Trump is NOT the answer

[Bruno]

I just want to chime in and say that I am glad that this is being talked about. I haven't posted in some time but do come and read fairly frequently. I feel as though too many people have blinders on when it comes to Trump or if not blinders they seem touchy about any criticism of him. The discussion on the Q thread I find particularly strange. From my perspective it looks like people sifting through a haystack looking for a speck of dust that confirms their belief in Trump as the man who will save the day. It makes me beyond uncomfortable.

[we-R-one]

Hi Bruno,
I've stayed out of the Q thread myself for the most part because I don't have time to delve into the conversation. Trump is waay better than what we would have gotten should Clinton have won, that's what people at the very minimum can see. I find most people don't understand what exactly he's doing because even over here there's much confusion about what's been done to our infrastructure. We were put on a path of devolving to a 3rd world nation. If you're in a different country it's likely your information is being skewed which will have an effect on your perception. I've traveled in different countries, recently Scotland and being the news junkie that I am, it was clear the people were being heavily manipulated by the slant portrayed in news stories abroad especially about America. I have no doubt this is going on in Canada as when I've spoken to Canadians or observed their written remarks, I can tell they do not fully understand the actions of President Trump. And how could they, their own country has already been over-run. By focusing on the Trump Administrations policies and Executive Orders it's more clear to me what's currently taking place which is why I started the Examples of Trump Administration Dismantling Deep State Agenda 21 Blueprint thread.

If one does not understand the infrastructure of AGENDA 21, they will surely not understand how the Trump Administration is in the process of demolishing it. The Trump supporters I've talked to realize he has deficiencies, so I'm not sure most have blinders on, but they also realize no one's perfect and they're willing to take the bad with the good as it's clear he's the best man for the job out of the options we had to choose from.

[Cidersomerset]

I just want to chime in and say that I am glad that this is being talked about.
I haven't posted in some time but do come and read fairly frequently. I feel as though
too many people have blinders on when it comes to Trump or if not blinders they seem
touchy about any criticism of him. The discussion on the Q thread I find particularly strange.
From my perspective it looks like people sifting through a haystack looking for a speck
of dust that confirms their belief in Trump as the man who will save the day. It makes
me beyond uncomfortable.

David sums Trump up in the second half of the interview and on the surface he is
right and the appointment of John Bolton confirms he has been hijacked. I'm not
so sure as I also have respect for Dr.Corsi and what is going on behind the scenes.

I'm under no illusion this may go pair shaped and as I scan and post a wide range
of views it is plain there are contradictions all round. It reminds me a bit of when
Obama replaced Bush and we found nothing really changed with the globalist
agenda and now we know why, and Hillary was supposed to have continued the
dynasty. The venomous attacks on Trump , demonization and daily mud slinging
by the majority of mainstream and continued call for impeachment still gives
hope he meant what he said , exposing the deepstate , draining the swamp,
curb globalisation , release of the JFK and possible UFO disclosure , his twitter
posts that by past the mainstream and more..

Against that he has increased the military budget and continued the war rhetoric,
given into pressure against Russia and other distractions and its still not clear
how this is going to turn out as lot of his bluster and positioning is how he likes
to position himself for a deal and North Korea seems to be responding and we
will see if it leads anywhere. A lot of wheels have supposed to been set in motion
against big pharma , Child trafficking and the representatives of the global
elites etc and is what is keeping many on the Trump train but there are only
so many stations before people start getting off if we don't start seeing results....

David has been sceptical of the Donald but thought him the best of a bad lot
of republican candidates except perhaps Rand Paul and I cannot remember all
the others. He definately did not want Hillary to win so backed Trump by default.
He has done other vids critical of him since he was elected and I understand
and agree and disagree with some of his views but I'm also intrigued to see if
Trump can pull off the exposure of the deepstate and more or he will be reeled in or worse.....

So I will stay in the 'Q' for more info until we get a real picture of how this is
all playing out.



Ep. 828 FADE to BLACK Jimmy Church w/ David Icke : Social Media Data Harvesting : LIVE

Interview starts aprox 35 mins in

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mKFMyTSEWCU

Streamed live on 27 Mar 2018
Check out our LIVE show, Mon-Thursday 7pm PST at
https://jimmychurchradio.com/

David Icke is an English writer, public speaker, and former media personality best
known for his views on what he calls “who and what is really controlling the world”.
Describing himself as the most controversial speaker and author in the world, he has
written many books explaining his position, dubbed “New Age conspiracism”, and has
attracted a substantial following across the political spectrum. His book, The Biggest
Secret, has been called the conspiracy theorist’s Rosetta Stone.

Today his books are read all over the world and his speaking events are watched by
thousands on every continent. Why? Because what he has been so derided for saying is
now happening in world events and even mainstream scientists are concluding that
reality is indeed a simulation.

Almost every day something that David Icke said long ago is supported by happenings
and evidence. As Mahatma Gandhi said: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win.’

His latest book is called: “Everything You Need to Know: But Have Never Been Told”
and tonight we are going to discuss the latest Facebook data dump, social media
censorship and Cambridge Analitica.

Air date: March 27, 2018

[we-R-one]

Comments made by Onawah below were wrongfully put on my thread(Examples of Trump...) rather than here where the conversation originated and was currently taking place. So I’m answering them over here where they belong as they are on topic to this conversation.

Posted by onawah (here)
The Trump is NOT the Answer thread is not about non-profits and whether or not they are NWO, either, and you have never offered any proof that organizations such as the Sierra Club have abandoned environmental protection in favor of NWO agendas.

But by posting them(non-profits)more than once on this thread, you are bringing them into the conversation to be used to make your point, please refer to your posts for validation in case you can’t remember. You stated that Trump’s policies are NWO, by your own statement highlighted and underlined below:

Posted by onawah (here)
There are certainly things continuing to happen under Trump's direct orders that bode no good, but it seems to me that many forum members have become so blindly pro-Trump that, as you probably agree, it is going to be a whole lot less energy and time-consuming to just wait until it becomes obvious to even the most ardent Trump supporters that they have had blinders on to the wider perspective of what is going on and how undeniably pro-NWO many of his policies actually are.

I interpret this to mean, you think Trump is NWO. THE SIERRA CLUB and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, two organizations you brought up, are directly tied to the NWO AGENDA 21. So you are using these two organizations to make your point of TRUMP IS NOT THE ANSWER, and accusing him of being NWO; while at the same time using two known New World Order organizations that promote the AGENDA 21 blueprint.

There’s plenty of proof if you know what to look for, however to find the proof you seek you have to read. Your ‘proof’ is not shown in a couple of statements. Below are a couple of documents presented to aide in your understanding and there are plenty more too much to post here, please do your own research for deeper understanding. The Presidential Council On Sustainable Development or PCSD which was formed via Executive Order 12852 for the purpose of organizing all the federal agencies in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA so they could establish the foundation of AGENDA 21 and implement through policies on a local level minus congressional approval and was established in 1992.

From Rosa Koire:

“The members of the PCSD included Cabinet Secretaries for Transportation, Agriculture, Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, Energy, Interior, and Defense. Representing business were CEOs for Pacific Gas and Electric, Enron (Ken Lay), BP Amoco, and Dow Chemical, among others. Environmental organizations rounded out the balance with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund being the most notable.”

