ColtCabana
Senior Member
If this was the case for anyone, there would be no conspiracy theorists.
Alex Jones- Debunked!
- Thread starter Clock
- Start date
- Status
If this was the case for anyone, there would be no conspiracy theorists.
Bill
Senior Member.
That's a nice bit of propaganda and generalization. Just waiting for you to tell me to open my eyes and see the truth. Alex Jones make outrageous false or unprovable claims (FEMA concentration camps, false flag operations, etc.) designed to heighten the fears and anxieties of people unable or unwilling to examine his claims critically. And no, for the most part I don't think their fears are valid. It's one thing to promote distaste or concern about something, its quite another to promote fear and its even worse to line your pockets by promoting fear.What, most people are not competent to analyse their fears or 'people are not competent to carry out the perceived fears'?
Many people fear an 'exceptionalist state', which thinks it has the right to 'do what it wants, when it wants', inc disregarding international laws and carrying out illegal attacks on other Countries on false evidence and spying on everyone at every level and persecuting whistleblowers and having a paramilitary police force which borders on a police state and a corrupt financial system in which the elite are above the law and draw a ridiculous amount of wealth out of the system to the detriment of the people. And you think these fears are not real or valid?
Mick is smart enough to know that I would never do such a thing, that's why he stated: "I'm sure you are not trying to make an argument that "If someone else is a evil liar, then it's okay for Alex to be an evil liar"".
Probably a good thing you did and deep down you knew it.
Totally agree. He should have left it for a while, although to be fair there were plenty of people out there with similar concerns. I don't think it was right to leave the lockdown issue, (which debunkers deny even happened, despite the raw footage of people being brought out with their hands up and guns pointed at them), or the scene of the unarmed Dzokhar being shot at in the boat. These are legitimate concerns and show a trigger happy and overzealous police state.
I would be far more inclined to agree with you if you didn't confine your criticisms to someone who is pretty small fish in the 'feeding off fear purveyors'. The fact is the U.S Gov and other Govts have been doing it for a very long time. Let's get some balance here. The amount of times Meta Members justify every dirty trick in the book that banksters, Global Corporations, politicians and private security agencies like Halliburton et al get up to whilst at the same time going into a frenzy of personal attacks on someone who dares to criticise them for their disgusting despotic and criminal actions against humanity. It doesn't add up and the world can see it no matter how much you protest the fact that people live in fear and poverty because of people like AJ. AJ, gets stuff wrong, he exaggerates and draws wrong conclusions sometimes and yes he is often crass but behind all that are genuine concerns held by billions of people around the world and at the heart of it is the corrupt American banks and corporations that run the U.S military industrial complex which is the war machine responsible for most wars, coups and loss of life in the last 50 or so years at least.
Last edited:
Yeah, blame all the ills of the world on conspiracy theorists and let the banksters and corrupt military industrial complex run around murdering people without even criticising what they do.
Those who mind, don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
You're accusing me of stuff I've never done. I've never said that people live in fear and poverty because of Jones. I accuse Jones of profiting on fear, but to be honest my key issue with the guff Jones comes out with is that he distracts from the real issues. We actually share a lot of concerns, Oxy: the expansion of the US Imperial forces around the world, the utter disregard consecutive US governments have shown towards international law, the lack of prosecutions of Wall Street execs since they collapsed the economy, the ridiculous amount of taxes the über-wealthy don't have to pay. Add to that the expansion of private-sector prisons-for-profit and the bias against non-whites. The Koch types, ALEC, Citizens United, etc. etc.
I read FAIR every morning. I get my news from sites like Tom Dispatch, Truth Out, Democracy Now, The Real News Network, Z-Net, Alternet, and a number of other alternative media outlets. The journalists I respect include Greenwald, Pilger, Fisk, Hedges, Cockburn, and Goodman. I have as deep a mistrust of most governments, but the US and UK ones in particular, as any sane person. I'm no apologist for Imperialism, in any form.
As you hint at, Alhazred. He doesn't ask questions, he makes assumptions, assumptions that fit his narrative. If it doesn't fit his narrative, it's out.
He seems to empower a lot of people with lies & mis-truths..People who follow such people tend to feel like they are somehow gifted with information no one else is aware of, and off they go on a crusade built on foundations of sand.
AJ discredits people who ask questions...and for that reason he should be shunned by anyone interested in real truth.
Critical thinkers forget to critically think about people / blogs & videos, who tell them they should do more critical thinking.
AJ discredits people who ask questions...and for that reason he should be shunned by anyone interested in real truth.
Critical thinkers forget to critically think about people / blogs & videos, who tell them they should do more critical thinking.
Oxy said:
Sorry, it wasn't personal but more of a general observation
Yes he does exaggerate and draw false conclusions and he is sensationalist. I do not watch much of his stuff personally but I must admit there are things he has brought to my attention which I otherwise may have missed. If I do watch anything of his, I normally check it out from other sources to verify it and yes some of it does not check out but then some of the more outlandish stuff actually does. Where he is wrong he should be debunked, I have no problem with that. I am simply concerned at the level of animosity directed and the blanket condemnation of everything he says because to be honest, that is just bunk.
I am pleased to hear that. These are the real issues IMO as well.
Some of those sources I haven't even heard of so thanks for that I will check them out.
Peace
Last edited:
Representative Press
Member
Matthew Russell Lee of InnerCity Press is a good journalist, I just made a video about him called "Hard News? See a REAL journalist in action, hear the UN spokesman's reply!"
Also, speaking of exposing Alex Jones's agenda, I thought Alex Jones Paid By The Koch Brothers?! was a good video
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Matthew Lee is good. I remember he did some breakthrough stuff on Uganda some years ago. He's a consistent thorn in the side of UN spokespersons, so much so that they all know him by name.
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Yeah, blame all the ills of the world on conspiracy theorists and let the banksters and corrupt military industrial complex run around murdering people without even criticising what they do.
Those who mind, don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
And like a typical conspiracy theorist, you have taken what I have said completely out of context. Let's be honest; a vast majority of contemporary conspiracy theories rely on "day of " or "moment of" reports that supposedly prove their points. Take for example the BBC reporting that WTC7 had already collapsed on 9/11 prior to it actually happening. That is a "moment of" report that proves their point.
My response was to Alhazred The Sane saying that Alex should have waited for facts to emerge. When the facts do emerge, chances are they debunk any conspiracy theory. When people are saying "FALSE FLAG!" seconds after a massive event has happened (like the Boston Marathon; I remember riding the T after leaving Boylston Avenue and seeing all the #falseflag posts about the bombs) it isn't right. People need to wait for facts to emerge before jumping to conclusions, or even worse, clinging onto conspiracy theories.
Representative Press
Member
And that is one of the strangest conspiracy arguments. I have seen conspiracist Mike Rivero argue that the BBC and other media were "given a script." It is such poor reasoning, as if the media wouldn't simply report the collapse when the saw it, secret agents would feel it necessary to risk exposure (basically asking the media to play along as an accomplice by reading a script) to say that the building had collapsed?! What obviously happened is with all the predictions the media was given about a pending collapse, someone mistakenly said "did collapse" instead of "will collapse."
And what I explained happened you can see CNN anchor Aaron Brown doing exactly that: 'We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."
It really highlights a problem with reasoning of conspiracists that this simple explanation of misreporting doesn't satisfy them and instead they think it would make sense for secret agents to supply the media with "scripts!"
Last edited:
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Or the BBC reporter prefacing the news by saying they, at that point, were "very, very sketchy."
Yes, well perhaps that's because it's an interesting area. I seem to remember the buzzword at university within disciplines such as Development Studies for this sort of dynamic was glocalisation. Not sure it caught on.
The subtle, incremental and administrative tyrannies of bogus Malthusian principle, also.
Last edited:
It's a theory from the more extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum - those veering toward "no planes", and "everything in the media is a construct". The more sensible theorists don't spend time refuting such nonsense because they would risk alienating a large segment of the community.
It's an interesting aspect of the culture, the non-judging thing. You see it a lot with chemtrails (where you get people holding entirely contradictory opinions artfully skirting around them), and Morgellons, where even the most obvious hallucination is treated as a genuine occurrence, because acceptance is more important than facts.
If you question someone, then they might question you. So very little questioning occurs.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
He should voice some of the satirical talk radio shows in the next Grand Theft Auto.
Grieves
Senior Member
Monetarily. A global community of trade, commerce and finance is taking shape that circumvents, overrides, and increasingly subverts the authority of Nations. Indeed, Nations are in increasing turmoil and remain at odds with one another, even the US is in an apparent state of disarray. The 'New World Order' isn't taking shape as the unification of all Nations in peace, harmony and cooperation. It's taking shape as the progressive dissolution of National authority/of Nations outright in strife of all sorts, solidifying the dominance of politics and policy this new Global Community of 'corporate citizens' already holds.
Bill
Senior Member.
It seems the New World Order continually morphs to fit whatever the current fears are. First everybody was worried about the communist. Then the big fear was the dissolution of national identity and unification under one world government run by the UN. Now it's a global community of corporations overriding the world's national governments. Somewhere in there has to be something about the information barons and the high tech elite running the world or a cabal of lawyers taking over and drowning us legal briefs.
Grieves
Senior Member
Are you suggesting there isn't a global 'corporate community' to which most Nations are largely beholden politically, and that this isn't a new phenomenon historically speaking? That this is a conspiracy theory on par with Alex Jones' Homo-Juice-Boxes?
I think Chomsky puts it rather neatly, (circa 1980). It is all the same thing with the same actors but represented differently at different times. He certainly brings the 'information barons' (keeping to AJ thread
), into the equation. His theory also explains by extrapolation, how Hitchens can do a complete about turn.@Jazzy may find this interesting.
Last edited:
ColtCabana
Senior Member
I think Chomsky puts it rather neatly, (circa 1980). It is all the same thing with the same actors but represented differently at different times. He certainly brings the 'information barons' (keeping to AJ thread
@Jazzy may find this interesting.
So, what do you think of Chomsky's thoughts about 9/11? I find it out when conspiracy theorists use quotes from guys like Noam Chomsky and Danny Jowenko to help support one little factoid yet they display other things that the person also believes.
Grieves
Senior Member
Rephrase? Not catching this.
There is a thread on that. I think I made myself clear there.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chomsky-dispels-9-11-conspiracies-with-sheer-logic-video.1720/
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill
Senior Member.
No more than there was in the era of the robber barons or the East India Trading Company and it's contemporaries. If anything corporations face more, for lack of a better word, "disunity" because of the advent of major players on the world stage from India and China. Even before the development of a world market companies and merchant guilds used their influence and money to steer national and international interest. There's nothing new here.
Bill
Senior Member.
I think the gist is people focus on the quotes from an individual that support their views while ignoring everything from that individual that either contradicts their views or indicates that the person they are quoting is off their medication.
Grieves
Senior Member
Really? No more..?
Bill
Senior Member.
Yes. No more. Historically "big business", the wealthy, and if you want to go back far enough "the land holding class" have always had an outsized influence on national and international policy. Its not a modern development. The only real difference is the current information environment has made people more aware of it.
Grieves
Senior Member
total bunkum. Complete neglect of scale and form. You're taking the extremely complex, far reaching, and completely unprecedented global system developing with the information age and the technology boom and suggesting it's the same thing as old-world Feudalism and the East India Trading Company before the concept of the Globe was even a solid one, because 'folks was greedy then, folks is greedy now..!' Total nonsense that entirely misses the point. It's no different than saying "Nuclear war? What's new or worrisome about that? Dudes were killing each-other with muskets two-hundred years ago. Same shit." When obviously the entire issue is fundamentally changed by the form and scale.
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
That could have just as well described Mercantilism as it fueled Imperialism 400 years ago.
The underlying premise and motivation are the same...the fact that there are new tools to with which they attempt to achieve the objective doesn't change that.
Bill
Senior Member.
A lot of hyperbole but no real argument beyond it's changed in scale and form. How do scale and form fundamentally affect the argument. What gives Bill gates more power than John D Rockefeller. Why is Apple using its influence to affect policy worse than the East India Company or United Fruit? Yes the scales have changed because we live in a global market but in their time each worked to influence the sphere in which they operated. As I said before the New World Order has morphed over time and it seems to reflect whatever is making people feel insecure at the time. In the 50's and 60's it was communist. Today with the influx of counties like China and India into the world financial markets and the side effects from having an additional 2 billion people suddenly competing for the same resources the west has taken for granted the last fifty plus years has created financial insecurity. People look for someone to blame when things change and they feel insecure. The communist are basically gone. The UN has proven to be ineffective. The technocrats never did take over as predicted. Most people don't understand finance to begin with and the corporations make an easy target so for some people they are the current face of the New World Order.
Grieves
Senior Member
The underlying premise of warfare is the same. Two opposing forces duke it out until a winner is decided. That said, what in the ever-loving fuck does this:
have in common with this?
I'll give you a hint: Absolutely nothing whatsoever besides the 'underlying premise', and only in the vaguest sense.
Consider: "Hey, you stole my lollipop!" "Hey, you stole seventy-billion dollars!" Same premise. This is how scale and form fundamentally effect an argument. Understand?
The simple fact that a Microsoft computer is exponentially more powerful than pen and paper, type-writer and ticker-tape as a financial tool, and John D. Rockafeller didn't own the rights to pen-and-paper.
'Worse' isn't necessarily the term. New and entirely different would be more accurate. There's also the matter of scale, which I hope I've illustrated as not being insignificant.
lol, right... I'm just looking for a scapegoat by pointing out the facts of the matter. Or maybe you're just overly accepting because you perceive a historical precedent.
