Reply To: Alan & Jackie

Forums Libraries Alan & Jackie Alan & Jackie Reply To: Alan & Jackie

#10856
AvatarEK
Keymaster

Jackie: Oh yes, right. Just like the cross.
Alan: These are amazing timelines here. I mean even in the days of Sumer they had the same symbols
and in the days of Sumer they already had the stellar charts marked out so accurately that they
could predict major changes in eclipses 5,000 BC.

Jackie: Wasn’t there a particular planet maybe in – was it the Pleiades, that the astronomers could
not see even with their huge telescopes and yet they knew that there were seven when only six were
visible?

Alan: Actually there was eight at one time because the ancient Greeks talked about one of them
blinking out. In other words, it went nova.

Jackie: And they knew that and yet modern day astronomers it took them a long time.

Alan: This is an amazing thing. When you go back into ancient Greece, they knew the world was round
and they wrote about it and yet after the Catholic Church was created, suddenly we’re flat again.
We we’re a flat earth for another few hundred years, so they go back and forth giving us our
realities and it’s so easy to do when you’re all powerful and you have mainly an illiterate
population. The ancient Greeks had so much of this charted, and they got it from the Egyptians who
already had all that knowledge, but they knew the world was round.

In fact, one of the ancient Egyptians calculated by using obelisks as sundials and watching the
shadows and measuring them and having lines of them across Egypt. He actually calculated the
diameter of the earth within one percent of accuracy.

Jackie: Who was that?

Alan: It was an ancient man, he had a Greek name but he lived in Egypt and that was about 2,500
BC.

Jackie: You had mentioned here in the book, this is on page 61, when you were first getting into
Revelations that the writers of Revelations borrowed heavily from the Zend-Avesta, the Jewish
Codes, Philo and the Gnostics. Who was Philo?

Alan: He was another historian philosopher that existed around that period. There’s nothing in the
original at all in the Old Testament. In fact, it was all borrowed, which tells me that the people
who formulated it and we’ve got to start at the beginning with

the Old Testament. The Old Testament was first put together we are told and the all rabbis agree
about this either 300 BC and some say 100 BC but they all agree it was put together in Egypt by
priests living in Egypt and they didn’t write it in Hebrew or Aramaic. They wrote it in Coptic
Greek, so here we have a very high, probably illuminati of their day, who had the knowledge of
Egypt and Greece and who knows how many other cultures putting together the Old Testament, what’s
known as the Septuagint.

Putting that together in Egypt, writing it in Greek for supposedly an Aramaic- speaking people
living in Israel. You have this ludicrous situation but the rabbis all agree that’s was how it was
done and nothing survives – if there was any truth to any of it, nothing survives prior to that
time. It was created in Egypt given to the Jewish people and even in the times of Jesus they were
still using that version in the synagogues. They preferred that version and it wasn’t until about
100 AD that someone eventually tried to put together the first Aramaic or Hebrew version for the
people. Whoever put this together had knowledge of different civilizations, different sciences of
those civilizations and the histories of those civilizations and made up a fictitious history.

Jackie: For example, Moses, it is said that the story of Moses is an exact duplicate of the story
of Sargon the Elder, even of being put in the rushes in the water and being found as an infant.

Alan: Even the floods, we know that Sumerians had the Epic of Gilgamesh and that was the first
story form of any kind of flood and the ones who survived it, so everything was borrowed from other
previous civilizations.

Jackie: When did you say that they first put the Old Testament in writing?

Alan: The date that they argue amongst themselves is around 300 BC or even as close as to within
100 BC. We’ve got to understand that at that period the place that we call Israel today was a
hodgepodge of immigrants from civilizations that had moved out of their own countries because of
warfare.

Jackie: Do you know why people believe it though? Because the gentleman that I talked to this week,
he mentioned at different times that Jesus allegedly had talked about Moses and the prophets et
cetera, et cetera and so that it had to be real.

Alan: Well, if that’s good enough for him, that’s fine. However, I think for many, many people
it’s not good enough.

Jackie: The way it appeared to me is that they put those words in his mouth so they could tie the
old with the new.

Alan: There’s no doubt they kept updating the New Testament too, and here you have a situation in
the New Testament where somebody came out, spoke against the Pharisees. Now the Pharisees were one
small sect in that area–

Jackie: But very powerful.

Alan: Very powerful but they were one – in fact they were the illuminati of their day. They were
called illuminati as well. They were a brotherhood, very secretive, who actually in the writings
out there that many Jews know of where the Pharisees themselves looked upon the common Jew no
differently from anyone else, they were the bottom of the heap. They were one small sect amongst
many sects and of course they appeared out of Babylon. That’s when they first came into being is
from Babylon, so there’s speculation as to was this Mystery Babylon simply moving out and moving
elsewhere. That’s the key to Mystery Babylon. Mystery Babylon is wherever they go with the money,
with the system, the trading, the banking, the usury, owning the sciences of every era because they
own the money supply of every era and that’s basically it – Mystery Babylon was a mystery because
it was one place and many places at the same time.

Jackie: You said that the frequent reference to seven in Revelations is to the then known seven
planets.

Alan: That’s right. In fact, those were the degrees of what today they would call Freemasonry.
Those were the seven degrees that the Greek nobility went through, the Egyptian nobility went
through, and every other Aramaic-speaking peoples went through. That was the standard international
brotherhood of its time and those were the seven degrees.

Jackie: And the Magi kept temples?

Alan: Yes and the same with Jacob’s seven steps on the ladder going up to God. That was the seven
degrees. That’s why it’s in every Masonic lodge, that picture. We’re talking about an inner
brotherhood–

Jackie: And it’s all just about the planets and the situation of the planets and stuff?

