June
3rd 2012
Posted under Globalism & Ron Paul
Sorry, I normally try to avoid sensationalism, but this one is just too good to pass up.
During a heated conversation in the lobby of the Westfields Marriott hotel yesterday, Bilderberg members expressed their desire to see Ron Paul die in a plane crash, according to veteran journalist Jim Tucker’s inside source.
You know Ron Paul is on the right track because the Powers That Be are so bothered by him. You can tell a man by his friends and his enemies. Ron Paul has the right enemies. I seriously doubt many Bilderbergers are wishing Romney dead.
Kirt Higdon on 03 Jun 2012 at 11:32 pm #
If this is true, then the Bilderbergers are as stupid as they are malicious. Ron Paul the man and the politician has reached the end of his career. The threat to the Bilderbergers and their ilk (international banksters and war mongers) is in the further spread of Ron Paul’s ideas. And what would accelerate this more than his death from foul play or even under mysterious circumstances?
Feltan on 04 Jun 2012 at 8:33 pm #
I personally don’t trust anything from Alex Jones or prisonplanet. On occassion I would like to, but they make their hay from being sensational. Entertaining for sure, but they are not to be trusted in matters of import anymore than the Bilderbergers.
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 04 Jun 2012 at 9:59 pm #
It should be noted that the quote comes by way of Jim Tucker, from the Carto side of the business. The full quote went something like “Ron Paul and his supporters on a plane with a Muslim suicide pilot.”
RedPhillips on 04 Jun 2012 at 10:31 pm #
Feltan, that’s partially what I meant when I apologized up front for the sensationalism.
Maybe I’m naive, but I can see them sensationalizing a flippant comment, but I doubt they would just make a comment up.
RedPhillips on 04 Jun 2012 at 10:35 pm #
Here is Tucker’s Wikipedia entry, for what it’s worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Tucker_(journalist)
Feltan on 05 Jun 2012 at 3:05 am #
Red,
You are probably correct, an offhand comment becomes a headline because, well, they didn’t find anything else.
Alex Jones and his website — their style — really gets me heated. Just as soon as I read something, and think maybe against all odds they have something; they go into full bore kook mode and make me feel idiotic for having given them a second thought.
I swore them off a long time ago. The problem linking to them is that people visiting this site will think you share common currency with them. I think that is something to be avoided.
Regards,
Feltan
Kirt Higdon on 05 Jun 2012 at 3:41 am #
Alex Jones is kind of the Art Bell of conspiracy theories. I consider him valuable in that he puts out there stuff you probably would not hear about otherwise, but he doesn’t seem to make any attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. He leaves that to his listeners. Is it really such a bad thing to trust the intelligence of your audience enough to let them try to figure things out rather than telling them what to think?
Feltan on 05 Jun 2012 at 2:45 pm #
Kirt,
I would compare Alex Jones to the National Enquirerer rather than Art Bell. Jones has little credibility outside of his admirers; at least Art Bell doesn’t pretend to be a news source.
Regards,
Feltan
RedPhillips on 05 Jun 2012 at 4:06 pm #
I have always suspected that Alex Jones is a bit of a performance artists. I suspect he is conspiratorily inclined, but I doubt he believes everything he throws out there. It is for the consumption of his audience which he knows well.
The world needs its conspiracy theorists in order to balance out the pimps of conventional wisdom. The vast majority should be neither, and should evaluate claims onjectively. The problem with Jones is that he asserts as truth things that are speculative, and he simply throws everything out there. He does’t seem to have any credibility filter at all, or knows his audience doesn’t.
