James Tracy on The Secret Truth

James Tracy is a guest on the most recent edition of the weekly radio program The Secret Truth, hosted by George Butler and Charlotte Littlefield. The segment aired November 9, 2013.

Butler and Tracy discuss, among other things, “Disinfo Wars,” the Cambridge University research project alleging the deleterious effects of “conspiracy theories” on democracy, and the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

The Secret Truth is broadcast weekly from Austin on Texas Liberty Radio 90.1 FM.

Download

69 thoughts on “James Tracy on The Secret Truth”

    1. I haven’t had time to go to the link you provided, but all you have to do is watch here what is happening to James Tracy to find out.
      First he gets semi picked on by the MSM, then he starts to appear on “alternative” media, mind opening, radio shows.
      I don’t know what happens next.

  1. Good conversation. For Alex Jones. I’m really on the fence about this guy. I do not follow him and I do now want him as our ‘leader’ of ‘conspiracy theorists.’ When he was on Piers Morgan, he blew up like a complete fool. It just seemed staged to me to make gun rights advocates look like morons.

    Dr. Tracy, have you seen a good article that tries to get to the bottom of whether or not Alex Jones is a fraud? Do you think he is legit?

    1. As you may know, there has been an extensive discussion on Jones here over the past month or so following Nolan Higdon’s “Disinfo Wars” by Project Censored. You might wish to check out that exchange for some ideas and leads. Myself and those I know who’ve dealt with Infowars as guests or the equivalent have found it to be very professionally-run organization.

      I think it’s interesting how some on the progressive-left are suspicious or dismissive of Jones, when it’s MSNBC and some of the foundation-funded mouthpieces that are demonstrably manipulative of their own constituencies on a number of topics, such as “climate change.”

      1. Yes, I’ve been following, and also critical of Jones. When you see the whole package, anyone has the right to be critical of Jones. He’s had many very outrageous predictions and tends to go off at random. How he runs his organization is not what I’m concerned about – its the motives that worry me.

        I think most people in the truth movement understand how sensitive the topics are – the emotional connections we have to these tragic events blind too many of us from seeing past the smoke screen. It took me 10 years to wake up to 9/11, and experiencing Sandy Hook had a lot to do with it.

        My main point is that although maybe Jones is trying to get the message out there, I think he might be doing more harm than good. When I approach people about 9/11 or Sandy Hook, etc. I know it must be in a very calm and relaxed approach, or they will blow me off or get angry. When I listen to you and read your articles, I see the careful use of words sticking to the facts, and not saying ridiculous statements.

        The other interesting thing I find is that people don’t have time to look into this stuff. No matter how much I show some people, they just keep blowing me off. I ask them repeatedly if they did any research, then they say they don’t have time or forgot. I’ve been showing people the Victoria Munoz Busted video, and some are blown away, and others just shrug. This is another reason why Alex needs to be pinpoint and spot on, and most importantly, relaxed. Also, women DO NOT LIKE men who scream.

        1. Alex Jones seems to have dropped issues such as Fukushima’s possible geoengineering and some false flag incidents from his repertoire (and I do sense he has a scripted plan of attack) He says if HE can’t prove the theory, he won’t pursue it. Sounds savvy and rational. I think he doesn’t want to deviate from his own agenda. I have my own opinion on that–which is personal and based on many views that counter his thrust.

          Many guests have glommed onto Infowars because of the huge audience. A bit of commercial, PR and marketing advantage enter into the equation. One reason to mull over the information. Carefully…Two guests I have grown to trust over time are Gov Jesse Ventura and actor Ed Asner. Their voices ring true.

        2. I think that your observations in many ways resemble the form over substance arguments prompted by Nolan Higdon’s “Disinfo Wars” article. I have a piece that touches upon some of these concerns that will be going up later today or tomorrow that I would encourage you to comment on. When I have a chance to listen to AJ’s show it sounds as if about 4 out of 5 callers are indeed men, and this uggests to some degree the makeup of the audience.

          As a society we rely largely on soundbites and headlines for our information. Many of those inclined to dig deeper frequently gravitate toward mainstream sources such as NPR and the New York Times. At the same time, isn’t it true that our media environments are characterized by the same avuncular-like and sober anchorpersons that we’ve become accustomed to and dependent upon for our information? Is this perhaps a form of conditioning that predisposes many to dismiss someone like Jones, given his unconventional manner? Such outrage was common in a 18th and 19th century town hall meeting or political journal, often causing acts of violence that were carried out on journal and newspaper editors. See, for example, John Nerone’s Violence Against the Press (Oxford UP, 1994). Further, are not the corporate media’s major broadcast journalists perhaps behaving in an irrational manner by maintaining their composure while presenting (or in many cases ignoring) truly terrifying issues and events that would cause trepidation or outrage in any thinking person? I wrote about this phenomenon in a piece that appeared here earlier this year, “Social Engineering and the 21st Century Truth Emergency.”

          Along these lines, at a recent conference I attended earlier this month co-hosted by Project Censored the hip-hop historian and radio personality Davey D presented an amazingly insightful and passionate talk on how the Black community today is largely devoid of informed broadcast personalities who forty-to-fifty years ago were the foremost political commentators among their respective listenerships. These figures had such influence toward the civil rights struggle that in 1967 MLK addressed their contributions at the National Association of Television and Radio Announcers. The discussion is encapsulated in a blog post on D’s blog, “Martin Luther King: The Importance of Black Radio and Using Words as Weapons.”

          They were a political force to be reckoned with that have since been replaced in those very communities by non-stop music of limited if not harmful substance. Coincidence or conspiracy? Perhaps a bit of both. It would be an interesting research project to examine the overall reception of such personalities, and I’m inclined to think that they had to contend with similar criticisms because of their politicized banter and perceived stylistic idiosyncrasies. They also likely got a few things wrong here and there.

        3. James, a few posts ago you referenced Dr. Stan. (For the uninitiated reader he’s a retired orthopedic surgeon who now does five hours of talk radio a day, on four different networks–http://www.radioliberty.com)

          I have long thought you should be on his show, but this comment triggers a specific, not general, reason for this. For years he has talked about the various ways in which the physical health of the black community has been invisibly attacked. One thing he repeatedly points out is the fact that fluoride in the water reduces IQ and both makes people docile and also increases irrational violence. Part of this involves the way the element leaches lead from pipes and fixtures into the water, part of it involves the fact that it’s not sodium fluoride, but hydrofluorosoilicic acid–which also contains lead, cadmium and arsenic–that they poison the water with, and many of these elements are more harmful to blacks than to other races.

