Isn't this guy a sham?

[Freeski]

Thank you.

There are several Alan Watt mp3s in which Watt discusses psychopaths (an example of bad people who can imitate good people) in this thread:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=109175.0

There are plenty of liars and smearers who could easily accuse Watt of stealing all of this information from Glen Kealey, or whoever.  And just the simple act of accusation might even be enough for some people to believe it (or to pretend to).

But anyway, the concept of psychopathy is a very important factor in understanding the bigger picture, and how "they" do what "they" do.

Alan Watt - Henderson And Gillespie Found That Most Politicians Are Indeed Psychopathic (10mins 46s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0WYHmG3lY

This actually helped me understand how propaganda really works, and it's amazingly simple. Wow!

Say a person has never heard of Watt (or Kealey for that matter), so you sit them down for ten minutes of listening to Alan Watt. Some choice segment that tells it like it is, but leaves the listener (him) wanting more. Now tell him that Alan Watt was outed as a conman, and considered 'loopy'. Ask him, one year later, "Remember that Watt guy we listened to at the cottage?" He replies: "Oh that conspiracy nut". Do the same scenario with Kealey. Ten years later the name Alan Watt comes up at a party and our man is seamingly compelled to blurt out everything he knows about Allan Watt, which is just three things.

People can only work with the information they have.

If all I know is this:

1) There's a guy named Alan Watt
2) He has some freaky views about conspiracies
3) But they say he's crazy

... then I can't know the truth, because I don't have enough information - like who's this Kealey guy anyway? My point is that the "sheeple" (for lack of a better term) DO NOT RESEARCH ANYTHING. Nothing. They don't read anymore, let alone dig into anything. They are passive information gatherers, have no sense of context, yet will indeed form a rock solid opinion on virtually everything.

The awesome power of propaganda. (Happy Birthday '84! )

[squarepusher]

This actually helped me understand how propaganda really works, and it's amazingly simple. Wow!

Say a person has never heard of Watt (or Kealey for that matter), so you sit them down for ten minutes of listening to Alan Watt. Some choice segment that tells it like it is, but leaves the listener (him) wanting more. Now tell him that Alan Watt was outed as a conman, and considered 'loopy'. Ask him, one year later, "Remember that Watt guy we listened to at the cottage?" He replies: "Oh that conspiracy nut". Do the same scenario with Kealey. Ten years later the name Alan Watt comes up at a party and our man is seamingly compelled to blurt out everything he knows about Allan Watt, which is just three things.

People can only work with the information they have.

If all I know is this:

1) There's a guy named Alan Watt
2) He has some freaky views about conspiracies
3) But they say he's crazy

... then I can't know the truth, because I don't have enough information - like who's this Kealey guy anyway? My point is that the "sheeple" (for lack of a better term) DO NOT RESEARCH ANYTHING. Nothing. They don't read anymore, let alone dig into anything. They are passive information gatherers, have no sense of context, yet will indeed form a rock solid opinion on virtually everything.

The awesome power of propaganda. (Happy Birthday '84! )

Propaganda is much more powerful and all-encompassing than what you have just cited as an example.

I am on page 270 now of Jacques Ellul's 300+ page book, Propaganda, and it will redefine everything you ever thought you knew about the world. Simply put, 'democracy' could not exist without 'propaganda'. It is its bed-fellow, its soulmate. And reading through it, I came to realize just how much of what Alan Watt says is right in this book. This guy (Alan) is not making anything up, and if he is, he's just giving you a view that if not exactly 'mainstream', is backed up by established and prestigious authors such as Ellul.

Disregard anything Watt has to say at your own peril. And while it's healthy to be sceptical, people have to learn to apply it judiciously and sparingly - it's not constructive to immediately chastize anyone for his/her views without the skeptic doing some work on his own as well.The accused should be able to face his accuser and hold him to the same level of scrutiny.

[matrixcutter]

What possible reason would anyone have to doubt anything you say?

The same goes for you also. Your to scarred to look into the truth of the matter, so you lash out at any one who disagrees with ya.

That's a pretty ridiculous and dishonest interpretation of what has actually happened, but that's what I've come to expect.

Anyone who lies (or should that be "disagrees") can simply pretend not to have lied by making up some more lies/excuses about their previous lies, and then blame everything on the people who point out these lies.

What work, where?  Do you know that Kealey was the original source for any of this information that you won't identify?
uhm well it appeared in Kealys material first, then in Watts. Draw your own conclussions.
Are you just going to keep pretending not to have understood everything that has already been said in this thread?
You have yet to shown anything to the contrary, please provide some proof to back up your claims. If Watt didint use Kealeys work than please provide some proof on the matter.

LOL

So you won't and can't prove plagiarism, all you can do is provide a picture.  And you really are going to carry on pretending not to understand what is required to prove plagiarism.

And now you're going to try to reverse reality and suggest that unless anyone can prove "not plagiarism", then plagiarism occurred.

So everything that has ever been written anywhere, by anyone, was plagiarism, until proven otherwise for each individual case.

Similarly, anyone you choose to smear with any accusation at all is guilty of that accusation (no matter how untruthful and/or disgusting) until proven otherwise.

This is the sort of ridiculous BS these people are forced to come out with when somebody with any sort of integrity unambiguously requests some proof for their assertions, lies and "mistakes".

A picture?  Is that your case?

I said i would post one, do you want more? The comparrisons are all over the internet. If you need more let me know, then maybe you can explain them.

If you've got proof of plagiarism, post it.  Don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you don't understand that that hasn't already been said.

And don't pretend that you don't understand the difference between proof of Watt plagiarising Kealey, and an identical picture (or pictures, or even text) of which you don't know the original source.

(This guy will probably just keep going round and round in circles and adding nothing new of any genuine meaning, as these people tend to do.)

[Unintelligable Name]

Which is more ridiculous? The guy (matrixcutter) defending Watt from what he himself is writing is a non-existent, vaporous "attack"; or the guy (Doktor) who is saying he believes Watt plagarized another writer's work.

If it's a non-existant unprovable point as Matrixcutter is writing... is there any reason to argue other than for the sake of arguing? Is it that you expect Doktor to somehow change his mind? Conversely, does Doktor somehow expect Matrixcutter to change his mind?

At this point we could avoid larger, airy debate about pretty much nothing and be better off for it, I believe anyway.

Care to argue with me about my belief in you two having your beliefs about.... stuff?

Besides... for the OP it isn't about the facts anyway -- it's about the media personalities battling each other for his attention. Ain't it?

[matrixcutter]

Say a person has never heard of Watt (or Kealey for that matter), so you sit them down for ten minutes of listening to Alan Watt. Some choice segment that tells it like it is, but leaves the listener (him) wanting more. Now tell him that Alan Watt was outed as a conman, and considered 'loopy'. Ask him, one year later, "Remember that Watt guy we listened to at the cottage?" He replies: "Oh that conspiracy nut". Do the same scenario with Kealey. Ten years later the name Alan Watt comes up at a party and our man is seamingly compelled to blurt out everything he knows about Allan Watt, which is just three things.

People can only work with the information they have.

If all I know is this:

1) There's a guy named Alan Watt
2) He has some freaky views about conspiracies
3) But they say he's crazy

... then I can't know the truth, because I don't have enough information - like who's this Kealey guy anyway? My point is that the "sheeple" (for lack of a better term) DO NOT RESEARCH ANYTHING. Nothing. They don't read anymore, let alone dig into anything. They are passive information gatherers, have no sense of context, yet will indeed form a rock solid opinion on virtually everything.

The awesome power of propaganda. (Happy Birthday '84! )

You've basically described how counter-intelligence and smear campaigns work.

As squarepusher said, propaganda is much wider than that.

Watt regularly discusses information from the books of Jacques Ellul, and dozens of other authors, which demonstrates just how desperate someone would have to be to focus on one author and first claim that Watt plagiarised this author, and then claim that Watt stole everything from this author.

The fact that there are hundreds of hours of free audios on Watt's website in which he cites dozens of authors, including directly quoting from their books, shows just how intellectually lazy someone would have to be to hear the smears, assume they are true and then repeat them at will.

Of course, intellectual laziness is not the only reason why anyone would facilitate such a smear campaign.  Some people have work to do.

[matrixcutter]

If it's a non-existant unprovable point as Matrixcutter is writing... is there any reason to argue other than for the sake of arguing?

It's a smear campaign.

I don't know whether you understand what a smear campaign is, but it's generally about making up bogus claims about someone who is being effective, repeating these claims, refusing to prove them and then attacking anyone who points out the smear campaign.  It's not a new thing.

Maybe it's a little too much to ask of some people to understand the difference between exposing a smear campaign, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Dok]

 

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/16421/Alan_Watt__Lies__Threats_and_Plagiarism/

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/?p=85

well ill leave it at that as all you have done is whine and cry and called names, not once giving an explanation or proof as to why this is. Sounds like some one else ive heard of.  You have fun there princess,...

[matrixcutter]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/16421/Alan_Watt__Lies__Threats_and_Plagiarism/

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/?p=85

The origin of the smear campaign?  That's your trump card?