Alan: That’s the basis of it all and of course it also refers to, as they say, “as above, so
below,” so they wrote a system of government where they could rule the world into the stars.

Jackie: I don’t understand that.

Alan: It’s in the book actually. The whole thing is in the book.

Jackie: Okay, so I haven’t gotten there.

Alan: I even put diagrams in there where you’ll see the upturned triangle resting on the apex of
the other triangle and I put the earth plane and the heaven plane, and so as it comes down, as the
heavens come to the earth plane, the sun becomes the sun king on earth and the helpers of the
heavenly host end up as the bureaucrats, lawyers and so on.

Jackie: And that’s what they mean by as above, so below?

Alan: That’s one of the main – that was the original meaning. The whole thing was a system of how
a few could dominate the majority.

Jackie: I’m only about three pages in to the section on Revelations and that’s what I wanted to
get to but I was afraid I would miss something if I went right back to Revelations and I can see –
I mean I’ve made some highlights but I can see. I could go back and read this again and each time I
read it understand something that I didn’t understand the first time I was reading it because
that’s already happened. I read a couple of pages over in the morning because I was reading it at
night and I was sleepy so I picked up and went right back and read those and I caught so much more.

Alan: Actually, I write things in a way which has the meanings contained within the meanings, so
each time you do read it you will see another layer. There’s a technique to that because the
standard technique of teaching and conditioning we’ve all gone through with standardized education
doesn’t make your mind participate in your downloading. You simply get downloaded and you repeat
that download for examinations and you forget it all.

Jackie: Exactly. That was just what I was thinking. It would be like reading this and being given a
test and as long as I answered the question according to what was written I would get an ‘A’ and I
wouldn’t even understand what I had read.

Alan: Yes, that’s right and that goes even for many professions. That’s exactly the technique.
They don’t have to understand. They just have to be able to parrot it back and then they forget it.
Therefore when you can write in a certain style towards the persons, you understand where they are
in their head space because of the conditioning, you can actually help deprogram that person as
they actually work through the book.

Jackie: Wow. Then it would be a good recommendation that this book be read more than one time.

Alan: Definitely.

Jackie: Well, all of the three of them, but this particular one is the one I’m into now.

Alan: As I say, we’ve always been run in this planet at least since the beginning of money and
priesthoods that go hand in hand and usury, which is the system of keeping control over a people.
You start to control people by introducing your money and then your goods and then giving loans
out. Once you have loans with interest, then you own the people basically because generations are
signed down to paying off the debt. This system has been here for thousands upon thousands of years
and people don’t realize that thousands of years ago it was terribly sophisticated just as it is
today. There really is nothing new under the sun as they say. Even by the use of war, the bankers
had all of the ancient countries fighting each other and then they would bring in their system and
give the funding to create standing armies once they had their puppet master in control, their king
or whoever they put there, and then they’d go in and invade another country that was not using
their system. Then they’d force that system upon them and bring in the same thing, so this has been
going on forever.

When we look at the Moslem countries today, the countries who don’t allow usury and often don’t
have a central bank, the U.S. is simply finishing off the job so that the whole world will be under
the same system of centralized banking, centralized government, all connected to an international
global government.

Jackie: And Omar Khayyam wrote about it.

Alan: I put that in there, too, just to let people see that there are old writings about this.

Jackie: That was the 11th century. Do you remember that?

Alan: Yes.

Jackie: Well, say it to our listeners what you wrote that he wrote. What! Out of senseless
nothing–

Alan: Yes, “to provoke a conscious Something to resent the yoke”…
Jackie: …”Of unpermitted pleasure, under pain of everlasting penalties, if broke! What! From his
helpless creature be repaid. Pure gold for what he lent us dross- allay’d – Sue for a debt we never
did contract. And cannot answer–oh the sorry trade!”

Alan: Yes, because once they had their gold in circulation they then withdrew it into the bank
they set up and gave cheap alloyed coinage out in lieu of it to represent it.
Then they would lend you back, when you went for a loan, they’d lend you this alloyed, he calls it
dross. Dross is what’s left over from coal. It’s the garbage.

Jackie: Alan, lets pick this up on the other side of this break. This is fascinating. Folks, we’ll
be right back right after this break. This is fascinating, Alan, and I noticed that underneath
those two verses you took a couple of paragraphs to explain what Omar Khayyam was writing about,
and you want to go ahead and finish explaining that?

Alan: What he was saying there was what they’d already been doing and was recorded – they’d done
the same thing around 1800 BC when they really started bringing in their gold in big time by trade
into countries and this is before they coined the money. They weighed it out and they brought the
merchants with them so they were all related, the bankers and the merchants with their ships and so
it was easier for them when they invented coinage around 800 BC because then they opened up banks
where people could deposit their gold and silver. There was more silver actually than gold in use
at the time and they were told that they would facsimiles in exchange for their gold from the bank.
They would get either clay ones with the stamp on it with a number of the currency – and they found
thousands of jars that were sealed with wax because if moisture got to them you lost all our money.
They also gave out eventually the alloys, the cheap alloys of copper mixed with other things, in
lieu of the gold. In Sparta, for instance, when the king realized there was a con game going on he
demanded and he went with his guards to the bank that actually was set up from the Middle East.

Jackie: This was in Persia?

Alan: Persian and Spartans as well, they both did the same thing and they went into the temple.
See, the temples were used as the banks. In fact, often the first funding of

usury was to build a temple which doubled as a bank and when the kings went in to find where the
gold was, there was nothing there because the bankers, once they had given out the facsimiles, the
cheap alloys, had moved the gold somewhere else for a loan to pull the same stunt on another
country. This has been going on forever, this same game, and when Omar Khayyam wrote about it, it
was the same deal. They issued him a statement that he now has x-amount of money.