          The point is, quite aside from the complete dumbing down of the schools blacks, most pointedly of all, attend (all education has been dumbed down, of course, as Charlotte Iserbyt documents), they are also being made physically less intellectually capable. Their brains are being suppressed.

          Alongside the fact that Fabian socialists/technocrats/Margret Sanger acolytes hate black people on principle, and want them all aborted and made stupid, and are using the state to accomplish that via political machinations, here, in your comment, we notice that the independent voice of the black community has been silenced–and black people haven’t noticed. Why haven’t they noticed? I can’t see this as a coincidence. I urge you to explore this question with Stan.

          The enemies of freedom are diabolical. They will use any tool, even genocide, to accomplish the New World Order they seek to build. One can’t put it past them to target an ethnicity they hate and want diminished this way. It sounds crazy, perhaps. But if by using chemicals to make make the black community docile and distracted by vile entertainment, on the one hand, and violent and antisocial on the other, reason and political empowerment become non issues. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams become extreme outliers, when they otherwise might have been the Thomas Jefferson and James Mason of a new black enlightenment. Jay Z and Kanye West stand on a pathetic pedestal. Blacks deserve better, but can’t seem to see it.

          It’s a big story, and almost completely unexplored. We often wonder how blacks allow evil, corrupt blowhards like Jesse Jackson and the despicable Al Sharpton have been successfully presented to the world as the “voice” of black America. (Obviously, Sowell and Williams are equally mystified, and saddened.) Here, possibly, there is a way to begin to explain it.

        4. I intended to say George Mason. I likes James Mason’s movies, but doubt a great civilizational uplift was likely in the offing from him. Sorry for the slip.

  2. It is hard not to feel angry when you think about or hear about the outrageous lengths that PSYOP will go in order to further a military agenda of the never-ending war machine. Whether it’s to incite ordinary citizens to grab hold of their guns and load up on ammunition or to “profiteer” a war across the world safe from our own shores.

    Of course, not everyone who is inside the PSYOP or false flag operations even knows the whole story or they might get angry, too!

    People like Alex serve a purpose of impotent frustration that the average person feels, he is hardly likely to bring a call to arms, just because he is so outrageous.

    On the other hand, the quiet and dispassionate discourse we have hear, is not much better in facilitating real change. It must come from bottom on up, not from the top down. When ordinary folks and those who are involved in this sickness can open their eyes and ears and are willing to see and hear the truth, only then can change from this sick system. It must come from within the PSYOP itself.

    I’m pretty sure you know who you are, get moving!

  3. http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/11/12/philippines-typhoon-linked-to-man-made-microwave-pulses/

    Sandy Hook is to gun control as devastating hurricanes and typhoons are to climate change. (For your immediate consideration.)

    Note the way the establishiment scientist and the MSM host conduct the interview with a predetermined conclusion.

    Then look at the evidence of tampering, i.e., geoengineering of the weather fronts that produced the gigantic storm which leveled the Philippines a few days ago. Judge for yourself. I am not a scientist but I must say these continuouos anomalies persist like clockwork. What sort of mind would create such havoc and who profits?

  4. Since James has been sticking up for Alex Jones, I look at his stuff every once in a while, despite my initial unfavorable impression. I think what we don’t take into account is the audience that he is appealing to and in some sense is leading.

    Most of the commenters of the columns appear to be male who, as all women know, are extremely childish and lacking in good sense. Worse, they are White, old, Texan males who, if the comments are any indication, appear to have brains the size of golf balls. They are covered up by Stetsons so no one notices.

    A journalist is restricted by his audience. Truth is a collective process between a truther and truthee. Hopefully each side is both, but if one side has the insight of a cow, all you will get in return is “Moooo.” Under the circumstances Jones appears to have built a sizable following in telling the ideological illegitimate truth under very difficult circumstances. I strongly disagree with some of the values, but, under the circumstances, maybe we should cut him some slack.

    1. Stop focusing on the messenger. Jones is not perfect by any standard. The message is still the point. To disregard the message because he screams or he’s this or that is ignorant. Does he sensationalize? Duh. Does he tell falsehoods on occasion. Duh. So do you. So do I. Get over who or what Jones is and listen to what he is saying. Should you filter the message through your perspective of common sense? Duh.

      1. Rick this is not a ‘duh’ moment. The messenger is the most important person for this situation. If the message is not communicated properly, the recipient won’t get it. And that’s the problem. People aren’t getting it. There are a couple of reasons that could explain why MSM keeps giving Jones more air time.

        1. He is a shill and a fraud being paid by the powers that be to distract us from the real truth and keep us searching for the next rabbit hole.

        2. He is a true independent thinker who wants to find the truth and bring justice to the criminals. But he is so outrageous and unbelievable at times, that the MSM knows that by presenting him, they actually hurt the truth movement.

        But when I think of Alex, I also think of Jesse Ventura. He is less stressful than Alex, and he also gets MSM air time. Others have suggested that Ventura is a fraud, but I really can not accept that, he just seems like the real deal. Dr. Tracy, do you speak with Jesse Ventura? It would be great to hear the two of you get together.

        1. How could it be that Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones work together at times and one is a fraud and the other legit/

        2. DO NOT underestimate the intelligence and creativity of the people who pull the strings behind the scenes.

          Just because Alex and Jesse have worked together, that does not really mean anything to me.

          Shills are out there to seem legitimate. If I were a shill, I would be shouldering up with legitimate leaders, so that I could absorb their creditability.

          Alex has had many creditable guests and stories, it does not mean that everything he does is legitimate or with proper intentions.

        3. So if calling 9-11 a hoax designed to crush the Constitution and usher endless wars of conquest on top of accusing the financial institutions led by the Fed of robbing us blind and enslaving us with global debt is a distraction from the real truth, can you speculate what the real truth might be? If you have nothing, how do you justify such a claim? That tactic seems a bit ridiculous to me.

        4. “1. He is a shill and a fraud being paid by the powers that be to distract us from the real truth and keep us searching for the next rabbit hole.”

          I was referring to your post. I guess you have nothing.

    2. Hi, Mark and everyone,

      Below, Bill Fred writes about Jones that:

      either

      “1. He is a shill and a fraud being paid by the powers that be to distract us from the real truth and keep us searching for the next rabbit hole.”

      or

      “2. He is a true independent thinker who wants to find the truth and bring justice to the criminals. But he is so outrageous and unbelievable at times, that the MSM knows that by presenting him, they actually hurt the truth movement.”

      I think that Bill has it right, and though Jones does have a choir to whom he preaches, in the minds of the mainstream anesthetized “majority,” which is the group that you would like to ‘convert’ to the ‘truth’ about 9/11, he represents the lunatic fringe, and because he does come off to the “majority” as more than just a bit ‘outlandish’ in many of his claims, the effect he has on the majority, in being ‘associated’ with the 9/11 truth movement, is to discredit out of hand all forms of ‘skepticism’ about the “official narrative” on 9/11.

