Predictive Programmer Fêted by Alex Jones?

Mike Judge gave an interview to Alex Jones a couple of months ago, but I just remembered that Jones once accused Judge (in cahoots with Vice magazine) of using Beavis and Butthead in predictive programming.  He railed against an illustration in a 1994 issue of Vice, featuring Beavis and Butthead as Al Qaeda terrorists circling the Twin Towers in little planes, as just another example of THEM priming us for our own destruction. The problem was, that issue of Vice was actually a parody of a 1994 magazine to commemorate the magazine's 15th anniversary; the entire thing was written, illustrated, and printed in 2009. Vice explained this before Jones went on the air with his "Beavis and Butthead predicted 9/11" rant, so a 30-second 'Net search would have saved him some embarrassment. 

Was Judge aware of this? It wasn't brought up during the interview.

There are really only two possibilities here:
1. Jones realized he was mistaken about the Vice thing, but (as usual) decided not to issue a retraction.
2. Jones still thinks Judge is part of the Satanic cadre that uses entertainment to program the sheeple, but had him on his show anyway because he would be a big draw.

The Boston Bomb Drill

In the last post, I gave you a quick rundown of the Boston theories Infowars has presented thus far. I deliberately left out their "best evidence", however, because that requires a post all its own. So here it is. 

As you probably know, one of the most popular theories about 9/11, 7/7, and other "false flag events" is that training exercises and emergency drills were deliberately conducted in proximity to the events in order to create confusion, delay emergency response, and provide an excuse for perps to be in the area. Infowars tried to claim that such a drill was carried out just two days before the Norway attacks, but that turned out to be a fluke (the drill was actually conducted over two years earlier).

On the day of the Boston bombings, Infowars and Natural News reported that another of these fake drills was taking place at the marathon, with bomb-sniffing dogs stationed at the start and finish lines. Most damning of all, public announcements were warning the crowds to stay calm before the bombs went off, assuring everyone that any disturbance or increased security presence was merely part of a "training exercise".
Let me rephrase that. It would be damning, if Natural News and Infowars could get their stories to sync and could offer more than a single source of information. NN reported the drill warning was given after the bombs went off, while Infowars reported it was given prior to the explosions. Both reports cite the same source, University of Mobile running coach Alastair Stevenson. It seems the Infowars report might be the more accurate of the two, as another source indicates Stevenson was just returning to the area when the explosions occurred. In this account, Stevenson heard the warnings about a training exercise when he started the race.
The presence of a bomb squad and bomb-sniffing dogs at the start line seems peculiar, especially in light of the fact that the Boston Police Commissioner stated police had “no specific intelligence” there was a drill being conducted that day.
So far, however, Mr. Stevenson is the one and only witness to report seeing bomb-sniffing dogs prior to the bomb blasts. Any story that relies on a single source for its very existence is weak, to say the least.

Infowars Nightly News presents a not-so-special report on a decade of 9/11 Truthiness

This "special report" by Aaron Dykes, one of the first broadcast on Infowars Nightly News, was a whole week in the making. How very sad, then, that most of it can be demolished in five minutes or less.
Every single piece of "evidence" presented is old stuff that has either been discredited, or never really served as evidence of an Inside Job in the first place. A few of the statements are flat-out wrong.
How this in any way qualifies as a "special report" or "news", I don't know. If Jones wants to be the new Rupert Murdoch, and if Aaron Dykes fancies himself the next Wolf Blitzer, they need to step it the hell up.

Jones: "I did say they were gonna blow up the World Trade Center and blame it on bin Laden two months before 9/11..."

If you listen to the prediction Jones made on July 25, 2001, you'll hear for yourself that he wasn't anywhere near this specific. He did mention bin Laden, but did not provide a timeframe, a target, or a means of attack. When he mentioned explosives, he was referring to the '93 World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings. When he mentioned the World Trade Center, he was again referring to the '93 bombing.
What he does not mention is that the late conspiranoid broadcaster William Cooper gave an identical warning (also mentioning bin Laden but not a specific target) a full month earlier. We don't know if Jones was aware of Cooper's prediction at the time he made his, but he sure as hell knows about it now. It's been all over the Internet for more than a decade.

Dykes (with all the enthusiasm of a dead squid): "Homeland Security, empowered to fight terrorism, has instead been turned against the American people, targeting returning veterans, Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists, Federal Reserve activists, and more."

