RBN Watch

[FrankDialogue]

You know, reading this thread made me ponder a few things.

On forums like these, there is a relative anonymity...Not a big readership, not a high profile.

Now take someone like Alex Jones...I don't care much for his style, at least the way it has evolved (or gotten worse) over the years...Some other issues with him, also...But, at the same time, Jones has brought the 911 issue into a high profile, and has influenced a lot of people to question 'official stories' about things...He has a very visible presence in what may be termed alternative media, with some spill-over into the mainstream.

But if you notice, and to the annoyance of many, Jones does point fingers at specific people randomly, and always makes a point that his information is based on 'their own documents' and mainstream news reports...One reason for this is the liability issue: You can get sued for slander, or worse, by making 'unsubstantiated' allegations in reference to certain events...You can bring a lot of heat down, and jeapordize positive things you have built up...Is this a compromise?...Yes, but most of life is built on a variety of compromises...Some would call it the 'art of the possible'.

Now, same with Ron Paul or David Duke...Paul is a very respected Congressman, and quite influential in his own way...If he chooses to steer clear of the 911 controversy, I can understand it to a degree...Now Duke has been a target for most of his adult life, slurred by media for seeking truth about race relations in his own way...Duke was arrested last year in Czechoslovakia for just being David Duke...I think both Paul and Duke have the same suspicions you and I have about 911, and are also very aware of the Jewish factor...One should not condemn either one for perhaps seeking to put emphasis on a broader picture of events...

Bollyn, he has brass ones, but has a much lower profile and also documents his findings merticulously...This lower profile may allow him to take more chances, so to speak...Also, Bollyn has his ass kicked by theZio-pimps and was driven out of his house in Chicago, so he has a real bone to pick with some people.

When criticizing some one, it is always important to put yourself in their shoes to an extent...I think that all the journalists and other 'truth seekers' discussed in this thread have made a positive contribution in some way, shape or form.

[solmax]

When criticizing some one, it is always important to put yourself in their shoes to an extent...I think that all the journalists and other 'truth seekers' discussed in this thread have made a positive contribution in some way, shape or form.

I agree. Whether we like them or not, we should use the good information in the alternative media to educate and inform others. We tend to forget that even in the alternative media, focusing too much on Israel/Zionism is bad for business because of advertising. At least get people out of the MSM box and get them to do their own research. Someone on LF used to say you have to peel the layers of the onion slowly or you will be overwhelmed with tears that blind you.

[LoneWolf]

Each of us that pushes for the truth, whether by shove or by a nudge, is adding to its momentum. Those not interested can at least do the truth the courtesy of staying out of its path. We can do without the distraction of those suffering from cognitive dissonance.

[FrontierJustice]

The question we should be asking is whether or not you want your movement to have high standards or not. Do you want to fulfill the Ideal, or set it all up for failure

The higher standards you have, the more you set a precedent for others to accelerate their learning, increasing your chances of developing an 'extra-ordinary' status quo amongst your people. A movement rife with personal failings of character and principle will not endure. I am not a fan of 'taking what we can get'. To perpetuate a half-lie (Arabs perped 9/11) is worse than not saying anything at all.

If you don't have high enough standards to hold these 'authorative' people up to, you have no real worthiness in defending them, and no place criticizing anyone else for that matter.

[LoneWolf]

If you don't have high enough standards to hold these 'authoritative' people up to, you have no real worthiness in defending them, and no place criticizing anyone else for that matter.

My standard is perfection but like the horizon, as you approach closer, it recedes into the distance. But that is it's essence, always ahead, never arrived at.

I hope what you said above is general. It gives the impression of granting carte blanche for judgment by all and sundry.

[FrontierJustice]

I hope what you said above is general. It gives the impression of granting carte blanche for judgment by all and sundry.

It was general, meant to be read and considered by anyone here. The last sentence was mostly a response to some of FrankDialogue's comments below.

The impression I meant to give is almost the opposite of the way you took it ...
What I mean is that this isn't about who's the classiest writer, or the most prolific etc. It's about who's for real, and who is not. Who has their lives staked in our ideals, and who is setting us up to be betrayed. Legitimacy is where everything begins. From there you can find out who's the 'best' amongst the genuine, and move to the next more 'purified' level, free of all the bullsh*t. Those truly invested in the welfare of their people are the ones who are for real; those only in it for themselves are compromised by a myriad of charactar flaws and moral failings, which guarantee to sabotage the emergence of any real movement, whether they intend it or not.

Some men and women are comprised of such goodness that they are beyond most people's 'judgment', but most are not. Some men are fit to judge, most are not. But cold hard scrutiny until trust is earned should be engrained in any one of us who would be asked to give their trust freely. Our trust is one of our most valuable assets. Hard to give, hard to earn. That's how it should be. That's how you build something that lasts.
People trusted Hal Turner, Alex Jones, Aryan Nations, 9/11 Truth, the Tea Party etc. But all they get out of it is a bunch of weak disillusionment. How is David Duke exonerating the Israelis for 9/11 any less regressive?

