Alex Jones - Trustworthy? Think Again

Originally posted by Jinni
TBH I don't see how the link of refuting the level of gun crime relates to whether he is NWO supporter.

Nothing, it shows that Alex has no problem where he calls people names based on some of the worst info I have ever heard. It shows how Alex is either a liar or uninformed as hell but has no problem broadcasting his conclusions based on that very ignorant bunch of info. That is how I saw it anyway.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Nothing, it shows that Alex has no problem where he calls people names based on some of the worst info I have ever heard. It shows how Alex is either a liar or uninformed as hell but has no problem broadcasting his conclusions based on that very ignorant bunch of info. That is how I saw it anyway.

I don't think that that is the case at all, yes some of his material could be better researched, but some is spot on. As with anything, it is up to the discerning viewer or listener to seperate the wheat from the chaff. He is not in anyway perfect but at least he throws things into the mix, gets people talking and more importantly, thinking. Whether he is right or wrong, it is important that people like Jones exist because he gets us talking. For the PTB, talking or communicating is the worst thing for them, they can't fool us if we keep comparing notes and holding the information up to the light. Much better that we sit in front of the TV, eyes glazed, simply absorbing the information as it is presented to us.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Alex has already been proven a liar all over ATS. It does not matter. No matter how many times the man says something that is blatantly not true, someone will come along and say "I don't think he is a liar, he is just passionate, patriotic, upset, angry, emotional, a little carried away...whatever. He is also a liar. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
He is not in anyway perfect but at least he throws things into the mix, gets people talking and more importantly, thinking. Whether he is right or wrong, it is important that people like Jones exist because he gets us talking.

Let me try this road...what if he has us all talking and thinking about all the wrong stuff? He keeps screaming to buy gold. I read on ATS that gold is the next bubble to burst. What if he has us afraid of all the wrong stuff? You do realize what can happen on your right side while you are busy thinking and talking about your right side don't you?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Like KT says, he gets people talking about this stuff, which is a great thing. You assume that his listeners swallow everything he says hook, line and sinker. I have a few friends who listen to his show and they are fully aware of his tendencies to exaggerate.

He brings up important subjects, like the Federal Reserve scam. Have you ever seen someone awaken to the reality of the debt base system? It's a good feeling. Jones does that repeatedly.

He also repeatedly brings up the concentration of ownership in the main stream media. Again, this is a very important subject that sadly, so few are aware of.

If you are looking for a perfect hero, you won't find any. As Chomsky suggest, you should be looking for good ideas, not heroes. Can you name one researcher where everything s/he says is unquestionably perfect? - especially when making predictions.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.



reply to post by Jinni

Chomsky stance on 9/11 (or JFK) can be a bit difficult to comprehend and it took me a while to understand what he was saying. He believes that we have to make changes to the institutions themselves (Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank, corporate charters) not to the corrupted individuals using these institutions for their own ends. (who would quickly be replaced by other elites) He seeks real changes.

He rightly points out that most of us are more eager to become part of the elite than are actually willing to get rid of the ruling class. At most, they would offer us a few scapegoats but no real change would be accomplished. That IMO, is the main reason he believes 9/11 and JFK are a waste of a researcher's resources.

Take for example Bush. A researcher could spend years trying to find the ultimate proof that he was involved in 9/11. Yet, one could easily tie him to war crimes, as for example in Fallujah, where US soldiers blocked male adult residents from fleeing the city, and blocked the Red Crescent (Red Cross) from entering the city to care for the wounded. Here's the relevant section from Chomsky's book Failed State. It's a matter of where one's effort should be focus to bring about measurable results.

PS: Even if Bush claimed not to have directly gave these orders, we learn from the Nuremberg's Trial Yashimata decision that a commander is fully responsible for his troops whether he commands them or not.

[edit on 18/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

Like KT says, he gets people talking about this stuff, which is a great thing. You assume that his listeners swallow everything he says hook, line and sinker. I have a few friends who listen to his show and they are fully aware of his tendencies to exaggerate.

He brings up important subjects, like the Federal Reserve scam. Have you ever seen someone awaken to the reality of the debt base system? It's a good feeling. Jones does that repeatedly.

He also repeatedly brings up the concentration of ownership in the main stream media. Again, this is a very important subject that sadly, so few are aware of.

If you are looking for a perfect hero, you won't find any. As Chomsky suggest, you should be looking for good ideas, not heroes. Can you name one researcher where everything s/he says is unquestionably perfect? - especially when making predictions.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.



reply to post by Jinni

 

Chomsky stance on 9/11 (or JFK) can be a bit difficult to comprehend and it took me a while to understand what he was saying. He believes that we have to make changes to the institutions themselves (Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank, corporate charters) not to the corrupted individuals using these institutions for their own ends. (who would quickly be replaced by other elites) He seeks real changes.

