Is Alan Watt Credible?

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

Ringo, about:
<< 1) >> Yes, he's repetitive. I think the word I've used before to describe his delivery was "practiced," as is any performer, including public speakers. No particular sin there, as I agree that most of us probably do that at times. I go over arguments and explanations in my head all the time, refining them for my own benefit. I also noticed that outside of his podcasts, when he needs to respond to a host, interviewer, or caller comment or question and go "off script" (so to speak) I find him less believable -- by that I mean that some of the unsourced statements that come out are simply more "out there," or new to me as in uncorroborated by anything else I've read or seen, not that I'm the universal master of knowledge or anything, but you probably know what I mean. Like, wow, where did that come from, I wish I he'd say.

<< 2) >> I haven't heard him go aggressive, but you seem to have listened to a bit more than I have yet. I'm working my way through his podcasts. For the record, there are 18 shows or podcasts for July, which is about 4.5 per week, which is turning into a bit of a drone because there's little sign that he is incorporating new and current events of less than massive size -- it's mostly history and background. One thing to watch will be how/if his message changes as events unfold. By comparison, SOTT could easily fill a daily, hour-long discussion podcast and hardly repeat itself.

<< 3) >> Right on with the observation of merely skimming or touching some subjects that you'd hope to get more detail about, yet sourcing others.

<< 4) >> Ha ha. No comment there except that I noted that his video on GoogleVideo is of inexplicably poor picture and sound quality.

anart, good one -- I think you've come up with a good nickname -- he is the Anti-Jones! Or maybe Anti-Alex? Anti-AJ?

 

[Azur]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

Ringo's observation and Anne's analysis of the observation brings something up that I have noticed in almost every instance when listening to Watt:

2) He generally comes across very passive as not to pressure, letting people talk over him and cut him off. But then there's been the odd time on radio shows where suddenly his personality has suddenly become the opposite, he's become dominant, talking over the presenter even in idle chit chat. This dominance added with a tone of authority comes out a lot when he brings up the mere thought of reptilian ties to anything, even as far as belittling the listener who dare think it. Is this the wolf in sheep's clothing?

The dominance coming out doesn't surprise me since he speaks in such a 'I know the answer' way - if he were truly passive, (or even really clued in) he wouldn't speak that way - it seems there is something else here.

The most obvious 'something else' is that he understands the power of sounding passive to people who don't initially want to believe what you say - contrary to alex jones methodology, the truth of the matter is that if you allow most people to think you are not emotionally invested in what you are saying, they are more likely to let it sink in a bit - to decide for themselves as it were, while considering what you are saying - instead of just hearing some wound up 'preacher type' - that's for most normal human beings, at least to my understanding.

The undertone of Watt's delivery has always seemed to me to be just a hair short of him REALLY wanting to scream at the top of his lungs, and wanting to punch a hole in the wall.

He very much looks and sounds like someone who is very pissed off, and he seems to have realized that there's not a hell of a lot you can do, except maybe to "stick it to the man" in defiance and to tell everyone who will listen just how they are being screwed, but not necessarily for the people, only to flip the bird to the "Man".

Now, couple this probable intent with the understanding that if nobody listens, it will not be noticed by the "Man", and ergo his defiance left unnoticed. (There's an important issue with this, if I read him accurately, read on).

Stand on a street corner on a soapbox, where you are easily dismissed, or practice your delivery. Hence, Adpop touched on it:

<< 1) >> Yes, he's repetitive. I think the word I've used before to describe his delivery was "practiced," as is any performer, including public speakers.

He's hacking into captivating an audience, while still trying to present to the complicated issues he understands to be relevant to this current situation. So why does he do this? What is the goal?

There is a LOT of HOW things came to be (and not even as well developed as SotT/Laura/et al.), but there is absolutely NOTHING from Watt on what can be done. Zero, nothing, nada, zip.

So, I have to wonder, what is his goal in wanting to show people this, even if only to those that are looking? We does he expect from this? Confirmation that we are pretty much screwed as he sees it? Is there something in the simple telling of the thing, that will produce a change?

Onto the next thing that has bothered me:

3) Although he covers a lot of subjects, sometimes things are skimmed that he could easily go into detail but chooses not to. If you're producing several podcasts a week and find your having to repeat yourself then you have plenty of time for detail. For example, a favourite "...they are spraying the skies again I see...seems to be increasing each week..." this starts off several podcasts just as a passing comments, then once on the subject he once mentioned, "...you can easily pick up the frequency of haarp on short wave radio, I do it all the time..." well if so, what's the frequency? Why neglect to mention it?