Everybody that's for real is just looking for each other.

Between this forum and Judicial-Inc I've learned more than all those 'big' names mentioned on this thread combined.

[FrontierJustice]

From Judicial's latest piece on Jesse Ventura:


All These Renegades Are Simple Propagandists

It's all a magical illusionist trick. It's simply "Look here, but don't look there". They want you to focus on thermite, building collapses, and Bush, versus the elite Israeli teams on the jets.

[solmax]

I do find it interesting that ABC has been spending a lot of time recently on kosher 9/11 conspiracy theories starting with its long-running late-night news program "Nightline" and continuing on its popular daytime show "The View". ABC has always been the most Zionist network out of the original Big Three (CBS, NBC, and ABC). Samuel Untermyer's German boycott speech in 1933 was broadcast on WABC Radio in New York and I have even heard that WABC-TV in the 1970's literally signed off the air with the Israeli national anthem "Hatikva" and the Israeli flag. Could Israel be subtly blackmailing the US Government with their kosher version of 9/11 (Bush/Cheney and the CIA did it alone) to get things going with Iran?

[FrontierJustice]

Just the term 'conspiracy theory' makes people laugh at the whole thing, not take any of it seriously. That's the purpose it serves for them to put it on the news -- to combat word of mouth.

So Jesse Ventura, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Alex Jones and all the jews in '9/11 Truth' get to represent the myriad 'official' alternate versions of 9/11. Doesn't get more credible than that

[solmax]

Just the term 'conspiracy theory' makes people laugh at the whole thing, not take any of it seriously. That's the purpose it serves for them to put it on the news -- to combat word of mouth.

So Jesse Ventura, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Alex Jones and all the jews in '9/11 Truth' get to represent the myriad 'official' alternate versions of 9/11. Doesn't get more credible than that

They would not be showing this if there was not a growing disbelief in the "Arab Cavemen Dunnit" fairy tale. There is something odd in the way ABC is resurrecting what was really a dead topic by choosing to cover an obscure truther convention in Pennsylvania and promoting Jesse Ventura's new book on a show very popular with housewives. They announced that they were giving away free copies of his book to everyone in the studio audience and the audience cheered loudly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CR5139AXnE&fmt=18

[LoneWolf]

But cold hard scrutiny until trust is earned should be engrained in any one of us who would be asked to give their trust freely.

So true...

p.s. wasn't really decided on how to take your earlier post...  probing a bit. 

[FrontierJustice]

No worries

[sushigirl]

Just the term 'conspiracy theory' makes people laugh at the whole thing, not take any of it seriously. That's the purpose it serves for them to put it on the news -- to combat word of mouth.

       Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim.
       However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains
       a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost
       superhuman power and cunning.

Exactly FJ, it is meant to be dismissive. Therefore it is quite common for people to say: 'You guys and your
silly conspiracies!'  (Including my own two sons - both - I am happy to report have seen the light by now.)

[FrontierJustice]

      Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim.
       However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains
       a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost
       superhuman power and cunning.

Exactly FJ, it is meant to be dismissive. Therefore it is quite common for people to say: 'You guys and your
silly conspiracies!'

Jews make the masses of dumb heads even dumber with these words they've formulaically 'charged' with connotations to suit their own purposes. Repetition on TV and radio is what enables it -- we can't combat them there at the moment so they try to squelch our best means of word-of-mouth (the internet). Repeat: "The iternet is where conspiracy theories thriiive ..."  
If we can break the intellectually numbing effect of their words with our own better words -- words that resonate with one's heart and intuition -- maybe a bunch of dummies could become just a few dummies ... A friend of mine told me once that it "insults his manhood" that he's expected to believe the 9/11 story.

(Including my own two sons - both - I am happy to report have seen the light by now.)

No small accomplishment. Probably the most important for all of us

[sushigirl]

Jews make the masses of dumb heads even dumber with these words they've formulaically 'charged' with connotations to suit their own purposes. Repetition on TV and radio is what enables it -- we can't combat them there at the moment so they try to squelch our best means of word-of-mouth (the internet). Repeat: "The iternet is where conspiracy theories thriiive ..."  

Thomas Jefferson penned a line back in 1787:

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." By 1807, in his seventh year as president and after seven years of being subjected to severe press criticism, he wrote: "I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity and the mendacious spirit of those who write them."

You'll be relieved to know that Jefferson did remain true to his primary principle: "The press," he concluded, "is an evil for which there is no remedy. Liberty depends upon freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost." He was right then, and we are right now, to prefer a free press, however flawed, to any controlled alternative.

No small accomplishment. Probably the most important for all of us

Perseverance (in small doses) paid off.