He rightly points out that most of us are more eager to become part of the elite than are actually willing to get rid of the ruling class. At most, they would offer us a few scapegoats but no real change would be accomplished. That IMO, is the main reason he believes 9/11 and JFK are a waste of a researcher's resources.

Take for example Bush. A researcher could spend years trying to find the ultimate proof that he was involved in 9/11. Yet, one could easily tie him to war crimes, as for example in Fallujah, where US soldiers blocked male adult residents from fleeing the city, and blocked the Red Crescent (Red Cross) from entering the city to care for the wounded. Here's the relevant section from Chomsky's book Failed State. It's a matter of where one's effort should be focus to bring about measurable results.

PS: Even if Bush claimed not to have directly gave these orders, we learn from the Nuremberg's Trial Yashimata decision that a commander is fully responsible for his troops whether he commands them or not.

[edit on 18/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I totally agree with what you said BUT the conclusion that researching 9/11 is a waste of time is nonsense. He's not looking at the BIG picture. By exposing the corrupt, maniacal and tyrannical policies of the Government through serious investigation and compelling arguments is the main approach for getting rid of the 'sheep' brainwashed mentality people have today. It MUST be challenged so that people realise that something is wrong and do something about it. Of course, the Government will supply us with scapegoats - that's why a different approach is necessary.

So I believe the Chomsky's view is 'nonsensical' - we don't investigate because government won't do anything about it. What about the PEOPLE? What about the opposition, what about enlightenment through denying ignorance...?

Maybe he's getting old or something...?

Originally posted by Jinni
I totally agree with what you said BUT the conclusion that researching 9/11 is a waste of time is nonsense. He's not looking at the BIG picture. By exposing the corrupt, maniacal and tyrannical policies of the Government through serious investigation and compelling arguments is the main approach for getting rid of the 'sheep' brainwashed mentality people have today. It MUST be challenged so that people realise that something is wrong and do something about it. Of course, the Government will supply us with scapegoats - that's why a different approach is necessary.

Certainly it should be challenged, but think about it, realistically, what has been accomplished since 9/11? Has the 'truth' been universally established? Has it anyway united the 'people'? Or has it caused even greater division between those that follow blindly and those that question?

I personally feel that much of Chomsky's approach and reasoning on the matter is lost by his very poor verbal communication skills. He is not, in my opinion, a good public speaker, he mumbles, seems dismissive, sometimes to the degree that he can seem somewhat patronising. His written work on the other hand is quite brilliant, highly detailed, thoroughly researched and wholly explanatory. He appears a different animal all together. And, in context with his writings (rather than on his interviews alone) I agree with him, researching 'conspiracies' such as 9/11 and JFK are a waste of time in terms of effecting real change.

Originally posted by Jinni
So I believe the Chomsky's view is 'nonsensical' - we don't investigate because government won't do anything about it. What about the PEOPLE? What about the opposition, what about enlightenment through denying ignorance...?

Chomsky makes no claim to be representative of the people and why should he be? He is an academic who conducts academic studies based upon the use of language in and around the mass media. That is all he is really qualified to talk about. It is somewhat callous of him i admit, to use terminology like 'who cares?' in application to 9/11, but that makes it none the less a fair point. In the grand scheme of things, who does care? And, in reality, the structures are still in place to fight this in a more direct way. We have elected representatives who are paid to represent us, except we have to ask them to do so, most don't, most seemingly expect those representatives to guess our needs and then complain when they don't. It is not Chomsky's job to represent us, and you know, I am sure he has a life of his own that he'd like to get around to once in a while.

Denying ignorance is a matter of great importance, but that means more than shouting from the roof tops that our governments are populated by liars. Those affected by 9/11 are a drop in the ocean compared to those effected by the foreign policy, often criminal (and as CNut23 pointed out Chomsky has gone to lengths to identify and show the evidence of this criminality), of the US government. Do you think the millions of people who have been effected by the warmongering of the US (and UK) give two-poops about 9/11? Of course they don't, they have more than enough to concern themselves about. So, by a head count alone, remembering that the world does not begin and end in the US, 'who cares?' seems a reasonably fair assessment.

One way or another, who ever was ultimately responsible for 9/11, the fact of the matter is that it enabled the US (and the UK) to adopt an even harder line against the muslim nations. It doesn't matter who did it, what matters is that it was used to cause far more pain and suffering than 9/11 ever did. It is that which we should be focusing on, not on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, but making sure our governments don't use these events to manufacture our consent.

Originally posted by Jinni
Maybe he's getting old or something...?