<< 3) >> Right on with the observation of merely skimming or touching some subjects that you'd hope to get more detail about, yet sourcing others.

He does go over things, shooting ontologies out, left and right, connections, issues, and who has screwed who, and the end result always being that we are sheep, and there's been a lot of it over so much longer than we realize, that it really doesn't matter now because it has been so pervasive for so long.

It would be interesting to hear him go into some of the things that he shoots out to see if he is imagining what the iceberg below sea level REALLY looks like, instead of extrapolating what it MIGHT look like when he goes no more than a feet or two below water.

When he does this skimming, it's almost like he is reading an index to a book, but there is no book that delves into his research and/or findings, you know, DETAILS. Does he have these details? Has it been the case that he never had the chance, in his speaking forums (due to [whatever] constraints) to elucidate them? If he's putting out daily podcasts, you'd think he would dedicate some of them to go there. But he hasn't. Why? Doesn't want to reveal too much for personal safety reasons thus-eliminating-a-source-of-important-info-to-the-masses scenario, or not sure how far you can go before loosing your "effectiveness" with the current state of man, or is it much simpler: with a lot of data and pattern analysis, you kind of "get it", and at some point in drilling down, the details don't matter so much because the larger patterns are alarming enough.

Saying this, it looks like he is searching in earnest for answers, and MAY have come across SotT and the work done on zero-ing in on the likely vector involving the human component.

He may not be attributing his "finds" to the authors for many reasons, one being that he is a self-isolationist, wishing to not be linked to ANY external source, or it could be that he finds it credible in his own personal model and his only modus operandi is to share what he has found, no matter the source, and here his intent becomes the focus.

It could also be that he is protecting the sources he finds credible by not citing them, in the event that he is "proved" to be a crank by the monkey handlers. If he were to be trotted out as an example, then his sources (were they identified), post-mortem, become the disease that caused his so-called "mental condition".

Hard to tell, in any case. Need to keep looking, and flag any subtle shifts in pattern.

The shifts could be indicative of a personal change, an external change perceived by him or, a change perceived by a third party observing his "listeners" (or even those critically analyzing his discourses). The latter MIGHT be indicative of something, if a change is noticed. It's open.

 

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

Interesting stuff, Azur. A lot of your points could explain parts of the Watt mystique. He could be protecting sources, he could be building a base, he could be trying not to overload his audience, all those things. I think we have to concentrate on his core message, though, to figure out what he's all about. I think I've echoed your call to take note of changes in pattern and content.

<< There is a LOT of HOW things came to be ... but there is absolutely NOTHING from Watt on what can be done. Zero, nothing, nada, zip.
So, I have to wonder, what is his goal ... Is there something in the simple telling of the thing, that will produce a change? >>

Well, he says, "don't live in fear," but is it possible that he is, a bit? I don't think any of us have conquered fear. We all know how common it is for people to complain about something but not to DO anything about it. Usually there's some fear at the bottom of that, OSIT. A common thing, indeed. Could the absence of advice from Watt be some form of that dynamic? That he gets the "complaint" rolling and other are expected to DO something about it? I mean, here on this forum, we're pretty careful about warning people NOT to get too excited and NOT to do anything that would make them a "target." Not to do anything that isn't "gentle ... wise ..." This is because our focus is on the consciousness/spirit. Watt doesn't offer any warning like this that I know of. He is certainly about the future, but appears to discount or at least not discuss spiritual life, greater consciousness, etc.

About sources, here's a striking quote from Alan Watt interviewed on Red Ice Radio, 7 June 2007:

They themselves, remember, have no compassion for other people. They see themselves, literally, as a separate species -- all psychopaths do, especially inbred psychopaths. The DO know they're different.

Familiar?

 

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 2 of 3

I heard a bit more that may strengthen this weak link on his 7 June 2007 interview on Red Ice Radio. He reminds us that, at the top, the elite have their own religion, and that belief in reincarnation is part of it, especially, reincarnation into the same family line, the ability to "inherit" the wisdom of ancestors in this way, which is a kind of immortality of the spirit. The grandfather can become the great-grandson and carry on where he left off. He said this belief is similar to that of some pharaohs of ancient Egypt. Watt doesn't offer an opinion about whether or not such beliefs are true, but you can see how such belief would provide an incentive for elites to do the long-term planning that they do. We, on the other hand, if we proved that this belief existed among the elite, might think about the hyperdimensional aspect of it -- that 4D STS might encourage such a belief among their 3D disciples for the very purpose of encouraging long-term planning. Regardless of who or what instilled it, it is this belief that, in part, "keeps them going," according to Watt.

