April 9, 2011

My conversation with Max

04/11'11 My conversation with Max – chapter two

David Icke on 08/26'07:

"Alex Jones, Alan Watt, Greg Szymanski and others, including the Unhived Mind website (most users ever online was 131 on March 11, 2011), communicate some extremely valuable information, especially Alex and his team with their high profile in the US, and I wish them all well in their work. I just ask them to consider the fact that they, like all of us, do not know everything there is to know – nothing like. [...] So let's just chill out and allow each other to follow the path we choose to take and unite behind what we agree on instead of being divided by what we don't.

[Another irony is that Alan Watt agrees with Alex Jones about the Reptilian connection, but seems to resent what he calls the 'superstars' of conspiracy research, apparently Alex and myself, because they commit the cardinal sin of being well known and therefore able to communicate to a large potential audience. Watt, by keeping a much lower profile, is more credible, see, because 'they' wouldn't let the 'superstars' get to so many people unless we were in their pay, his whirring psyche concludes.
It gets even more complicated when you see Alex Jones named as an 'agent of Rome' on the Unhived Mind website, partly on the grounds that he allegedly won't allow the Roman Church connection to be discussed on his show. But the same people dub me an agent of Rome when I have been talking and writing about that connection for years. Go figure.]

I have met as many closed minds in the 'conspiracy research community' as I have in the general population. They are just closed to different things, that's all.
Of course, people should question everything and everyone, including me, but that is no use at all to establishing the truth unless that questioning is done with an open mind.
If it is done from the perspective of a person's prevailing belief system all that happens is that those who don't fit the belief system in what they do and say are immediately dismissed or condemned.
That is not questioning, it is being a slave to preconceived belief.

I saw a wonderful example of this in an article in the London Daily Mail by a Melanie Phillips in support of Judeo-Christianity and attacking Professor Richard Dawkins, a 'rational scientist' who has been bashing religion for years along with any suggestion of life after death.
He has now made two television programmes bashing alternative healing methods, psychics etc., and this was the peg for the Phillips article.
Dawkins is actually a professional basher addicted to rubbishing other peoples' lifestyles and ideas.
I have debated with him at the Oxford Union at Oxford University and it is like being addressed by a wall. Nor, on that occasion at least, have I often witnessed such a poor presenter of his case or a more arrogant piece of work. I found him a very strange man indeed."

Modern militarized Corporate Feudalism

Now, you can take David's philosophy (or maybe piety – we will see) or take any other more or less popular "conspiracy theorist" alive or dead like the mentioned ones plus JFK, Jordan Maxwell, Frank O'Collins, Henry Makow, Terry Melanson, Tupper Saussy, Carroll Quigley, Jim Billington, C.T. Wilcox, The Informer, Craig Oxley, Samuel Morse, "The Talented Mr. Tarpley", Gerhard Wisnewski, Paul von Hoensbroech, simply anyone you know of, including Richard and his Peace Revolution partners, and how they stream their opinions, for some reason every single conspiracy researcher is solely focussed on the alleged conspiracy of elitist circles of the chosen and initiated without even pondering for a second why these supposedly oh so evil rulers have such an overwhelming fan following. All private pc web investigators who are thinking in conspiratorial termes seem to be exclusively interested in those who actually do rule, who do occupy the highest ranks in the offices (room for officers) of the hierarchy of modern militarized Corporate Feudalism, and totally ignorant about those who a) want to rule too, who want to be part of this modernized and globalized Egyptoid system of church and state and b) those who simply want to be ruled, you know.
And although no conspiracy believer shows the slightest interest in the mentality of those who want to be ruled, almost everyone of them surmises to have present himself as their spokesperson, right? So if that's not extremely onesided, illusory, nonscientific and romantic I don't know.

While you may think it would help to demonize the chief professional traumatisicians, like Eric Phelps and most of his followers do with the Jesuit, the Maltese, and other Catholic Knights, or like your instant water heater Alex Jones, who should be crowned as world champion in disintegration of information, uses his conspiracy business with a widely faceless global elite for, I'll show you that's not the case. On the contrary, it's probably the most contra-productive move ever a conspiracy teacher or preacher can do. It surely does not help at all because those top-level ultra liars and absolute sociopaths are only your second problem, your first problem is your neighborhood who had been fallen for them, now being in thrall to them, and you will make your neighbors even more furious by demonizing their fathlerly idols and favorites from all cultural spheres (authors, singers, scientists, actors, journalists, politicians etc. – all the "fastest nimble sheeps"), you see?
So it's a matter of principle where you can choose whatever you want as an example, alright?