That article is a tissue of lies and negative speculation, as has been pointed out in the comments section for anyone who can be bothered to find out how much of a liar Andre is, whoever he is.  I wonder whether he posts on this forum.

I wonder whether anyone else from Andre the Giant Ego's Outlaw forum does.   

[Unintelligable Name]

Oh a smeer campaign is it? Can you prove it?   I can prove that.... uh.... what can be proven anyway.... Anyhow...

I merely suggest you find better things to do than to argue with someone who clearly does not share your viewpoint, and never will, for the sake of having it all nice and purty on the forum for random folks to read and wonder why the hell people care about plagarism about troglobtyes (or whatever the hell they are) in the first place.

That >1% of people who are on the fence with Mr. Watt and are swayed by character stabs will surely thank you for challenging the opinions of others, on what they see as plagarism.

Continue with your defense of Mr. Watt's alleged plagarism -- it is most swaying and relevant to... something. I have the fortunate nature of simply not caring either way, extending to your questioning of my education.

Discerning the validity of someone's work through the examination of their character... that sounds rather familiar.... or was it the coverse of that?.... .. .

[Dok]

The origin of the smear campaign?  That's your trump card?

prove its not than we will talk, untill then cya. 

[matrixcutter]

Oh a smeer campaign is it? Can you prove it?  

Seriously?  Wow

Continue with your defense of Mr. Watt's alleged plagarism -- it is most swaying and relevant to... something.

How about an Alan Watt forum, and a thread within it which accuses Watt of being a sham?

Maybe you're better at something else.

I have the fortunate nature of simply not caring either way, extending to your questioning of my education.

Thank God.  Don't forget to update everyone on how much you don't care in the future.

[Unintelligable Name]

I wonder if it's possible to push you into sardonic overload... more on that later.

All I'm trying to tell you is not to argue about stupid shit for your own sake -- but then I caveated that with: 'Do whatever it doesn't bother me.' I'll tell Alan what you did for his credibility amoungst people who can't make up their own minds and needed your guidance.

[matrixcutter]

prove its not than we will talk, untill then cya. 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous stating of the bleeding obvious:

And now you're going to try to reverse reality and suggest that unless anyone can prove "not plagiarism", then plagiarism occurred.

So everything that has ever been written anywhere, by anyone, was plagiarism, until proven otherwise for each individual case.

Similarly, anyone you choose to smear with any accusation at all is guilty of that accusation (no matter how untruthful and/or disgusting) until proven otherwise.

This is the sort of ridiculous BS these people are forced to come out with when somebody with any sort of integrity unambiguously requests some proof for their assertions, lies and "mistakes".

cya

[matrixcutter]

I wonder if it's possible to push you into sardonic overload... more on that later.

Interesting thing to admit to.

I'll tell Alan what you did for his credibility amoungst people who can't make up their own minds and needed your guidance.

Thanks, but I'd much rather you spent your non-caring energy on alerting people to this thread:
Alan Watt mp3s

And to the highly important mp3s in this post from the Microchip Agenda thread.

[squarepusher]

Doktor,

what lends weight to matrixcutters' accusations of a 'smear campaign' is that all the 'attacks' on Alan Watt seem to come from one place: Outlaw Journalism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there's a concerted effort being made by members of that forum (NeoGt, Matterik, Andre) to belittle Alan Watt. Mind you that all these 'former' Wattites got all their information from Watt. You can see this quite clearly in Matterik's videos where he is basically going through all of Alan Watt's recommended books, speaks in high praise of Watt and then suddenly does a total 180, attacks him and accuses him of slandering Bertrand Russell (saying that he 'made it up that Bertrand Russell had experimental schools encouraging pre-pubertal sex' - when this is quite established in other books on Bertrand Russell) - and then leans to Glenn Kealey. Obviously the need is there to have a guru - a father figure. And while Matterik would try to deny it and rallies against the 'idols' and 'gurus' in his later videos, he isn't fooling me: he craves a guru. In fact, he needs it. That's why he has such strong feelings on Alan Watt or a Glenn Kealey.

It's this kind of infighting that has me shaking my head; even if Alan Watt was a COINTELPRO agent eagerly stroking his beard thinking of new ways to scam his audience, don't you think you have better ways to do than to make this a 'personality-like' thing? You know, those cameras going up everywhere, tracking you - that still happens with or without Alan Watt. Those carbon taxes - still going to happen. The depopulation - still going to happen. And of all the things you could focus on, people choose to waste their time proving that 'Alan Watt' is a COINTELPRO artist and that Glenn Kealey is the true source of origin/or is perhaps a real fruitcake. Where does that leave us? Oh, this guy is an agent and that guy is an agent - and blahblah. What have you actually accomplished? Jack shit, that's what.