In fact, in another interview, the host mentioned the phenomenon of known or suspected elites working incredibly hard and energetically and vigorously deep into old age, not only beyond the age that most would retire, but would have lost their vigor anyway -- men from Ben Franklin to Henry Kissinger are of this type. If they didn't think they were going to benefit personally from all this work at some point, why would they keep pushing like that until their dying day? Who knows, maybe it's just the way some people are, maybe it's some pathology, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Ringo]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

<< 2) >> I haven't heard him go aggressive, but you seem to have listened to a bit more than I have yet. I'm working my way through his podcasts. For the record, there are 18 shows or podcasts for July, which is about 4.5 per week, which is turning into a bit of a drone because there's little sign that he is incorporating new and current events of less than massive size -- it's mostly history and background. One thing to watch will be how/if his message changes as events unfold. By comparison, SOTT could easily fill a daily, hour-long discussion podcast and hardly repeat itself.

I subscribed through itunes and downloaded a segment of 12 podcasts from the 11th to the 20th, and a few random others. I've stopped listening now.

If you're going to have a quick listen, try 50 minutes in from the 25th July... Contradiction, threats to quit, self-pity, authoritativeness, attacks on ALL groups...hours and hours of Mr. Passive, then WHAM! :)

R.

 

[Meg]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

This is a rather skeptical take (shock!) - but from your description, it almost sounds hypnotic - repeating exactly the same thing over and over - could there be an NLP aspect to what he is saying? 'seems to be increasing each week' - really sounds like a very loaded 'it's hopeless' prompt - especially if it is repeated often.

I have enjoyed the reviews of this Mr. Watt fellow and I listened to four of his podcasts today. They were informative, but he jumped around a lot as Adpop stated and repeated himself a lot. This afternoon, I was feeling quite strange. Apathetic, somber. Just sedate. I couldn't put my finger on it and was looking around for Rod Serling...until I read this post. Hypnotic. That seems to fit. I won't say it's from the podcasts, but I don't believe in coincidences anymore :D My 2 cents. Great job summarizing btw Adpop!

 

[j0da]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

See this quote:

July 6, 2007

Being human, of course, we want to see everything happen in our own lifetime. We want immediate results, yet we've got to understand that this has been going on for a long time. This whole preparationary stage, in fact, was happening before any of us were born; and yet, I admit and I know we're almost at "the end of the line" as they say.The time for passing information on to generation to generation is almost over; and yet, it's the change within the individual that causes the changes in other individuals, instead of sitting back and waiting for something else to do it for you. It's like throwing a pebble into a pond and watching the ripples spread. Each person can affect those around them, including parents to their children; and they go off to university with other ideas, and might ask questions of the teacher, and might even argue with the teacher and present some facts that can't be repudiated.

It's always with the individual, with lots of little stones, each one causing ripples, until all those ripples start connecting. That's how you change society; and I know time is against us, but it still can be done, if there's enough will there to do it by those who are willing to cause a ripple, rather than going along with the crowd to be accepted and being a robot saying robotic things to keep some form of societal peace, because we're running out of it. We're at a time when we're not going to be allowed any peace.

(snip)

I don't say, "don't worry about it. Sit back and God will protect you." They always say that God helps those who help themselves. Why would a deity give you all the abilities you have, and then save you because you won't use them?

Those things which affect societies and alter the courses of societies come from individuals. The majority are never mentioned in history books. That's another trick of indoctrination, to give you always certain people and famous names until you disregard anyone else that talks, unless they also become famous. The star syndrome, and that's why they gave you "stars in your eyes", the expert society.

Individuals pass on information. Individuals alter the lives of those around them. They stay in the memories of those they affect. That's what it's all about; and it better be fast, and the ripples must start, and the demands be made. Demands that those who wish authority over the rest of the public, from your local council to a school board, right up to the very top, including the United Nations that always shouts about democracy; and yet, the U.N. wasn't elected by the public of any country. We must demand that they are tested for their psychopathic traits and their will for power and domination and corruption.

(snip)

We should all stop pretending that because we can buy as much plastic credit card bought toys and goodies in a time of glut—which is also deliberate—that everything is okay. The day will come when that will stop, and you won't buy your little rewards; and then what do you fall back on? We've got to stop and break the silence. THE SILENCE MUST BE BROKEN NOW.

source:

hxxp://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.ca/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Mama_DontLetYourSonsGrowUpToBe_Vow_Boys_July062007.html

So, Alan seems to be counting on ripple effect..

