Alan Watt.

Danuogma

Well worth listening to this guy:

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/audio.html

oscarBravo

Why?

Pascal14

This man is the best on the web. Absolute wealth of knowledge.

oscarBravo

Best what?

Pascal14

To help me answer this question, could youu let me know if you have heard any of his work?

Kernel

Not a bad show at all. He's already linked in the CT resources sticky at the top though lads.

Is it just me, or is C2C getting more rubbish these days. Seems like Noory keeps concentrating on the spiritual and the esoteric.. gathering more quacks as a result. Art Bell was better imo.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

To help me answer this question, could youu let me know if you have heard any of his work?

Do people know that "the matrix" were a series of increasingly poorly thought out science fiction films, and not a blueprint for society?

Right?





Right?

meglome

Ah jesus I actually listened to some of this crap, rambling rubbish is what I heard. The usual stuff, take some half truths and staple them together into something else.

oscarBravo

Pascal14 wrote: »

To help me answer this question, could youu let me know if you have heard any of his work?

I looked at his "chemtrails" page and saw the usual series of photographs of contrails and clouds. On that basis alone, I have no interest in listening to him.

Pascal14

oscarBravo wrote: »

I looked at his "chemtrails" page and saw the usual series of photographs of contrails and clouds. On that basis alone, I have no interest in listening to him.

Those must have been similar chemtrails to what I have been seeing in central Dublin all morning from the office window.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

Do people know that "the matrix" were a series of increasingly poorly thought out science fiction films, and not a blueprint for society?

Right?

Never seen the matrix films, dont watch tv.

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

Ah jesus I actually listened to some of this crap, rambling rubbish is what I heard. The usual stuff, take some half truths and staple them together into something else.

What in particular are you refering to? or this this just another outlandish statement

oscarBravo

Pascal14 wrote: »

Those must have been similar chemtrails to what I have been seeing in central Dublin all morning from the office window.

Almost certainly.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

Never seen the matrix films, dont watch tv.

Or go to the cinema seemingly. It might help to see/read some fiction that isn't purporting to be truth.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

What in particular are you refering to? or this this just another outlandish statement

Outlandish statement... he he he he he and you're choosing to believe what Alan Watt says as fact.

Let's start with this one: http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/CTTM/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_65_The_Eco_Plan_of_the_Great_God_Pan_Jan212008.mp3 What the hell is he on about?

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

Outlandish statement... he he he he he and you're choosing to believe what Alan Watt says as fact.

Let's start with this one: http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/CTTM/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_65_The_Eco_Plan_of_the_Great_God_Pan_Jan212008.mp3

Its a long show, what in particular?

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

Its a long show, what in particular?

Any of the first 20 minutes, what the hell is he talking about?

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

Any of the first 20 minutes, what the hell is he talking about?

Again he covers a lot of stuff in 20 minutes, what in particular?

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

Again he covers a lot of stuff in 20 minutes, what in particular?

Let's take his statement that in Britain the state owns your body because they want to bring in implied consent on organ donation. He's says it's going to happen/has happened, which it hasn't and probably won't. He's turning the fact that the British state wants to provide organs for all the people in Britain that need them to some sort of state control issue. When you're dead you presumably won't mind that your organs were used to help others. If you were to pick through and correct everything this guys says you'd be there for the next year.

Is he not also saying that he doesn't believe Global Warming exists?

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Again he covers a lot of stuff in 20 minutes, what in particular?

Which specific part of the word 'any' are you having difficulty with?

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

Let's take his statement that in Britain the state owns your body because they want to bring in implied consent on organ donation. He's says it's going to happen/has happened, which it hasn't and probably won't. He's turning the fact that the British state wants to provide organs for all the people in Britain that need them to some sort of state control issue. When you're dead you presumably won't mind that your organs were used to help others. If you were to pick through and correct everything this guys says you'd be there for the next year.

If I were to die, I can assure you that I would not want the state to have any say in what happens to my body. He said that this would be introduced, and it probably will. Look at the harvesting of organs in China, a booming trade.

It does not sound far fetched at all.

Continue picking, or is this the best "fault" you can find so far.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

If I were to die, I can assure you that I would not want the state to have any say in what happens to my body. He said that this would be introduced, and it probably will. Look at the harvesting of organs in China, a booming trade.
.