Jackie: It was a loan, a paper loan.

Alan: However, when he got his first bill in to him, he had to pay it back in real gold, so that
was the con game that was going on. Technically, they’d given them the cheap facsimiles of
worthless coinage, which was accepted at the time as long as people did accept it, but he had to
pay the interest and the payments in real gold to the bankers.
This is quite a fascinating thing. Today it’s no different. The international bankers simply write
a check out to the treasuries which print up the money, but the countries that get permission to
print up the money have to pay back the bankers in real gold, silver or real goods, which is a
sweetheart deal. This has been going on for thousands and thousands of years and yet banking even
today is a mysterious body and we’re told that it’s just too complicated for us to understand.

Jackie: Well of course it is because they make it so complicated.

Alan: It’s really very simple. It’s a scam from the beginning.

Jackie: Yes and that is exactly – at least it appears from the little we get of the history of
what Jesus was exposing.

Alan: Yes, because it was no different than other countries. He went to the main temple there and
the bankers were doing their usury there, as they had all over the ancient world, because they
always sat in the porch of the churches all over the world and did their deals and exchanged money
openly. Again, it was so clever, because in every religion, it doesn’t matter what religion you
belonged to, you could not give donations within the church except in your own coinage. When you
went in from another area or a different country you had to exchange what you had for their coins
and of course they would charge an awful lot more on the transaction. It was international money
trading that was going on and Jesus of course exposed it in his day and was quite open about it.
Then he came up against the Pharisees who were part of the whole deal obviously and I think anybody
would get crucified if you cut to the heart of the matter and he certainly did, you know.

Now all the rest of it that was tacked on to control the people was fairly typical. They’d used
heroes in past times and killed them and then used those very people who spoke truth to then
control the people’s minds, like turn the other cheek. If you turn the other cheek, I know who’s
going to win.

Jackie: Yes, right. But that’s what they say he said.

Alan: Here’s a guy who gets crucified, killed by the government of his day and yet later on in
Paul’s writings they have “obey your government because it’s put there by God.” A total
contradiction of the life of the man they supposedly followed. By those very words, that means that
why are they complaining about Adolph Hitler? He was an elected part of the government. Why did
they complain about Napoleon or Lenin? In other words, any government is put there by God so obey
it, you see. No, these were all tacked in.

Jackie: You know what they used there, that saying that Jesus supposedly said and maybe did,
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render under to God what is God’s.”

Alan: Oh yes, they’ll use that.

Jackie: So that’s what they use to justify that you’re supposed to obey your government.

Alan: Yes, regardless of how tyrannical it is, but if Jesus would have obeyed his and kept quiet
and did what they said, don’t speak out anymore and ask for forgiveness, he would have been alive
you see.

Jackie: Yes and don’t you love it that that Pharisee Paul was sainted by the church. They call him
St. Paul.They won’t the word Saul. I guess that’s too Jewish sounding.

Alan: It’s not really. Again, it’s esoteric because there’s more meanings to Saul. If you take the
Latin version, Sol is the sun.

Jackie: So what does the sun – when they always refer to the sun, El the sun, On the sun, the
Hebrew, and what was the ON?

Alan: ON is the phallic reproductive power of the sun. In other words, the life energy that it
gives for creation.

Jackie: What does that mean, his name the sun?

Alan: You’ll find that in all the mystery religions, including some present day Christian sects,
that when you are initiated into that sect you are given a new name.

Jackie: Okay, but what does the word SUN mean to them?

Alan: The mystery religion passes the power of the father who’s initiated into his own offspring
the son, so you have SUN and SON and they both mean the same thing.
That’s why they both sound the same.

Jackie: What do they mean to them, Alan? The SUN, S-U-N and S-O-N?

Alan: It’s means that you are the son of an illuminati. Even in ancient Egypt – now we’re told
about all the languages and how they confuse things with changing languages. In ancient Egypt, a
man was also called S—and they have a little dot where the vowel would go—N, so it was SON.
Sometimes they spell it in modern times they call it SEN, so the SUN in the sky technically was
called the sun. The same word as we use today and his offspring was also a son, no different than a
man’s offspring.

Jackie: So the Sun in the sky was the Son of God?

Alan: Yes, it’s all allegory. They didn’t believe it was really a god. It was allegory for a
potent power. We even use the same word for a male erection. It’s called – you know what it’s
called – the hard–. That’s where that comes from because that’s what they called also the obelisks
in Egypt, that was the ON, the erect phallus of the person on earth who had been deified as a god.
He’d gone through the degrees and now he deserved his own ON. And they put that into the English
language. Of course, most people will think well that’s coincidence.

Jackie: Yes, right. Same thing as calling our children “kids,” and it goes way beyond just a baby
goat when you see the Goat of Mendes as their universal sign of Satan.

Alan: Even Lenin talked about the new technique or science of neologisms, new word creations.

Jackie: Neology.

Alan: Where they would literally dehumanize as they split up families and then parents to children
so that the state could indoctrinate the children. He said we will use different terms for the
children and dehumanize them in adults’ eyes.

Jackie: Well, kids are the good ones. We were called kids and it was done lovingly. I called my
girls kids and at first it was brought to my attention that a kid is a baby goat and that’s when I
quite calling my grandchildren kids. However, when I saw that picture of the Goat of Mendes, that
evil putrid looking thing with women’s breasts and a man’s erected phallus–

Alan: The hermaphrodite.