Really? How many Tea Partiers, U.S. vets, Constitutionalists, and anti-Fed activists are in Gitmo? How many have been prosecuted or court martialed for terrorist activities? How many have been the victims of extraordinary rendition, handed over to foreign countries to be tortured? How many have been detained indefinitely without charge?

And speaking of returning vets, take a look at what Alex Jones has to say about them...



Dykes: "Six of the ten [9/11] Commission members stated their disappointment with the conditions and their doubt about the conclusions: Co-chair Lee Hamilton who admitted they were set up to fail, Bob Kerrey who said there was ample reason to suspect there was an alternative to what was outlined in the version, Timothy Roehmer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting", John Leimer who said, "We purposely put together a staff that had had, in a way, conflicts of interest", and 9/11 Commission member Max Cleland resigned after concluding it was..."a national scandal", and that the investigation was compromised, and senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer wrote an entire book, saying he was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described..."

The Commission had to deal with lying, dissembling, and obfuscating on the part of government employees (from the FAA, NORAD, FBI, etc.) who were desperate to shift culpability from themselves onto... well, anyone else. At some point, every commission member was frustrated by this. But the report issued by the 9/11 Commission was unanimously approved by all members, and there was no minority report.

Lee Hamilton co-wrote an entire book defending the work and conclusions of the commission. His complaint that the commission was "set up to fail" was directed at the officials who did not cooperate fully with the commission's investigation, not at the commission itself. The same complaint was expressed by John Farmer, who was justifiably outraged by the lies initially told to the commission by NORAD officials (as you probably know, NORAD/NEADS tried to make itself look more competent than it actually was by claiming, falsely, that it came close to intercepting at least one of the hijacked airliners; later, under oath, the officials had to admit they lied).

To date, not one member of the 9/11 Commission has criticized its findings. And not even Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission because of White House stonewalling, has ever suggested that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack instigated by anti-American extremists.

Dykes: "NIST was unconfident in its own conclusion. After years of delay in its own report... finding only a low probability that the building [Building 7] fell due to fires."

I'm going to be blunt and crude here: Only a fucking idiot would make this mistake. The "low probability" statement was made by FEMA, not NIST. NIST was unequivocal in its "Summary of Findings". This was reported on Infowars itself just three years ago.
FEMA spent less than 6 months studying the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings. NIST spent over 7 years completing its investigation.

Dykes: "Testimony from police, firefighters, and rescue workers who witnessed bombs that day were ignored by the 9/11 Commission."

No one "witnessed bombs" on 9/11. Most people heard incredibly loud, percussive noises (what they described as explosions) as the buildings fell, which of course is to be expected when any large building collapses.
It's true that not every first responder present that day was allowed to testify for the Commission, but I don't understand how hearing numerous people say "I heard loud noises" could possibly have aided the commission members' work or resulted in different conclusions than the ones they ultimately reached.
Contrary to what we've been told in this special report, NIST did explore the possibilities that demolitions or unconventional weaponry were involved in the collapses, as stated in their "Summary of Findings". They found no evidence to support either notion.

Dykes: "Video evidence showed molten steel, but NIST denied this."

The narrator is referring to the same 9/11 footage that you'll see in the video below. The molten metal looks like steel, but it wasn't. When pouring out of something, molten aluminum can lose its distinctive silvery sheen and appear just as fiery-orange as melted steel. The maximum temperatures of the fires in the World Trade Center towers could significantly weaken steel, but not melt it. You can argue this until the world ends. You can do all the rinky-dink backyard experiments you care to do. The facts won't change.




Dykes: "Whereas early polls in 2002 showed very few skeptics, as the years moved along, there have been more and more who doubt the official story. In 2006, more than 80% of people were found questioning the official 9/11 account, and more than a third believed it was an inside job or that the U.S. government had a role in the actual attacks."

What does this prove? That people believe in conspiracy theories. I didn't need a poll or a "special report" to tell me that.

Dykes: "FBI translator Sibel Edmonds broke her gag order to blow the whistle on wiretaps she translated leading up to and including the day of September 11, proving that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were working for the U.S government up until the day of 9/11."

We aren't told where or when Edmonds revealed this information, but it was on a 2009 broadcast of The Mike Malloy Show. Edmonds said, "I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." But in the same interview, she unequivocally stated she does not possess any evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job. Her knowledge extends only to operations in Central Asia. You can read a transcript of the interview here.
Two years later, she still hasn't elaborated on the precise nature of that "very intimate relationship."