So you don't feel that you'd want some of your organs to be used to help prolong the life of others?

Okay fine. The concept which is at an early stage, does have an opt out clause.

Whats your problem with that?

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

If I were to die, I can assure you that I would not want the state to have any say in what happens to my body. He said that this would be introduced, and it probably will.

What is being discussing in England is the replacement of the current "opt in" system with a more inclusive "opt out" system....so that people who express no preference are assumed to have nothing against donating their organs.

I'm going to assume that this is not what was explained on the show, nor was it mentioned that opt-out systems are already in place in some Western nations, to great effect.

If you are British, and if this change occurs, and if - as you say - you want the state to have no say, then all you have to do is opt out.

Look at the harvesting of organs in China,

Why? Its got absolutely nothing to an opt-out system of organ donation. Why not look at those nations who actually have directly comparable systems in place....where typically the concept of a waiting-list for organs doesn't exist. Could it be because you want us to subliminally associate communism and the misrepresentation of the British system (i.e. the state 'owning' your body)? After all, it wouldn't have the same impact if you asked us to look at the non-existent waiting lists for organ-donation in Spain, or Austria, would it.

Given that you're entirely against the system, I would expect that you would also refuse to accept an organ from such a system, should you ever have the misfortune to need one, or would you chose your life over your principles?

Continue picking, or is this the best "fault" you can find so far.

Its a pretty-damn good one, given that you've accurately misrepresented the system, and drawn an inaccurate comparison to a system which isn't what is being proposed.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

If I were to die, I can assure you that I would not want the state to have any say in what happens to my body. He said that this would be introduced, and it probably will. Look at the harvesting of organs in China, a booming trade.

It does not sound far fetched at all.

Continue picking, or is this the best "fault" you can find so far.

It happens in India too, people sell their organs as they're dirt poor. What has that got to go with state control? Also the British system has an opt out for everyone so how is that state control? Plus it's unlikely to come in. Leaving this specific point aside he just rambles on with stuff in which I personally can't see the connection between. I really don't get what he's going on about.

humanji

The concept of implied donors is not so that "The Man" can make money of your corpse. There are so many people who are ill and desperately need replacement organs, and few people have donor cards, yet many have no problems with being a donor. Lord knows why you don't want to help save someones life after you're gone, but many people do and just never get around to getting a donor card (even though it's ridiculously easy to get one).

I honestly can't understand how this can be interpreted as a way of controlling the masses. You can't control the dead.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

So you don't feel that you'd want some of your organs to be used to help prolong the life of others?

Okay fine. The concept which is at an early stage, does have an opt out clause.

Whats your problem with that?

The problem is when the opt out clause is removed. Everything is introduced step by step, have you not figured that out yet.

I am not a do gooder.

Pascal14

humanji wrote: »

The concept of implied donors is not so that "The Man" can make money of your corpse. There are so many people who are ill and desperately need replacement organs, and few people have donor cards, yet many have no problems with being a donor. Lord knows why you don't want to help save someones life after you're gone, but many people do and just never get around to getting a donor card (even though it's ridiculously easy to get one).

I honestly can't understand how this can be interpreted as a way of controlling the masses. You can't control the dead.

Let the do gooders go for it. Leave the sane alone.

Dirty Dave

Well,


I listened to the first 20 minutes of that mp3 link that was posted and I read through 2 transcripts of his show and to be honest, I think he is talking complete crap.

At no point does he provide ANY evidence for his theories, he just states them as fact - why does this make him credible?

He mentioned in one of his shows, how the book 2001 by Arthur C Clarke alluded to 9/11. I've read that book and all its sequels and to be honest - I just dont see it.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

The problem is when the opt out clause is removed. Everything is introduced step by step, have you not figured that out yet.

So you oppose the opt-in system as well? After all, its the step before the opt-out step....so it too must be evil, right?

Isn't it amazing how you don't hear many people arguing against the evil that is "opt-in"? After all...its the first step on this slippery slope, but they're delighted to take it.

Incidentally, my previous post contains at least one factual inaccuracy. I put it there deliberately.

Anyone who spots it will, at the least, be somewhat informed about the facts of the issue at hand, rather than just believing what has been spoon-fed to them by someone with an agenda. Whether you share my position or not is irrelevant....if you can't spot the factual error, then you obviously aren't informed on the subject and should consider the basis on which you are making your judgement.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Let the do gooders go for it. Leave the sane alone.