Jackie: The hermaphrodite with the goat’s head and they said this is the universal representation
of Satan; and I thought, my God, we’re not just calling our children baby goats. We’re calling them
spawn of Satan. And anybody who knows that and continues to say “kids” about their children, I
think there’s something wrong.

Alan: Well, we know there’s a lot wrong.

Jackie: “Oh well, it doesn’t mean anything.” Yes, it does mean something.

Alan: Yes, but you’ve said yourself about people who use the fluoride in toothpaste who know
better and they understand what you mean when you tell them about it, but they go ahead and buy the
same stuff anyway.

Jackie: “Oh, I didn’t know that.” They pay for their poison.

Alan: There are people no matter what you present to them who will carry on because they believe.
See, their inoculation of indoctrination has taken with them and they truly believe that the media
tells them everything that they would need to know, and if the media doesn’t tell them, they won’t
believe you.

Jackie: You know the thing is the whole dog-gone language is made up so that we speak their
stuff–

Alan: We do.

Jackie: And there are times when I think, okay, how are we going to talk if the only language we
know is the language that they gave us. You went through the alphabet one time and the different
symbols of the different letters and what they mean, and the school bus. It’s yellow and black.
It’s carrying the little worker bees in it, the little future worker bees.

Alan: And they have spelling bees at school.

Jackie: They have spelling bees. Then I found that prayer, tripped over it looking for something
in a Maryland newspaper online Monday and it was a minister’s sermon about how we should emulate
the bees. Remember that, Alan?

Alan: In Christian theology, even in Roman Catholic theology from the beginning, which doesn’t
surprise me, they also used the symbol of the beehive, as the pharaohs had before them, as the
perfect society with the royalty at the top (the Queen) and the drones (meaning the priests round
about her) who decided what the rest would be to eat, which would turn them. They’d didn’t get the
royal jelly. They got the lower grade which turned them into worker bees. They’ve always looked
upon the beehive, even the Minoans – that’s where the bankers lived in at the Aegean Sea at one
point on the islands there and they called themselves Minoans at that time. They have dug up these
pottery replicas of the beehive and it was a very sacred symbol there for them because that was
them creating their order wherever they went.

Jackie: Do you know what that brings to mind? Pat Schroeder was a U.S. Congresswoman from Colorado
and I heard her – I even got it on tape on C-Span one day. They were talking about, oh gee, I can’t
remember what it was, but something about the children and she said our children shouldn’t even be
brought into this. They are our future of tomorrow. They are our greatest natural resource.

Alan: Resource.

Jackie: More so than gas and oil. In other words, she said – I wish I could remember it closer to
what it was. That’s basically the way she said it. They are the future tax base of this country.
They are our greatest natural resource. Now I wonder if that woman – I wonder if these people crawl
out from under rocks, Alan, that they can say something like that.

Alan: I know, and yet the high economists that advise on the system are well aware that that’s
exactly how it is. It’s a legalistic system which has everyone born into this system as a potential
laborer and tax producer with x-amount of years to put so much work into the tax base. That’s why
only this system is allowed to exist, because it enables a bunch of elitists at the top who do very
little and they do no real work and could not survive in any system outside this particular one
they have created because they’re useless at anything else. It allows them to live high on the hog.
Higher than anyone else and live a life of luxury. Technically, they don’t even own anything. They
have the use during their lifetime of incredible government-owned buildings across not just the one
country, but across the planet and that goes right back to Plato in “The Republic.” He said we’d
create this system. He says “why own something and then

have to hire guards to watch your property and then pay for the maintenance and upkeep.” He said
“why not have ourselves as the government and the public will then maintain it all. Pay for it,
build it, supply it with guards for us,” and that’s the system we live in today.

Jackie: Well now this sounds pretty – it’s like we would have to quit almost breathing not to be
in their system.

Alan: They have made it so.

Jackie: Well I understand that, but you know I want to say this because we’ve gotten to a point,
sometimes we do this in our conversations, where I get to a point where I’m like okay you can’t
talk without using their language that they gave us and we “live” with the exchange of this
fictitious paper and it brings me to a point where it’s like what is the use? Then I remember and I
really believe this is true what you said. When we were talking about the Federal Reserve one day
and the gold, that people keep wanting to go back to gold as the standard not really understanding
because I didn’t.
They control the gold.

Alan: Always did.

Jackie: Yes and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s paper or what it is, when they have control of it
they can make a shortage of it any dog gone time they want. But one of the things you said when I
in my huffiness because you were ticking me off because everything I said, you said no it isn’t
going to work. You cannot get out of their system by using their system.

Alan: That’s right.

Jackie: Then I said, okay, fine, what’s your solution? and you said if enough people get it, this
system will collapse of itself.

Alan: It’s a complete fiction.

Jackie: It is a fiction but people have to really get it that it’s a fiction.

Alan: That’s right.

Jackie: It’s just like they’re selling the air today, Alan.

Alan: I know.

Jackie: Well you know with those pollution credits. Jesus! They crush a car is worth
$700 in pollution credits and they sell the actual – some large corporation pays the
$700 to the government to pay the person whose car they crushed and that corporation gets to spew
out $700 worth of tons of crud into the air. Now they are selling it across international borders.

Alan: Yes and you can pay in advance now.

Jackie: They’re selling the air.

Alan: The great King James of the Bible when he wasn’t chasing the pageboys – and that’s a fact if
anybody wants to study up on it – he taxed the light and the air.

Jackie: The light. Oh, windows.

Alan: Yes, the window. If you opened the window then you were also–

Jackie: No, no. I think what it was, was however many windows you had in your house to let the
light in.