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
You may have heard of a chap called Crassus who was a big wig a few years back ,and recently featured in a popular documentary.
He got his money through property speculation, and spent it getting political power, getting appointed to a political position that promised even more wealth. Then the power and search for prestige went to his head a bit, and he promptly lost it.
Just wondering how different people think things are today, from a practical and wealth point of view??
He got his money through property speculation, and spent it getting political power, getting appointed to a political position that promised even more wealth. Then the power and search for prestige went to his head a bit, and he promptly lost it.
Just wondering how different people think things are today, from a practical and wealth point of view??
MikeC
Closed Account
What gives Bill gates more power than John D Rockefeller.
i'm pretty sure "Microsoft computers" aren't much of a force in the world at all actually.
And while Microsoft products certainly gave BG more $$'s than Rockafeller every had, I'd be interested in how much of the world's wealth each of them had as a % of the total.
AFAIK BG's products never told me I had to do anything despite decades of using them - of course they did prevent me from doing things at irregular but far to common intervals though
Last edited by a moderator:
Grieves
Senior Member
All statistics I've seen on the subject suggest that, even considering inflation and the growth of the 'pool of plenty' in general, wealth is more concentrated now than at any other estimable point to a rather heavy degree.
See, now I KNOW yer BS'ing... If you've used MS products for decades, they've told you to do things frequently, to your great irritation.... or have you forgotten the old "Your computer has encountered a critical error: please click OK to continue!"AFAIK BG's products never told me I had to do anything despite decades of using them - of course they did prevent me from doing things at irregular but far to common intervals though
SR1419
Senior Member.
Absolutely nothing...except for the FACT that its people trying to kill other people...same as it ever was.
Just because man has developed ever more efficient tools to do so doesn't change the fact that the premise and motivation remain the same.
"vague" - no-quite literally identical. Wars fought for economic dominance are not a new concept.
MikeC
Closed Account
See, now I KNOW yer BS'ing... If you've used MS products for decades, they've told you to do things frequently, to your great irritation.... or have you forgotten the old "Your computer has encountered a critical error: please click OK to continue!"
Mea culpa - true...but even then I didn't HAVE to do it - Bill's "mistake" alt-ctrl-del was often used in those situations!
Seems a bit off. Gates made money from selling software. Rockefeller made if from selling oil and suchlike. I don't really see a significant difference in power there.
Bill
Senior Member.
@ Grieves
More hyperbole
Adjusted for inflation Rockefeller was worth 340 billion. His products and services dominated the US at the time and his influence reached globally. Bill Gates has a maximum adjusted wealth of 136 billion His product and services dominated during his time and his influence is felt globally. Saying Rockefeller didn't own the rights to pen and paper is a false dichotomy. He did own a good chunk of the energy industry. They operate in different field but both use their wealth to influence decisions.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...es/25-richest-people-lived-inflation-adjusted
You actually haven't shown anything. You have made a claim and resorted to hyperbole but you haven't presented anything factual to support the idea that modern business practices are more influential or damaging. You just keep saying it's a matter of scale without explaining why the increase in scale matters. Of course the scale is larger now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The markets are no longer confined to North America and Europe.
I don't know if you are looking for a scapegoat. You'll have to decide that for yourself.
We live interesting times. Enjoy them if you can.
More hyperbole
Adjusted for inflation Rockefeller was worth 340 billion. His products and services dominated the US at the time and his influence reached globally. Bill Gates has a maximum adjusted wealth of 136 billion His product and services dominated during his time and his influence is felt globally. Saying Rockefeller didn't own the rights to pen and paper is a false dichotomy. He did own a good chunk of the energy industry. They operate in different field but both use their wealth to influence decisions.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...es/25-richest-people-lived-inflation-adjusted
You actually haven't shown anything. You have made a claim and resorted to hyperbole but you haven't presented anything factual to support the idea that modern business practices are more influential or damaging. You just keep saying it's a matter of scale without explaining why the increase in scale matters. Of course the scale is larger now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The markets are no longer confined to North America and Europe.
I don't know if you are looking for a scapegoat. You'll have to decide that for yourself.
We live interesting times. Enjoy them if you can.
Last edited:
Bill
Senior Member.
what's interesting is to look at what's going on during the periods when wealth gets concentrated. The spikes in wealth tend to correspond with periods of technological revolution. If those graphs were expanded further into the past you would probably find similar spikes matching up with the expansion of the railroads and the advent of industrialization.
- Status
Similar threads