Dykes: "As the group [Al Qaeda] was re-branded as an enemy, its iconic leader, Osama bin Laden, a billionaire whose family has heavy business ties with the West, and whose codename was Tim Osman..."

Hold it right there. You are kidding. No one in their right mind would accept the idiotic "Osman" story concocted by the late conspiranoid Ted Gunderson and his favourite source of misinformation, jailed drug dealer Michael Riconosciuto.
If you carefully review and examine all the many bizarro claims made by Gunderson and/or Riconosciuto over the years, and you still find either man credible, you may need to see a professional ASAP. Riconiscutio, in particular, is a troubling character. In the '80s he was a close associate of serial killer Philip Arthur Thompson, who employed thugs to abduct young women for him to torture.
I know Alex Jones buys the Osman story, though.

Dykes: "Chuck Norris is only the most recent of many prominent citizens who've become concerned about videos depicting white Americans, not Muslim radicals, as likely terrorists."

This is a reference to the cheesy, less-than-helpful PSA videos the Department of Homeland Security produced as part of its "See Something, Say Something" campaign. I'm guessing the DHS chose to use Caucasian actors in these videos to avoid cries of racial profiling. But hey, if Chuck Norris is worried about it...

Dykes: "The truth about 9/11 has a dangerous parallel to the JFK assassination."

Yes, Mr. Dykes, indeed it does. As amply detailed in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, conspiranoids have been crafting bullshit theories out of nothing for half a century. And they will continue to do so forever. The question is: Will you believe them?

Clarification for those who might not have been paying attention

Kevin Barrett says I should be ashamed of that last post; it's "libelous", because Jones didn't blame "the Jews" for the museum attack, he blamed the ADL (which has it coming, in his opinion).

I did not write that Jones blamed "the Jews". He blamed a specific group of Jews, plus unspecified government agents who used the attack as part of a "takeover drill". I know that Jones and Bermas didn't blame Jews in general for the shooting - in fact, they even mentioned, sarcastically, that they would probably be accused of blaming all Jews. So they know how it sounds when they say the ADL was involved with this shooting, that the ADL and other Jewish interest groups are thrilled when anti-Semitic hate crimes occur, and even that Michael Richards' on-stage tantrums are probably sponsored by the ADL so that they'll have an excuse to push for hate-speech legislation (as if they'd have to create anti-Semitic or racist rants for that purpose).

Most of the time, Jones is even less specific. When he stated that the Columbia shuttle disaster was a "tribal bonding mechanism", designed to steel the U.S. for aggressive actions in the Middle East, he didn't offer up any suspects at all.

I welcome comments from Truthers, but please, folks - if you have publicly accused Larry Silverstein, Amy Goodman, or anyone else of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, don't try to lecture me about libel.

Jones on the "No Planers"

From Friday's broadcast: "My experience with no planers was people who looked like they were drunk, screamin' and yelling, dancing around half naked, vomiting on street corners in front of news cameras, in what looked like a set-up to make 9/11 Truth look bad."

Alex, Alex, Alex...

No one needs to make 9/11 Truth look bad. Truthers do that all on their own. Even many of the more "mainstream" Truthers insist upon associating with Holocaust deniers, making bizarre and insupportable accusations, and ranting about Zionism or Freemasons. And let's not even go into the Truthers who demand full disclosure of the government's role in reverse-engineering UFO technology, or the Truthers who subscribe to fundamentalist Christian lunacy, or the Truthers who think that zero point energy is being suppressed, or the Truthers who freak out at the mere mention of the word "tapwater".

In short, the Powers that Be don't have to hire unemployed actors to pose as Truthers and make asses of themselves in public when you guys obligingly do it for free on a regular basis. You're making Their job so much easier than it has to be.

Thoughts on ZZZZZ Day

Yesterday was Z Day, the day on which Zeitgeist fans all over the world congregate to be paranoid, self-righteous, and misinformed together.

I have to give Peter Joseph a small amount of credit for at least trying to make the world a better place, but there is just no way that such simplistic conspiranoia is going to transform our lives and right all the wrongs of modern society. Watching Zeitgeist for the first time, I was reminded a little of Scientology propaganda films.