Alan: But also when you had them open and the taxman came around, then you were taxed extra
because that window could open to let air in. That was a big luxury. They taxed everything you
could imagine and a lot we can’t imagine, I suppose, because it’s still to come. They’ve tried all
this before and as I say that one priest or scholar actually, young guy who left his records in
Sumer, he said I look to the left to the horizons. He says horizons to horizon and all I see is
government buildings. He says they tax our food. They tax the fishermen as they bring in their
fish. Before they could land the fish they had to pay taxes on it. The fish were taxed when sold at
the market. When they go to bury a relative and leave offerings on the grave, he says the
government man comes and demands tax and payment for the offerings or else they’d take the
offering. That’s death duties. Nothing has changed you know. This is a slavery system, more
sophisticated than it’s ever been before, and that’s what Charles Galton Darwin said in the 1950’s.
He said, “we are creating a new more sophisticated form of slavery and very few will be able to
figure it out.” Once you’re conditioned into it, it’s hard to figure it out.

Jackie: I don’t know if we have time here but I would like to quote from page 59 of the book. This
is where you were telling about the Royal Institute and et cetera and the CFR and you said “the
following extract is taken from an international meeting from June 8th to 10th, 1931 in Copenhagen.
The speaker is Professor Arnold

Toynbee, Director of Studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, England. He
was also master of…”

Never mind, I can’t do it. We’re out of time. Folks, I would recommend that you get Alan’s books. I
think it really can help to pull us out of the lies that we have been born into and we just don’t
want to let go of, and then maybe when you see some of this stuff it will begin, for those of you
who really want the truth, this is a dog-gone good start. Alan, thanks again for being with us
today and thank you for the work you’ve done here. Ladies and gentlemen, have a lovely four days
and we’ll look for you back on Monday.

(Transcribed by Linda)

 

 

Alan Watt on
“Sweet Liberty” with Jackie Patru July 6, 2005

 

Jackie: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us tonight on Sweet Liberty. It
is Wednesday. It is the 6th of July in the year 2005. It is end of our broadcast week, Monday
through Wednesday now. It goes pretty fast. Last night I was reading to you from the third book
that Alan Watt has written titled “Cutting Through” and Alan is with us tonight so maybe we can
discuss some of what’s in the book. I have some questions myself about this situation, the Hapiru
or Habiru, and maybe Alan can clear it up and I thought it would be a good idea to do that on the
air because sometimes Alan and I have conversations off air and that I am so regretful that I
wasn’t tape recording because you can never repeat it.

Jackie: Okay. Let me tell you where my confusion is. The Habiru or Hapiru are spelled differently
but they seem to have been – well, they talked about 1500 BC where they were written in the ancient
accounts and obviously before that. That word back then meant the “dusty ones” because they were
the caravaneers or whatever you

call them, the merchants, the bankers, the gold and silver and money lenders, et cetera, the
controllers. Okay. Would that be the priesthood, Alan?

Alan: I think they were probably were not the actual priesthood, generally speaking. They would
run a hierarchy though. There’s no doubt there would be some sort of coordination of a hierarchy
because they all had exactly the same system regardless of which countries they had run into and
which countries they were trading with. They were all using the same weights and measures wherever
they went, which goes back to a common source and it was primarily silver they were introducing
into those countries in those days. They had sources of silver and they also owned the mines in
fact.

Jackie: And those were what they referred to as the Habiru?

Alan: Yes. The spelling is irrelevant. The Greeks wrote it one way and another bunch would write
another way. It’s the phonetic pronunciation that’s important, so whether there’s an H there or not
doesn’t matter.

Jackie: Oh where you put the emphasis on which–

Alan: Yes, because it was a term to describe the same and they were all Aramaic speaking people
and they traded all the way from the Middle East into India and back again. In fact, Aramaic was
the common trade language from basically the Aramean area right through the Middle East and across
to India. That was the language of trade you might say was Aramaic.

Jackie: Maybe you don’t know, but it seemed to me that they would have to have learned to speak
the languages of the people with whom they traded.

Alan: They did. Sometimes the banker ones, the higher orders of them, would settle in a city for a
period of time.

Jackie: To take over that city?

Alan: They’d settle in the city and most of them settled outside the city. They were nomadic
people. They were always nomadic by nature and hence they had no city of their own basically, most
of the time anyway. They’d settle on the outskirts of the city and seemed to have a disdain for the
city people and I have no doubt that the city people had a disdain for them too because their whole
business was haggling – haggling over the price of things and the price of goods and so on, which
isn’t a pleasant thing you know. However, that was their nature was to haggle for a good

deal, but wherever they went they tried to introduce the silver monetary system, first by weighing
and then eventually when coinage came along they introduced the coins.

Jackie: Because those were weighed out perfectly already.

Alan: It’s known too that these – they had different names for them. The Phoenicians basically were
almost the seafaring branch of the same people, so the Phoenicians seem to be of the same people.
It was almost a brotherhood really.

Jackie: See, it’s really confusing to me.

Alan: It isn’t so confusing because it’s like any brotherhood that’s in on a big scam. You have to
have secrecy. You have to keep apart from the other people and you’d have to instill it into your
followers to keep apart from other people so that they wouldn’t loose their mouths off and let the
game away that they were into so many different scams.

Jackie: In the Armana letters that you quote here, it says, “There was also a large and apparently
increasing class of stateless and reputedly lawless people in Palestine and Syria to whom the
appellation Apiru (or Habiru) was given. It has now become certain that they were a class of
heterogenous (mixed races) ethnic origin…” Well, what were their races?

Alan: That was a later – the term again seemed to be used again for another bunch who came along
who joined them and these were a mercenary class which had originated from people who’d been cast
out of tribes and cast out of cities. They were kicked out and so they became another branch of the
brotherhood and that’s where centered themselves and they would lease themselves out for hire as
mercenaries.

Jackie: All right. How does that connect up with the people today that we know as Jews? That they
call themselves Jews so that’s the only thing I know to call them.

Alan: The ones today of course, they primarily come from the Khazarian lineage which was centered
around the Black sea area and converted en masse to Judaism around the 5th or 6th century AD.

Jackie: 740 AD I think I read. I would have been around there.

Alan: Most of them don’t have any lineage too, what was traditionally – in fact in Judaism didn’t
appear until the fall of Babylon and that’s when a group of people came

out of there with the Pharisees leading them and that’s when the first time in history that the
term Jew or Judaic people was mentioned.

Jackie: And they call them Jews but actually it would be more appropriate to call them Talmudists.
I mean it’s a religion that binds them all.

Alan: It was a religion that was born in Babylon. There’s no secret there because rabbis will tell
you that there are two – one is a continuation of the other. In other words, the Judaic or the
Exodus of leaving Babylon, the one that was written or compiled after that is really an extension
of the part that was condensed inside Babylon; and when they come to points of doctrine, if there’s
a conflict, the Babylonian Talmud gets precedence over the other.

Jackie: Well okay. Where was the other – what do you mean the other?

Alan: The other one was a continuation because they were still writing the Talmud when they came
out and they continued it for a long time.

Jackie: So it would basically be the Babylonian Talmud?

Alan: Yes.

Jackie: And they would be Talmudists?

Alan: Well, they would be, but the Pharisees themselves were a separate sect. In fact, they were a
secret brotherhood, very small in fact, initially, 2,000 years ago, and they were only one small
sect among many but they did have an awful lot of money, so they had power because of money. Part
of the tradition at that time 2,000 years ago was to treat their fellow Jews they supposedly looked
after no better than anyone else, because in a sense the Pharisaic tradition coming out of Babylon
was the ancient Illuminati of its day.

Jackie: And they weren’t even of the same race as the people that they took over there?

Alan: Are you talking about the ones who went back recently?

Jackie: No. When they came out and they went and they read the new law to the people, there is an
account of that in the Old Testament and said the people wept because the people had already begun
to intermingle.

Alan: Also, one of them found a holy book and so they didn’t even know what their own laws were
supposed to have been. I mean it’s such nonsense; it’s a fairy tale. You do understand this is a
fairy tale?

Jackie: Yes.

Alan: It’s a foundation myth you see and in foundations myths they always make up a lot of things
to try and justify something which never really happened and that’s why you have so many
contradictions. However, in reality, Judaism came on the scene for the first time with anything at
all to do with what we now know as the New Testament. It came on the scene only about 400 BC.

Jackie: And a lot of what was involved in that, of course there were a lot of made up stories.

Alan: They were all borrowed stories.

Jackie: Exactly and they used some actual history to weave it in about and around their sect of
people, the people that they lassoed into that “religion?”

Alan: You’ve got to understand that in all times, more so back then, you had a military peasant
class with a priesthood – no different from the Catholic Church up until a couple of hundred years
ago, and it was quite easy for a bunch of priests to say, “hey, you used to belong to this land and
your ancestors used to live here and here’s what your history is,” and it could be all brand new to
them you see, because all they did was release a bunch of slaves out of Babylon and those slaves
themselves became a–

Jackie: Were those a mix of people also?

Alan: There’s no doubt about it. How could you lose your language when you’ve been in captivity
for less than 100 years?

Jackie: What do you mean by that?

Alan: Supposedly they went in speaking Hebraic and came out speaking Aramaic.

Jackie: So what is the Hebrew language?

Alan: The Hebrew language really is a much later compilation. In fact, it wasn’t until Maimonides
in about the 12th century or so, who was the high-rabbi as they called

him of his day, it wasn’t until he put the language together what they called properly. In other
words, he filled in all the vowel points, which were not there. Without the vowels what they used
to do was write the consonants and just a little pencil point where a vowel would be because there
were so many dialects that different people would put down different vowels in the word. What
Maimonides did was to officially put down into law basically what the vowels were so they’d all say
the same words and pronounce them the same, but without those particular vowels it was just
generally Aramaic. It wasn’t different from anything else.

Jackie: Wasn’t it Maimonides that said or at least he was quoted as saying that even the best of
Christians are worthy of death?

Alan: He didn’t write so much on Christians. He wrote more so on Moslems because most of them
lived in the Moslem countries in those days and they had to move from one to another due to
warfare. What he did do was to give “Guidelines to the Perplexed.” That was the title of it. That’s
where he laid down the rules of how to survive in other people’s countries.

Jackie: Is that the 600 and some Halakah or their laws?

Alan: He wrote an awful lot of laws down, but he himself was not a – see, there’s different kinds
of Judaism and that what people fail to realize. He himself did not believe in the supernatural
stories of the Old Testament and other rabbis were against him because of that. He was a very much
a rationalist in his way of approaching things. After he died there were actually fights in
different Middle Eastern countries, fights to the death between rival groups of Jews – one
supporting Maimonides and one supporting the traditional mystical type of rabbinical studies.
Maimonides caused a lot of problems after he died because of the laws and so on he’d written.

Jackie: So these people who became “Jews” because of this religion that this priesthood made up
for them, they were of a mixed race also.What about the “12 Tribes”? Was it 10 or 12 tribes?

Alan: There was never any 12 Tribes of Israel.

Jackie: Were there ever 10?

Alan: No.

Jackie: What were there?

Alan: There was none. It’s a made-up history which never existed.

Jackie: So the Benjamites and the–

Alan: It’s all nonsense.

Jackie: All of it?

Alan: It’s all in that third book. It’s all zodiacal constellations. It’s not to do with real
people.

Jackie: Okay. What I was thinking that they used those names in the book where it has all the
different names of each of the leaders of each of those tribes, Daniel and all of them, so those
were made up names too? They did not exist as people?

Alan: Not as people, no. In fact, most of them were titles to the sun. They were titles of the sun
or titles of the godhead and Daniel is: “God judges.” It’s just like when the Christians give
titles to Jehovah: Jehovahjireh and Jehovah-this and Jehovah-that.
These are all titles.

Jackie: There are those who say it is not Jehovah. It is Yahweh.

Alan: Well, the mouth of madness is very big and you’ll find that there are many people whiling
around in the whirlpool inside and that’s what religion is for. It’s like Christianity, it’s so
ridiculous the way it’s gone. You’ve got one group almost falling out with another group because
one stands on one leg and waves their arms in the air and one stands on the other. It’s ridiculous
and that’s the mouth of madness.

Jackie: All right. Let’s go back to the Khazars. We were talking one time. This was quite some time
ago and you said I think they were there all the time. Those today that evidentially from the land
of the Khazars, Khazaria, and they were a Turkic- Mongolian mix?

Alan: That’s a bit wrong there.

Jackie: Okay. What is it?

Alan: It was an empire. It was an empire like the British Empire and just like the British Empire
you would have English in the middle and then you’d have other tribes that were taken over from
other cultures and colors even around them, all part of that empire and then all eventually called
Khazarian. In fact in the Khazarian outer tribes,

they were all used for different functions, but some of the outer tribes were even Moslem. The
inner group were called the Royal Khazars and they were a nobility just like the nobility of Europe
who only intermarried amongst themselves and the Royal Khazars were red-headed or blonde, blue-eyed
or green-eyed and as I say they only intermarried amongst themselves, although they ran an empire
of many different types of people who all eventually were called Jews when they adopted Judaism.
They converted the whole country. A country about the size of Spain converted overnight to Judaism.
Now when they disappeared–

Jackie: Oh, excuse me. One of the things that you had said, these people that converted to Judaism,
the tribe in Khazaria. You said I think they were there all the time and you said something about
that they had migrated, that you believed or had read or whatever that they had migrated into that
area.

Alan: I have no doubt they did because they had symbols very similar to Egypt. The only religious
symbols that they had were the obelisks. That was the only ones – by people, in fact by rabbis that
went into Khazaria during that conversion period. The only symbol of religion that you noticed was
the phallic symbol everywhere.

Jackie: The obelisk?

Alan: Yes, the obelisk. One of them said that they were basically a pantheistic people, meaning
they worshiped nature, the earth, the “sciences” you might say and they didn’t have really a very
mystical view of anything.

Jackie: Do you think that these people if they did migrate into that area, do you think they were
led there by leaders that knew that this was going to happen eventually in the future. In other
words, they’re there waiting?

Alan: Yes, I’d say so because the Khazars themselves, it’s an interesting lifestyle that they had.
It resembled so closely the nobility of the Normans and all of the European aristocracy descended
from the Normans who appeared in Europe at the same time as the nobility of the Khazars disappeared
from Khazaria. The same traditions were held by the Normans where they would migrate throughout the
year to different palaces of different cities, just like the Queen goes from Buckingham Palace up
to this one or that one or whatever throughout the year. That was their tradition. However, they
also controlled the trade routes, in fact, to get to China and so on, you’d have to go straight
through their land and they lived on taxation. They taxed everyone who moved throughout their land,
so that was one of the main incomes.

Jackie: Weren’t they even taxing people who had to use the rivers?

Alan: Yes and so they were heavily into taxation and the taxation system. They had a mounted
nobility cavalry, advanced in its day, that had their own coats of arms and went into battle in
certain formations so they were pretty well invincible in their day. Interestingly enough, as they
disappeared from the land of Khazaria, a group of people appear in Normandy in France and call
themselves Normans (or at least the historians called them Normans) and they had the same
techniques with calvary, coats of arms and everything else and it’s thought that this was the
nobility of the Khazars who came into Europe and took over the whole of Europe through force of
arms. They had unlimited financing to hire mercenary groups and the wars of the Normans on even
Britain took many, many years of full scale war, which tells you there was tremendous funding to
keep armies in the fields for such a long time. Plus, they built wooden forts on the coastline of
France, some of them a few acres in size, and they were prefabricated and they towed them up by
parts over the channel to England and re-erected them. You were talking about something on the
scale of the Second World War here. Unlimited financing to take over the whole of Europe and
definitely with a strategy and a plan and I have no doubt at all that the Catholic Church was part
of it, because along with the Normans came the Catholic Church and one basically stood up for the
other.

Jackie: Then once they installed the kings and the queens they just continued to interbreed with
one another?

Alan: Yes, right up to the present day.

Jackie: Some of our listeners who may be newer that did not hear you say this, but it’s something
that we have to keep in mind, is that these kings and queens were not even of the same nationality
if you would of the people that they were ruling over.

Alan: Exactly.

Jackie: When you said that I thought of Catherine the Great of Russia. She was a German princess
and she ruled over the Russians.

Alan: Yes and you probably saw the movie “Braveheart,” did you?

Jackie: Yes. Alan, in about 50 seconds we’re going to be taking our break so remember what you’re
going to say about “Braveheart” and let’s pick it up on the other side.All right, ladies and
gentlemen, we’re going to be back. We’ll be right back with Alan Watt so stay with us. We’re
talking about the contents of the book here and it certainly is worth having. If you’ve got I and
II this wraps a lot of it up, although I

think Alan already has another in mind. If you don’t have I and II he suggests that you get them
first so you’ll have more of a background on ancient history and this won’t seem so foreign to you.
Before we talk about Mel Gibson, what was the movie?