[matrixcutter]

what lends weight to matrixcutters' accusations of a 'smear campaign' is that all the 'attacks' on Alan Watt seem to come from one place: Outlaw Journalism.

What lends more weight to it is the fact that this obvious smear campaign is made up of lies and smears.

And some of the people involved have also created websites to steal money from Watt.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there's a concerted effort being made by members of that forum (NeoGt, Matterik, Andre) to belittle Alan Watt.

That much is undeniable.
But obviously it is not merely about belittling anybody.

It's this kind of infighting that has me shaking my head; even if Alan Watt was a COINTELPRO agent

Watt is probably the victim of COINTELPRO agents.

people choose to waste their time proving that 'Alan Watt' is a COINTELPRO artist

You can't prove what isn't true, not that anyone here actually is trying to prove that, despite your not-so-subtle implications.

Tag team?

[Dok]

Doktor,

what lends weight to matrixcutters' accusations of a 'smear campaign' is that all the 'attacks' on Alan Watt seem to come from one place: Outlaw Journalism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there's a concerted effort being made by members of that forum (NeoGt, Matterik, Andre) to belittle Alan Watt. Mind you that all these 'former' Wattites got all their information from Watt. You can see this quite clearly in Matterik's videos where he is basically going through all of Alan Watt's recommended books, speaks in high praise of Watt and then suddenly does a total 180, attacks him and accuses him of slandering Bertrand Russell (saying that he 'made it up that Bertrand Russell had experimental schools encouraging pre-pubertal sex' - when this is quite established in other books on Bertrand Russell) - and then leans to Glenn Kealey. Obviously the need is there to have a guru - a father figure. And while Matterik would try to deny it and rallies against the 'idols' and 'gurus' in his later videos, he isn't fooling me: he craves a guru. In fact, he needs it. That's why he has such strong feelings on Alan Watt or a Glenn Kealey.

It's this kind of infighting that has me shaking my head; even if Alan Watt was a COINTELPRO agent eagerly stroking his beard thinking of new ways to scam his audience, don't you think you have better ways to do than to make this a 'personality-like' thing? You know, those cameras going up everywhere, tracking you - that still happens with or without Alan Watt. Those carbon taxes - still going to happen. The depopulation - still going to happen. And of all the things you could focus on, people choose to waste their time proving that 'Alan Watt' is a COINTELPRO artist and that Glenn Kealey is the true source of origin/or is perhaps a real fruitcake. Where does that leave us? Oh, this guy is an agent and that guy is an agent - and blahblah. What have you actually accomplished? Jack shit, that's what.

That may be, i dont know. From what i can tell they were pretty devoted to the guy over there. Still the inconsitencies remain. And no one has provided an explanation on it. All i get is a lot of name calling and whining over the issue instead of a good explanation. If thats how his followers are well, ...  .

As i have said i dont listen to him, never even really knew who he was untill all this showed up a few months ago. Looking at everything thats been posted here and elsewhere, i think he should explain himself. Its not hard. When we here post something we always give the source. Yet untill i see some evidence to the contrary ill believe what i believe. Oh and thanx for actually engaging in a conversation over this issue and not just yelling and name calling. 

[matrixcutter]

Yes, victims of smear campaigns should always drop everything and spend their time explaining in detail why the smears and lies told about them are not true.  It doesn't matter how ridiculous these attacks are, if there is no response, guilt should always be assumed.  That's how it's always worked, hasn't it?

That's the sort of logic that comes from COINTELPRO.  They argue that rather than putting energy into waking people up to the bigger picture, the deeper reality of the New World Order, the people who want to wake others up should allow smearers and liars to dictate exactly how they spend their time.

Ridiculous.

They are always very easily exposed though.  Just ask direct questions, point out obvious facts, and then usually one of a small number of things will happen:

1) they disappear.
2) they repeat what they have already said and simply pretend not to have seen/understood the question(s).
3) a few more will turn up and agree with the first one in the hope of fooling the casual observer into thinking that the first one had a point, because people are now (inexplicably) agreeing with him.
4) insults and/or thread derailing.
5) pretending they never said what everyone knows they said in the first place, which provides the option of doing it all over again in a few days/weeks/months.
6) lie, a lot.

Or a combination.

[BUCKFUSH187]

A daily dose of Alan Watt and Alex jones everyday for about a month will have you out of the matrix in no time. God bless them both.