Hi
I'm interested in collecting some new views on the Alan Watt-David Icke-Glen Kealey controversy. I know debates on this were done to death in the past decade but some recent (2015-16) podcasts have come to light revealing information that was not there before. I tried to talk to the owner of reality bytes radio, the only show that had Watt on as a regular guest over the past two years, but I got no joy there and am interested in the opinions of others.
Here is a summary of my postings in the reality bytes radio chatbox regarding Alan Watt and David Icke. The owner of the station responded but wouldn't speak against Watt. He was never a fan of Icke and did speak against him.
.............................................................................................
Let's start with what I said about Icke:
Many have suspicions about Mr Icke but few name his controllers/employers. Here is a recent exception (15m-16m):
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-41583/TS-1023126.mp3
It is also helpful to have a full understanding of the word 'PRIVY' which is to be had at 32m-33m here:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-41583/TS-1018496.mp3
The station owner replies:
"Icke is a shill... I've said it many times on air through the years. It should be obvious to anyone with some level of mental capacity..."
I reply:
"But you (and your regular guests [who include Alan Watt]) did not name, nor discuss, his controllers at length. That was my point."
My point simply being that neither Watt nor the station would name Icke's controllers even though they were quick enough to call him out as disinfo. agent etc..
................................................................................................
Then I get onto Alan Watt:
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/CTTM2015/Alan_Watt_CTTM_1520_Gues...
Listen to 45m-46m (especially from 45m45s) Alan Watt says "I can't really tell you the whole story because it is still pretty secret but..."
I ask: Why can't the Alan tell the listeners and his host the whole story? And why should secrecy be a barrier to the telling of it? Couldn't the host ask him why? Had the guest signed something which prevented him from doing so? Or is the guest controlled by somebody? It should be obvious to anyone with some level of mental capacity that things are not quite right when remarks like this are buried deep within (what are otherwise very informative and useful) podcasts...
The owner says:
"What's your point? If you're do interested then why not start your own show and see how you get on?"
I reply:
"My point simply was that this is an utterly bizarre statement from a guest. It suggests some external control source is operating on the guest or the guest felt the need to censure himself (for some reason). Sometimes live interviews do not lend their hand to spotting these things at the time . However, listening to it again in retrospect - away from the stresses of a live show - you can hear how bizarre and question provoking the comment is."
The debate went on in the chatboard where I (politely and gentley) suggested that Watt was subtley spinning the host and listeners off into sufism and that Glen Kealey had suggested this years earlier:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-41583/TS-198339.mp3
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/episodePop.jsp?episodeId=198339&cmd...
Then, amongst other things, I was told to start my own radio station, which I am unlikely to do.
.......................................
I'd be interested on the views of others aout this, especially those who have been on the scene for longer than me. Have I picked up on some shifty underhand behaviour from these characters? Have they made a slip of the tounge? Or am I reading too much into things?
Many thanks in advance for any replies.
I don't think that Watt is the controlled opposition. He's more like an eccentric old man that lives out in the woods with his dog. He submerges his rants in a cloud of Quigley, Huxley and Russell quotes that he repeats ad nauseum. If you listen to him long enough, he sounds more and more like a broken record. I was a fan for a while and I even ordered his "books".
What a bloody joke. For $100.00 I got what looked like a bunch of papers that were lying around on his desk and then taken down to a cheap copy shop and bundled into a cardboard covered notebook. It was full of quotes, cartoons and "amazing facts". It contained references to pages in his "book" that weren't even there.
I've never understood his hatred of David Icke (that fact alone would make me think he is controlled opposition. But, I seriously don't think the "opposition" gives a bloody toss about Mr. Watt).
I just sort of feel sorry for him now.
Thanks for replying Eric. I concur about the repitition in Watt's podcasts. They appear to be taking recent or semi-recent news events/factoids and claiming that an age old agenda is behind them. He seems to be adhering to that formula from 1998 to the present. There is only so long that you can listen to that before wanting to check the old books yourself or at least get someone else's opinion or perspective. Quite a lot of his content was covered by bill Cooper a good 5-10 years EARLIER than Watt's first recorded broadcasts. Recently Watt claimed that HE was the one who publicised the 'hard to get' Russell papers - this is false: John Coleman had revealed them in one of his books and recorded lectures as far back as 1993, I think. I don't want to get into a debate of the reliablity of Coleman here but it does show that particular recent claim of Watt's is false.
I agree on your points about Watt's books: for someone who tries to give the air of intelligence and scholarship, I am amazed that his books did not use something like a Harvard referencing system with a proper bibliography, author, name, date, edition, publisher and location of every work, picture and diagram that he had cited. Especially since he claims to be reading those books which use that referencing system or similar. If he did properly reference reproduced material, then perhaps the Glen Kealey plagarism examples would not have surfaced.
As for being controlled opposition, I have nothing conclusive but saying that you can't give the details about something "because it is still pretty secret" is mighty odd behaviour. I certainly do not think he's controlled in the sense of being the outlet to regularly dole out privy council approved factoids in advance of the mainstream media, which is the role that some of the UK alternative media outlets are currently playing.
Thanks for replying Eric, I appreciate your input.