Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

New Alex Jones film: "The Obama Deception" - Junk propaganda featuring Tarpley (36 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    Trailer - The Obama Deception - A Film by Alex Jones

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od8bcCvX3jU&fea...

    I am very officially opposed to Alex Jones being a central figure in the 9/11 truth movement. He's a macho, xenophobic, charlatan, who very generally speaking dupes tens of thousands of insecure, working class, poorly educated, white, males into believing a bunch of jingoistic, pseudo-science, paranoid garbage.

    I will no longer say that he benefits the 9/11 truth movement in any important way that makes up for the damage he has been doing. His attitude and approach are exactly what I find most ugly about this country and a large percentage of its people. He has no respect for the complexity of history, the scientific method, or the process of journalism.

    I can't criticize anyone for having appreciated or supported him in the past. I've been on the fence about him for a long time. But with some attention paid to what he says, advocates, and who he promotes, I have made up my mind once and for all and hope that others will do the same.

    Alex Jones undermines the 9/11 truth movement by paralyzing his followers potential for effective political action by leading them to ever great fallacy, paranoia, and extremism. I think he should be actively discredited by people who care about the truth.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. emanuel
    Member

    I actively discredit Alex Jones. Let it be known far and wide! :)

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    That was a bit of a rant and it could get me into a bit of trouble. But I'm fed up feeling like AJ is off limits. AJ's legitimacy has only increased over the past few years. People eager for strength in numbers or simply in taking advantage of AJ's media reach have excused a great deal of crap.

    Such as this:

    Endgame Extra: Battle for the Republic

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJXJjdkNiw

    Unrelated image of AJ loving his gun. Video has since been removed.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. Durruti
    Member

    AJ spews junk. That's to be expected. That he is attempting to resuscitate the Larouche acolyte W. Tarpley is particularly loathsome and deserves to be condemned.

    However:

    People of principle need to stand up against the Obama cult NOW rather than later. Obama is already murdering children in Pakistan and threatens a much broader war with tens of thousands of new troops in Central Asia. This could very well lead to WWIII.

    The craven bastard has also praised Israel's wanton slaughter in Gaza.

    No more.

    Enough is enough.

    Obama to the Hague.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    Durruti,

    I used to respect your intellect, apparently being the most educated poster at TruthAction. You've lost much of that respect over your absolutely biased and at times totally laughable response to Obama.

    I'm not posting to the TruthAction forum anymore and your crap thread on Obama was the last straw. It was suggested to me that I apologize to you. I seriously considered that until I read your latest crap. Now I'm thinking of blocking you from this site.

    Your post quoting JohnA out of context with no link over at TruthAction is totally unacceptable. You manipulated John's words by taking them out of context, and you malign him and TruthMove in the process. This is what I expect from one of our disinfo artists.

    And the post above contains some silliness. Obama is murdering children in Pakistan? Obama to the Hague? You can't be serious. Totally laughable. And really a bit ugly considering that you are implicitly comparing 8 years of Bush and one week of Obama.

    Further, elsewhere you've attempted to cast those who disagree with your approach as being Obama cultists, as though anyone not as alarmed as you had bought into a fraud. This all reads as conservative flaming, not as someone in the middle, skeptical of both sides.

    I'm really not interested in discussing this with you, or defending my healthy skepticism of Obama, as you have well demonstrated that you are not able to have a reasonable discussion on this matter.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. christs4sale
    Administrator

    They are going to discredit better researched criticisms of Obama. In the past, I believed that AJ was simply a dupe to JBS ideas, but after going through Power on the Right, Inside the League and Deep Politics and the Death of JFK again recently, I think it might be less innocent. This is corroborated by his many dealings with Tarpley. He, like Les, has been one of the false duality figures people flocked to in reaction to the no plane phenomenon.

    Even though I am no fan of Obama and I can proudly say that I did not vote for him or anyone for that matter, but people (ranging from Ralph Schoenman to AJ supporters) do not seem to understand that there is a difference between Obama and Bush. If you do not see the difference, then you do not understand the divisions within US ruling class structure. As John Judge says, it is a debate between "an open fascist and a moderate conservative."