"He exposes a fake political paradigm" – that's true – by replacing it with another paradigm which is as much as a fake, and as the result of the whole "9/11" terror and "truth" campaign we have now two big opinion parties who are fighting each other their preprogrammed battle of conspiracy theory to all eternity like the political parties do their little dialectical dance theatre every day. If the T-Rex Alex was on target in his investigation about the "extraterrestrial" metamorphosis from skyscrapers into city volcanos within seconds you weren't left with much unanswered questions, I guess. Now, do you know who planned and did it and why it was absolutely necessary after the rising of the cyberspace made the entire confrontation between the two military blocs of the East and the West "suddenly" obsolete? Okay then, tell me.

Max) The way I see Alex Jones is a bit like a business model, he obliviously made some deals with some precious metals dealers and probably have some kind of a arrangement with Ron Paul. The owner of the station sell coins. I'm aware of that, but I guess he have made some deals and he is comfortable with that.
As a information source I value him a top quality (miles better than corporate media). I wonder what fake paradigm Alex Jones is pushing.

I roughly agree with the following people:
David Icke: 89%
Allan Watt: 93%
Alex Jones: 93%
Sovereign Independent: 93%
Webster Tarpley: 93%
Vigilant Citizen: 90%
Peter Joseph and the Venus thing: 33%
James Corbett: 97%
On 9/11 Jim Hoffman: 97%

I don't see him as a prophet, but a valuable source of information, with his quality vastly offset his less good stuff.

Liz) I agree with your observations Max ... Years ago when Rich first started listening to Alex Jones we learned a lot from his radio show and his films, but I personally felt his presentation of the information was full of fear (and I felt stress and anxiety when I listened to his rants) ... and one of the reasons that Rich started creating his own podcasts was to present the information in a fear-free environment and to present the solutions which empower people (i.e. to learn our way out of our problems with cooperative learning, critical thinking and creative problem solving) ...
Alex does his best and if we see a place where he can improve, then it's up to us to create something which reflects that improvement (or, be the change we wish to see reflected in the world) ...
I personally feel appreciative that Alex does his show and creates his films, because his work (especially the short-comings) in part, led us down the path which inspired the creation of T&H :)

tt) Hey, nice answer, Max, great!
Was it your own idea or have you read my conversation with Tom before?
Because that's exactly what I was referring to with the greater idea behind Jon Stewart's recommendation for a media revolution (or at least for a new kind of media company) at a morning pint in New York City in autumn 2004.

The engine unit of the election process for the top journalists on the web

Your numbers of how much you take the interpretations and conclusions, the opinions and standpoints, and finally the worldviews and philosophies – theology: philosophies of God as Soul of a society, as kind of the social spirit of a certain type of civilization – of your, I guess, chief sources of information for real could be the rough sketch for future election polls. Not the ones for administrative representatives, the party politicians, but the far more important ones for media analysis representatives, the media politicians. And this is not abstract thinking, this happens already on a massive scale.
And the engine unit of this process can be described with Ted Wodoslawsky's accurate realization:

"When someone's world view is mirrored back to them, they don't see it as a biased opinion."

Which would explain the high approval ratings from you and why you can see the fake paradigm of the Corporate media landscape, but not the paradigm of a conspiracy believer.

You know what, let's take "fake" aside and replace it with "political", alright? Just to make it a little bit easier for me to do "my job as piety profiler" ... What if I would say that Alex Jones as the probably most popular conspiracy monger in America (and in the world, through "9/11") does basically the same what the big media corporations are doing day by day – totally unbelievable? But he actually does, in my opinion.
You know, I agree that he has a lot of top quality informations and your statement "I don't see him as a prophet, but a valuable source of information, with his quality vastly offset his less good stuff" is also fine with me.

Now, Richard said in August 2010

"Propaganda is everywhere. Every documentary, every film you've ever seen is a piece of propaganda, technically, because it's trying to propagate a view, it's trying to propagate certain pieces of information. It may claim to be objective, It may actually be near that goal, but at the end of the day, every single piece of media is a piece of propaganda. The only question is, is it helping you to expand your consciousness or is it working to suppress your consciousness?
Is it helping you to express who you are or is it working to suppress and tell you who you are?"

and I assume you think that T-Rex Alex is, in any case, one of them who do help to expand your perceptiveness and awareness. But is this really the case?

