Does Alan Watt need Jackie Patru?

[societyisthematrix]

Alan Watt used to exclusively do interviews with Jackie Patru. He used to appear on Jackie Patru's radio show "Sweet Liberty" weekly. But, that seems to be over now, Watt hasn't been interviewed by Patru in over a month and immediately after the first missed scheduled interview, he announced on his site that Patru told him that they were at an "impasse", Watt also announced in a blurb at that time "my bridges have been burned behind me."

I think that old saying, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone" is true because I never realized how important Jackie Patru was until now. Patru kept Watt grounded. She asked for evidence for Watt's claims (sometimes). She kept Watt from being too over the top negative. She added important information and asked keen questions. She seemed to be on the people's side, saying that we should fight and we could win whereas Watt has no such beliefs.

I always enjoyed the Patru-Watt interviews and found them enlightening. But, I've given up on Watt now. Without Patru, Watt is far too dark and negative. Patru was the Yin (white) to Watt's Yang (black). But, Alan Watt's blurbs are just all Yang now (all black) and I just can't stand it anymore.

Any thoughts on this?

[geo2]

Sooooooooo, listen to 'Jackie' aka the 'babylonian harlot' and worship 'hitler' with her as she heps praise on her 'boy' Adolf... come on 'mate' Alan is far, far more interesting without without that excuse for a female,' jackie', she was holding Alan back from taking ppl into a look at the very 'dark' powers that are runing the 'show'. [ pun intended ]

Hope that you may have the 'light' to see this and realize what 'jackie' is !

www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com

{ alans site }

[geo2]

;) :rolleyes: who knows 'mate' maybe 'old boy' Alan might even 'dance' with %$#@&* Davey, whats his name [?]LOL ... n even 'old girl' Jackie, whats her name {?}LOL n maybe even the goddess2...ohhh welcome princess/goddess dianna, a 'girl' in the 'tribe' with 'tribal' john with Infinity

ave maria ! herself in Himself in Herself

ur highnesses

john 10:34 {from the 'bible program' } but 'they did hav2givussometruths,

to-get-her

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[rodin]

Alan Watt is still going strong, pushing the 'we can't change what is happening' meme, though he is getting close to outing the culprits.

However this long piece by Jackie Patru is a cut above Watt.

Short excerpts from the first of many pages

Prior to WWII - before the U.S. joined the United Nations Organization - it was clearly understood by Americans and foreign governments alike that only the U.S. Congress could declare war. This understanding was expressed in a speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on December 8, 1941, as Britain was declaring war on Japan:

"The President told me that he would this morning send a message to Congress, which of course as you all know is the instrument, the constitutional instrument, by which alone a United States declaration of war can be made. . . " Voices of History 1941

In view of the extra-constitutional power assumed by U.S. presidents since World War II - all subsequent wars having been executed by presidential executive orders or 'directives' - one might reasonably conclude that the 'constitutional instrument' had been duly amended. In the case of war-making power that conclusion would be incorrect. So then, what happened? In Protocol No. 10 we read:

"In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents.

"Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war."

"We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal, in case of need for the defense of the new republican constitution. . . " Protocol No. 10

George Orwell's book, 1984, explains the slight-of-hand (or slight-of-mind) maneuvers which effected this sudden shift in unconstitutional presidential power. It's called NewSpeak which leads to NewThink, or more aptly NoThink. In a Logocracy, the perfection of the language is essential to the perfection of the system. As Syme, the language expert, told Winston Smith, in 1984:

"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.

". . . even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan 'freedom is slavery' when even the concept of freedom has been abolished?"

Eric Blair, using the pen name George Orwell, knew of which he wrote in his book, first published in 1949. He died immediately thereafter, by the way. We find the confirmation again in Protocol No. 3:

"The word freedom' brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force...

"For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life . . . "

And again from Protocol No. 12:

"The word 'freedom', which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows: -- Freedom is the right to do that which the law allows."

A new language has slowly and insidiously been introduced into our very minds: definitions of old words changed and many words dropped altogether along the way. Gay no longer means joyful and happy.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/perspective/jewishpersecutionintro.htm