However, do you see this as a coincidence?

2007-07-05
I don't necessarily agree with this point. I do think that significant changes need to be made, one of them being the method by which governments are selected. Any time you place that power in the hands of the people - ANY people - there is a path for corruption and destruction. The closest thing I have been able to come up with that might work is a lottery method for selecting representatives from a pool of qualified candidates. In that way, there is absolutely no need for campaigning or "popularity" contests.

Also, the pool of candidates ought to include representatives of all professions that have been vetted as to their psychological health.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4451&p=4

2007-07-06
Individuals pass on information. Individuals alter the lives of those around them. They stay in the memories of those they affect. That's what it's all about; and it better be fast, and the ripples must start, and the demands be made. Demands that those who wish authority over the rest of the public, from your local council to a school board, right up to the very top, including the United Nations that always shouts about democracy; and yet, the U.N. wasn't elected by the public of any country. We must demand that they are tested for their psychopathic traits and their will for power and domination and corruption.

I dunno, maybe Alan talked about "testing" earlier - we will find out I hope.

 

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

<< I subscribed through itunes and downloaded a segment of 12 podcasts from the 11th to the 20th, and a few random others. I've stopped listening now. >>

You're right, Ringo. There are a couple of sections of links and I didn't count one, so it does look like more than seven per week (>1/day) on average for the month of July. Knowing that, I have to wonder what his means of financial support is. Has anyone heard him say?

Says he's a studio and stage musician and songwriter, but as far as professional standing goes, well, I searched his name as a writer at all three major performing-rights societies (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC) but he's not found, which would be nearly impossible unless he uses a pen/stage name, because it's a matter of professional course to be registered (they're not going to collect airplay royalties for you if you're not registered). Perhaps he's still a musician with irregular studio gigs, or perhaps a permanent sideman for a touring artist who's off the road (despite the lucrative summer season)? Anyone know?

I found this short bio at _http://www.theedgeam.com/guests/pastguest9.htm

Alan Watt was born in Scotland, and from a young age asked questions left unanswered. So he spent much of his time in libraries, at that time were full of books written in the 1700's and 1800's telling a tale of history left out of the modern texts. Freemasonry was big in Scotland, so he saw much of the inner workings firsthand. His aspirations led him into music, becoming a session guitarist, stage musician, classical guitarist and songwriter. This led to many contacts with celebrities, officials, and those who controlled business from behind the scenes. He was trained in a profession, as well, but chooses not to practice. Now Alan resides in Ontario, Canada. Since 1998, he's been a frequent guest on "Sweet Liberty," doing many radio shows with Jackie Patru, amongst other radio programs. Cutting Through 1, 2, and 3 are his three books, available by mail order. These go into the esoteric religion pointing to the fact that all religions have the same exact esoteric side. All freemasonry and many other organizations are one as well. He goes through the symbology to prove this, which has been widely copied by the big patriot superstars. Alan also teaches certain individuals an esoteric explanation to the meaning of life.

I would just email him to ask, of course, but he says he's literally months behind on answering messages.

 

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

At the end of his Red Ice Radio interview, he states that everything he says is supported and that he does not speculate.
Here is the page on which Alan says are his sources for many of the current topics he's been speaking about again and again lately:

_http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles.html

The one that caught my eye first was the UK DOD document on expected trends, which I'll be reading shortly.

 

[CK]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

I have Alan Watt's books and CD's. Some of the talks were from Sweet Liberty that go back as far as 98' . His stated goal is to deprogram the listener, hence the repetitive nature of some talks. Also when he goes on certain radio programmes he may simply be aware of the fact that there may be people who have never heard him before so he can't just start off at a point which some may just not get. That goes for newbies to his site. People would not necessarily go to older blurbs but just to the most recent. If that were the case they may be somewhat confused or even overwhelmed. Not everyone is up to speed on all the NWO info out there. The point that makes him credible to me is he doesn't give many answers as to what to do except to "know thyself" which to me means in part to try to see through all the bull by questioning and not following or conforming. Also not to do what is expected (rioting, etc.) For some reason we all seem to believe that someone is credible only if they have a solution to all the problems. I can only appreciate the fact that he is willing to share the knowledge he has acquired. When asked how to fix the system his reply is why would you want to fix a system that isn't ours to begin with. It's a system that has been given to us by the elites and we aren't even aware that there are so many ways humankind could have evolved had we not been indoctrinated into the one we have. Whether he is one of 'them' or not, he is at least getting some very useful info out. The RBN crowd are starting to pickup and copy much of what he has been exposing for years. I have heard Alex Jones saying almost exactly the same thing on his show that I had heard on an Alan Watt blurb the day prior. I think that this may be one reason he is getting so much air time lately.

