I was inspired to do a quick op-ed piece from a conversation with Ted Rubinstein and others weighing in on Alex Jones and his sale of gold.
For anyone new tuning in or if your sort of new to “conspiracy research” as weak as analogies can be it does help simplify a complex and perplexing concept. So here’s a quick analogy of conspiracy research:
Researching conspiracies is like being a scuba diver an a really dirty, murky and dark fast flowing river. Some things like ship wrecks aren’t going anywhere (like the JFK Assassination) and can be dangerous to explore (especially inside!), there’s pieces missing and nobody is sure exactly how it sank but there’s lots trying to find out. Sometimes you glimpse a fish nobody has seen before, other
times just shadows suggesting larger darker creatures in the depths. However unless you bring something back to the surface to show the world it’s just another fish story. And it is a fast flowing river at least on the surface (ie current events).
Also using the same instance you have to come to the surface from time to time in order to decompress, get more air as one can’t live in this river. If you do bad things can happen, those shadows can lead to seeing things that aren’t there meanwhile missing the big fish that just passed by behind you. -end analogy.
Now to the “Problem“. Many conspiracy researchers, because its not a “theory” if it’s a fact, come to different conclusions and see things from different angles than others do. Some don’t come to the surface again to decompress (remember the analogy?) and funny things start to effect their perception.
It’s a fine line at times between awareness and paranoia. “They” are watching you. However let’s not think any of us are that important that there is an FBI van waiting down the street and using VanEck phreaking techniques to see what your typing on your computer monitor. That would be NSA‘s job, lol, just kidding folks.
The following is an excerpt of the aforementioned conversation about Alex Jones selling gold while talking about conspiracy therories of the Boston Bombing:-note- Ted has given me permission to use some of the conversation for this op/ed. I use initials for the other participants. Also in trying to create something good out of something bad I have included some links throughout to different aspects on the “conversation”. -EvS
- (unidentified participant)- “scumbag”
- Ted Rubinstein –people seem to love him or hate him but few are like me apparently (somewhere in the middle)
- CC –Sorry Ted Alex Jones is a nut I certainly buy into conspiracies but some of his stuff is so way over the top I sim
- CC- Ply cannot take any of his stuff seriously he is just another Jim Fetzer but he has a mic
- Ted Rubinstein I agree he can seem rather nutty but much of the information he imparts comes from generally reliable sources. He tends to spin things in a manner that goes overboard a lot…
- EvS -he’s like any other normal human being. full of faults,opinions,likes,dislikes, prejudices,etc…. as well as potential. I think his heart is in the right place , just needs to calm the hell down sometimes, lol. the problem is that people unfairly put others on pedestals then get all hurt when those people dont live up to their expectations.
-
SH- Alex Jones is an op, and from this report his links to the gold cartel is no surprise, nor his is 50 man support staff. He is the controlled opposition, and the appearance of Chip Berlet in this is intended to set up Ford Foundation Funded Berlet as his dialectic opponent in the press.
-
Ted Rubinstein I’m a little surprised to hear this (rather tired) “controlled opposition” theme from yourself, Steven, but it perturbs me that in his hawking of gold he shows no cognizance of being familiar w/ the important book Gold Warriors. As for your point about Berlet it is not entirely clear what you’re implying there. I get that you’re not a fan of him or AJ however…
-
Ted Rubinstein it’s hardly the first time the media turned to Berlet or others like him to denounce Alex Jones.
-
SH– Berlet’s participation with the FBI and CIA goes way back to his days in the student movement. LaRouche did a great expose on his roots, not that I care for LaRouche. I am very surprised you find anything redeeming at all in Alex, especially after his tampering with a TV cartoon show to make it appear the show had predicted the Boston Bombing. Alex is a quack, just like David Icke. Berlet is a spook. AJ makes no bones about funding training camps for the Zionist brigade. I just point out the obvious. Berlet was trained by the man who went on to run AIPAC, and they played a big role in fomenting our situation in the Middle East.