      The issue, to my mind, is the following: should I recommend to my uninformed acquaintances Alex Jones as a source of information on 9/11 over, for example, AE911Truth, or over the many works by David Ray Griffin, or over the recently completed documentary by A. Zuberi,entitled “9/11 In The Academic Community?” In other words, it is a question of a) discriminating between sources of information and b) proselytizing on the ‘basis’ of those sources.

      It’s not a matter of wasting my time discrediting Jones, it’s a matter of doing better in what I myself will recommend to others as a source of information, analysis, and research on the issue. It is a question of ‘quality,’ in both the style of argumentation and dedication to standards of truth seeking.

      1. Yet you have no proof that Jones is a shill or a fraud – just speculation. I believe you dislike Jones because he comes off as a bombastic redneck, which amounts to personality traits you find to be beneath you. I believe this is the case with Bill Fred and others that attempt to discredit Jones because of his style. What you are actually doing is dividing the truth movement into those who you see as credible because they act a certain way and those you try to push out because you don’t approve of the way they speak or act. Each to his own, my friend. We would be better off coming together now to overcome our bigger problems, and kindly disagreeing later.

        1. Thank You, Rick…
          I seldom comment on this blog… but because there were so many comments here that denigrated Alex Jones’ ‘information’ or ‘documentation’, I felt I had to defend him and his sources.
          However, I now understand something I did not a day or so ago when this began… and that it seems to be a different issue, one that folks are actually talking ‘around’ and not ‘about’…. except for Rick.
          Let’s face it: Alex Jones is a loud, ranting Redneck Patriot… (who said it perfectly? “Redneck meets Darpa”?)
          Lots of you folks seem to dismiss him because of his style, but then blame it on his ‘message’.
          Rick is totally correct… in the long run, we all have to get Real, and come together over Truth.
          PS… PLEASE, someone… check out
          http://www.hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4

        2. Rick, you are truly misguided in your beliefs. You are judging someone you don’t know at all based on a few comments on a blog. Very sad. Although I am not offended by the term redneck, it is a racial slur against poor southern whites generally.

          I lived in two southern states for 7 years and was friends with enough ‘rednecks’ to know that ‘rednecks’ are good people. So please stop the race baiting. It is the progressive left media that uses race to divide us, and people like you follow their lead like sheep.

          Yes, I will doubt Jones for his style, not speech; among many other reasons I question him. Did you see him on Piers Morgan going off like a fool? Here is exactly what I am talking about how MSM will use him to make us look bad, or to discredit the gun rights movement.



        3. Yes, Bill, I saw it live and loved it. Many on this blog and on air have said the same. I believe you are in the minority on this one. Piers Morgan is the fool and still is. You don’t need a PhD to figure this out, just common sense. Fast and Furious was a failed attempt to get people to turn against the 2nd Amendment. The Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook were also attempts to discourage gun ownership and ban certain firearms from circulation. Don’t you get it? We should all be that pissed and more. Wake up!

    3. The Alex Jones’ comment site is like the wild wild west, the spectrum international, especially within the English-speaking countries. Don’t think comments are totally dumbed down; that, IMO smacks of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s interpretation of reality; their take is suspicion of ‘old, white men who fall back on antquated American values that favor–old, white men. The Center has also targeted legitimate gun enthusiasts and returning vets–who know how to use a gun.

      I used to support SPLC, which was quite controversial for its own
      unAmerican-like posture. I also was quite taken with Michael Moore and his tirades against the establishment. Both seem to be morphing into other beings along with the shift in our political environment. The Center and Moore have gone over to the dark side, it seems.

      1. (Continuing on the above thought)

        Beneath the mask of hyper-rationality, me think me spies a chink in the narrative armor. The Global set has enticed many into the fold using climate change, dangerous over population, earth pollution, etc., as a rationale. The Green movement was hijacked by these miscreants Great book on this important issue: “Behind the Green Mask.” Alex Jones pushes this thesis and sells the book on his site. My one big problem with him is his willingness to also subscribe to space travel.
        That is the agenda of the Globalists; after rendering our planet uninhabital with their exhaustion or our planet’s resourses, they want to exploit other worlds. I say fix our problems first, then expend the bilions on space exploration. That doesn’t fit with their agenda.

  5. To me, where the messenger is trying to take us is the most important thing. So it’s important to know who the messenger is working for in order to not be led somewhere that isn’t a good place to go.

    I am starting to see some clues that MSM, alternative media, left, right…all might be taking us to the same destination, just via different paths.

    1. The globalist elite have their disparate ‘pens’ for particular animals. It doesn’t matter if it’s real news truthfully reported by the mainstream media or if it’s alternative, investigative reporting that is being publicised.
      The information, planning and execution come right from the very top. So whether it’s info, disinfo or the ‘controlled opposition’ that are deciphering the propaganda, the message still came from the same place.

  6. Jesse Ventura, with Dick Russell wrote a good popular book on the history of American conspiracies. But he wouldn’t touch Sandy Hook. You can understand this in a sense since Sandy Hook is so weird, but if you are a professional in the conspiracy business, you don’t have that option and still retain your reputation. You can pick your time but you can’t pick your spots; you have to call them as you see them. He many want to run for president in 2016, and Sandy Hook would hurt him. Tough.

  7. Dr. Tracy, I found your comments in this interview regarding the self-censorship of academics and journalists in compliance with institutional or corporate culture most interesting. The tendency to self-censor appears in all groups and is consistent with the results of Asch Conformity Experiments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnT2FcuZaYI

    I wonder if you could write a blog on just this subject.

    For example, why is it that white strangers in public drop their voice to a whisper when the subject of conversation becomes “jews”, “blacks” or “homosexuals”? I’ve noticed this twice recently, once during a conversation with a stranger in the WWII aisle of a used book store and once in the lobby of a hotel, late at night with a retired military man also a stranger to me, who had done four tours in Iraq, Neither lowered his voice when the subject was Islam.

    As for Alex Jones the information he reveals about himself in this short clip from an interview he did with Howard Stern provides motivations for his self-censorship and may answer in part the question as to why he only dances around the subject of organized world Jewery and the ancient Messianic prophesy of Jewish world governance from Jerusalem instead of grasping it like a third rail and arguing it is the motivating force behind the New World Order and that the Globalists he talks so ceaselessly about are the Jewish hierarchy. Not that there mightn’t be other incentives operating.

    http://trutube.tv/video/3774/Alex-Jones-on-his-Jewish-Wife-and-Facing-Anti-Semitism-Howard-Stern-Interview

  8. Peter, the reason why people drop their voices when discussing vilified groups is for the obvious reason they are bigoted against them, just as you, Peter–and I say this with all due respect–are an anti-semitic dingbat. It is quite true that Jews want to rule the world; I am Jewish and I think it would be nice to rule the world, but I am an unorganized Jew, and the thought of my relatives ruling the world is horrifying. They have done enough harm supporting apartheid Israel and the ziocons and American wars. Anyone who thinks Jews are intrinsically smart have obviously never met my relatives.

