In the what I would describe as famous, off the cuff post-2012 Bilderberg soiree that Alex Jones had over a couple of drinks with Webster Tarpley, there was a moment that forever changed the credibility of the Infowars operation.
Alex Jones swore and carried on, in an interesting twist to what he always explained as inexcusable. After all, didn’t Jones used the excuse of “cussing” to explain why he could not possibly interview again the very popular William Cooper? So, cussing on his own seemed a little hypocritical, especially to a mild mannered, nice guy like Webster Tarpley.
There was a moment equally engrained in my memory from that occasion. Tarpley exclaimed after obviously realizing the magnitude of the moment, “Maybe I’m doing God’s work after all”.
I would say so, Mr. Tarpley. I would agree that what you uncovered from the guy who “woke most of us up” was very interesting and disturbing, in equal proportion. The man’s guard was down, and the facade was gone, and well, it would appear you captured the moment well. God using you? It had to be.
So, in defence of Alex Jones we have those follower, self-explained new research partners that all tell the same tale with unique, in their own words ways. But the point is, the “point” is all very similar.
The story is that the Federal Reserve in the U.S. was taken over by the global elite, and the money supply is controlled in such a way to hold the U.S. economy hostage. Okay, agreed.
There is a group of these crazy global banksters that also want to reduce the world’s population and one in particular uses his mega influence to travel the world jabbing the innocent with needles, and creating all kinds of health issues. Again, agreed.
So, if Alex Jones is so bad, it is argued, how would the global elite want to use him to bring the truth, and get us all mad and aware? Good questions.
We could answer that with research already done, and explanations already made, and then the question to the Jones followers would be why did you defend the guy with vague, off the cuff, non-researched generalities like, “He woke most of us up”. “He seems like a genuine guy, so I cannot believe he isn’t”, and “I can’t believe that if he did so much good, that he could possibly be a bad guy”.
Oh really? That’s as good as it gets?
Imagine if we used the same reasoning for 9/11…
Yeah, the guy who bought the terror clause laden insurance plans on the trade towers seems like a great guy. He would never be in on the sabotage, and cause so many people to lose their lives. I believe him when he says was the reason he said they “pulled” the building (seven). I can’t imagine he would be part of something sinister.
Oh, great research. Reminds me of the definition of “assume”. You know, when you make an ass out of you and me? Yes, assuming, or coming to a conclusion without giving it full circle justice can be a little risky.
But then, there is the argument that seems to be equally ignored.
What is controlled opposition, and why does it exist? The buddies that drank the kool aid don’t seem to explain that one away either do they?
We will, next time.