Not able to make your case without insulting those who don't share your opinion?

Shame.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

What is being discussing in England is the replacement of the current "opt in" system with a more inclusive "opt out" system....so that people who express no preference are assumed to have nothing against donating their organs.

I'm going to assume that this is not what was explained on the show, nor was it mentioned that opt-out systems are already in place in some Western nations, to great effect.

If you are British, and if this change occurs, and if - as you say - you want the state to have no say, then all you have to do is opt out.


Why? Its got absolutely nothing to an opt-out system of organ donation. Why not look at those nations who actually have directly comparable systems in place....where typically the concept of a waiting-list for organs doesn't exist. Could it be because you want us to subliminally associate communism and the misrepresentation of the British system (i.e. the state 'owning' your body)? After all, it wouldn't have the same impact if you asked us to look at the non-existent waiting lists for organ-donation in Spain, or Austria, would it.

Given that you're entirely against the system, I would expect that you would also refuse to accept an organ from such a system, should you ever have the misfortune to need one, or would you chose your life over your principles?


Its a pretty-damn good one, given that you've accurately misrepresented the system, and drawn an inaccurate comparison to a system which isn't what is being proposed.

Cut down your essays, I don't have the time.

I can tell you people think you live in a democracy. Surely opt out is the opposite of what should be going on in a democratic state.

It is about free choice, thats all. Don't try to break it down any other way.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

So you oppose the opt-in system as well? After all, its the step before the opt-out step....so it too must be evil, right?

Isn't it amazing how you don't hear many people arguing against the evil that is "opt-in"? After all...its the first step on this slippery slope, but they're delighted to take it.

Incidentally, my previous post contains at least one factual inaccuracy. I put it there deliberately.

Anyone who spots it will, at the least, be somewhat informed about the facts of the issue at hand, rather than just believing what has been spoon-fed to them by someone with an agenda. Whether you share my position or not is irrelevant....if you can't spot the factual error, then you obviously aren't informed on the subject and should consider the basis on which you are making your judgement.

What are you saying? Stop rambling it is a simple concept.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

Not able to make your case without insulting those who don't share your opinion?

Shame.

No. Am I forcing my views on others, no. Will this system be physically forced on me, yes. Is that clear enough?

Pascal14

Bonkey? Catch a hold of yourself.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

The problem is when the opt out clause is removed. Everything is introduced step by step, have you not figured that out yet.

The problem with your problem is that even if this were introduced there's no evidence that an opt out close would ever be removed.

Your Alan Watts has literally leapt from A to Z when he claims 'Britain wants to own your body'

I am not a do gooder.

Well I am, or intent to be. I hope that when I die my body can be of some use to someone who needs it. Hence I carry a donor card.

Pascal14

Dirty Dave wrote: »

Well,

He mentioned in one of his shows, how the book 2001 by Arthur C Clarke alluded to 9/11. I've read that book and all its sequels and to be honest - I just dont see it.

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

Well I am, or intent to be. I hope that when I die my body can be of some use to someone who needs it. Hence I carry a donor card.

As it should be. I don't, and I want to be left as I am.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Cut down your essays, I don't have the time.

Its your own free choice to partake here. You can opt out of this discussion whenever you want and opt back in when you have time.

Surely opt out is the opposite of what should be going on in a democratic state.

Really? When did you opt in to being a citizen of whatever country you belong to?

It is about free choice, thats all.

You have free choice in an opt-out system. You can freely choose to opt out.

Don't try to break it down any other way.

Thats the second time in one post you've told me what to do. Are you now my dictator? Is this the type of freedom your 'sanity' is in favour of - being able to dictate to people when they don't do what you'd like them to?

If so, then thanks, but no thanks. Thats one form of 'sanity' I'll reject thanks.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

Bonkey? Catch a hold of yourself.

I'm not the one here telling others what to do.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

No. Am I forcing my views on others, no. Will this system be physically forced on me, yes. Is that clear enough?

Physically forced upon you?

If you feel so strongly against your organs being donated, you can opt out.

Nobody is being forced to do anything, and I hasten to add, the system isn't even in place yet

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

Pithy. Utterly irrelevant and doesn't take away from his point. But Pithy none the less.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

In the land of the bilnd, the one eyed man is king.