-
SH-You might like to check out my free ebook, published yesterday, which covers some of this ground….https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/324734From the origins of the Sicilian “men of honor” society in New Orleans, to the t…See More
-
Ted Rubinstein- I am unfamiliar w/ the tampering of the cartoon show. I listen to AJ on a regular basis just as I consult a wide plethora of other sources. My opinion of his output is that it’s a mixed bag to say the least. His take on the gun issue really sucks, that’s for sure…
-
SH -One thing you must understand about the international media Ted, you don’t get invited on the show unless they trust you. Which means you are either a straight-up spook, controlled in some way, or running on some paradigm they trust, like believing fantasies like the intelligence agencies aren’t deeply involved in illegal drugs and guns. Antony Sutton never got a review, much less appeared on a tv talk show.
-
SH –Read my book, I give AJ credit for solving the JFK first, unfortunately, he planted a rabbit hole at the same time…..by misidentifying the three tramps.
-
Ted Rubinstein sorry I can’t buy your point about the media. I hear that all the time and it’s demonstrably untrue. Sure they’d rather go to the kooky types like AJ than Sutton or Peter Dale Scott but I think you make a leap of logic there. Thanks for the heads-up r..
-
SH- By saying it was orchestrated by CIA counter-intelligence and run through the Cuban crew that had been assembled for a hit on Castro.I think you are being a little naive about the media if you think it is an honest an open system, and not a carefully controlled wag the dog movie in progress.
-
Ted Rubinstein FWIW Jones talks about intell agents and drugs on a regular basis
- EvS- “I saw a bumper sticker once that said “Rugby players eat their dead” got me thinking of “conspiracy theorists”. The term is not a great one I prefer researchers. however conspiracy researchers eat their own should be the slogan. there is an incredible amount of back biting
that goes on in the research community and it seems that calling someone a “dis-info agent” or “controlled opposition” is just the default for slamming someone you don’t like or disagree with. I’m not a fan of AJ but if he makes money from selling something who cares? It seems like some people say “well I could do that AJ is nothing special”. Well they’d be right he is nothing special but he did do it first, he (among others- like Art Bell and later George Noory and ) did get conspiracy research out of the dark basement and into the light of day and forcing MSM to actually address the real issues. How many times in the last year or so have we seen MSM actually reporting on things that many of us have been writing about for years? Quite a bit. If anything the work of lots of us out there however large or small in “getting the word out” owe quite a bit to people like AJ for being loud mouths and getting MSM attention. For myself when I started researching and writing my mission was if I could just reach a dozen people and wake them up I would be happy. AJ might be an ass and attention whore but I don’t know him personally and could care less. His actions have brought forward a lot more folks questioning the established lie.”-
end edit of conversation. from here it just devolved into infighting.
Well as you can see it turns from critique of a big name in the “conspiracy” world into attacking each other. All of the people involved are passionate people and none are agent provocateurs, however it easy to see how entrenched ideas soon break down into name calling instead of trying to let varying opinions be. There are many big name researchers I don’t agree with but you won’t see me on Youtube bashing them into the ground either.
Not unlike scientific research that should be subject to peer review, we (as conspiracy researchers)
need to avoid the same pitfalls (and backbiting) such as trying to make the evidence fitting the theory,protecting pet theories, cronyism, etc. Being able to accept new evidence and keeping petty jealousies in check would be a great thing. Maybe I’m dreaming in color here but maybe just maybe before someone open’s their yap saying “so and so is a Zionist,controlled opposition shill disinformation agent” try keeping it shut just for a minute and rethink it.
Really we don’t need threats of agent provocateurs Im sure most people in the conspiracy research world can do a fine enough job of dividing themselves and tearing each other to shreds without any help.
Luckily I have a good administrator (thanks Verno!) who keeps us grounded as he has a very skeptical and scientific fact based mind. He can be a general pain in the ass but does try to keep us flying off the handle and keep us accountable. Which when your dealing with the world of conspiracy research is necessary (along with peer review and second opinions) whether you agree with them or not!
Thanks for tuning in. Evil von Scarry