    I am not familiar with the ancient Messianic prophecy of Jewish world governance, but you might be happy to note that George Bush is now promoting the Messianic Jews for Jesus, having finally found a project worthy of his talents. Since most Jews do not even believe in Judaism let alone another religion, he has his work cut out for him. As do you, since most people self-censor dingbat notions along with the simple ideological illegitimate truth.

  9. — Partial transcription of narration from video linked above.

    “An experiment is not a public opinion poll it examines behavior under the pressure of social forces as the experiment of Soloman Asch reveals…. With a partner yielding drops to only 5% of the critical trials compared to 37% without a partner. Although subjects report warmth and good feeling toward the partner they typically deny he played a role in their own independence. The partnership variation shows that much of the power of the group came not merely from its numbers but from the unanimity of its opposition. When that unanimity is punctured the group’s power is greatly reduced. Sometimes we go along with a group because the group’s consensus convinces us they are right, this is called informational conformity. But sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called normative conformity. The strength of the normative factor is shown in another variation carried out by Asch. In this variation the subject is told that because he had arrived late he would have to write his answers. Subjects in this private response experiment are exposed to the same amount of misleading information as other subjects but they are immune from any possible criticism by the group and this enormously reduces the pressure to conform. Conformity drops by two thirds. Asch’s experiment is a classic. It reveals how people will deny what they see and submit to group pressure. It allows us not only to observe conformity but to study the conditions that increase or reduce its occurrence.”

    Alex Jones, James Tracey and the alternative media – whatever their motives or however outlandish their opinions – puncture mainstream media’s encapsulation of our opinions and free us to think for ourselves. What more vital a function, more worthy of protection could there be?

    “How far do conspiracy theories undermine trust in government and shape history? From 9/11 to the rise of Holocaust denial, three leading academics will explore and reveal some surprising answers. Sir Richard John Evans is an academic and historian, best known for his research on the history of Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly the Third Reich. Professor John Naughton is an academic, journalist and author. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at Cambridge, Vice President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Technology at the British Open University, Adjunct Professor at University College, Cork, and the Technology columnist of the London Observer newspaper. Professor David Runciman is a political scientist who teaches political theory at Cambridge University. He specialises in the development of the theory of the modern state and on aspects of contemporary politics. Image credit: Horia Varlan

    [soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/118092681" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

  10. Link above: audio of lecture presented Wednesday 23 October 2013: 5:00pm – 6:30pm in Room 3, Mill Lane Lecture Rooms, Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RW Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.

  11. But puncturing a delusive truth consensus is only the first step, Peter. It is then necessary to form a non-delusive truth consensus that serves the interests of people against anti-people power. Any thoughts on how this can be done?

    1. Mark,

      I think you’re asking too much. One must take a scientific approach. It would not go to deliberately set out to create “a non-delusive truth consensus that serves the interests of people against anti-people power.”

      As John Quincy Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence; nor is the law less stable than the fact…”

      Source: http://stubbornfacts1776.com/about-the-title/

  12. I happen to be highly unscientific myself, Peter, Western scientific ideology being so irrational. Scientists, so far from being rational, have made the entire Western scientific tradition ass-backwards. It is rational from the perspective of power, but it is ideologically irrational from the perspective of people.

    If the population made the scientific tradition, instead of an intellectual Elite under the supervision of power, we would have begun with what people are most interested in. People. We would have begun with social science and the relations among people. Having done so historically, we could then move on to biology and the relation among living creatures. Finally, a few dingbats with a taste for abstract theory could tell us the simple conceptual truth about bodies in motion, and physical theory.

    But is this what happened historically. NO. The precise opposite occurred, and scientists have the presumption to tell us that they are rational. And since people, as Freud argued, have a biological-cultural need to believe the power delusions of religious and intellectual authority, we tend to believe them. So we are currently on the historical verge of destroying ourselves because of scientific invention while we do not sufficiently understand relations among people, while scientists and others, I mention no names, promote the rationality of scientific ideology.

  13. I won’t name names, but many of you folks who take up a lot of (redundant) space here in the Comments section sound so terribly full of yourselves, as if you were sitting in an 18th century salon, pompously being ‘intellectuals’ with one another.
    Who else than Alex Jones has reported on the ‘missing nukes’ just this October? Who puts out ‘outlandish’ claims of eugenics plans from high government officials, and backs up EVERYTHING he says with documentation? Who first questioned the Michael Hastings death scenario…AND had Hastings’ best friend on a few days later?
    We don’t see this AT ALL on ANY other website until after Alex has broken ground…. And you all are “questioning” his “agenda’, or claim that only feeble minded men listen to him? You guys have your head up where the sun doesn’t shine.
    wake up
    .Here’s what’s going on all over the World today…Nov.16th…

    1. Hi, Martha,

      You write: Who puts out ‘outlandish’ claims of eugenics plans from high government officials, and backs up EVERYTHING he says with documentation?

      In quoting this bit from you, I’m less interested in the eugenics reference than with your claim that Jones “backs up EVERYTHING he says.”

      Here is a quote from Jones making a claim: ““The reason there are so many gay people now is because it’s a chemical warfare operation…I have the government documents where they said they’re going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so people don’t have children.”

      Okay, Jones has “the government documents.” Does he produce them? Does he reference them? Does he tell his listener where he can go and verify for himself that a) the government documents do exist and b) that they clearly and unambiguously say what Jones says they say?

      According to the source that I have from which I borrow this quote from Jones, Jones does not “back up” this (and many other) claim(s). And it is, irrespective of how comfortable you may be with this particular claim in terms of the degree of its outlandishness, something that happens to stretch the envelope of what most people would at first blush be inclined to accept as ‘fact,’ especially given the absence of an actual reference to an actual government document.

      Apparently, there are many such instances in the archives of Jones’s prodigious output. Making claims without “backing them up” is as much a part of what Jones does as “backing up” much of what he does in fact claim. And along with Jones’s bombastic style, this is a bit of a problem for Jones’s credibility in the minds of many people.

      My contention is, if I know that on a particular issue there is a better and more reliable source of information on an issue with which people generally ought to be familiar, such as the ‘fraud’ that is the ‘official’ narrative on 9/11, written and produced by the likes of Philip D. Zelikow, a Bush Whitehouse insider if there ever was one, then I should refer uninformed individuals who might be interested in the matter to that source: not Jones, but Griffin; not Jones, but Global Research; not Jones, but John McMurtry; not Jones, but AE911Truth; not Jones, but Peter Dale Scott, and so on and so forth — because whereas Jones ‘is’ unreliable or inconsistent in his referencing of his sources, and whereas he does make outlandish claims, these others are meticulous in both their reasoning and documenting — certainly to a degree that Jones is demonstrably ‘not’ — and refrain from making what on the face of it are highly improbable claims.

      It may be, however, that credibility is a matter of mere opinion. Personally, I believe that some people are actually better at both unearthing and telling the truth than others. And I also believe that you can do better than with Alex Jones, both in terms of educating yourself and others.

      (BTW: that’s right, I did not reference my source, from which I quote Jones. Between friends, lets just call that indiscretion “pulling a Jones.”)

      1. Dr. Joseph Mercola discusses this very topic comes with copious information in his review of the Canadian (CBC) documentary, “The Disappearing Male.” A synopsis of the film is also available here. “The fact is,” Mercola remarks, “if you want to stay safe, you can’t depend on the FDA, the EPA or any other government agency; you’ve got to look out for yourself.

        In my view, which I believe I’ve already articulated here, comparing a radio show host’s observations to a scholarly project or the equivalent is not entirely appropriate or fair. A brief search on Infowars reveals that they’ve provided abundant coverage of the health dangers posed by BPA.

        1. “In my view…comparing a radio show host’s observations to a scholarly project or the equivalent is not entirely appropriate or fair.”

          Just so. While Norm is entitled to his criteria as to what to recommend to people to expose them to startling takes on well-reported events, in my experience a loaned copy of a David Ray Griffin book will not be read–even by people already prepared to question the official story of 911. Norm might hang with a tonier crowd than I, but in my experience, the swells are less likely to open their minds than the dummies who make up most of the people around us.

          Alex is a very enthusiastic showman. He sounds compelling, and no one who watches and listens to him sees obvious disingenuousness in him; he seems really to believe what he’s saying. After a newbie has heard Alex rant, and starts to wonder if it might be true, THEN hand them a Griffin book. They might actually read it.

          That is, the two approaches go hand in hand.

        2. Hi, James,

          The fact stated by Dr. Mercola may indeed be exactly that you cannot trust the FDA, the EPA or any other current government agency to fulfill its ostensible duty of oversight, dominated and directed as these agencies are by executives and directors doing the bidding of the big corporations which they are supposed to be regulating in the interest of the general public. And the household goods emitting “hormone mimicking” chemicals that disrupt normal endocrine functions and by which we are surrounded, not to mention our exposure to the contents of needless and sometimes mandatory vaccines or to ionizing radiation from imaging technologies (such as X-rays or MRIs), may indeed all combine into the cause and explanation for a dramatically increasing host of deformities and abnormalities among us. And yes, the public health agencies are probably fully aware of the linkages between all of these things, and yet ‘profit’ will continue to trump public welfare. In other words, some ‘willful intent’ may indeed be at play, here, in the way, for example, that Ford calculated the cost of installing a $3.00 or $4.00 per car fix to its line of Pintos to be greater than the probable lawsuits it would incur from knowingly producing a vehicle that in the aggregate would burn people alive, and thus decided to take its chances on the lawsuit side of the equation.

          But what Jones is saying about the ‘intent’ behind the ‘criminal abdication of duty’ by those agencies that are supposed to ensure the public’s safety and welfare is in fact an obfuscation of the ‘truth.’

          Jones’s narrative wants me to believe that the ‘chemical warfare’ at hand is for the purpose of ‘creating a higher incidence of homosexuality’ so as to reduce rates of child birth. And don’t just take his word for it, he has the government documents to prove it.

          The truth, however, is that government regulatory agencies, under the control of bureaucratic heads who are the paid lackeys of private enterprise, regulate in such a way as to ensure corporate profitability even at the expense of the public’s welfare.

          In other words, the real issue is not, as Jones would have me believe, that ‘evil is inherent in everything that the government does by default,’ but that in a context in which ‘profit’ is to be derived from providing services that are ostensibly for the welfare of the public or that must take that welfare into account, ‘profit’ is by definition the overriding concern, not the public’s welfare.

          Jones does not enlighten. He confounds. Certainly in this instance. And it would not require much effort to provide a host of other instances.

          As for making comparisons between a radio show and a scholarly project being inappropriate or unfair, that is precisely what needs to be done. Journalism fails because it is not scholarly enough. Scholarship — not the caricature of it existing in its institutionalized and professionalized forms both within and without the university, but as exemplified by independent thinkers like John McMurtry or Arnie Gundersen or such as yourself — is precisely the standard that should be used to separate the wheat from the chaff.

          If the MSM are to be condemned for not doing their job of telling the ‘truth,’ then whomever else postures as doing as much should also be held to the same standard. If you are telling me that you are telling the truth and you are not, whatever the reason, you should be called out it, as you rightfully deserve to be.

        3. “In other words, the real issue is not, as Jones would have me believe, that ‘evil is inherent in everything that the government does by default,’ but that in a context in which ‘profit’ is to be derived from providing services that are ostensibly for the welfare of the public or that must take that welfare into account, ‘profit’ is by definition the overriding concern, not the public’s welfare.”

          This paragraph is not entirely coherent, Norm; perhaps you should have crafted it a little better. But I think I get your gist. It connects with your belief that providers of medical services have a moral obligation to work for free.

          The problem here is the state. The idea that the collective is more important than the individual. Very pernicious, that.

          The state is, in fact, in essence, evil. And stupid. It should never be trusted. It must be reduced to the minimum possible size, and held down, even then, with the strongest of chains.

          People today are told that “heath care is a right.”

          Rights are things no one can take away–by definition. But they are also things that cost other people nothing. My right to live, for example, is inherent, and it costs no one else anything at all. My right to speak freely–the same. To assemble with others; to protect myself from harm; to not have the state rape me at the airport, as a condition of entering a private company’s airplane. Or have the state not read my emails. These things require of other people nothing, other than that they refrain from committing a crime against me.

          Medical care, on the other hand, can’t be a right–by definition. If I have a “right” to medical care, I have a right to enslave another person, to either force that man to perform the work, or to force my neighbor to finance that guy’s labor. My “right” to medical treatment, if it existed, would mean that the state ensures that all the free people of the land can’t combine, if they all hate me, to deny me those services. This is not a question of rights. It is tyranny. If everyone in America hates me, and refuses to help me, no matter how dire my condition, I have no right to force them to aid me. They have every right to deny me their services and property–if they are in fact free.

          You talk about “services that are ostensibly for the welfare of the public,” and put the word profit in quotes. This is pernicious. A better word would be “disgusting.” No one has a right to the labor or property of another. That is not a conversation about rights. It is about enslaving other people to force them to give you things you can’t afford yourself. You should be ashamed, sir.

        4. Hi, Patrick,

          For everything you attribute to me as what I either implied or wrote in my post, I would indeed feel deeply ashamed.

          And I do apologize for any incoherence on my part. True, I could have spent more time on crafting my sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps next time.

          I am, however, still trying to see where in what I wrote I implied that ‘healthcare providers’ (meaning nurses and doctors and their support staff) should work for free. (I’m not saying that what I wrote doesn’t actually imply that, only that I don’t see it for what to me remains an inscrutable cognitive reason.)

          I would also add that I am under the impression (– even as perhaps in my incoherence in my post above I did inadvertently write or imply the opposite –) that it is my steadfast supposition that it is the “healthcare-providers-in-the-guise-of-corporations” who might be more insistent than me on getting ‘work for free’ out of the actual ‘healthcare providers,’ for as you know (or should), the wages of the people who have to do the actual ‘providing’ do have a way of cutting into the profits of the corporations masquerading as the actual ‘healthcare providers,’ as do also the demands for services by the payers of healthcare premiums to the for-profit insurance providers who don’t actually do much by way of the actual providing but who, above all, also have to turn a profit.

          But good of you to focus in on my illegitimate presuppositions, such as you highlighted them for me. For obviously they do not square with the intent of my argument. I am duly chastened. Many thanks.

        5. Certainly regulatory agencies function more so than ever to enrich the coffers of private industry. If I’m not mistaken what you seek to advocate, or at least suggest, here is the notion of coincidence versus conspiracy, which is I think the standard underlying assumption behind most conventional scholarly and journalistic endeavor.

          And yet if there are “documents” that do indeed exist (there is the assumption here that Jones is bluffing, or at the very least exaggerating, which would have to be confirmed by identifying the document allegedly being referenced) that there is some bizarre gov’t-sponsored social engineering plan afoot (which would by no means be the first time) an honest journalist and/or scholar will weigh their import and validity and enter them in to the record where appropriate.

          I was not attempting to posit a radio show = journalism = scholarship equation, but apparently you have. I would contend that progressive-left commentators such as Thom Hartmann and Amy Goodman certainly tend toward “confounding” their audiences when they label certain individuals “climate deniers.” Yet I agree that good journalism and scholarship do share a great deal in common. Max Weber once made a similar observation.

        6. Hi, James,

          You write: “If I’m not mistaken what you seek to advocate, or at least suggest, here is the notion of coincidence versus conspiracy, which is I think the standard underlying assumption behind most conventional scholarly and journalistic endeavor. ”

          No, I’m not advocating the notion of coincidence versus conspiracy. I am stating quite explicitly that the ‘elite’ KNOW what they are doing, and what they are doing is CRIMINAL and they know that what they are doing contravenes their mandated “fiduciary obligations,” and thus their actions in fact amount to ‘CONSPIRACIES.’ And their ‘conspiracies’ serve but one purpose: to enrich, as you put it, the coffers of the corporations.

          My point is simple: Jones misleads his choir about the nature or substance of the ‘real conspiracies.’ He misdirects attention away from an understanding of the ‘actual issues’ which must be grasped if people are ever to extricate themselves form the untenable social and economic circumstances under which “they are being made to live” precisely on account of the ‘real conspiracies’ being perpetrated against them.

          I’m advocating ‘truth’ over either ‘deliberate deceit’ or ‘journalistic ineptitude.’ In my opinion, Jones is a peddler of ‘views’ that appeal to a paranoid niche audience that is making him a lot of money. At the same time, the effect of what he is doing — on the basis of the psychological tendency among all of us to convict (or absolve) merely on the basis of ‘association’ or knee-jerk predilections — is akin to what you rightly point out is being done by the ostensibly independent progressive-left commentators.

          The problem ‘is’ one of ‘information,’ of ‘truth,’ of a dearth of competent voices able to inform the public on the basis of judicious research and analysis. I’m advocating for a socially responsible intellectual honesty and rigor over venality and laziness.

      2. C’mon Norm… Just because YOU don’t seem to know about the current Administration’s “science Czar”, Paul Erlich… who wrote “Ecoscience” back in the (70’s?) calling for a culling of the general population through chemicals in the water supply and use of plastics which alter sexual hormone levels, don’t fault Alex Jones (who cites these works repeatedly) for your lack of knowledge.
        As for “9/11 Truth”, you’d have to state some actual facts of difference of opinion between David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, and anyone associated with Architects and Engineers and what Alex Jones says for me, or any rational person, to consider your ‘argument’.
        Methinks you’re a bit full of your own ‘opinion’ and are not connected to facts.
        PS… Thank You, Professor Tracey, for backing up Alex Jones’ statement with research from Dr. Mercola.

  14. Thank you Martha! Where else did we learn of the feds stock piling on firearms, the much dreaded AR-15, hollow point bullets which are outlawed in actual wars and too expensive for target practice, armored vehicles, etc., etc., with actual proof of these purchase orders? Mr. Jones took the lead and others may have followed. Before SH, I was asleep, could not consider the thought that 911 was orchestrated as that would mean my world was turned upside down, what was wrong is now right, what was evil is now the modus operand of the elite powers that be.. Most assumed the mafia killed JFK and if you delved into the whole affair, you would be assassinated too. While In search of the truth, stumbled on this site and Infowars and a few others. My husband often has to signal me to simmer down when we engage friends on our current state, as he knows the folks can handle just so much at a time. Thank you, Mr. Jones, for your passion, while I normally pay attention to INFOWARS written articles, do have difficulty listening with my sensitive ears. However if that was my job, would also have difficulty speaking in a calm voice, we do not have much time left folks!

  15. Martha’s comment is very valuable because it embodies a proclivity I have semi-noticed in other commenters but could not articulate clearly. This is a resentment of unfamiliar historical ideas. The American people have been miseducated in history classes in school, as James Loewin illustrated in his classic LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, and consequently Americans tend to be historically illiterate. The horrors of American history are sanitized out of history textbooks so Americans do not know, or want to know, in a general concise way, America’s tendency of homicidal racist imperialism.

    Because the actual history subverts the American fable of Freedom&Democracy that historically has legitimated American power, Americans tend to avoid unfamiliar historical ideas. George Orwell referred to this evasion as CRIMESTOP:

    “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes…being bored or repelled by any tarin of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP in short means protective stupidity.”

    The importance of the homicidal Orwellian conspiracies (HOCS) is their historical implications. The John Kennedy assassination was a major cause of the Vietnam war, since Kennedy was already on record as pulling troops out of Vietnam. Johnson capitulated to the military-industrial complex, a major reason for the murder. It led to the killing of millions of persons.

    The Martin Luther King murder occurred after King began uniting the civil rights movement, the poverty movement, and the anti-war movement, which would have led to an early end to the war. Bobbie Kennedy was murdered after he clinched the Dem nomination to avoid his carrying the Kennedy’s initial policy. The autopsy report stated he was killed by a shot in the back of the head from a few inches away, which the American people still don’t know because it is suppressed in the media. Their murders extended the mass slaughter.

    The 9/11/anthrax homicidal conspiracies initiated the Terrorist War and the shooting wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, killing over a million people. These HOCS are important because of their historical implications, but these implications are suppressed in the media and universities, and so are unfamiliar to the American people. It is therefore outside a legitimate people’s truth consensus, and Americans avoid thinking about it, the basis for our CRIMESTOP.

    James exposed the Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon bombings, which no doubt have future historical implications. We don’t yet know what they are. But we have to think about these HOCS in a historical context, which means awakening the American people to their suppressed history. This will be a long and difficult struggle, since Americans don’t want to know. But as Orwell said, if freedom means anything it means telling people what they don’t want to know.

  16. Mark,

    Sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called normative conformity by Soloman Asch in his conformity experiment video linked above. Would you agree that normative conformity is a form of CRIMESTOP?

    “The Great Silencer

    No discussion of how the [Israel] lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of antisemitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that
    pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy — an influence that AIPAC celebrates — stands a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with antisemitism, even though the Israeli media frequently refer to America’s “Jewish lobby.” In effect, the lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective; antisemitism is loathsome, and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.”

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf

    1. Ah, Peter.

      Mark did not say what you imply he said. God knows Mark and I rarely see eye to eye. But fair is fair. He did not say it is antisemitism to question Israel: he said you are an anti-Semite because you suffer under the delusion that there is an almost supernaturally powerful conspiracy on the part of the Jewish race to take over the world. Of course, ipso facto, he’s right about that.

      I don’t get the impression Mark has much affection for the Jewish homeland, in any case. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Mark. Hate to speak for others.)

      Oh, and it is never in your best interest, if you want to persuade a Jew that Israel is artificially propped up by its friends in America to use Mearsheimer in your argument. It’s poor salesmanship. Just trying to help.

      1. Patrick, Do you know the difference between the meaning of the words “to imply” and “to infer”? An author can imply a meaning but his reader can only infer what he meant. For a reader to tell an author what he was implying is to tell him he can read his mind, which of course he cannot. And while a reader may guess correctly what an author is implying most often he will be wrong. However, the reader is always correct when he asserts what he inferred the author to mean even when what the reader inferred isn’t what the author meant at all. The difference between imply and infer is the difference between mine and yours – and to use it correctly shows respect for the other’s most private property.- his thoughts, expressions and intentions.

  17. perfectly true, Peter. Also Jews who criticize apartheid Israel are labeled ‘self-hating Jews,’ and notable Jewish critics have been refused admission to visit Israel. Aipac is a pernicious and dangerous influence on the American power system, funded largely by billionaire Jewish Zionists.

    A few days ago 6 Zionist billionaires financed a roast for Dick Cheney, joking about torture and the fact that they escaped prison. Not only is Israel a pernicious influence on America, American ziocons are a pernicious influence on Israel. How Jews could support this racist oppression after the mass slaughter in the Holocaust, which included my grandparents, is the one of the most disgusting historical facts of our era, and it will probably get worse.

    1. “Not only is Israel a pernicious influence on America, American ziocons are a pernicious influence on Israel.”

      Glad my guess about your lack of affection for Israel was not presumptuous, Mark. One thing, though. In this quote you mention “a pernicious influence on Israel.” This implies that in your opinion Israel should not have to experience “pernicious influences.” Now, correct me if I’m wrong; I’d have taken you for a guy who thinks that the “zionist entity” should be “wiped off the map.” Do you think the Jews belong in the land if Israel?

  18. I reassert my observation that the motivating force behind the New World Order is an ancient messianic prophesy and that the Globalists Alex Jones talks so ceaselessly about are today’s [mostly] Jewish elite. There is nothing supernatural about it.

    The same force was at work in the Bolshevik Revolution beginning in 1917 and resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions of [mostly] Christian Russians:

    “Contemporary Voices of Warning
    Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

    Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

    David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

    The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: “Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

    “The Bolshevik Revolution,” declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, “was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct.”

    As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that “because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel.”

    http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/mark-weber-the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-russias-early-soviet-regime/

    1. Well, it didn’t work out too well for them in the end, did it?

      When I grew up in the seventies, there was a well known slogan: “Save Soviet Jewry”; it was so well known that Gilda Radner, as Rosanna on SNL made a joke about it, mistaking it for “Save Soviet jewelry” (Why can’t they save their own?, she indignantly demanded). Congress passed legislation to force the USSR to allow Jews to leave, which they were not allowed to do (so delighted were the Soviets in their torment of the Jews, they didn’t care how painful American pressure ended up being–they wouldn’t budge); immediately after the Soviet Union ended, and the gates were unlocked, more than a million Jews fled to Israel, and lots more came to America.

      If Jews are so smart, and so powerful, and were using Russia as the pointy end of a wedge to take over the world, how did they allow their petrie dish-country to quickly replicate the oppression they had known under the Tzars?

      And if Soviet-style communism a century ago really was a Jewish plot to unify the world under that model, it looks to me like they were pretty incompetent, even if they thought they were being really tricky by passing the work on to gentiles, in exchange for open oppression for the duration of the experiment (were they covering their tracks? Intentionally looking weak? Those crafty devils.). They shouldn’t have trusted those gentiles–the world looks nothing like the one-world communist system you claim they wanted to create. Not only were they returned to serfdom, but their agents failed utterly in the bargain. What a waste. Those evil geniuses sure failed badly. Guess that makes us lucky.

      The Jewish experience after they supposedly created the Soviet Union indicates that they are pretty incompetent, if you ask me. And that’s not what one tends to say about the Jewish race, when you are not an anti-semite. Just look at who wins Nobel prizes.

      That is, if the Soviet Union is your proof that you are not an anti-semite, well, it’s not very persuasive. And if it is “proof” that the Jews are acting out an ancient plan to consolidate control over the world, you must be joking.

      1. I wouldn’t be presenting this material if I didn’t think it important to examine Jewish messianism. If world events indeed are driven by the Rothschild’s megalomania propped up by Shabataian, Old Testament and Talmudic fanaticism, I think Jews and non-Jews alike would want to know, and take exception.

        If “anti-Semitism” is exposed as psychological warfare designed to disarm opposition to an insidious agenda by portraying criticism as racist, it is also used to manipulate Jews who have been opposed to the Rothschild’s insane agenda, and victims of it.

        Ancient Jewish prophesies, call upon Jews to discredit and destroy Gentile government, religion and culture, and to establish a segregated Jewish state in Palestine from which the Jews are to rule the World with a World Government led by a Jewish King in Jerusalem. According to the Torah (Old Testament) Jewish bible and the Talmud, Jews are God’s appointed masters of the world and Gentiles must serve the Jews as their slaves and submit to laws which are decreed from Jerusalem.

        (Exodux 34:11-17. Deuteronomy 7:6; 32:9. Psalm 2; 72; 110. Isiah 2:1-4; 9:6-7; 11:4 9-10; 42:1; 61:6. Jeremiah 3:17. Micah 4:2-3. Zechariah 8:20-23; 14:9. Shabbath 32b. Sanhedrin 56a-60b, 97a-99b).

        Certainly the role of Jewish Rothschild agents in advocating for the Iraq war and attacks on Syria and Iran is consistent with the profile above.

        1. Of course you think it is important to let us all become aware of your special insights, Peter. I see a similar fellow at a downtown corner every weekday. He’s very urgent about getting us to know. He can even document it. His source documentation is laminated pages of the Weekly World News from the 1990s. Our learning his truth is VERY important for him.

          “According to the Torah (Old Testament) Jewish bible and the Talmud, Jews are God’s appointed masters of the world and Gentiles must serve the Jews as their slaves and submit to laws which are decreed from Jerusalem.”

          I wonder. Are you that fellow? Do you have an untamed beard, and always wear an unwashed raincoat?

          I try not to laugh in that poor fellow’s face. It is much, much harder to restrain myself here.

        2. Funny, how you reference nothing I said, incidentally. I proved that your wild-eyed theory about the Jews using Russia as their stepping-board to ruling the world is on its face completely false. History, Peter, history. A tough taskmaster. Evidently, you can’t perform, or even understand, those tasks. Think about it.

  19. When Israel was formed, Patrick, 700,000 Arabs were evicted from Israel’s borders and their villages destroyed. But the media didn’t publicize it, so the Western people didn’t know it. Now more Jews are emigrating from Israel than are immigrating.

    The only feasible solution that I can see is that the Palistinians fight the Israelis and establish one state. Those Jews who wish to stay should be allowed to, just as the Whites could stay in South Africa after the apartheid state was destroyed. Since they own most of the industry, they could serve an economic function, ruled by a Palestinian state.

    My guess is this is what will happen after the US state loses enough world power in a few decades.

    1. I wish you were right, Mark. I see no feasible solution. Just endless tragedy. If the Arabs won, the Jews would not be invited to stay. They say so repeatedly. The land of Israel is to be judenrein. They are very clear about that. Even that old crone who used to pester presidents all the time expressed that sentiment in a moment of dementia, saying that they should “get the hell out of palestine.” After being asked where they should go, she said “home.” Where is “home”?, the interviewer asked. Poland; Germany, she offered.

      Should the Jews not have declared independence from British Mandatory rule? I don’t see what choice they had. I can’t see how Britain would have continued on with its Mandate to create a country for the Jews in that country, any more than I can imagine them continuing to rule India indefinitely. For one thing, the entity that issued the Mandate, the League of Nations, was soon to be a thing of the past.

      For another thing, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a relative of Arafat, spent WWII in Berlin, being a great pal of Hitler. He was spending his time putting together an Arab army for the Third Reich whose purpose was to drive all the Jews into the sea. The intensity of Arab (actually, Moslem) hatred for Jews is impossible to discount.

      It was a quagmire then, and it has only gotten worse. But had the Jews not declared independence, the situation would not have played out better. It’s not good today, but it would have been very much worse, I’m afraid.

      We can go back to the 1870s, and wish the Jews did not start their return to the land, and that Theodore Herzl was unavailable for propaganda-making, but it would be very difficult to wish away the Transfer Agreement. There were very dark forces intent on creating a very dark new Israel. History can’t be undone.

  20. Ah, Patrick.

    I thought George Carlin’s humor was priceless, but now I see that it pales in comparison with yours. And to think that it’s been right there in front of me all of this while. . . Every consider stand-up? Just trying to help.

  21. You are an anti-semitic dingbat, Peter, as I believe I mentioned before. However it is true that Jews were in the forefront of the Russian Revolution and Marxism downplays the role of race and racism in political struggle in favor of class. however in the Stalin partial counterrevolution the original revolutionary leaders were largely killed or dispossessed, and Russian nationalism became the operative impulse under the Proclaimed guise of Marxist internationalism.

    Marxism and socialism, however, are now so 20th century. It is being superceded in the 21st century by an ideology that I think of as PERSONALISM. It consists of the seven billion persons currently living on our small planet who have been duped and misruled by power historically to identify with racism, classism, sexism, and ageism, the latter idolizing the past of our ancestors rather than the future of our children.

    Personalism occurs as part of what Zbig Brzezinski called the “Global Political Awakening.” The world’s people are migrating to the cities from their farms and villages and developing a more cosmopolitan world-view. This world-view was referred to by William Greider in his book on world economics ONE WORLD READY OR NOT, as “Global Humanism.” It can be legitimated by a revolution in social science conceptually similar to the scientific revolutions in the history of the natural sciences, but much more ideologically subversive.

    It never occurred to me, however, that my years of formulating the simple holistic truth about the past, present, and future persons of the earth was an outcome of my Jewish internationalism. For which I thank you, Peter, you anti-Semitic dingbat. Don’t feel bad, however, for being ideologically loony, you’re in the majority. Also, I have a foolish fondness for dingbats because of their interesting ideas. And to tell you the simple truth, sometimes I don’t feel so good myself.

  22. Also, the New World Order assumes that whoever rules the West rules the world. A 20th century notion. In the 21st century, China and East-South Asia will be the dominant world power force. The book to read is Martin Jacques’ WHEN CHINA RULES THE WORLD.

    China is now developing an East-South asia economic bloc, RCEP, that contains nearly half of the earthperson population and a third of world GDP. If it succeeds, as it probably will, it will dominate the world economy of the 21st century, White Man (presumably.) Europe will be a small pinnule off the Asian mainland, and the USA will try to hold its power against the Southern American coalition.

    Jews are not going to rule the world, Peter, neither are Western banksters.

Comments are closed.