Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Debunking Modern Conspiracy Theorists Like Glenn Beck And Alex Jones

If you ever listen to any full length radio show by either of these two clowns, you should notice a pattern. Both are very easily excitable, and both make countless wild conclusions based on their own desire to feel the effects to be overwhelmed mentally. The problem is that you have two emotional people who are unable to analyze data coldly without coming to wild conclusions to make them feel threatened, paranoid, under attack, angry and all the rest of it. Conspiracy Theorists are basically cognitive junkies. They become addicted to the emotional reaction that falsely interpreting data gives. Allow me to give some examples – In an interview – Both believe that the Federal Reserve is run by elites who want to global currencies to fail in order to implement a new global currency and adopt one world government. So they take something that is true such as the Federal Reserve is doing a lousy job because it tends to cause inflation, and they stretch that fact in order to come to all sorts of wild conclusions. They take a truth such as leaders tend to make mistakes and abuse power, and they stretch that truth in order to come to all sorts of wild conclusions. They envision “Big Brother” in America as a bunch of villain like elites who are sitting around a business table thinking of new ways to inflict suffering on the populous. While corruption and evil atrocities are quite possible from governments and corporations, they blow things way out of proportion in order to make their arguments sound more dire, exaggerated and fantastic. The view of reality is very cartoon-like, and their goal is to not enlighten the public, but merely overwhelm them emotionally, so their followers will think irrationally as well.

They remind me of really bad spiritual gurus who inspire people to set the bar lower cognitively. Basically, any rational person will not have to spend too much time listening to either of these two bozos before they see how their minds function. They also assume that human beings without wisdom are much more crafty, cunning and clever than they actually are. The contradiction in their thinking is that elites can be both incompetent and super-villains at the same time. They try to artificially construct a view of reality that resembles a cross between Austin Powers and the new Batman movie, but such combination defies all laws of reason. My main argument to debunk these jokers is that incompetent leaders or even corporate elites have a very difficult time rallying enough support to get anything major done, and they certainly do not have the loyalty to keep big secrets a secret. So to suggest that the world trade center terrorist attack was an inside job is just plain stupidity. George Bush could barely get a bill passed or keep the fact that he snuck a beer at work to his wife. Do you really think any group within office or even corporations could pull something like that off? Glenn Beck and Alex Jones need to grow up, mature, and retire from the hysteria industry. They are snake oil salesmen of the worst kind.


  1. While I agree that the approach of the individuals you mention is hysterical, and in no ways do I condone it, the world government ambition is a reality among the financial elites of London and New York (and Israel), and has been so for more than a century:

    In modern times, this started as a loose
    conglomeration of people and organizations centered around Cecil
    Rhodes and the Rothschilds of London, and including many Eastern
    establishment families, who came together for the purpose of, as they
    were bold enough to state, "gradually absorbing the wealth of the
    world" (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3
    cf. "Empire of "The City"" by E.C. Knuth for more on this history:

    This organization later branched out into organizations like the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign
    Relations. (See Quigley, Carroll. "Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time". New York: Macmillan, 1966. pp. 936-956. cf.
    Quigley, Carroll. "The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden") Arnold Toynbee was very important in Royal Institute of
    International Affairs circles, being the RIIA director of studies. Given that position, he certainly would be qualified to state the
    intentions and objectives of that group, and it's sister organizations. As recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, Toynbee said that “We are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and
    discredited.” (International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://tinyurl.com/3zt7crq

    Right after World War II, many of these characters would cite the threat of nuclear war to further their intentions and objectives. Bernard Baruch was one of the most vocal people who did this, with his
    "Baruch Plan" (http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html).

  2. And then, later, these goals were discreetly made into law State Department Publication No. 7277 – entitled “Freedom From War”, written in 1961 (which corresponds to Public Law 87-297) stated the following:

    p. 10:

    “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

    it also called for (p. 11):

    “The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required
    to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force”

    it also called for (p. 12):

    “The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to
    ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.”

    This was later updated in a document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race.

    Public Law 101-216 reinforces Public Law 87-297, and was passed on October 12, 1989. (Facsimiles of all these documents, and more, are in the following pdf file from a pro-gun organization. You can ignore the commentary, and just focus on the documentation, which is very important: http://www.libertygunrights.com/doubterbinder/Doubter%20Binder%20-%20High%20Quality%20-%20Complete.pdf)

    Of course, all of this was based on fraud, since, as disclosed by Maj. George Racey Jordan, who supervised Harry Hopkins' Lend-Lease program sending war materials to the Soviets during WWII, the U.S. government sent atomic materials to the Soviets during WWII!
    (http://tinyurl.com/3sqj8sm) Also, as the research of the Hoover Institution Scholar Antony Sutton
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton) showed, the U.S. was giving aid to the Soviets all throughout the Cold War!

