Tag Archives: Rand

Blowing the whistle on controlled opposition, the World Bank (or is it just divide and conquer?)

Here is a series of very interesting videos that have painted a picture of deceit from the John Birch Society, to Bilderberg, to Congress, and the Vatican.

Who can you trust? Are there secondary tiers of deception meant to further divide, confuse, and dilute any opposition to the powers in this evil-c0ntrolled world? Or, can we sift through the controlled, diluted opposition to find clues as to who is really being hidden from view, and who is really at the root of world domination in these dark times?



The Complicated deceptions of Conspiracy Theory: How one side refuses to bring it all to the table

This is the first in a new train of thought in the examination of the very interesting infighting taking place amongst conspiracy theorists, and what the theater may actually mean.

It was not that long ago that a conspiracy theory funny man, Charlie Veitch, shocked the conspiracy world with his sudden about face on his belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Suddenly, Veitch seemed to drink the kool aid of the official story of the governments, and defended the collapse of the buildings official story that fires could have been responsible.

Not long before that time, Veitch was in Toronto to join Dan Dicks, a Canadian liberty fighter, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, who defends Alex Jones as just an honest guy that seems genuine.

Dicks has added in early November 2012, that Veitch is now attacking him. Nothing like a little turncoat backstabbing to promote your more credible stance on things, and give the people something to latch on to.

It’s interesting that amongst the conspiracy theorists, there are apologists that will defend one another while under attack from former followers that notice something quite not right in the consistency department with the so-called leaders of the truth movement.

Dan Dicks, when defending Alex Jones, admitted that some have called him cointelpro as well, and the questioning amongst the libertarian types continues. There would be good reason for Dicks to want to keep the cash train rolling off the backside of Alex Jones’ support of the Canadian faction. It was not long ago we were told there would not be a Press for Truth without subscribing members, and well, it just would not exist. So, I suppose we must excuse those who get their fame from the guru’s endorsements, and the defense of the big guy is I suppose, understandable. But for those of us wanting it all on the table, it is not good enough, especially when films are being made to supposedly give us the big picture.

According to Dicks, “He seems legit. He seems credible”.

The Youtubers following Jones become conspicuous by their content. The “Alex Jones talking points” are noticeable in their arguments in their videos. There are some fundamentals of the direction these conspiracy theorists take.

The real question to Dicks should be, “Have you looked into the evidence to support the fact that he is controlled opposition? For a researcher and filmmaker, don’t you owe it to your audience to give it justice?”

Let’s have a look at the universal explanation why the world is so screwy

For one, it is a universal belief that the name Rothschild was derived from a “red shield” above a store of one of the Rothschild family members many, many years ago, and they adopted the name. In the quest of freedom and understanding of the big, bad bankers responsible for the collapse of modern society, a cartoon explaining how the Rothschilds used their power to take over the money supplies of the world through the Federal Reserve and other central banking systems emerged. The cartoon of course having the head of the beast sport a red shield to drive the point home, and sit in the subconscious so no other explanation would be needed, nor should be desired.

I am going to tell my family that I saw a rock on the road, and it moved me so much that I am changing our family name to the “Stoners”. That’s the heritage I want to have the world remember us by.

To drive the credibility home for good, a few years back, the guru of conspiracy theory, the self-determined “tip of the spear” Alex Jones interviewed the book pushing David de Rothschild, Jones made a point to ensure the “red shield” facade was driven home when he told de Rothschild, “I’m calling you out red shield!” Sure he is. Or, could it simply be a confirmation from one buddy to another that I am driving home a deception to his flock that “red shield” is the reason for the name Rothschild?

Only after questioning the entire truth movement would one want to learn the other potential explanations where “Rothschild” was derived from. And, googling “Barbara Aho, Rothschild”, you will find a reason that fits with counter-conspiracy idea that Zionism and the Biblical reasoning could hold merit. And, you would realize that what is taboo is very interesting. Could mainstream conspiracy theory be a front to confuse what might otherwise become apparent? Could the likes of Alex Jones and the flock be controlled opposition to throw us off the trail of the real enemies, their roots, affiliations and goals?
Well, when Barbara Aho explains that Rothschild means “Ruth’s Child”, the lineage of Jesus Christ, then this should get anyone’s attention. Prepare to want to delve deeper into the religious link to what is happening, and opening your mind to what is taboo to the Jones contingent – – the possibility that there exists a controlled opposition to bring many facts, but shape them in such a way to take you off an interesting course.