Alex Jones dislikes the film and distrusts the filmmaker primarily because there's too much New Agey "occult" stuff involved, because Christianity is attacked, and because there's too much "science" behind Zeitgeist: Addendum. Other than that, as I noted yesterday, he agrees with 90% of what's in the film. And why wouldn't he? It's the same stuff he talks about. I would like to point out Jones's self-contradiction (call it hypocrisy if you like) in criticizing the religious portion of Zeitgeist; virtually all of that information came from Jordan Maxwell, and Maxwell has been a guest on Jones's show, spouting very similar stuff. Only on Jones's show, he's careful to criticize and slander only Judaism.
Incidentally, it's interesting that Jones rants against Theosophy and the New Age beliefs derived from it all the time (not because they're a crock, but because it's all occultic), yet he hosts Michael Tsarion (a fervent fan of HPB) and Jordan Maxwell (whose name might actually be derived from HPB's work, though he denies it).

I was going to do a slew of posts on how derivative, simplistic, naive, and fact-free (not to mention boring) Zeitgeist is, but I really don't feel like it at the moment. Let's face it, the folks who really, really dig Zeitgeist are pretty much beyond hope, anyway. So I'll just summarize my thoughts on the *film*.

Part I: In which Peter Joseph alienates the majority of his viewers by trying to convince them that Judaism and Christianity are just a retooling of ancient solar cults and astrotheological concepts. Basically Brian Flemming's documentary The God Who Wasn't There blended with the "research" of Jordan Maxwell, the guy who says, "'Christ' means 'oil'. That's why we have Crisco", "98% of Judaism is worship of the planet Saturn", and "Zionism is a Teutonic/Germanic death cult."

Part II: This part promises to explore myth as sacred narrative. Maybe things are looking up for this film! But no. It's all about 9/11. Loose Change, only looser. Includes audio by Ted Gunderson, fer crying out loud. The guy who told Geraldo that 50,000 Americans are sacrificed by Satanists every year. The guy who says Osama bin Laden is really "Tim Osman". The guy who subscribes to the Sonny Bono assassination-by-tree theory.

Part III: Mangled information about central banking and the Federal Reserve, which Joseph expands on in Zeitgeist: Addendum. Nothing you can't get from Birchers or Ron Paul. If the Fed deliberately implodes the economy for the hell of it, would someone please explain to me why Bernanke was sweating bullets on 60 Minutes last night? He looked awfully twitchy for a guy who knows exactly what he's doing.
The banking stuff is capped off with some Aaron Russo footage about the illegality of income tax. I assume it's merely coincidence that the people who say income tax is unconstitutional are the same people who just happen to owe millions in back taxes...
Next up is a relatively sensible overview of false flag operations, war profiteering, divide and conquer strategies, etc. I'm not saying this part makes sense; I'm just saying it makes more sense than Ted Gunderson and Jordan Maxwell.

Zeitgeist: Addendum features the total b.s. of John Perkins, conman/author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, as well as lots more ill-informed bitching about fractional reserve banking. But Addendum also features the point of Zeitgeist, the whole reason Joseph created this hot mess in the first place...

The Venus Project

What does the Venus Project want us to do, exactly?

It was dreamed into existence in the mid '70s by a resident of Venus, Florida, inventor and futurist Jacque Fresco. He envisioned an end to poverty via the development of technology that will make more resources available to more people, as well as the replacement of our money-based economy with a resource-based economy.
It's quite similar to Buckminster Fuller's "ephemeralization", which won't work either.
Both Venus and ephemeralization seem to be based on the Smurf model of society. Baker Smurf will bake because he likes to bake, and will share his muffins with everyone freely. Papa Smurf will dispense wisdom because he's older and smarter than the other Smurfs. And Vanity Smurf will do everybody's hair because he's... well, I'll leave that one up to you to decide.

This will not work. Few farmers are going to produce free food for thousands of people out of the goodness of their hearts. In the Bible, farming was the very first curse that God placed upon man as punishment for his disobedience. I'm not saying this literally happened, but it does seem to embody an ancient and essential truth: Farming is really freaking hard.

What we would end up with under Venus would be an agrarian society in which everyone would have to do their own subsistence farming, build their own homes, and barter frantically for all other essentials. Hardly "freedom from economic slavery".
Also, you can eliminate money, but you can never eliminate greed. The unscrupulous among us will find ways to exploit any non-monetary system we create.

The Bottom Line

Zeitgeist concludes with the words, "A choice right now between love and fear."

Hmm. What does that leave out?

Oh, right. As Donnie Darko would say, "THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF HUMAN EMOTION!!"