Alan Watt on

"Sweet Liberty" with Jackie Patru

February 22, 2005




Jackie:  Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us tonight on Sweet Liberty. You didn't hear me when I first came on because I didn't have one of my on buttons pushed. Today is Tuesday the 22nd of February in the year 2005. I'm glad you've joined us this evening. I tried to get a hold of Alan Watt. Alan and I talked and I told him yesterday that if I wasn't able to finish what I wanted to do last night that I would finish today and I would get in touch with him. I was thinking all day that he was coming on with us and then I realized about 40 minutes ago that oh, my, I need to call him and his line has been busy and I cannot reach him. So I'm going to take the calls tonight if you would like to call in folks.


Let me share with you our spiritual message. This is the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.


            "Father, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, let me so pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair let me so hope; Where there is darkness, let me sow light; And where there is sadness, joy. Dear Father, Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; To be understood as to understand; To be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; And it is in dying that we are born into eternal life."


There is no death. There is no death. That wasn't part of the prayer, of course, that's my comment, folks.


Jackie:  Hello, Alan. All right, folks, we're back on here and I hope that we didn't lose anybody. I think that was pretty fast work switching phone lines around et cetera. Alan Watt is with us. Alan, I apologize for not calling you earlier today. I was thinking all day long that we had already set it up. You were coming on tonight and I got company this afternoon and some more company tonight and it occurred to me at about 20 after 8 then your dog-gone line was busy, so thanks for calling in.


Alan:  It's no problem. I got a barrage of calls.


Jackie:  You got a barrage of callers. Well all right, thanks. What are we going to talk about? You were telling me about meetings that you had seen – was it a CFR meeting, Alan? You were telling me about it recently.


Alan:  They called it the Trilateral Meeting. It was held in Montreal last week and it was sponsored by the CFR, the New York branch. They paid for that I guess and it was about the integration of the America, Canada and the states.


Jackie:  Would you mind sharing that with our listeners? Now where did you see this, Alan?


Alan:  It was on the regular news.


Jackie:  In Canada? Now they're talking about Canada too when they're talking about the Americas.


Alan:  Oh yes. It's been on the table for a long time and it's been denied of course for a long time as well. They give you both messages simultaneously down through the years. Yes, we're talking about joining. No, we're not talking about joining and then eventually of course they become more open with it and since the Free Trade negotiations in reality that's when it was first discussed that Canada, the U.S., Mexico and then others, especially Chile, would unite to form a form of the United States of Americas to compete with Europe. At this meeting last week they talked about the desired currency of this merger and a new currency to speed it along too and a single government.


Jackie:  A single government. I wonder what they'll call the American dollar? The Amero dollar or the Amero?


Alan:  In fact I think in read in the papers a while ago that they had tossed different names around for a common currency. I can't remember what it was.


Jackie:  I have a book here from this place down in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, and it's an illuminati – Kleimer is the name of the founder of this place I think and this was called the 34th Convocation. This was a message from this Sweinberg-Kleimer and it was a long time ago back in the '20's or '30's and the saying that the capstone on the pyramid – and on their property, by the way, is a smaller version of the big pyramid without the capstone. He said that the reason that the capstone has not been put on yet is that it won't happen until America is once again joined with Mexico. That's how he put it and it's been in the plan. He said something about Egypt, but it's been in the plan for all these millennia and so that when they have it all – and he hoped that would happen without bloodshed.


Alan:  I know that during the Free Trade negotiations the top Canadian bureaucrat or civil servant was called Shelley Ann Clark and she typed up all of the negotiation books for the main negotiations and afterwards she came out publicly and tried to tell the people of Canada that, look, it's a sellout, we're merging with them around the year 2005. That was the initial date they planned on, so who knows. They certainly still want it, now they're public about it. I think what they were doing too is testing the reaction of the people by announcing that they had a meeting to see what would happen.


Jackie:  I doubt we'll see anything like that in the near future here in the states.  