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    Obama is a moderate conservative?

    hmm...

    stricter car emission standards. rejection of free market capitalism. strengthening of FOIA laws. strengthening of women's reproductive rights. advocating separation of church and state. advocacy of large public works projects subsidized by the federal government. reversing GOP tax policy. advocate for the middle class.

    all kidding aside - can you give me an example of his conservative policies? and please do not say 'missile strikes in Pakistan." we've whipped that dead horse into pudding.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    I do not want the conversation here on TruthMove to devolve into resentment and accusations. I think the Obama critics are important to listen to, as well as the admirers and approvers. Also, nobody is going to get banned here unless it's a consensus decision.

    The people who can't acknowledge Obama's positive actions and qualities are being similarly irrational to the people who refuse to see how he is continuing in much of the same neo-liberal, capitalist, mainstream democratic party tradition.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    i just think they are jealous that we have the Obama Cult secret handshake and treehouse clubhouse treasure map- and they don't.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    I do not want the conversation here on TruthMove to devolve into resentment and accusations.

    Agreed. But my frustration, excessive or not, is based on what I view as 'resentment and accusation' being leveled against JohnA, "liberals," Obama supporters or wait and see types, TruthMove, and myself. My post here was a response to the following threads over at TruthAction.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...

    I did not want to bring this debate over here. The fact that Durruti brought it here and with such an obvious contempt for other posters to this forum is largely the reason why I responded so aggressively.

    I think the Obama critics are important to listen to, as well as the admirers and approvers.

    I don't get the sense that Durruti's critique of Obama is reasonable. Some of it is informative and beneficial to us all. Durruti is a very intelligent and generally informed person. But some of it seems biased and hurtful and even intent upon stoking frustration. I don't think anyone here is either a great admirer or total critique. We all see the positives and negatives. Durruti calling people Obama Cult members does not respect that fact.

    Also, nobody is going to get banned here unless it's a consensus decision.

    A good reminder I suppose. However, I would hope you assume I would not say that without thinking there to be due cause.

    The people who can't acknowledge Obama's positive actions and qualities are being similarly irrational to the people who refuse to see how he is continuing in much of the same neo-liberal, capitalist, mainstream democratic tradition.

    Sure. Once again, I don't think we have either of those groups represented here with the exception of Durruti. I'd very much like to see Durruti take it down a notch and respect the fact that this debate is not about absolutes. I think we have a lot to learn about Obama both positive and negative.

    But Obama is not Hitler, nor is he Bush. The extremity of that view is what got my shorts in a bundle.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    i think this problem goes far beyond simple opinions on Obama policy.

    for example:

    People of principle need to stand up against the Obama cult NOW rather than later.>

    This quote implies that the anti-Obama posters want to take their fight to not just the Obama administration itself - but to the people they deem as 'Obama cultists.'

    and who are these Obama cultists? anyone who does not buy into their extreme Obama is Hitler rhetoric? african americans who are moved to tears? liberals? moderates?

    this reminds me of the no-planers - declaring war on the non-believers - and accusing them of being war criminals and complicit in mass murder.

    and then we have this:

    The craven bastard has also praised Israel's wanton slaughter in Gaza.>

    this is simply not true. praised slaughter? while Obama has spoken about Israel's right to self defense in general terms - he did NOT praise the invasion - and he certainly did NOT praise it. This is called 'hyperbole.'

    what i see here is a 'slime Obama and his supporters at all costs' strategy - and that ain't what the TRUTH movement is about. Some of us would actually like to reserve the right to debate the issues freely, without fear of retaliation from the anti-Obama gestapo.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. NicholasLevis
    Member

    To think, back when I was still sane and able and not quite as bitter, several epochs ago in Web time -- more than seven years ago! -- I spent six months concertedly researching every conceivable aspect of the events of Sept. 11 in depth, arguing all sides of the case with myself before I started publishing anything about it on the Web, because I wanted to speak from facts and speak persuasively and, when the time came, act with others in an organized, effective, persuasive fashion to build a coalition that can win.

    And all I had to do was just wait a week and announce, Bush to the Hague!

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. NicholasLevis
    Member

    DELETED

    Posted 15 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    This is an actor.

    This picture merely crystalizes a long-standing conclusion, after years of semi-involuntary exposure to the character he plays.

    Alex Jones on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I am referring to what the spectrum of debate has been reduced down to specifically, but Obama is by no means outside of that spectrum. Although he is not an fascist like a Cheney, HW Bush, Reagan or Nixon, he is certainly a centrist at best. I admit, a moderate conservative is pushing it, but he definitely is not the progressive that most of his supporters are hoping he'll be. He might appear that way because of how he compares to everyone else in the three branches, but that is not saying much. We could argue that he will try to pull a Kennedy by playing the game while doing many noble things discretely, but Kennedy was tested and these tests radicalized him over time. I just do not see Obama going in that direction, but I could be wrong.

    Here is some of the stuff I see that wipes out his progressive credentials:

    • Moderation to gain Republican votes on his stimulus package even when it is not needed for it to pass.

    • His ending of the Iraq War policy only involves the pull-out of combat brigade. From everything I have read, mercenaries, private contractors and intelligence operations.

    • Monsanto-friendly Secretary of Agriculture

    • Rahm Emmanuel, DLC connections and all, as Chief of Staff

    • How has he rejected of free-market capitalism? Actually, I need to reframe that one, because this country's economic system would never in its history be defined as free-market capitalism. If you mean bucking the current economic system, how is he going against the status quo with his ideas and appointments?

    • You say middle class, but what about being an advocate for the poor?

    • Looks like crimes of prior administration will not be investigated.

    • Lack of ability to talk intelligently about Israel-Palestine conflict (Look at the roll call for the recent vote on this).

    • Focusing on the central Asian republics and Pakistan is what the end/faction of the ruling class that Obama represents the ascendency of wants to focus on.

    There is probably a lot more I could list. On the other hand, I think most of the tasteless smears that seem to be populating much of the 9/11 Truth Movement are counterproductive and in the case of the Kool-Aid reference insulting.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  16. truthmover
    Administrator

    (Note: While we would like the editing window to be longer, we are presently unable to change it. Please contact us if you need a post deleted or a formatting issue dealt with.)

    Posted 15 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    Thanks for the very reasonable posting christs4sale. I think our opinions on this are very similar. I suppose arguing with extremist views can make you look like you have extreme views in the opposite direction unless you are careful.

    And yet...how many times do I really need to indicate the balance in my perspective? I suppose for some my heavy tone might cancel out my appeals to moderation.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  18. mark
    Member

    I was pleased to waste my vote on Cynthia McKinney - that would be change I could believe in. But I also reject the false dichotomy offered by Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley, there are more points of view than choosing between the Obama administration and ultra right wing critics.

    I don't support these policies of the Obama Administration:

    troop increases for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) balkanization of Iraq (Biden's primary mantra for his recent Presidential campaign) AFRICOM Clean Coal Safe Nuclear Power grinding up national forests into "biofuels" More Highway Construction even though we're passing Peak Oil Monsanto at the USDA bailouts for Wall Street military bases all over the world renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping more military aid to Israel - we should divert those funds to compensate the Palestinians, as Israel already has enough weapons to kill everyone in the Middle East

    just a few of my objections.

    Democrats were afraid that the long shot candidacy of McCain would be the third term of Bush, but we got the third term of the Clinton administration instead.


    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/27-5

    Published on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 by CommonDreams.org What if Israel Were in Your Neighborhood?

    by Russell Mokhiber

    I left Washington last week when many friends and family members were coming here to celebrate the inauguration of our first African-American President.

    My eleven year-old son asked me -- why turn your back on Obama?

    I threw back at him Martin Luther King -- It's not the color of his skin, it's the content of his character.

    What does it say about Obama's character that he sides with the Israeli slaughter machine against those that it slaughters?

    What does it say about the character of his "progressive" supporters, who cry for joy at his inauguration, but say not a peep about the slaughter machine and its victims?

    ...

    Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Long as you focus on Obama either way, you will be fucked. It's secondary.

    The coalition who voted for him is an incipient popular front for the genuine transformation of America. INCIPIENT means not yet, but potentially. They're not naive, they didn't drink koolaid, they really do want change, they think they did the best they can under the circumstances, and they can and will be moved to demand change down the line. Do not insult them. Call on them to live up to their own hopes and to march in numbers to end the wars, roll back the national security state, win a measure of social justice.

    The crisis is real and will provide many surprises and dictate many measures that were until now unthinkable. Much is possible in this period, people have got to open up their minds to the possibilities rather than repeat the same rhetoric over and over. I will not accept a pedantic lecture from you, Mark - I know this shit just as well, have known it for just as long.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  20. mark
    Member

    I'm aware of the difference between the corporate powers behind Biden and Obama and the grassroots ferment that was used to ensure the D's "won" the White House this time.

    It seems that there's an inherent schizophrenia of the new administration: Obama in the past has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian plight but now that he's in a position to do something about it he shies away from expressing concern for the slaughter of Gaza.

    As I'm sure you know when Clinton/Gore came in to office the pressure from the "progressives" diminished and the corporate agenda escalated considerably. Clinton/Gore managed to get a lot of Reagan/Bush policies implemented , and obviously this is a huge concern for the Biden and Obama administration. (I think Biden will probably have more impact on foreign policy decisions than Obama, given Biden's promotion of Iraqi partition and his three decades service in the Senate.)

    The main thing that will probably mitigate against this repetition is the crash of the global economy -- it will be difficult to maintain the illusion of normality as "Peak Money" craters the financial system.

    My guess is when some of the euphoria about the symbolism of Obama evaporates there will be more opportunity for grassroots pressure for the "living up to their own hopes."

    The writer Chris Floyd recently wrote that a useful guide would be "What if Bush Did It?" What if Bush cut promises of more transit funding? What if Bush gave orders to attack Pakistani villages or to escalate in Afghanistan? What if Bush appointed a USDA Secretary who flies on Monsanto private jets and supports frankenfood?

    One standard for both parties.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  21. JohnA
    Member

    It seems that there's an inherent schizophrenia of the new administration: Obama in the past has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian plight but now that he's in a position to do something about it he shies away from expressing concern for the slaughter of Gaza.>

    and he's been in office a whole week!

    Israel rushed to pull out of Gaza before the inaugaration. not sure what that means - if anything. but it could mean that more was going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.

    i wouldn't be so quick to assume Obama will adopt a 'blank-check' policy with Israel yet. we are going to need time to see in which direction things gravitate.

    i know Jimmy Carter is literally foaming at the mouth lobbying the public for the chance to mediate a lasting two-state solution in the region. and, from the way he talks it sounds as if he does expect movement on the issue.

    but - we shall see - and i think we also should assume that not all presidencies wear their diplomatic efforts of their shirtsleeves. it took us 40 years to find out that Robert Kennedy was quietly mediating behind the scenes - off the radar - for a solution to the Cuban missile crisis.

    i think its silly for people to attempt to pass judgement - one way of the other - on Obama's Israel policy, in his first week in office - when NONE of us know what might be going on behind the scenes.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  22. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Dupe

    Posted 15 years ago #
  23. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Dupe

    Posted 15 years ago #
  24. NicholasLevis
    Member

    JohnA:

    Note 2 quite recent votes of Sen. Obama: FISA and TARP. What interchangeable ideological label applies to those?

    How about, fucked up?

    MarkR:

    the grassroots ferment that was used to ensure the D's "won" the White House this time.

    Please. We all know the scam of the system. Including a great many of Obama's voters. A great many of them. Don't be condescending. They chose something because they honestly hoped it would be better, right or wrong. Because they wanted more peace and justice, rather than less, and thought this was the best they could do.

    They are an emergent majority popular front for peace and justice. The first and largest in the US since the 1970s, I do believe.

    Imagine the following hypothetical: What if, in the 2008 election, there had been no "using" of the electorate? No ideological patterning, no myths about America, no cover-up of its policies, no legitimation of the two-party system as natural, no corporate media manipulations, omissions, false "balance" doctrines or lies of any kind. Imagine they'd just told the truth about the last eight years and the biographies and qualifications of the candidates on offer.

    In that case: What do you think the Republican vote would have been? 24 percent? 16 percent?

    Thesis: Without consant propping from the media, the Republicans would have ceased to exist several years ago.

    Now tell me more about the manipulated 2008 results!

    Recall also that not so long ago, instead of claims a majority was manipulated, you could have been writing this: "The election fraud and Supreme Court intervention in violation of the Constitution that brought Bush to power in a coup." Hm, I think you probably have written something that sounds like that.

    Or "the tainted and suspicious results of Ohio."

    Do you think this doesn't matter? Why do these parties and candidates make such an enormous effort to beat what they think is the other side - for your entertainment?

    When was the last time the real winner of a presidential election was allowed to take office? When was the last time a legitimate majority voted for the winner?

    One standard for both parties.

    Excellent idea. Now tell me: What was the worst thing the Democratic Party did on the federal level from about 2000 to 2009?

    (cue Final Jeopardy music...)

    Hm, could it be this?

    Facilitation & legitimation of a regime that came to power by fraudulent election and unconstitutional procedure. Total lock-step in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Voting overwhelmingly for almost every single one of this regime's provisions, wars, attacks on constitutional liberties and rights. Refusing to acknowledge that the regime had openly declared a proudly lawless doctrine of executive power that amounted to tyranny. Complete failure to exercise the most basic oversight or opposition functions essential to democracy and the rule of law. Looking on

    Hmmmm... what else did the Democrats accomplish in the last eight years? Oh, right: nothing. Taking impeachment "off the table."

    Knowing all you know, are you really going to help the Democrats allow the worst criminal cabal in this nation's modern history to escape, to be rewarded for their crimes against humanity, their practice of aggressive war, torture and lies on the grandest scale? Is this really the time to forget all that, "move on," and act as though show you're not duped by Obama is more important?

    Not that it doesn't matter. Not at all. You are a smart progressive guy rightly angered by the continuing wars, imperial interventions and covert actions of a federal government that -- for nine days already -- has been under the formal leadership of Obama, whose rhetorical support of the US warfare state you rightly reject. That Obama, man!

    Now: Pretend also, that as someone with a high awareness of these issues, you understand your duty as to take actions that will actually change this -- and not just make the clearest stance of expressing righteous outrage. (Assume the two are often, but not always, the same.)

    Still following? Okay, the day's big question:

    Of the following list, which strategy can you follow that is likeliest to have a long term impact toward ending these evils?

    a) Attack Obama now, by any means necessary. Make sure to equate him with Bush.

    b) Blame his voters for killing children in Gaza (bring a map in case you need to show them where it is).

    c) Focus on exposure and justice for the many evident high crimes of the outgoing regime and its allies in power, including the still-living cause of ending the 9/11 cover-up and gaining truth disclosure. Use the 35 Kucinich impeachment articles as the rough guide.

    d) Take measures to remind the majority who elected Obama that they voted for change and should actually expect, demand and work for it -- even against what Obama wants!

    e) chap my ass with cut-and-paste articles pedantically telling stuff about the system that every single reader of this forum's pages understood thoroughly an average of 19.4 years ago.

    You may choose two answers out of a through e. Because you are both a smart and an energetic, multi-tasker guy!

    So which are they? What's your priority? Does the Bush regime get to walk?

    .

    Posted 15 years ago #
  25. Victronix
    Member

    It seems that there's an inherent schizophrenia of the new administration: Obama in the past has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian plight but now that he's in a position to do something about it he shies away from expressing concern for the slaughter of Gaza.

    But not everyone is silent.

    DAVOS, Switzerland — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, vowing never to return to the annual gathering. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/world/europe/30c...

    My guess is that with the country in the state it is in now, Obama cannot afford to risk the sort of focus he would receive if he said or did anything on this issue beyond silence. The utter focus needs to be on the economy or things will exponentially get worse for the vast majority by the minute.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.