That's exactly the kind of stuff Alan Watt says. I don't understand him either.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

Really? When did you opt in to being a citizen of whatever country you belong to?

.

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

bonkey wrote: »

You have free choice in an opt-out system. You can freely choose to opt out.

Totally different thing entirely. Dont play stupid.

Pascal14

meglome wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of stuff Alan Watt says. I don't understand him either.

Yeah, Alan Watt, its about time this got back on topic.

Can anyone point out another "crazy" statement he has made?

Remember, you have to listen first.

Dirty Dave

On your earlier comment about the one eyed man being king, can YOU tell me what Alan Watt was talking about? Because I would hope you know which part of 2001 (the book) refers to 9/11 before making a comment like that.

Diogenes

Pascal14 wrote: »

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

Really? You made informed consent when you got your birth cert? Signed it of your own free will and volition? Made a conscious decision at the time?

Gosh you were a bright and precocious four day old baby weren't you!

Totally different thing entirely. Dont play stupid.

Again with the insults. You've claimed that this opt out clause will be removed, you've failed to see that the scheme allows you to remove yourself of your own free will. Horses and bodies of water spring to mind here.

Pascal14

Dirty Dave wrote: »

On your earlier comment about the one eyed man being king, can YOU tell me what Alan Watt was talking about? Because I would hope you know which part of 2001 (the book) refers to 9/11 before making a comment like that.

I never refered to 2001.

bonkey

Pascal14 wrote: »

When you get a birth certificate. Look into this.

So when you were newly born, you made a conscious choice to become a citizen of a country? I'm well impressed...thats not high on most new-borns' priority lists

Dont play stupid.

And again with the insults...

Seriously...do you think insulting people and telling them what to do helps convince others that you've got a well though-out point that you can argue cogently?

There is nothing "completely different" about opt-out. The only difference is the assumption of the position of those who do not express a preference.

As an example...when it comes to elections or referenda, those who do not vote are assumed to have no objection to the decision of those who vote (allowing for there being a quorum). If they want to express a preference, it is their job to do so. If htey don't know the election is on, or don't know about voting, or whatever....its no-one else's problem.

The same applies here. If you don't express an opinion, at present you are assumed to have a specific position. Under the new system, if you don't express an opinion, you are assumed to have no objection to someone else making that decision in your stead....just like with voting.

Pascal14

Diogenes wrote: »

Really? You made informed consent when you got your birth cert? Signed it of your own free will and volition? Made a conscious decision at the time?.

Proving my point, you have no say in the matter, and that is why it can later be rejected.

Diogenes wrote: »

Again with the insults. You've claimed that this opt out clause will be removed, you've failed to see that the scheme allows you to remove yourself of your own free will. Horses and bodies of water spring to mind here.

Again, let people act according to their individual beliefs. If you are a do gooder, do good.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

There is nothing "completely different" about opt-out. The only difference is the assumption of the position of those who do not express a preference.

Is their not. So I am obligated to spent my life running around opting out of everything? I can see you believe in freedom.

bonkey wrote: »

As an example...when it comes to elections or referenda, those who do not vote are assumed to have no objection to the decision of those who vote (allowing for there being a quorum). If they want to express a preference, it is their job to do so. If htey don't know the election is on, or don't know about voting, or whatever....its no-one else's problem..

Who counts the votes?

bonkey wrote: »

The same applies here. If you don't express an opinion, at present you are assumed to have a specific position. Under the new system, if you don't express an opinion, you are assumed to have no objection to someone else making that decision in your stead....just like with voting.

I have no idea what you mean.

humanji

Pascal14 wrote: »

Proving my point, you have no say in the matter, and that is why it can later be rejected.

Actually, isn't that quote just says the opposite of your point. You were automatically opted in and can freely opt out.

meglome

Pascal14 wrote: »

Is their not. So I am obligated to spent my life running around opting out of everything? I can see you believe in freedom.

Who counts the votes?

Do you 'truthers' go to obtuse school or something. I mean seriously, I've never come across a bunch of people who make less sense and constantly talk around in circles.

Ah the good old Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos, who watches the watchers. Since people work for The MAN, they can't be trusted. Even though many of us actually know these same people and know them to be trustworthy.