Alan:  I think with this Middle Eastern fracas they'll have to keep the taxpayers in the states quite happy until that's completed and maybe then they'll pull the plug and then use that for an economic disaster as a reason for merging. However, I think they want it to join by 2005, 2006, but I cannot see it in the immediate future, unless they do collapse the economy very quickly.


Jackie:  We know they can do that anytime they want.


Alan:  Yes they can.


Jackie:  I remember back in probably '93 when I was very new to this and you read these financial forecasts. Alan, I was convinced that by October of '93 it was all going to be all over.


Alan:  Well, it doesn’t take much and I know that Shelley Ann Clark when she tried to get the word out to the Canadian people, she said that that would be the reason that would be given at the time would be we're in trouble financially, so is the U.S., and it's too cumbersome to have so many governments with its separate bureaucracies trying to compete with a United Europe and the Pacific Rim conglomeration.


Jackie:  It occurs to me that that's going to fall perfectly in their plan of Trilateral Commission. Like in George Orwell's "1984," they had their three large regions would you call them?


Alan:  That's right. They had East Asia and West Asia and Oceania. Karl Marx wrote about this in the 1840's.


Jackie:  And the wars, when we go back to George Orwell's "1984," how two of them would be against one and then suddenly they were the allies of their enemies and they acted like and the people accepted it like, oh, okay, so it's been this way and this exactly what's happening today. We had a caller just before you called in and we were talking about France and how America has been really biting France and of course now we're hearing that Russia had supplied Iran with nuclear warheads. They're pulling it off already and getting people to believe that oh well Germany is no longer our ally. France is no longer our ally.


Alan:  Just on tonight's news they have tentatively announced that Canada is joining the U.S. with this new anti-missile defense system that they're going to set up in the north of Canada.


Jackie:  Another merger?


Alan:  Supposedly in case of Russia, I guess. Who's left? The Eskimos? Who's going to attack you? Once again, they're setting up Russia as possibly the bad guy, but really this goes back for thousands of years, the necessity of government that really is an elite with a bureaucracy running over the people under the pretense of protecting them from those guys over there – when those guys over there are often their own kin who are running those countries. That was the farce of the European wars for centuries, was that the British king would send these guys off to fight the French king and when they weren't fighting the French king, who was a cousin of his, he was off fighting the King of Holland who was also his cousin.


Jackie:  Of course the kings never fought.


Alan:  No, but they all borrowed heavily from the bankers to support these wars and then they tax the people to pay it all back, so they lived very comfortably on war.


Jackie:  This is for our listeners who may not be aware of this or who have not heard it when I mentioned it. I have read this in three different books or publications or speeches, that when they were planning World War I more overtly, because I know that in 1906, Norman Dodd had mentioned reading about it in the archives of the – what was it? The Carnegie Foundation and they had a question that they asked: "Is there any way better than war or other than war or is there a way to make a change in a nation or culture that it can never change back again?" They formed the commission and they came up with the answer and they said "no, war is the way to make the change" and they started planning World War I and even the fact that it would take place or be started in the Balkans. Then they decided that they would wait until the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act so that the American people could pay for it and in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed and in 1914 World War I was begun. If anybody doubts what you're saying or how long this plan and how well planned it is, we only need to find these little bits and pieces for the conformation, Alan.


Alan:  I know that after they fought Napoleon they had a big meeting with the elite of Europe and the Vatican and they basically divvied up tracts of land to each other and discussed the future wars, where they would be, who would benefit and who the winners would be, et cetera, and they planned the future even back then.


Jackie:  When was this?


Alan:  That was in the late 1800's, The Concert of Europe and another one before it, the Council of Vienna. They actually divvied up the land between the conquerors to pay off all the loans et cetera and the interest rates that would be paid by each nation and even the possibility of new wars and a United Europe. It's never ending. It's never ending and I think one of the best books to read on that is the "Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" because he worked for the British Intelligence Service. He was also a British Lord and he his job was to set up a protest movement against nuclear war, and again with the Hegelian Dialectic--


Jackie:  Set up a protest.


Alan:  Yes. He formed what was the Committee of 100 and they got 100 leaders of large anti-nuclear weapon protest groups, but they were the active branch. They were the ones who'd go in and knock down the fences around American airports and storm over the airports et cetera. He said by using this technique of the dialectic (he's talking about the Hegelian method of opposites), he said we can create global governments. When the people are terrified enough they will ask for global governments.


Jackie:  I've got a quote here by him. He was a UNESCO adviser and of course UNESCO is labeled, if you would, "The Global School Board."  He said, "It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment. When the technique has been perfected every government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."


Alan:  That's right. That was in the "Impact of Science on Society." He went right through it and he quoted Euclid and some of the ancient Greek philosophers because they did experimentation on mind control back in ancient Greece.


Jackie:  Okay, look, we have to take our 60-second break. We'll talk about that when we get back. Alan, are you there?


Alan: Yes. 


Jackie:  I had to go out and find the shortwave radio for Steve so he could listen. You had said that in Greece they were practicing mind control and now give us a timeline here.


Alan:  2,400 years ago. One of the big philosophers there at the time, because they all had their little schools, their followings of students, and he tried with very young children.


Jackie:  Now who are we talking about?


Alan:  Euclid or one of Euclid's students. He did say that he taught them that the color of snow was black, and things along that line, and so that when they grew a few years from then they let them out to meet other children and they would say the snow was black. Of course when other children from outside heard that they'd laugh and mock them and these young students didn't know what was wrong with them because they'd been taught logically that that's what you call the color of snow. Bertrand Russell used that as an example in his book "The Impact of Science on Society.


Jackie:  Is religion a science?


Alan:  Oh yes, absolutely. Everything was tried through religion. Russell said that if you can get a child, preferably under the age of two, which would mean bringing in kindergarten specially sponsored by the state, which we have now in Canada, he said any input from the parents value system--


Jackie:  In Canada is it a free babysitting thing for parents?


Alan:  They just passed a law about a month ago to extend it across the whole of Canada, so I don't know how far it's going.


Jackie:  In other words, working parents would find that a wonderful opportunity for their children and for them because if it is a public government funded project then they wouldn't have to paying babysitters or daycare centers, so that I would imagine that those people who are financially depressed or oppressed, whatever we would call it, would jump at the opportunity.


Alan:  Actually the parents themselves, who are around 25 years of age or so, are one step beyond their parents towards accepting this as normal because many of them went to kindergarten and so on.


Jackie:  And preschool?


Alan:  Yes, that's right, preschool.


Jackie:  I can remember when the U.S. Congress was having hearings on Goals 2000. One of the big things, I kept hearing it over and over and over again, that all children will enter school ready to learn.


Alan:  Yes, that's right. In fact, when they go to kindergarten they start them off right there. Most kindergarten schools have symbols of the images of the world, "we are a global village," you'll see that slogan everywhere, "we are one family," and so they're being prepared already for that. This has been an ongoing intergenerational change towards this agenda or the progression of this agenda for a long time but speeding up in the last 100 years.


Jackie:  What occurred to me when you were talking about this and I was thinking about the people who are financially strapped jumping at it, they time everything at the perfect time for them, don't they?


Alan:  Yes. When you look at the school buses that go around even rural areas and they stop door to door for the children, you see, so no child is left behind as they say. They make sure that everyone gets the same indoctrination and just like in ancient Greece, if they're taught that snow is black they'll all say the same thing and they'll think well we must be normal because we all agree.


Jackie:  Well, you know the thing is when you think about it, we're a global village, we are all one and all that, on a spiritual level we are one and I think that plays to people who don't realize the insidious outcome of what they plan for everybody. It pulls their heartstrings, Alan.


Alan:  I know but I can understand that sometimes it's best not to tell everybody everything that's happening because it's so bad most people couldn't handle it and that's the truth. We're living in a fantasia that we call normal and it's really masterful mind control and our parents have been under it too and this has been going on for a long time, this whole technique of mind control. Very few people question the system that they live in as they go through it. They see things that aren't quite right so they think, "I'll vote somebody else in and things will change for the better," but in reality this is an agenda and the best of it is you don't have to go into conspiracy books to find it. It's in old history books prior to 1900, regular old history books.


Jackie:  You mean people in history books that students were getting?


Alan:  Yes, because prior to 1900, most people who could read and write were part of the wealthier class so they were writing for themselves to themselves and they wouldn't upset the apple cart themselves since they were being rewarded by it. They could quite more openly discuss things and there were more outlets for individual publishers who didn't at that time really need a license in some countries.


Jackie:  Do you think that within these families every now and then there's a black sheep? The reason I'm asking I remember quite a few years ago reading about a Rothschild that was found hung in a hotel room or something.


Alan:  Yes he was.


Jackie:  It makes you wonder if maybe he was slipping out of the grips of the family. I don't even remember where I read this. I don't know if there's any truth in it at all, but that some son of a Rockefeller family somewhere was in Africa and wound up dead.


Alan:  That was Israel.


Jackie:  Was it Israel?


Alan:  Yes. He'd been in a whorehouse and he died. He was high on cocaine and other drugs. He had a heart attack so the Mossad pulled him out into the street and put him in a car to avoid the scandal of where he died. Eventually it blew out into the press what had happened.


Jackie:  Okay. The way I read it was that he was on some junket or something over in Africa.


Alan:  He was on a junket all right, a different type.


Jackie:  Do you think that ever though that somehow they slip out of the grasp of their indoctrination, their mind control?


Alan:  I don't think so much they slip out as slip up with arrogance or maybe too many drugs and they get loose-lipped and boastful, or they could have a weakness. I think the one that was found hung in the bathroom, the Rothschild, was homosexual--


Jackie:  Well I thought they all were.


Alan:  He had a lover--


Jackie:  Blatant in other words.


Alan:  Yes, but not so much the fact that he had one. I think he was starting to disclose things he shouldn't tell him, so secrecy is very important and they're monitored as well in case they ever do slip up, or they can find out what has been said and they can try and remedy it before it hits the papers. They are monitored.


Jackie:  The situation over there in England like with Princess Di and that, what do you think was behind all that?


Alan:  Everyone knows the only reason that she was chosen to marry Charles was simply for the offspring.


Jackie:  Because of the royal blood.


Alan:  For the royal blood and the fact that just looking at Charles you can tell that they're too inbred. They had to branch out a little bit.


Jackie:  Okay, because she was pretty.


Alan:  Yes and Charles is an odd looking guy and his sister Ann, who liked horses, kind of looks like one too.


Jackie:  And the Queen is not such a--


Alan:  No. They're so inbred and it was in the papers at the time all of these reasons, it was more open at that time as to why they'd chosen someone slightly outside the usual coterie. However, once he performed his "duty," you might say, and she had the offspring, Charles was off with the boys, as usual, all the time, playing polo across the world and he was never – I even think they're lining him up now with this woman he's going to marry as just another publicity stunt.


Jackie:  Who is this?


Alan:  Camilla Parker Bowles.


Jackie:  Okay. Is that the one that he was allegedly in a romance with during their marriage?


Alan:  Yes, but I really think it's more of a mother figure, a confidant to him, because he was never interested in women, but it's good PR for the public who must believe he's straight and all the rest of it. At one time his Uncle Mountbatten,tricky Dickey they called him, he was a blatant homosexual. It was no secret. He was worried that Charles was also homosexual that he would never produce offspring and so Mountbatten hired or rented an apartment in London and put some really high class whores in there to try and interest Charles but it didn't work. They went to quite a lot of lengths to try to get him interested in women and then they did PR shots to convince the public that he was straight.


Jackie:  So are the boys his?


Alan:  Who knows? It may have been done artificially for all we know.


Jackie:  There you go. Very possibly.


Alan:  They did a PR campaign that cost millions of pounds at that time and they were taking Charles across the globe and they were hiring dozens of models in Australia and elsewhere who would run towards him on the beach as though he was a really attractive fellow. That's how far they were going to convince the public that he was a real ladies man, but that was so far from the truth. That's the world that we live in and that's always been their world though. They're matched up simply for their genetic lineages and once they have performed their "duty," as they call it, the husband can do what he wants and so can the wife. That's always been the way of the aristocracy.


Jackie:  And so can the wife?


Alan:  Oh yes.


Jackie:   Well that's amazing.


Alan:  As long as she doesn’t give birth to a child outside of the marriage. They used to have their own personal royal abortionists hired full-time just going around the aristocratic families.


Jackie:  Do you believe that it's true that Diana was pregnant by the--


Alan:  I don't know. We'll never know.


Jackie:  You don't know, because there has been reserved speculation of course that the fact that she was engaged to this Arab, I guess, that they just couldn't abide by that.


Alan:  I can see that for sure but also she was becoming too popular. She'd gone on BBC and asked to go on BBC and started to explain some of the problems she had in the marriage and she'd done part one of that and she was going to do part two and I think she was going to go a lot further and tell the British people too much. That's why I think she was killed, because she was too popular and people were listening. If she had done the second part of that BBC documentary, who knows what she might have said?


Jackie:  Why do you think they keep the royal family in England? I mean it is just a figurehead.


Alan:  They're figureheads and it's also a symbol of the system and the system is based on eugenics. It's paradise for the elite there. It is eugenics. That's the only reason that they are royalty is because of their bloodline, which they believe are superior to the ordinary people, and the British Royal family remember is related to all the other royal families across Europe. They intermarry with each other and have done for centuries and centuries but they are a symbol of the system.


Jackie:  Now they called hemophilia the "royal disease," didn't they?


Alan:  Yes. That was one of the royal diseases.


Jackie:  And it's carried by the mother, right?


Alan:  Yes, passed on. They also had madness too. King George went nuts at one point, sort of manic depression. That was common in them too. They are a symbol of superior genes supposedly.


Jackie:  In the protocols they talk about getting rid of the monarchies. Why was the plan for that?


Alan:  It wasn't for all the monarchies. That was the thing too. Eventually what I think they wanted was to phase out their status in the public eye but those same families would still be up there holding the wealth. They do hold an incredible amount of wealth and they have incredible investments in some of the largest multinational corporations on the planet. It wouldn't matter if they eventually stepped down from the limelight. It would make no difference in this day and age because technically they're not ruling anything anymore, technically. Sometimes I wonder if they are though, because I know that the Bilderbergers meeting the Queen goes there with a few other ones from the royal family. They are in on a lot of what's going on, but I think one day they might just step down but still retaining this incredible wealth that they have and they'll still continue to inbreed amongst themselves anyway. There's a whole aristocracy that just simply inbreeds. In fact this Parker Bowles that Charles is going to marry, her ancestor was one of the mistresses of Henry VIII.


Jackie:  My, my, who would that be? Do you know?


Alan:  I can't remember which one, but that shows you how close all these people are right down to the present. She was the mistress of Charles and her ancestor was a mistress for Henry VIII. These people are so close. They're almost a separate race.


Jackie:  Except for their little bastards running around, huh?


Alan:  Yes, but they generally know who they are. See, they have legalized bastards who also have rights to titles and so on if they get authorized by the father and that's where the term in Ireland comes from, FITZ, like Fitzsimmons or Fitzgerald. FITZ means that you were born outside of the royal wedlock but you have a claim to title. They were very promiscuous. That's for the ones that were straight, that is. It's a complex history of aristocracy and of course the Catholic Church for 1,500 years maintained this particular system. They were right behind it.


Jackie:  Yes they were, weren't they?