Kirt Higdon on 05 Jun 2012 at 7:45 pm #
OK – the National Enquirer. They also publish a lot of junk along with stuff that is true but would not make it into the respectable media. Are they less credible than the NYT or WaPo? I pretty much agree with what Red writes, but he considers Jones’ scatter-gun presentation to be a problem whereas I don’t. I know one young lady who believes anything she hears on Jones and I know a lot of people who disbelieve anything they hear there. I think it’s a mistake or intellectual laziness to treat any given source like that.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 05 Jun 2012 at 8:41 pm #
Alex Jones was a leader in the application of technology to an existing field of folk inquiry long popular in various forms of the patriot movement, historically a little more left then Right. Alex Jones, speaking in the rightwing populist rhetoric of his time, was able to reach heights the old guard of conferences/book selling and newsletters never achieved*–never thought to achieve.
Many in his line of work had at one time or another dipped into UFO stuff for a paycheck–Jones has done better on credibility, in turn leading to charges of disinfo.
Jones is different though. He was able to get on The View and defend his friend Charlie Sheen (a popular thing to do on dissident Right boards at the time) but I think that achieved a new level of respect. Music icons like Dave Mustaine and Billy Corgan feel safe to use the show to promote themselves, as has Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
The vibe of the site is thus different cultural positions on folk inquiry.
While from a journalistic stand point, Infowars is behind lets say WND in quality prose and logical presentation but really, not that much different. And considering the NY Times printed ridiculous Iraq Is Scary stories on the frontpage, perhaps the evaluation system needs to be reconsidered.
* The Carto publishing folks are of dubious quality, not in intelligence and wordsmith, but any tactical program beyond charlatan book selling; I don’t believe they have produced anyone like a Jones, and their only crossover author Mark Lane (first on the scene with a JFK conspiracy book in ’64, and strangely, involved with Jonestown) retreated to the Carto world; I am not sure they have produced one crossover personality, if plenty of sensationalism
But Jones nevertheless reaches out to that audience by having Tucker on and giving Tucker credibility.
RedPhillips on 05 Jun 2012 at 9:18 pm #
“Jones is different though. He was able to get on The View and defend his friend Charlie Sheen”
Jones actually seemed to care about Sheen’s welfare. Unlike many, he was not just out to exploit or make a joke of Sheen.
Hawthorne on 05 Jun 2012 at 10:46 pm #
Red;
Indeed–his sincerity came across to me as genuine and caused a reassessment. Old Matt Eckert, still making it count.
___
I feel my point wasn’t stated clearly enough, or I came up with it after writing about it, but Alex Jones was able to get Carto material on paleo boards, because the “custody” of the verbiage had been slightly sanitized.
This is a really impressive function, I have come to appreciate rather than shake my head. Jones is a Middle Man.
RedPhillips on 06 Jun 2012 at 4:55 pm #
Sav, if you have much contact with the activist “far right” you will quickly discover that belief in conspiracy theories is very widespread. Not everyone buys every aspect of every conspiracy theory, but the general belief that the Powers That Be are manipulating things behind the scenes and that we aren’t getting the whole story from traditional news sources is ubiquitous. (This is also true of the far left I’m sure.) So any attempt by the “respectable” far right to purge conspiracy theorists would be both impossible and counter productive. (Buckley purged the conspiracy theorists from the “respectable” center-right.) I assume this is what you are getting at.
This is why I, although I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, have little use for those I call “taint phobics” who hand wring over conspiracy theorists in our ranks. Conspiracy theorists are an important part of our ranks whether we like it or not.
Feltan on 06 Jun 2012 at 8:20 pm #
It seems my posts may have ruffled some feathers. Always a good exercise in intellectual honesty; lines get drawn, opinions expressed and impassioned discourse follows.
Jones is a blowhard. Full stop. Exactly my point.
I see no benefit to any cause to jump to the defense of a blowhard. I don’t want him purged. I don’t want him silenced. But I wouldn’t associate myself too closely with this blowhard lest unbiased observers not be able to draw a distinction between the two of us.
Regards,
Feltan
Feltan on 07 Jun 2012 at 12:12 am #
Well Sav, you aren’t going to smoke me out. What I do and with whom I do it is not something I am likely to discuss.
Regards,
Feltan