Alan: “Braveheart.”

Jackie: Braveheart.” When I called you today to see if you would come on with us, of course we got
into conversation and I wanted to remember the statement that you had made about people who want
the truth. Will you repeat that as you mentioned it?

Alan: People generally don’t want the truth. If they wanted the truth they’d have to be willing to
forego everything they’d ever known, believed, been taught, instilled with, or whatever, and it’s
like freefalling out of a plane. You’ve got to jump out of the plane and hope for the best and be
willing to allow what’s going to happen to happen. Most people really are looking for something
which will either augment that which they’ve already chosen to believe or they’re looking for some
form of comfort.

Jackie: Right and that’s what you said.

Alan: That’s the problem.

Jackie: The truth is not comfortable and it’s because it is always such a shock. When we’ve
believed something right from the very time we were born and it was pounded and pounded and pounded
into our heads and even the history that we were given. The only thing that I see that may have
been true at least partially in more recent history are dates and names.

Alan: That’s it. You know that’s how history is taught in school, is battles, places and names but
you never get the why or who financed it. Who benefited from it? That’s all omitted.

Jackie: It’s all memorization stuff. You have to be able to remember the presidents starting from
the beginning to whatever your present is at that stage. I think every school child has to do that
as though it means something.

Alan: It’s indoctrination.

Jackie: Well of course it is and not only that but it’s irrelevant because we know nothing about
the presidents and what we do know about them or have been told about them are lies.

Alan: They walked on water. They were superhuman and they walked on water and they never used the
bathroom, just like the actors on TV.

Jackie: You know when you hear people calling the church today apostate it’s as though all of that
means it’s different and it’s not the “true church.” Whatever it was, ever was, a true church, it
was all a fabrication of the priesthood.

Alan: It was very cleverly contrived many thousands of years ago and they created a trinity. They
always have trinities in the Mystery Religion and they created Judaism, Christianity and the Moslem
all from the same source; and of course they used them all to fight each other, which enriched
those behind it. They could also bring them all together at the end, one way or another;
Christianity has joined voluntarily but the Moslems have been brought in by force.

Jackie: The third way.

Alan: Getting back to Braveheart, in the movie they portray Robert the Bruce as having the legal
titlehood for taking over Scotland but he would never do it when Wallace was alive. Then it shows
you at the very end of the movie the final battle with Bruce leading the people at the Battle of
Bannockburn where they routed the English, but that was to unite the country under the guise of
freeing the people.

Jackie: To unite. What do you mean, Scotland?

Alan: Scotland, and so what they did, again, this is the dialectic in action. The English are
invading. Scotland has many, many clans all living free and independently and along comes this guy
who will be king and after the battle he becomes king, he unifies the country, nationalizes it and
introduces taxation for the first time in history. What he did is centralize power and it’s so
cleverly done and Robert the Bruce was actually Robert de Bruce. He was a Norman knight. He wasn’t
Scottish at all, so this nobility one way or another became the crowned heads of all of Europe.

Jackie: William Wallace, was he a for-real character?

Alan: Yes, he was.

Jackie: I got real intrigued about William Wallace after I saw that and I wanted to know more about
him and Chuck and I were down in Philly and we were at Borders books or one of the big ones and
this particular bookstore is like three levels and all kinds of books and I found two books on
William Wallace and one basically was when they made up their like poetry to tell a story.

Alan: Sometimes they’ll say a note. A note is someone who’s died.

Jackie: A node. That’s basically what it was. They said there was so very little in history able
to tell about William Wallace. Now do you think that’s true or they don’t want people to know the
truth or what?

Alan: In Scotland, because Scotland was a colony of England you’ve got to remember, Scotland after
winning its independence right up until James and James was a descendent of de Bruce, the Stewards
were actually another name for the same bunch of de Bruce.

Jackie: The Stewarts?

Alan: They intermarried and intermarried, called themselves the Stewards of Scotland, meaning the
keepers, so they changed from de Bruce to Steward which became Stewart as time went on, but James
was a direct descendent from them with Norman nobility blood in him too, which doesn’t surprise me.
Stewart

Jackie: Over all these millennia this group has lasted but they aren’t always of the same – the
leadership maintains their royal bloodlines but they were in the beginning part of that mixture of
people?

Alan: Within the group there’s two. There’s the ones who only interbred very closely and they’re
the ones with the high noble stations in life et cetera.

Jackie: Do you think there’s a strain? What I’m trying to get clear here, they refer to the Habiru
as a mixture so they weren’t a pure bloodline of anything?

Alan: No, they weren’t.

Jackie: These people – we’ll talk about the royal Khazars, the Normans, was that a pure strain?

Alan: As far as we can tell they go back for probably for about 1500 years or so that we can trace
at keeping their own marriage lineages and interbreeding at the top.

Jackie: What would be their race or nationality or whatever?

Alan: It’s one that they haven’t given a name to, to the public. You see this entire world that we
live in is a pyramid structure and it’s a pyramid structure which is called

civilization, which is only possible with the introduction of their money, and the whole world
revolves around their money. All school children are trained to get a job to work for their money.
It’s all to do with the monied system which this small elite have controlled since the beginning of
what we’re given as time.

Jackie: Are you saying then, that if they did a DNA on let’s say Queen Elizabeth they’re going to
find genes different than anybody else has?
Alan: It would be very interesting to get a hold of it but I don’t think they’ll ever let it

Life Force Energy