Saturday, February 25, 2017

Alex Jones and the boy who cried wolf

I see some attacks on Alex Jones in the complicit media lately, and I wonder: "what could they hope to accomplish?"

Here is the thing: nobody who was capable of watching alternative media has failed to grasp that our system is corrupt to the core, ideologically driven, and that the ideology in question is a cultural corrosive which has as its aim the final vitiation of all Constitutional restraints, and the institution in permanent power of an elite who aim to demonize and likely commit acts of mass violence against all dissent.

Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.  Simple enough.  And self evidently, all for our own good.  They are PROTECTING us, not oppressing us.  Because, you know, global warming and open bathroom rights for all.

So all ANY complicit media member has to do is say or even imply that somebody is NOT ONE OF US, and all the following evils have already been "tagged" onto that person.  They are, by dint of being accused of non-conformity, all of the following, plus whatever might seem to need to be tagged on: stupid, crazy, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, for polluting air and water, in the thrall of evil corporations, etc.  They have no real means of differentiating Bill O'Reilly from Alex Jones, and there is little point in doing so.  It might appear to enhance their attacks on Trump temporarily, but to what point?  Most of America isn't listening.  We showed that on Election Day, and they still have not processed it.  How much more hate does one need to gin up when people are already frothing at the mouths in the streets?

The people who respond to the Pavlovian call of "wolf" are already responding.  This number is unlikely to get any bigger, and seems on the contrary to be shrinking.  How long can you say the same stupid fucking things about everyone and everybody who disagrees with you before the spell starts wearing off?  That was the whole point of the fairy tale.

But what I myself would say about Jones is that for a very long time he was on the fringe even for me.  I would visit Drudge and Lucianne, mainly, sometimes Front Page Mag, and Arts and Literature Daily when I thought about it.  Yahoo on occasion, and of course Facebook.  That was about it.

But in the lead up to the election he was one of the only people talking about the polls being skewed.  He was one of the only ones talking about voter fraud.  He WAS the only one who seemed to share my growing sense that our system was being manipulated by a power elite.  That there is a "Superclass" seems to be beyond question.  Here is one book on the topic: .

The only questions are how homogeneous they are in their aims, and what those aims are.  Global Warming clearly seems to be one tool they use.  Unregulated mass immigration seems to have been another recent one used to radically alter the face of Europe.  The eradication of national borders seems to be another goal, one seemingly articulated by Hillary to an approving group of bankers who presumably where in this class.

So my standard line for some time has been that Jones is half crazy, but he still needs to be paid attention to.  He says things nobody else is saying, that are often--not always, but often--worth listening to.

It really is odd that we seem to live in a time when people demand "purity" from their news, that they never say anything speculative, even when in fact, of course, virtually everything most "news" sources says is either speculative or, worse and more commonly, intentionally misleading and manipulative.

Jones--and he is like Donald Trump in this regard, even though I think Trump is much smarter--speaks his mind. He says what he is thinking.  He is not trying to footnote his every comment.

And obviously he brings emotion to the whole thing.  He loses it on camera sometimes.  He explodes because he is ANGRY at the abuses he feels are happening.

Intelligent people who actually took advantage of their education to improve their ability to process information never need fear contrary viewpoints.  If they are farcical--as is the case, when you get to its root, with Global warming--they can be ignored.  If they seem clearly to be true, then they should be listened to.

But there is this wide, large category of "maybe true".  This is where alleged 'professionals" get cold sweats.  This is where information which contradicts long held views, or viewpoints which they have worked long and hard to reach, becomes dangerous.

But simply because it is emotionally dangerous to the people we are indoctrinated to blindly trust as "experts", who have failed us again and again, does not mean that we should stop listening, or refuse to form our own viewpoints.

The whole merit of that ideational plurality which is protected by free speech and the freedom of religion, is that when you have many competing ideas, the best ones rise to the top.  ONLY when you suppress viewpoints can they fail to win the attention and respect they deserve.

And modern science too--if I might shift gears slightly, since this points is patently obvious with regard to political commentary masking as journalism--regrettably, shows again and again and again that even though they have the freedom of speech in theory, our systems have gate-keepers who would be perfectly in place in any totalitarian regime, and who ironically enough are WORSE than those in many totalitarian regimes.  Much of the most interesting work in fields like psi, and what might be called "alternative biology" has necessarily been done in Communist nations like the USSR and China, because the American censors are WORSE than theirs.

The Communists only cared about political purity.  They had and have no scientific ideas they have to protect.  That is not the case in America, and most of Europe generally.

My vote is that the crazies, so called, always get to speak their voice, and get an honest hearing, at least if they meet very, very minimal standards.

As I think about it, in the scientific community, in this country especially, and especially in anything that touches the American Medical Association, we have SHOW TRIALS, do we not?

I think of Cleve Backster, where the only attempted replication of his work was not done following his clearly stated experimental protocol, which then ironically enough said that his protocol was not "scientific", even though he regularly demonstrated his results to any visitors who came by his lab for DECADES.  This was BIG NEWS in certain circles.  He was crucified in public, after a mockery of an effort at replication.  Their interaction with his work was exactly homologous to the efforts of the Soviets and their satellites to conduct honest criminal trials of dissidents who had already been convicted.

If you read his book, Primary Perception, you see the ridiculousness of the "scientific community" claiming to have tested and falsified his very long term experimental work.  He does through it in some detail, since he was an honest person.

Hell, even MythBusters accidentally validated his work, then made sure the next experiment failed.

As Sir Winston put it: 

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

I could go on--there are many examples I could cite off the top of my head--but I have things to do.

The POINT is that if you are not regularly assuming that much of what you were taught COULD be wrong--not, note, that it IS wrong, but that you could be much stupider and more ignorant than you presently realize--then are missing half of the data which is zipping by your head.  Some of it you can throw away immediately.  But much of it, I would suggest, intelligent people will file away for possible future use.

If you are building anything--and building better ideas clearly applies--you are only as good as the tools and materials you have available for your use.  Ponder that.

No comments: