Alan Watt on

"Sweet Liberty" with Jackie Patru

July 6, 2005

WWW.CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIX.COM

www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu

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.