 

[PopHistorian]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

Thanks, CK. Can you tell us how the books are documented? From the sample pages on his site, I saw no footnotes. Thanks again.

 

[CK]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

There are many references, although without some knowledge of religion, the occult and Astrology/Numerology, it could be somewhat confusing. The books he recommends are definitely required reading for most. Some statements he makes regarding language and Freemasonry may be difficult to corroborate but there is strong circumstantial evidence none the less. They are not written like most books as they are written more like deprogramming manuals. Here is an example from page 4 of the first book - -This is not a rehearsal. This is the final phase of humanity as we know it. Sound shocking? Then go back to your TE-LEVI-SION and continue your programming. Your faith in the system creates your fate. Those who have no aversion to thinking, persevere and you will be rewarded. "By symbols" said Thomas Carlyle in Sartor Restartus "is man guided and commanded, made happy, made wretched. He everywhere finds himself surrounded with symbols, recognized as such or not recognised.” - -
A book he does not mention that may help explain his slant on the New Age Movement is 'Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' by Constance E Cumbey. It is written from a Christian standpoint and although I am not Christian, I found it quite pertinent. Also, watch an interview on youtube or goggle vid with Norman Dodds. Chilling. No matter how much documentation there may be or lack there of, it still comes down to the individual perception. People who sit on Juries and are presented with the same evidence rarely come back with unanimous decisions.
There's that 'know thyself' again. Hope this answers your question to some extent.

 

[anart]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

No matter how much documentation there may be or lack there of, it still comes down to the individual perception.

Well, actually, this is where we get into a bit of a pickle, because the point of this forum and it's associated web pages is to move beyond 'individual perception' toward 'objective truth'.

There is often, if not always, quite a difference between individual perception and truth.

In order to be able to work toward the objective truth about any situation, data is needed - this data can be sources, references, background information, horizontal or vertical corroboration - pieces of information that stand on their own with no individual 'take on it' being necessary.

There are millions of very persuasive presentations, books, movies, poems, symbols, podcasts extant in the world, but just because they are persuasive or 'chilling' does not mean that they approach the objective truth of any topic - and that is what we are trying to get at here.

Part of uncovering the objective truth can also be determining whether those who claim to profess it are speaking 'originally' or are parroting what others have said with no reference back to the original source. While this may not always be indicative of an agenda, it is almost always indicative of something; be it simple obfuscation to self-promote or co-opting to vector away from that original source - so - if this is going on, it is another data point to consider. fwiw.

 

[kenlee]

REVIEW OF ALAN WATT interview -- Part 3 of 3

They are not written like most books as they are written more like deprogramming manuals. Here is an example from page 4 of the first book - -This is not a rehearsal. This is the final phase of humanity as we know it. Sound shocking? Then go back to your TE-LEVI-SION and continue your programming.

No matter how much documentation there may be or lack there of, it still comes down to the individual perception.

There is the perception of reality (phenomenon) and there is the "reality-as-it-is" (nomenon) behind the perception. The tuning of our instruments of perception, our reading instruments, and how we adjust, align, and calibrate said instrument with respect to the reality that's behind the phenomenal reality and then making corresponding corrections on our 'read errors' via the network principle (and personal research) is what 'right thinking' is all about. So does Mr Watt teach the means to right (objective) thinking in his books? Or does it just appear this way?

Note the above statement from one of his books that you mentioned. Do you see how certain it sounds? It sounds like "this is the way is...this is the way it is..." and so on, Could it be that he is really programming people (among other things) to think "those evil Masons are doing it... those evil Masons are doing it..." and so on and so on all under the guise of "deprogramming"?

Just some thoughts.

 

[matterik]

interesting to read the opinions about Alan Watt. I have been reading some of his books that he refer to and they are interesting to read , very interesting, but still I wonder....

From reading the books he refer to I do not really find the stuff that he talks about. I found some of it , but not the full story.

you can find the sources that alan watt refer to at the following url.

_http://web.telia.com/~u25018836/illuminati/

_http://conspiracysources.wordpress.com/

regards matterik. - a truth seaker.