For those that “were” on Jones’ side at one time but had a bit of a wake up call to question the motives of their leader, they might, like me start to look for an explanation as to who he might really be, and what motive he may actually have.

For me, the interview with Webster Tarpley at the close of the Bilderberg 2012 meetings was that moment. Jones blasted Tarpley, defended Ron Paul, and downplayed some pretty significant points that Tarpley had about the Paul clan that should have been explored by a true truth seeker. But, the cover up seemed more important, and raised a big red flag for me and many others.

For one, why did Ron Paul accept campaign donations from Peter Thiel, a Bilderberger, and explain it away with the simple excuse that he cannot control who donates to the cause. If it were anybody else, the truth movement would have been bringing this up forever, and ensuring it was a talking point to bring others to the movement. But because it was the consistent Ron Paul, friend of the liberty movement and grandfather of the cause, it was brushed under the rug of the Jones-spawned truthers. And, after confronting a few of these guys on their YouTube accounts, they certainly have stuck to their guns.

And, ironically, where being “Illuminati” is bad, being a high level Freemason as Paul has been explained to be, it suddenly is an excuseable, avoidable topic.

Rand Paul’s coincidental endorsement of Mitt Romney had father Ron go into hiding for a period, as we all wondered if his political career was over. Speculation that Paul was a sellout for the advancement of his son went viral.

The defense of Ron Paul is an obvious sign of the Jones-bourne contingent toeing the party line. The man of liberty needs defense to keep the explanation of the big picture alive. If he were proven a fraud, what would that do to the “red shield”, evil banking, Federal Reserve enemy that is at the epicenter of the movement. It’s the big bad banking families and elites from Bilderberg that are responsible for the collapse of the world, and the ones responsible for wanting to reduce the world’s population.

But then there are the taboos.

As a Jones-bourne conspiracy theorist, you do not touch on the significance of Zionism, the Jesuits, the Vatican, or the Pope. You do not bring up Mossad as a potential perpetrator of the events of 9/11, nor do you go deep on the John Birch Society, or the Council for National Policy (CNP).

In that group you will find Dan Dicks, Fabian for Liberty, Mark Dice, and Adam Kokesh.

In the next segment, we will examine Mark Dice, and the possible reason he trashed Alex Jones, and later went on Adam vs. the Man to explain that we should not look to any one man for all the truth. The red flag in me says that it could be the potential of Jones working with the John Birch Society as a controlled opposition that needs to be countered.

And, that would be an interesting use of a friend to counter his “ex” buddy, and yet again throw us off the trail as to why we need to look to no one man. You would expect the unexpected to occur then, like in desperate times, desperate measures are needed.  The conspiracy herd that are growing in questioning their ex leader will need to be told why, and it would seem Mark Dice has answered the calling.

If the exposure of Jones is now going to put the con on red alert, you can expect more from Dice and others to say the man must have gone off the deep-end, is now egomaniacal (as described by Dice), and has lost it trying to cover his overhead with the pushing  of his MLM kool aid drink, tangy tangerine.

They all want to grow the operation, don’t they? They all want to improve their microphones, sets, and become, well, like the mainstream media they all detest. My word, do they really want to be alternative, or more like the status quo?

One Youtube comment said it best. “Where did Jones go?”.

Well, we are here to find out. Stay tuned for more.

The latest rationalization of the critical-thinking, conspiracy theorist

Okay, conspiracy theorists…you have been blown away with the Ron Paul turncoat….how are you going to think your way through this one?

I have come across a terrific, critical thinker but obvious Alex Jones, Ron Paul supporter. And, don’t get me wrong, I was one of those just a few days ago. I guess if Alex Jones can flip-flop, Ron Paul can join in too, and it seems anyone at will can change friends and affiliations to serve their purposes, who am I to be any different, eh?

We have to all assess the new conspiracy possibilities with an open mind and open heart, and look into the relationships that might give us a clue on what up with that, dog?

Who really is Ron Paul? He doesn’t seem on one hand to be the guy we thought he was, that is, unless we can rationalize the move to save our image of him as the conspiracy believer, playing the game as long as he could, to have some influence over the world, to tell us all what’s really going on.

But shhhhh, don’t bat an eye when Ron can’t admit that 911 was an inside job, even though the John Birch Society professes it, and he can stand up as a speaker once in a while to rousing applause. Play the game, won’t you?

Well, here is my good YouTube friend who is rationalizing now for himself. He is a great critical thinker. I would describe him as possibly where a typical Ron Paul supporter who wants to hold onto the ideal that the Pauls are good, Alex Jones is for real, and we are party to a group that will eventually wake everyone up. Our job has just begun, and the keyboard is looking to smoke over the next several weeks:

So welcome, from Lexington, Kentucky and the rest of the world, to the new game of Conspiracy theory, part two!

Missions Impossible: Which will be harder – analyzing Alex Jones, or ensuring once bitten, twice shy?

Alex Jones says he has known the Paul family for 17 years, but doesn’t have a clear handle on where Ron Paul stands on a fundamental issue like 911, and it is unclear how much influence Jones has had directing the Paul political campaigns

Well, today was Alex Jones’ litmus test.

The politician turned traitor that Jones claims he has known well for 17 years has suddenly turned on his followers. It was a sudden  shock for most of us, but not for Webster Tarpley, who said he has professed the turncoat of Ron Paul as early as January of this year. For Alex Jones, despite covering for Ron Paul just days ago amidst bombshell information from Webster Tarpley, he now says he saw it coming for a while now. Make sense? No, not really.

Today, on his radio show, Alex Jones came to the conclusion that “he isn’t going down with the ship”, but bizarrely seemed to know what the Pauls were thinking.  Where did he get confirmation of this, when he later said he would need to speak with Ron Paul to clarify his position? Which was it – – he knew their reasoning or he would need answers?

It would seem it was time to put a little distance between him and the Paul connection to save his own hide. Yet, the apologies and direction were still on the agenda, and Jones went as far as to tell his audience that it would be better to have Obama in office again, so we could expose his agenda.

Alex explained he could see the problems with the Paul campaign strategy taking form, yet was vague on his understanding of who was at the helm directing the Pauls. There was inconsistency in his account of events: first claiming he figured it out on his own, but later said he spoke to the Paul family, and told them “not to go down that road”. So, which is it: communication with his friends of 17 years, or completely on his own?

And evidence shows that Ron Paul has consistently denied being a 911 truther, but Jones explained that four years ago Paul admitted to false flag terror.  Are we to believe that with Jones’ warning before 911 that it was going to happen that Ron Paul would not have been party to that information? Friends for 17 years and not a tip off to stop Ron Paul for voting in favor of the Afghan invasion?

You would think knowing the Paul’s, Jones would have a better grasp on the stance Ron Paul had on something so fundamental as the 911 attacks, but we are still left with little to back the closeness of him to the Paul family.

A strange aura of cult-like qualities come to the Jones game-plan.

His staff, we are told, were all in shock to admit that Jones was right again, on his assessment of the Ron Paul errors.  Aside from always being right, he also seems to command total control at all times.

The off the cuff, end of day sharing of ideas over a few drinks the other night had Webster Tarpley in the driver’s seat for a change, and he made the most of it.

Those nasty batteries just would not die,. They kept going, and going, and going. It was not in the cards to come up with an excuse to control the “crazed” Webster Tarpley, as Jones described him,  who really rose to the occasion and did really well to get some well thought out information to the fore. It was a proud moment. Divine intervention as Tarpley described it.  Jones claimed he was not censoring Tarpley. And why should he?

Censorship? Strange for a man that prides himself on honesty and a “bring it on” attitude. After all, isn’t Jones the guy who never screens the calls, and also doesn’t need a teleprompter. And by extension, wouldn’t care how good intel came out, or how it was unleashed, right?

The radio show today was full of interesting tidbits of unleashed frustration. Jones said he is a little tired of those who have little knowledge trying to tell him the way it is. It got me thinking to research when else that has been an issue.

In this YouTube clip, Jones  explains that those who refute him are losers, and jealous, powerless people. Half of the alternative media sites out there, he says “talk about Alex Jones”. Don’t start to focus on Jones, because he wants it “to be about the information”. Why would fellow Christians be jealous of a man that sees power as something that should be strived for, and despite the constant pounding that it is not about Alex Jones, whenever he looks over his shoulder, he sees those jealous types that wish they had as much influence and visitors to their site as Jones does. In a cult, there is always the explanation to refute the outcasts that are critical of the cause, is there not?

I’ve been down the block a few times and have witnessed the warning signs to watch for that would have people influenced in a cult-like setting, For one, there needs to be vulnerability, and what better way than to explain that the sky is falling and Turkey Lurkey is going down?

I am not saying there isn’t a global problem. And I am easily swayed by people who fight corruption or stand up for human rights and liberties. You will recall perhaps that I started this blog quite convinced I would stick to the injustice suffered by Jerry Moyes being taken to the cleaners and once of little value to the shift in the NHL, he was tossed aside like last year’s laundry. Kind of like the feeling many of us have today with the news of Ron Paul.

Today was damage control and perhaps too to see where he stood, and how bad it was.  To that end, Jones was quick to summarize how we felt: betrayed and feeling that the campaign was a cash grab perhaps in the latter months. Not too nice a feeling. Can you imagine those that were hoping Ron Paul was for real, and perhaps also bought Facebook at $38, and maybe had some money in MF Global? Don’t show those guys a rope, okay?

In the end times, there would be plenty of deception and isn’t it a strange vision that two men can mirror the metaphor – – the vision of Obama standing in front of an adoring crowd not much different that that of Ron Paul serving a similar pose over the last several months.

It was time to direct the anger of the masses. To focus on what to be mad about. It was Ron Paul’s comment to “be respectful”. 

Did you listen with a half-hearted zeal today? Were you assessing Alex Jones and wondering if he were part of the club that would justify not wanting to “go down with the ship”? Were you thinking back on past claims and wondering where Alex got his intel?

Alex is real, right? That’s what he tells us all the time. “At least I’m real”.

With a heavy heart I cannot at this stage fall hook, line and sinker. Instead I have a mission. To analyze Jones as I have done for Glenn Beck, and see what I find.

This will require looking at inconsistencies. It will mean analyzing demeanor. It will require research to check what was unleashed in the very loaded Tarpley interview that Alex has advised us he was thinking about today. A little late I would say, and only when a caller mentioned Webster Tarpley did Jones mention he wanted him on the show soon.

Think to yourself. Have you ever been tough loved by a friend that tells you something you disagreed with, but later learned was true? Where and who is the first person you run to: your friend of course, and with it some remorse. That, I was waiting for on the show but it did not surface until late in the game.

Also, when Webster Tarpley had informed Jones in the interview that he had pegged Ron Paul since January, Jones did not acknowledge him for that today or give him credit, but instead seemed to backpedal to look like he had it all figured out. Sorry, but the way it seemed to be. Either Alex Jones does not like to admit being schooled, or there is another reason.

Tarpley had mentioned Freemasonry and that Ron Paul was part of that club in the interview. And wasn’t it downplayed by Jones in the interview and not brought up today on the show.

We were left with repeated “they are good people” comments on the Paul family, with no mention that he is willing to turn a critical eye to what Tarpley had uncovered based on good research. Jones is inconsistent in defending as insignificant this matter when he has explored this aspect of Freemasonry as significant at higher levels, which there is evidence of for Ron Paul. Masonry at high levels is considered a satanic cult, and it’s members looking to control the earth (globalists).

I also learned from other sources that Ron Paul supports no minimum wage. That would be consistent with the globalist’s job to drive down wages, as when we looked at Roger Altman and his ties to Chinese investment in the failing U.S. economy. Couple this fact with the proposed budget cut that Ron Paul had, leaving most to suffer who are on food stamps, and masonry seems to be sounding possible here.

So, prepare for a ride. We will be watching Jones carefully as we did with Glenn Beck, as he does the same to Ron Paul.

A couple “missions impossible”. Deep down I feel like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I’d prefer to come to the conclusion that Alex Jones IS for “real”, but I will not fall victim to being sucked down the rabbit hole. I have allowed that one too many times already.

Why so much reflection on Ron Paul now?

The worst form of “ineptness” may be in deceiving those who look up to you

It is my belief that the support of Ron Paul by the Patriot Movement has been based largely on the assumption that Paul was really a truther after all.

After his comment in the early part of 2012 related to 911: “Bush knowing about this?”, I have to solemnly question where exactly he remains on the issue of 911 truth.

In the now, dare I say famous can of worms interview with Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley dropped an important bomb of infomation that would suggest Ron Paul may not be the man with the mission many of us thought he was.

Specific allegations from Tarpley were based on fact. Ron Paul supported the Afghan invasion because he truly believed bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 911. He has not changed his point of view on that despite Alex Jones’ reasoning in the interview that Paul was aware of false flag attacks. Even in the GOP debates, with Paul in battle with Rick Santorum, the infamous booing of Paul  occurred  because of his mention of the US’s aggressive foreign military policy. What it really did was slap 911 truth in the face, and solidify the false belief that bin Laden was the culprit. In hindsight, it could have been brilliant political theater.

