robandsally
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 31
RP doesn't appear to be one of them. But AJ clearly is. He's been professionally trained in a number of psycholinguistic techniques, that's obvious to anyone who's really awake and paying attention.I have thought AJ was COINTELPRO ever since Bill Cooper called him on his Y2K fearmongering. It was confirmed in my mind with his warning with specific details about false flag terror 2 months before the WTC attacks. The "swamp" in my expression as applied there refers to Hillary. It does not apply to Ron Paul. Even if Ron Paul were "one of them" there are too few to matter, who think that he is anything other than honorable. I've seen no one attack his motives, his record or his personal history (aside from that newsletter thing that went nowhere).
Listen carefully to AJ's interviews of RP over the last few months and then check out his next day's story on the interview. AJ sets carefully crafted traps throughout his interviews, ones that very few would pick up on. Good thing RP usually doesn't fall for them, but on occassion he has and AJ has taken full advantage of it in his written story.
Rhodes scholar.....CFR....Clinton....Gore .....certainly strong evidence to indicate she is part of the club and is not sincere in her attacks against the establishment. Further, all of her material is simply predictive programming disguised as dissent. Take another look at the messages that she is selling and think about it.Naomi Wolf is a Rhodes scholar (CFR). She was a high-level consultant on Clinton's reelection campaign as well as on the Gore/Lieberman campaign
If you can't see that there are actors playing key roles on all sides than you need to reevaluate your perception of reality. Do you really think the establishment would allow real leaders of dissent to rise up?So you thought AJ was a COINTELPRO because he was fear mongering about Y2K and nothing happened.
Further, beyond AJ's professional training, one of his roles is to function as the tip-of-the-spear for mainstream media. Once AJ puts a story out there then it's safe for someone like Michelle Malkin to quote from it as long as she quotes him as "Conpiracy theorist Internet Shock Jock." Once Michelle or similar "edgy" mainstream talking head has published it, it becomes safer for more mainstream players to run with it. It's a system....one must look at the players as they fit into their roles.
These are critical times and false actors can be extremely damaging, especially to those who buy-into their message. I don't think anyone here is arguing that false actors should be feared more or less, I think what some people here are arguing is that people should engage actors with extreme skepticism, espcially when those actors are able to achieve significant market and distribution. I mean, if these people are truely "Unauthorized," then how in the heck to they operate on such a large scale?I mean whom should I fear more, Alex Jones and Naomi Wolf or the creeps mentioned above? I can say one thing: the creeps mentioned above sure fear Jones and Wolf which is why their minions are here to covertly support them.
Further, if you don't have training in psycholinguistics, then you really don't have the tools to argue your position with any merit. I mean, if you can't recognize the technique, then how can you make any analysis at all? You can't. You're working on emotion, not logic.
Last edited: