NWO truth finally hits the Mainstream Media! * FOX Judge Napolitano & Alex Jones *
Aaron Moyer – thanks for responding to my post. There is no doubt that in his early days, Jone’s audience was comprised of many militia types – the bunker mentality. And, many don’t like his bombastic style – he seems like he was born to have a megaphone in his mouth.
His show has evolved to a point where he is getting regular guests with sound credentials and serious discussions. For example, he broke a couple stories recently – MIAC profiling Ron Paul supporters and the Albany County’s ammunition sales law. This is not unusual, he routinely breaks stories that others choose not to cover.
Alternative media is growing and I think this is a good thing. For example, we both read the Rolling Stone article The Big Takeover – "The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power. How
Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution." In a way, it’s sad that we have to rely on sources like Rolling Stone to get honest news analysis.
I hope you will give him another chance as I don’t think we can simply rely on the mainstream media to tell us what’s going on. You may find some things that are not properly supported but I think you will also find many nuggets of truth that are important.
Aaron. I think any claim of information should be viewed with healthy skepticim. Let me ask you this. Have you ever defended an article that someone else has put forth, perhaps a damn good article, choke full of substantive and verifiable facts, only to have only to have someone point out perhaps one, two errors in the article and toss the whole damn thing out? I liken it to a more sophisticated form of quibbling. Somehow we have let this line of "reasoning" creep into the American psyche like Avian flu virus in a chinese chicken coup. It frustrates the hell out of me at least. Here’s a little secret. I visit sites like MotherJones, Cato, Brookings, Heritage, Reason, Democracy Now, National Review, ect. A plethora of diversified and often tenaciously disagreeing sources.
And I find a lot of damn good information from ALL of them, even though ALL of them often have illogical and indefensible, sometimes flat out dishonest positions from time to time.
Unless someone, or some group’s proven primary intent is deception or sensationalism I find it highly dangerous, at least for me, to place more weight on one argument than another before I digest the logic, and verify the facts. Because to do otherwise self-limits my access to valuable information.
I think I am going to find some time to watch this guy’s interview that’s posted and see what this is all about. Apparently he seems to stir up strong polarization. My experience is that he’s likely saying a. stuff people don’t want to hear, or b. stuff people don’t want to believe.
[quote]Aaron. I think any claim of information should be viewed with healthy skepticim. Let me ask you this. Have you ever defended an article that someone else has put forth, perhaps a damn good article, choke full of substantive and verifiable facts, only to have only to have someone point out perhaps one, two errors in the article and toss the whole damn thing out?[/quote]
To answer your question yes.
Beyond that, I can’t think of a substantial arguement, because generally we agree. You’ve made a great point and I’ll concede it. I’m still not sure I’d ever turn to Alex Jones as a news source, but I don’t want to be that naysayer throwing the baby out with the bathwater either…
In general Aaron. My criteria for information is that I’ll do literary surveillance on a site for some period of time, and keep track of their "hits" and "misses". And I only count that which I can somehow verify. Those sites, or sources, to be more general, that have significantly more "hits" than "misses" are the ones that I tend to tune into and place in my grabbag of infomation wells.
That’s how I found this place.
Yet I read Karl Denninger, who disagrees with Chris on Hyperinflation/deflation. Both Chris and Karl have great track records. Both occassionally have "misses".
Show me someone other than Christ that doesn’t have a "miss" from time to time and I’ll turn my entire estate over to the person that points him out. 🙂
But I also "rove around", always looking for new sources of information, always with a skeptical eye. And still from time to time will revisit a site that I consider having "questionable credibility" if they are peddling something of potentially significant importance.
Then, being the doubter, I check it out in depth. LOL. No, seriously.
I’m a politics junkie. (Fiercly free-thinking, do not tie myself to ANY party or movement, ever. Core belief: Maximum liberty and freedom for ALL) I want facts, and I don’t want to be ignorant of something big. But I have found some of the juiciest information from revisiting sites that I generally have an eye of suspicion for. The toughest part for me is to try to keep my own bias’ from getting in the way. Not easy at all.
