivations behind every source of information.
I think the reason Laura is asking about a 'paper trail' has nothing to do with ownership (at least in the normally understood way, and as you clearly described it), and everything to do with credibility (or maybe 'ownership of responsibility'): in this age of ultra-sophisticated cointelpro it is vital to find out the origins and motivations behind every source of information.