Alan:  Yes, they call that "the natural order" and of course that's why religion itself, which comes from the lunar, stellar and the solar mystic religions, that's where it comes into play because technically the kings and queens were the gods on earth which were also represented in the sky in the zodiac. Of course the Vatican was symbolic of the deity that ruled the universe and that's what they called "the natural order" – as above, so below. This was a traditional system that had been in play even before they changed their hats in the Roman Church and stopped worshipping Jupiter and changed it to Jesus, but it's the same religion, same technique, the same system and the sciences of mind control were perfected long, long before Christianity ever got on the go.


Jackie:  Any of the religions, regardless what the religion was, the people totally believed in it and in the gods, whether the god was in a tree or there where multiple gods. When I asked you that question when you were talking about how they could take a child and actually have them see that snow is black and believe it, and I thought about how deep and strong the religious beliefs run in people, that it is like it's in the cells and no amount of reasoning or anything. If there's a question that they can't answer, they just say I don't understand that yet. And discrepancies, they see the discrepancies, they say, yes, that is a contradiction but it can't be because God doesn't contradict himself. So they look at a contradiction and say that it isn't one.


Alan:  You must always bridge the gap or jump over it. This technique of making people believe whatever is not too difficult if you have all media, all written works, all novels, all movies, all saying the same thing. That's how sanity is compared. You compare your sanity by your opinions and bouncing them off those around you and if you all agree on the same topics, same things, even though none of it's true, if you all believe the same thing then you say well I must be sane because they all say the same thing. Therefore if you're taught as a group that snow is black and you all say that, you say well of course I'm sane and snow is black and they all agree and that's the simplicity of mind control. It's mainly repetition on controlled groups and as long as all seemingly unrelated media or material comes your way and confirms that and you don't catch on that they're all part of that, then you'll think you're normal and so will everyone else around you.


Jackie:  You know it's like the god Jehovah in the Old Testament. There are people who say, okay, well you're wrong because his name wasn't Jehovah, his name was Yahweh; and so that makes all the difference in the world, Alan?


Alan:  I know, but you see that's magical thinking. Magical thinking was always based in ancient times that if you get the god's name or the deity's name or the genie's name then you had control and authority over the deity.


Jackie:  Is that why it says in the Old Testament it says "if my people repent and call me by my name?"


Alan:  Yes.


Jackie:  Because that's a big one for people who are steeped into the Jehovah / "Yahweh" doctrine.


Alan:  That's the exoteric meaning of Jehovah. There's an esoteric meaning for Jehovah too.


Jackie:  What is the esoteric meaning?


Alan:  Actually it's four words: Yod-He-Vav-He.  It's earth, air, fire and water.


Jackie:  Yahaveh is what?


Alan:  Earth, air, fire and water, which is behind all of the mystery groups right down to the present.


Jackie: Yahaveh means earth, air, fire and water. Do the Jews know this?


Alan:  The rabbis do.


Jackie:  What do the Jewish people think it is? It's Hebrew.


Alan:  Well, they think what they're told to think and there're content with very little really, but most of them aren't terribly religious. They're quite content what they're given.


Jackie:  So that is very materialistic when you think about it.


Alan:  It is.


Jackie:  The god of this world, of this world, the third dimensional material world.


Alan:  It's a ball of mud. However, religion as I say has been perfected long, long before even the Greeks ruled the world; it was all known by the ancient Egyptians and they'd already run that ancient world for 5,000 years before the Greeks came along and I've no doubt actually the pyramids are a lot older than they claim. They base it all on Cheops or Chufu as the Egyptians called them and the Greeks called them Cheops. One dedication inside the pyramid and so they say that must have been built during Chufu's reign, but the Egyptian kings commonly rededicated their name to all monuments, so I've no doubt it's far, far older. Of course, the three pyramids are the three wise men. They are the belt of Orion.


Jackie:  Alan, we're out of our hour. Is there more that you could do on this if we did this tomorrow?


Alan:  Sure.


Jackie:  I mean can we start right here?


Alan:  Yes, as long as you remember where we are.


Jackie:  I've got notes. Thank you. We're out of our hour. Folks, we'll be back with you tomorrow night. Alan will be back with us. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.



(Transcribed by Linda)