Aren't we all?! Time should be utilised wisely based upon that fact of life alone, don't you think?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

Like KT says, he gets people talking about this stuff, which is a great thing. You assume that his listeners swallow everything he says hook, line and sinker. I have a few friends who listen to his show and they are fully aware of his tendencies to exaggerate.

Nope. We were not discussing his listeners. We were discussing Alex and his validity. I listen. I could care less about the listeners. That is not what this thread is about. He lies, blatantly and obviously. Why should we trust anything he says? ATS gets me looking up pretty much the same stuff.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Personally, I've never heard him blatantly lie. Do you have examples of this?

When you study conspiracy theories, you sometimes have to look up questionable sources to find worthy material. For example, anyone studying the Bilderberg group would be foolish to discount Jim Tucker and his Spotlight Magazine (now American Free Press). Granted, Jim and his magazine are anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, he is still one of the best Bilderberg researcher out there.

As I mentioned above, look for ideas, not heroes. Jones' movie Endgame is packed full of worthy information.

Alex has his strong points as well, that is, he has good ideas. Is he trustworthy? IMO, no.


[edit on 20/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

Personally, I've never heard him blatantly lie. Do you have examples of this?

Listen to his show today. Try confirming all the things he says, you know, "this is admitted folks. This is mainstream, people. This is documented, I mean we have the documents (arrogant condescending Alex laugh) I mean come on, people!" Yeah, right down every fact that is followed by one of those. I will listen too. I cannot wait to see if you can find even some of those admissions, documents, or mainstream story that backs up what he said. Every day you get many many new examples of blatant lies.

Want a good specific one? "CPS takes steals children and sticks them in cages stacked up where they starve to death for years?"

Maybe that is true, maybe not. Logic and reality so no, but if you can prove me wrong. Alex also said this was documentd and admitted so you should have no trouble showing me what a beacon of honesty the man is.

When you study conspiracy theories, you sometimes have to look up questionable sources to find worthy material. For example, anyone studying the Bilderberg group would be foolish to discount Jim Tucker and his Spotlight Magazine (now American Free Press). Granted, Jim and his magazine are anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, he is still one of the best Bilderberg researcher out there.

As I mentioned above, look for ideas, not heroes. Jones' movie Endgame is packed full of worthy information.

Alex has his strong points as well, that is, he has good ideas. Is he trustworthy? IMO, no.

Eating butter 3 times a day will promote heart health.

CPS will come steal your children to sell them to white house sex slave rings if give them an aspirin.

OK I just said two things. They must be helpful to you. They have to be good info. You can check. There is such a thing called butter. There is such a thing called CPS. That is as far as half of Alex' fact checking goes. How is that helpful? I can find out that bilderberg is meeting, when, and with who, all without this charlatan asking me to send him money so he can go stand outside next year with a bull horn. How long has he been "fighting the good fight?" Seems to me that bullhorn has not done snip for anyone. It sure has gotten people to buy his crap though.

Richard C. Hoagland speaks of glass pyramids and other buildings all over the moon. The moon is real so he must be telling the truth too right?


[edit on 20-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Want a good specific one? "CPS takes steals children and sticks them in cages stacked up where they starve to death for years?"

Do you have a source for that? First, I'd have to determine that he actually said that, and then look at the his own sources to determine its validity.

Like I previously said, Jones is definitely prone to hyperbole.

Richard C. Hoagland speaks of glass pyramids and other buildings all over the moon. The moon is real so he must be telling the truth too right.

I'm not sure how this even relates with what I previously said, but yes, I'm sure even Mr. Hoagland has a few worthwhile nuggets.

Do you have any example of a conspiracy theorist who's a "beacon of honesty"?

Even ATS has its fair share of BS. Why do you bother reading here? Probably, because occasionally someone writes something that causes you to research further. - a lead to follow.


[edit on 20/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Do you have a source for that? First, I'd have to determine that he actually said that, and then look at the his own sources to determine its validity.

Yes, his radio broadcast. Do you listen? I have found that most of his supporters hear maybe a half hour a week. He does a 4 hour show 5 days a week and a 3 hour show on weekends. Listen.

Like I previously said, Jones is definitely prone to hyperbole.

and lying. Why would you trust hyperbole then? Would you trust it from your doctor?

Richard C. Hoagland speaks of glass pyramids and other buildings all over the moon. The moon is real so he must be telling the truth too right.

I'm not sure how this even relates with what I previously said, but yes, I'm sure even Mr. Hoagland has a few worthwhile nuggets.

You are not sure because you took it out of context. Read my post again, it is quite clear.

Do you have any example of a conspiracy theorist who's a "beacon of honesty"?

NOPE! Not one. How does that translate into the idea that we should believe any of them?

Even ATS has its fair share of BS. Why do you bother reading here? Because occasionally someone writes something that causes you to research further.

The same reason that I listen to Alex. It is more entertaining at work than that damn Journey's greatest hits cd again.

I am not sure what you just proved to me. I see you are trying to make me not right. Can you possible argue that Alex is right instead of arguing that I am wrong?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

NOPE! Not one.

I've found Michael Parenti to be pretty consistent, although I'm not sure he would consider himself a conspiracy theorist. He certainly has an affinity for them.

No where did I say that Jones was trustworthy. All I'm trying to impart on you is that he does have good ideas and should not be discounted entirely. Just like ATS should not be discounted entirely.

I will not argue with you just for the sake of arguing.


[edit on 20/12/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I have only read the OP and will address it. Alex Jones is one of the few people in this country who has woken up to the fact that our Government does not actually run the country. It is in the hands of a few rich people who create mechanisms to create a false facade of a democracy so that they actually run things behind the scenes via gentleman's agreements and blackmail. Who are these people? They are the Rothschild/ Rockefeller Illuminati who have their fingers in every major pie. Skull and Bones and other Secret Societies are just control methods every bit as effective as organised religions.

If Jones gets things wrong - so what? He also guessed something was brewing before 9/11 and got it right.

You are being disingenuous and selective, Sir (or Madam). I refuse to put down Alex Jones. If you want some more proof that he makes sense then listen to his interview with Aaron Russo ( who made "Trading Places"). On the death of Russo, news media failed to indicate that he had died at all. Talk about conspiracy - even when the death of minor Hollywood players and their dog walkers are reported in the media - they ignored Russo.

Link Jones & Russo

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

NOPE! Not one.

I've found Michael Parenti to be pretty consistent, although I'm not sure he would consider himself a conspiracy theorist. He certainly has an affinity for them.

No where did I say that Jones was trustworthy. All I'm trying to impart on you is that he does have good ideas and should not be discounted entirely. Just like ATS should not be discounted entirely.

Right, and I am saying "What good ideas?" Buy berkey water filters and gold from my sponsors? Go let them starving kids out of stacks of cages? Watch out for Bilderberg meetings? See, when you lie, you lose all credibility. How can I trust any idea out of his mouth when I already know that he willingly lies. He sits on a Christian network and chooses to lie. I just have a little trouble taking anything he says into consideration when I have watched him lie and lie and lie and lie. He has been telling us the U.S. is ending and we need to stock up on storable goods for how long now? And buy gold? It cannot be both. If society breaks down, gold is worth what to whom?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I have only read the OP and will address it. Alex Jones is one of the few people in this country who has woken up to the fact that our Government does not actually run the country. It is in the hands of a few rich people who create mechanisms to create a false facade of a democracy so that they actually run things behind the scenes via gentleman's agreements and blackmail. Who are these people? They are the Rothschild/ Rockefeller Illuminati who have their fingers in every major pie. Skull and Bones and other Secret Societies are just control methods every bit as effective as organised religions.

If Jones gets things wrong - so what? He also guessed something was brewing before 9/11 and got it right.

You are being disingenuous and selective, Sir (or Madam). I refuse to put down Alex Jones. If you want some more proof that he makes sense then listen to his interview with Aaron Russo ( who made "Trading Places"). On the death of Russo, news media failed to indicate that he had died at all. Talk about conspiracy - even when the death of minor Hollywood players and their dog walkers are reported in the media - they ignored Russo.

Link Jones & Russo

Not one thing you just gave Alex credit for came from him to begin with. So when he steals other people's work, he is telling the truth. When he talks, he blatantly lies. Thanks for pointing out that he can read what other people say and present it as his own to bolster the credibility of his BS.

Please watch the video and listen to Russo's testimony first. If Jones repeats the work of other people or the painstaking research of othere people then so do we all. My thesis had numerous references to the work of other people because we have to stand on the shoulders of giants to look farther than our own self-obsessions.

I urge you to watch the Russo video and then give me some comments on Jones afterwards.

reply to post by Heronumber0


Is this reply to me? If so, I will watch the video when i have some quiet and can listen to it. Until then, what i said was that he copies the work of others

and

and

i said and

he also

tells lies when he speaks for himself.

See the difference. You can quote anyone you want all day long. That does not make you bad. When you use that day to establish credibility without crediting the people that did the work, and go on to use your credibility to spread lies.... please tell me you see where I am going with this.

edit to fix a word i have no idea i was typing.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Ahem

Kindly STAY On topic and cease the personal remarks. If feel you simply cannot stay civil, pour yourself some eggnog, and take a look at the 1000's of other topics here at ATS

Thanks
FredT, ATS Moderator