Fact of the matter is, he exclusively provides informations that fit in his believe system.
And I know enough examples where he has denied serious critiques from different directions, most often accompanied by personal attacks that were fiercely driven, you know, like inquisitors would react on objections.
In other words, he basically ignores the pool of information that the Corporate media are basing their convictions on (and vice versa), and he also vehemently throws out everything that lies behind his horizon of perception.
Meaning a) he only helps your consciousness to expand into the grid square of his beliefs and b) he is, instead of being a true mediator, as a self-declared "infowarrior" just another media politician and as such the perfect formidable opponent for the Corporate media officers to put in scene an endless play about what's real and what not.

Corporatism as life-style and ideology

Look, we have the Corporate "9/11 Terror" paradigm where "Everything is OK" ('but we have to erect a gapless surveillance system against terrorism from the inside' etc.) and we have the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy paradigm where more or less nothing is okay anymore. And by filtering out informations antagonistically, those two mainstreams generate this tremendous post-"9/11" dialectical maelstrom where everybody inevitably gets lost in the end. In my eyes, it's the same piety-strategical game as letting the political Left fighting the Right, you know, with the necessary amount of theatricality, of course, by the means of media politics now. Accomplished by the success of "9/11" and now controlled through the main protagonists of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Both sides integrate and desintegrate informations like they want to instead of synchronistically comprehend the undiminished, uncensored data volume.
So I think the business model of Mr. Jones is basically to embody the role of "the Rush Limbaugh of the conspiracy party", and his anticipated limbaughisms ought to be the reason why Liz and many others see him as a fearmongering propagandist. Although I'm not convinced that Alex is doing his best in enlightening the public, I can find it understandable when the Counter-Reformation feels like a conspiracy.
Here is why I believe it is not.

Take, for instance, Ray McGovern, a Jesuit-trained CIA top agent, who was presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for more than ten years ("from the JFK administration to that of G.H.W. Bush"), now a widely accepted leading figure in the truth movement. He was a poor kid from the Bronx. Now, do you think the whole mafia system of Corporate Capitalism looks to him like a conspiracy? Probably not, right?
Because the corporatocracy is only seen as a conspiracy by those who haven't internalized the spirit of Corporatism during their upcoming. For everyone else it's just simply a business model, which means a model to live after. Look at holy Hollywood: mafia movies are among the most beloved ones.
While Richard's research is focussed on the ubiquity of commerce, for me as a "piety theorist" the ubiquity of the mafia mentality is a little bit more important, even though you can't really separate the two.

And I tell you on this occasion why I have to stay anonymous with thoughts like this for the moment:
The high priests of this Corporatist system, the highest initiated into the "conspiracy", if you will, can handle any kind of conspiracy philosophy, conspiracy psychology, or conspiracy sociology and so forth – that's their innermost playground, so to speak – but I don't see any chance so far how they could possibly be able to stop you from clearing out the most sacred treasure chamber of these managers of pieties, which is, of course, their portfolio, so to speak, of "castles of piety".

Therefore my percentage of approval rate for researchers like Icke, Watt, Tarpley and any other conspiracy preacher lies by about "39, 43, and 43%" ... you get my drift?
Your idea to list the topics one covers is also pretty useful.
And you doesn't meant "obliviously", but obviously, right? Thanks for your inspiration, I totally appreciate this.

Max) As for the people who want to be ruled, I think a significant number of them are the result of a multi-generational indoctrination via the school system and the mind control/propaganda/culture. I can't imagine that they really want to be slaves (at least a large portion of them), also I agree to some extent to the farm analogy.

tt) True, Max. This corresponds almost completely with the opening of WYBM

"For thousands of years, the few have used knowledge as power to control the many and profit from their ignorance. Over hundreds of generations, the masses have outsourced their thinking and unquestioningly consumed products of deception. Today, as a result, the non-elected rulers continue to persuade us to adopt their limited perspectives. This series resurrects your ... and so on.

and I would subscribe to that without hesitating. But what the conspiracy theory has been missing at this juncture is to dig a little deeper, to say it politely.
You supposedly feel it yourself how vaguely you can make a point about the – let's say – psychology of the herd.
Conspiracy theory appears to me not to be that much interested in the whole picture, rather mostly in everything that proves its thesis of the existence of a conspiracy of cultural proportions. Conspiratologists pay nearly all their attention to the hierarchies of power, forgetting thereby that it is as much as important, if not even more, to understand the foundation of such hierarchies, which are the people who carry and feed them.
So end of story here, right? But at this point the piety theorist get just started ...