We Need a New Spokesman: A Non-Angry, Intelligent and Acceptable Spokesman.

I just finished watching Alex Jones on a BBC talk show concerning the Bilderberger group, and as always, he was angry and ineffective.

Communicating to the sheeple is an important task, but it has got to take on some legitimacy, rather than being relegated to the realm of nutty conspiracy theorist.

We need a spokesman. A real communicator. Someone who can keep his cool, discuss the issues in a calm and relevant way. That's the only way this tragic issue is going to surface in a way that counts.

No shouting. Someone educated. Someone who understands how to score points without sounding like he or she is one step away from the insane asylum. A true patriot who understands the issues and what's at stake.

I have spent my adult life in the communications field in one form or another, and when I watch our anti-NWO spokesmen, I cringe.

At a time when we need to be scoring points, we look like a bunch of novices. And it's all in the way we communicate our ideas.

Who would make a legitimate spokesman?

reply to post by MRuss


Nigel Farage


Not really, cause he's British and not that on par with all of us here as far as exposing the truth, but I like him.

Otherwise...there's nobody popular that would fit the bill if you ask me. You need somebody to come up from the grass roots.

~Tenth

step back yo....

I got this shi*

Originally posted by MRuss
Who would make a legitimate spokesman?

History.

He is serving his purpose for the ptb. Causing anyone who questions the status quo to look like a kook.

That guy is a tool. A bonafide controlled opposition puppet. He is embarrassing.

Most of us don't act like that.

Dude, the MSM wouldn't give him the time of day if he wasn't exactly what he is.

Pfffft. He served his purpose within the conspiracy community.

Time for everyone to move on.

Loud and clear we need to say, "He does not speak for me".

And by the way, who is he to represent the masses???

He needs to get on.

Well, there's Jesse Ventura. In his interviews he is calm and collected, and he even makes sense, as much as a person can when conspiracy theory is the subject. For some reason he seems to have a less-than-wonderful reputation... but, what do you expect?
Any sensible person who talks about issues that cause cognitive dissonance is going to have his flaws-- usually imaginary ones-- emphasized so that he'll appear to have as little credibility as possible. "He's a CIA insider, unpatriotic, blah blah blah..." That's my impression.

I am not sure if I found the episode your speaking about but I sure see a lot of harsh critism on here toward the few public heads that are out of the norm in their assessments of the status quo.

Lets see - Obama is effective in all the qualities listed in what a good speaker would be. I don't really watch the Glenn Beck's or Alex Jone's too much but I've seen talking heads come in on MSM and interrupt each other so badly I've had to turn it off. People are people.

I think whoever speaks for truth needs to be taken seriously and therefore needs a certain level of control but I am guessing they get a bit emotional due to the masses being against their messages. Think about it - if you were trying to tell people "there is a fire you have to move..." - no one understands me...would you be calm? It may not be a great analogy but I see that same sort of panic in those who actually do speak on unpopular views and subjects.

It may not be ideal but shouldn't there be some level of support for them trying at all rather than further putting them into the hall of shame. IDK - maybe this guy has ruined credibility entirely due to his emotions getting in the way. There isn't a link but I'm guessing he has.

If someone were to speak on behalf of the truth in order to be effective they would need to be emotionally detached to some extent. They would need to already be respected and admired by the people. Thereafter they would need to be wealthy because they may need protection, and at the very least face losing their job or freedom. They would need to have an solid bit of self esteem and confidence. They would need resources - people coming forth to substantiate their findings because their own investigations need backing due to outrageous theories. They will be wrong sometimes and make mistakes so they need to either go at it in a conservative way and not take risks or have a lot of power already so it won't really count when they say something stupid (like some politicians I know).

Ben Swann of Reality Check fame.

[SNIP]

[SNIP]

He asks the questions many on here do, and actually does the legwork to find the answers.

Found out today he was home schooled and graduated at 11, received his bachelors degree by 13, and masters by 16. Very intelligent, and level headed man. He flat out asked Obama about the kill list of American citizens.



Mod Note: Recruitment /Solicitation Is Prohibited - Please Review This Link.

I think most people that begin to realise the kind of world we live in, are quite likely to become somewhat angry. Engaging in reasonable, honest debate with liars is an exercise in futility and merely playing their game, by their rules. If we disagree with something, we'll be told that we make our opinions heard by voting and that that's the beauty of a civilised society.