    Later on, many of these characters would suggest that gradual regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built:

    “In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing
    a generation ago-’world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of
    world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing
    confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,
    will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”:

    And in modern times – at one level, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in “The Grand Chessboard” about how Eurasian powers had to be marginalized. On another level, he wrote about how the U.S. war machine will force the
    process of Globalism on defiant nations in order to standardize them into a Global system, that simultaneously the U.S. and other Western
    Powers would be submerged in a Web of International arrangements that would form the fetus of a World Government (happening now), and that ultimately the American Empire would pave the way for a revivified UN with teeth to take charge.

  3. Now, World Government advocates are using the "war on terror", pseudo-environmentalism (that aspect can be verified by listening to audio minutes of the UNCED 4th World Wilderness Conference, where one will hear very interesting statements from Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild, among others, and where the general public is referred to as "the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth":
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU), and the financial crisis, in order to further propagate their ambitions.

    I actually have a personal story related to this. I met the Globalist Jim Garrison, president of the State of the World Forum and associate of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Thursday before Thanksgiving - in person
    (penetrating insight into how Gorbachev's "Perestroika" played into these ambitions is given by former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who was able to examine Soviet archives and document how the E.U. was actually decided upon: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865).

    He came to present to a group in my University, and adamantly pushed the occupy Wall St. protests. He said that we are currently in
    "pre-revolutionary times". The feeling I got from him was what could be described as a "spiritual psychopathy", an "elegant evil". 90% of his presentation was absolutely right on, but there was a 10% that was absolutely insidious - and this ten percent, we both knew, was based on false information. It was like listening to Marx or Lenin talking, as they, prior to the current generation of Globalists, were pushing the false liberation ideology of their day.

    We then divided into discussion groups. He came around to these discussion groups after about 20 minutes. I asked him about an interview he gave to the San Francisco Weekly in 1995. Here is a link to that interview:

    In that interview, Garrison stated, "Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government ... [there is a growing]
    "recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction"

    He then stated in response to this: "the World was a much more optimistic place back then, [I'm a little fuzzy on the next part, I
    think I remember him saying something like "we were thinking of lasting solutions towards world peace", then he continued and said]
    but I wouldn't say that now, because of all these problems [that the world is facing]."

    So I showed him the following Reuters article showing that the Vatican had advocated World Government as a "response" to the financial
    situation [there are many other powerful groups advocating the same thing]: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024

    and said "it seems that many people are pushing World Government in response to all this."

  4. After the discussion section was over, and before he concluded his presentation, he asked me how I knew this, and I said something along the lines of "I just happen to be familiar with this information". I then showed him an excerpt from the book Geneva Versus Peace (Sheed &
    Ward, New York, 1937) by Comte de Saint-Aulaire, French Ambassador to Great Britain in the 1920s. I had obtained this book recently, having seen it cited and finding it relevant, and part of it discussed his
    meetings with Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. financiers regarding why they financed the Bolshevik Revolution. I stated that this excerpt reflected my feelings on the occupy Wall St. protests, given it's connection to the
    Tides foundation, George Soros (and through him the Rothschild banking
    system: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/geneva-gnomes-global-dread/), and many other shady characters. Here's the excerpt, where one of these bankers explained his reasoning (p. 80):

    "You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International. These opposites, which are at the antipodes to one another in society and in their doctrines meet again in the identity of their purpose and end, the remaking of the world from above by the control of riches, and from below by revolution."

    He then gave me a strange look that was a combination of respect and being taken aback and said, "I like your mind."

    Then, he assumed a cold look prior to resuming with his spiel in front of everybody.

    Zionism is the super-nationalism that is sanctified as other nationalisms are gradually absorbed. It is based on lunatic, religious bigotry, is provably a major factor behind the wars in the middle east, and is continually expanding to fulfill it's Biblical objectives, as put forth in Genesis 15:18, which states "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.", and which was stated as the Zionist ambition by the Theodor Herzl, a founding father of Zionism, when he said that the ideal Zionist state stretched “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” (Herzl, Theodor, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 2, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 711 - for more on the extreme violence and subversive nature of Zionism, consult Pappe, Ilan. "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". Oneworld, 2006., as well as a speech of Benjamin Freedman, a wealthy Jewish businessman who attended Zionist conferences: http://tinyurl.com/27k2x5y. More information can also be gleaned from "The Controversy of Zion", by the former London Times Correspondent Douglas Reed: http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/index.htm) You may find that the following gives a good overview also: http://www.archive.org/details/WatersFlowingEastward_307

    Your predicate concerning "incompetence" fails when one considers military documents like Joint Vision 2020 (www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1225.pdf) - outlining the current U.S./NATO/Israeli military (I would lump them all together as one entity) goal to be "full
    spectrum dominance".