Believe it or not Aaron, and this may sound a bit batty, but the sources over the years that I have determined to have the absolute worst credibility are what we all commonly refer to as the mainstream media. There are SO many omissions, so much slant, and so much misinformation and disinformation that I have to wonder to what scale it might actually be PLANNED. (Might be time for the antipsychotic meds, LOL!!!)
And I also discovered this a year or so ago. 88% of all media, that is books, television, cable, internet, textbooks, magazines, newspapers, ect, are owned and controlled by FIVE, get this FIVE corporations.
That’s a cartel, not a free press.
bump. Just subscribing to thread. Cheers.
Ghandi: You have pretty much laid out the most logical reasoning and protocol for data collection that I can imagine and it is generally the path I follow.
I am open to hearing someone’s case from any source until I have a reason to no longer listen. And as Larry and yourself indicate, nuggets of truth are often mixed in with emotional claims that are not founded in fact. This seems to be a facet of human nature and we all have to accept that every news source has opinion, beliefs, and bias built in. Some have it more than others, and worse, some (most??) are designed to persuade rather than inform. This is just the way the system is.
A quick trip to CNN’s site will show you that even at critical times, like last Wednesday, the mainstream generally reverts to posting entertainment based stories as their headlines. This is a fault of omission which, when intentional, is no better than a fault of comission.
Again, I’m not an Alex Jones fan and I doubt I ever will be. I’ve seen a little of his stuff before and it seems like junk. But the videos posted above certainly have at least portions to them that are verifiable and well produced summaries of the the events that are going on. This video has nothing to do with RFIDs, aliens, or black helicopters. What it does offer are facts and speculations regarding the motives and goals of the events we see today with a sharp focus on banking and politics.
When faced with any source of information, my father always taught me to ask if it passes the "smell test," i.e. does it make sense? I can say that the speculation in the longer documentary posted above is generally in line with what we can actually see with our own two eyes. I wish it was presented in a less sensational way, and I wish that the speculation was identified as such rather than being presented as fact. But that does not negate the facts presented, nor does it completely negate the possibility that the speculation presented might be accurate. Again, it is not a stretch to imagine that private bankers are running the country. If you think there is no chance of this, you need to open your eyes.
I’m always open to hearing "the other side" of the argument as well. I don’t "trust" Alex Jones and I don’t "trust" the documentary. This is not about emotion, passion, faith, or loyalty. It is about cold, hard facts, and about cold, hard reason and logic. And I think there is a place for some of Jones’ material in our understanding of what is going on.
Great show last night. Finshed at 1:20 – running a little slow today.
Off to finish the square foot garden frames for the backyard……
FYI. Glenn Beck is going to have Jim Meigs from Popular Mechanics on soon to debunk the Alex Jones FEMA camp conspiracy theory. Watch for it soon. This is the same dude that debunked all the silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I found this video, and the one that is mentioned in the interview, to be a bit overblown at times, but it helped something click for me. I have not followed up on trying to verify the various memberships of the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, but if it is true, then I don’t see it as a conspiracy, per se. This, to me, is no different than if the Kiwanis, the Masons, the NAACP, or any other club, had managed to get their members into all of the same positions – would it be so surprising that they influenced policy in their groups favor? When it is presented in this light, it is very easy believe that this elite group is running the show to their benefit. It makes it all fit. To place the blame for all of the major events that have influenced policy (911, etc.) on them is not something I am prepared to do, but to say that they have influenced our national response and news coverage of them is very easy to do.
I find that the connotation of the word "conspiracy" is a real turn-off for me when it comes to considering the validity of a viewpoint. That is one reason why I would not use the term to describe how I see things as working now. Another is that it is totally expected for people to look out for their own best interests, which is very clearly going on. When you have people from the wealthy elite put in positions of power, is it any surprise that they will scratch the back of their buddies?
All the best,