These smooth-talkers, experts and 'intellectuals' that put the words in so many peoples mouths have been trained to do what they do; they will always be backed up by endless 'credible' sources and I can't really see a mass awakening happening any time soon.

Think through the process of putting everything right:- how do you do it? With a new political party? With peaceful protests? Maybe a military revolution? Or is it more likely that the masses will engage in drastic action only when necessitated by despair?

I doubt that there have been many mild-mannered revolutions, and while I do concede that in order to reach people you have to articulate your points well, it may be hard to succinctly explain that everything that you believe in is a lie. It has the potential to cause something of a crisis of faith.

reply to post by reluctantflux


Good video. It clearly brings to mind a picture of a president with a Nobel peace prize on one corner of his desk and a drone kill list on the other.

They won't put "respectable truth-tellers" out there for everyone to see (not willingly anyway). They want everyone to think we're raving mad, so they of course promote only those personalities who validate that narrative. It has nothing to do with "who we've got", but everything to do with who and what they want us to see and hear. We could have a young, charismatic leader with a hundred initials after his name and years of public service under his belt, and guess what? No one of any import will pay the slightest bit of attention to him... except perhaps to destroy his character, career, etc.

In agreement with one comment above: Why do we need spokesmen in the first place? You're not going to change anyone's mind (at least, not the plugged-in masses) with rhetoric and propaganda, and besides--this is what the enemy does. Our actions are what truly matter. The way we live our lives is the only argument we need. If we're inconsistent and/or hypocritical, we lose the argument.

reply to post by MRuss


SLAYER or phage.

Either one has my vote.

Originally posted by GrantedBail

Most of us don't act like that.

Well, maybe not but most of us wouldn't be any more impressive and would probably come off just as bad on TV. There's a reason people get paid for acting.

Originally posted by reluctantflux
Found out today he was home schooled and graduated at 11, received his bachelors degree by 13, and masters by 16. Very intelligent, and level headed man.

I think that says more about the current state of the US education system than the intelligence of Ben Swann. Looks like his Masters degree was only 1 year! I wonder what it involved. Origami and finger painting, perhaps.

He studied Liberal Arts. Not exactly cutting edge academia. Is Brigham Young University government accredited, or does it rely on accreditation from a convenient NGO?

reply to post by MRuss

At a time when we need to be scoring points, we look like a bunch of novices. And it's all in the way we communicate our ideas.

What would be less of a hurdle is that when this new spokesperson starts speaking, the talking-heads (media interviewer) lets them finish each statement prior to asking a new question.

No new spokesperson is going to be able to get the word out while being badgered like a hostile witness in a mock kangaroo court of law.

I just don't see an open-mic where people can communicate freely, save maybe utube. delivering news is separate from mediation

Mediation is a process used to avoid settling a dispute in court. During mediation, a third, unbiased party (the mediator) stimulates discussion between the disputing parties to help the negotiation process and move the dispute towards a resolution.

What Does Arbitration Mean?

Like mediation, arbitration is also legal process used to avoid settling a dispute in court. In this process, a third, unbiased party (the arbitrator) is appointed to review the case and make a final decision in favor of one of the parties. Essentially, the arbitrator acts as the judge and jury, whereas the mediator is more of a facilitator who doesn''t impose a final resolution on the disputing parties.

Media; to reach or influence people widely:

You have one, Ron Paul.

Ok so he may not cover all the topics that need covering but it would be a start.

IMO as a non-American.

reply to post by MRuss


In no way am I defending Jones, but rather the anger part of this topic.

Isn't there a time when anger is called for? I mean, how many times can we say, "Please, Mr. Government, don't do that," when we know that the government isn't even listening. When is it a proper time for our spokesperson to say, "Please hear us when we say don't do that. We are ordering you not to do that. Don't do that. DON'T do that! WE SAID DON'T DO THAT!" lol

If i had to name some or vote my choice would be Bill Hicks or even George Carlin, another one would be Bill Cooper or Jonathan Adampants
If we are raising them from the death we could also take Socrates or Plato.
"Until philosophers are kings, or kings of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, cities will never have rest from their evils, nor the human race."

For the living, I can only think of one right now who will have my vote and that would be my dog.

No intelligent person is going to get involved in this nonsense unless they are making some money. And to do that you have be willing to stretch the truth and makes huge leaps of logic to give the conspiracy crowd what they want to hear.