The reason a critical eye of Ron Paul must be had now is because of the supporters he has accumulated that would likely buy into everything he suggests. Dare we ask how many Paul supporters are on food stamps out of the 60% + that would be out of luck with the $ 1 Trillion slashing of the Federal budget?

In the GOP debate, we can think back on how much time was spent on national defense strategy. Odd when the economy was tanking, you would think it would be down on the list of priorities. Again, it solidified the argument that 911 was  instigated from cave dwellers in Afghanistan not because of a conspiracy. Have we all been duped into believing that Ron Paul secretly agrees with us, while over the years dodging the bullet, or in some cases coming out boldly to whole-heartedly spell it out? And if Ron Paul can be persuaded to vote for war because of bin Laden, would Rand be equally accomodating at the suggestion Iran held dangerous nukes?

If we look at Tarpley’s argument that Ron Paul was there to take votes away from Romney’s GOP competition, that should make us more careful not to assume Paul was there to support the Patriot movement unquestioningly. He has not given us assurance that he is indeed on our side. That is, that there is a global mission to a One World Government. Liberty and Freedom at home is not good enough, when you don’t admit the bigger picture. However, he has discussed his fear of a North American Union, but isolating that issue without admission of the bigger picture is in itself suspect.

And, the cash infusion from Bilderberg at this stage is extremely suspect. The stretched argument that Paul cannot control who injects $2.7 million into his campaign is weak, and as Tarpley points out, it did not come from just any Bilderberger, it came from Thiel, who sits on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.

Ask some waitresses in Europe how generous a Bilderberger who just hit the winfall like Zuckerberg was, when he wouldn’t tip. $2.7 million must come with some strings attached for sure.  And rumor has it that the Bilderbergers weren’t too generous inside the Marriott in Chantilly either. So the big campaign infusion is very questionable. Ride off in the sunset, huh? Imagine how Alex Jones  would use that information against any other candidate that got the windfall from a Bilderberg steering committee member.

Friend or no friend, it’s time to separate the job from the bias and get down to work. We will see if the friendship of Tarpley and Jones can endure the truth that Tarpley dropped. And, if I might add, having analyzed the interview again, Tarpley is genuinely a friend to Jones, and his suggestion Alex should have run for President seemed rather heartfelt. Tough love if you will. I think Jones needs to do some soul searching on this one, and decide which friend is more honest and forthright – – the guy who eludes to be on his side, or the one who blasts reality square between the eyes.

And, are we left with a mystery to solve on where Ron Paul and now Rand Paul really stand? Is that grey area really good enough at this point in American history? At a crossroads doesn’t even begin to explain the magnitude where truth is needed, and clarity should be a given.

Ron Paul is at best a mysterious, mythical father figure that we “hope” sees it the way we would like him to see it, and we must somehow read between the lines, because, “shhhh, he can’t lead on that he is really one of us, and he can’t bring it up”.

That argument has now become dangerous for a myriad of reasons, most of which were uncovered eloquently by Webster Tarpley.

As Dan Rather would now reflect on his memoirs of past, and future moving forward, “follow the money”.

Money and promise of payoff are there. Ron Paul may have conveyed some interesting ideals over the years, but he is ready to retire and hand it over to Rand from here.

Some say that it is Rand that is to blame and will ruin what dad has accomplished. I prefer to think based on the support one has for the other, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The mission at this point might be to accept the limitations of not taking it to where it needed to go a long time ago. To compromise oneself on exposing full truth is not good enough. Or, to deceive or have some faction of supporters wishing you were on their side may even be worse.

We are talking life and death here.

Tarpley mentioned something that should be important to us all. He suggested that Rand may be persuaded to allow a war with Iran. That would mean he would be a bigger ally to Romney, and might explain why a meeting took place between them. You would have to surmise that the “meeting” was the result of past “working together”, and to get to the point of deciding if he would be second in command must suggest they are pretty good bedfellows regardless of the outcome. Stop making excuses that I hear, like, “well, if Rand turns out not to be VP, then we can all go back to the Paul love-in, right?”

I don’t think so. For now, I will leave you with this. Despite the exposing of the shill who is Glenn Beck, we can safely say he did his political hit piece in 2007 for a time like this:

Might explain why a third party run is not in the picture. It would take votes away from Mitt Romney, and it would not allow a show of how many Patriots would support Ron Paul. A shame if it was all a smokescreen.