Source: https://www.postsustainabilityinstit...bjections.html


Below is a document put together and provided to listing attending members. This is from the Environmental Protection Agency’s own website. See page 3, Acknowledgements. Notice the Task Force? See the name Michelle Perrault, International Vice President, Sierra Club? This document is about implementing Agenda21 do take the time to thumb through it. This link is definitely a keeper for those looking for a deeper understanding.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...es=1&ZyEntry=3





If you want to look closer at Center For Biologcial Diversity for proof, another angle is to observe their funding. Their activities clearly aligns with Agenda 21’s Biodiversity goals but their funding can definitely reveal who’s agenda their promoting. This is a pretty damning article in which I’ve only posted a small portion:

Center For Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a wealthy and radical anti-development activist and litigation organization that specializes in manipulating the Endangered Species Act to prevent resource production and human activity. Its activities have involved breaking the law – including a shoplifting conviction for its founder – and framing innocent people to ruin their lives and livelihoods.

Despite its hard-left anti-corporate stance, it has collected large donations from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Microsoft and the ExxonMobil Foundation. It also enjoys support from some of the largest left-wing foundations in America, including the Tides Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, and Pew Charitable Trusts. The Center for Biological Diversity has incorporated several times in three different states, has changed its name and address and merged into a holding company, which is not only puzzling, but also makes tracking its activities, officers, and funding difficult.

In 2002, CBD was caught inserting falsified evidence of range damage into the federal grazing permit file of an Arizona ranching company the group had targeted for destruction. The wronged rancher took CBD to court in 2005, and a guilty verdict at trial required CBD to pay $600,000 in damages.

Source: http://leftexposed.org/2016/10/cente...cal-diversity/

If you think this information is false then start pulling up the court case mentioned. I think the author provides links, but some may be broken since the article was written a while back.


I’ve already posted this maybe you missed it?

“One of the primary groups examined in Bevington’s study was the Center for Biological Diversity (formed in 1989), [22] and which in 2008 received support from elite philanthropic bodies that included the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Environment Now Foundation, Tides Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, and even the “big green” environmental outfit, The Wilderness Society. Corporate funders of the “grassroots” Center for Biological Diversity included the likes of Goldman Sachs, the Bank of America, and Microsoft.”
Interesting to note here that the Center received all these major fundings in 2008, upon which it launched a major population control campaign the year after. This suggests that the same old foundations headed by the same old elites are continuing to push their vision of a depopulated world.

Source: https://www.infowars.com/environment...ecies-condoms/

Notice Microsoft on there? Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil Foundation, Bank of America!

Additonal Source: See article by Michael Barker:
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/cate...cal-diversity/

If you want more info I would look up the Bevington study to cross reference and then start digging into Annual Reports of these organizations. I know for a fact Goldman Sachs is funding biodiversity organizations just google it. I bring this up as you mentioned somewhere in one of your posts a distaste for Goldman Sachs….well guess what, they’re funding an organization your touting on this thread. This is what you have to do to get to the truth. Even then, I often wonder how much isn’t being documented/revealed for our eyes to see?


Please understand, I'm not purposefully trying to overwhelm you with information. If you're looking for 'proof' and I'm to answer your questions, this is what you have to do, there's no getting around it and yes it takes time that most of us don't have..trust me I have 50 million things I should be doing right now rather than this, but it's easier for me to dig up this kind of information as I know where and what to look for.

I’ll answer the rest of your questions later.

[Bill Ryan]

Hello, Everyone:

We’ve taken the rare step of closing this thread (and also the Qanon and the Examples of Trump Administration Dismantling Deep State’s Agenda 21 Blueprint threads) for a day.

That’s three threads that have generated quite a lot of strong opinion. (That’s usually a good thing, by the way. )

This is to mandate what might be called a cooling-off period. We’ve received a number of reports, not just recently, and the common factors in some members’ disquiet is what is perceived (at least by some) as violations of the guidelines.

Now. Kindly listen up. It's all quite a tangle, and the lines can never be drawn clearly enough to create an automatic judgment about what's okay and what's not. One person sees a troll, and another person sees someone with a strong counter-opinion. It's always HOW things are presented that's the criterion.

We have to allow (and even encourage) strong counter-opinions on the forum. Debate and discussion is how we all learn. If we're all preaching to the converted all the time, what's the value? It all becomes a giant echo-chamber.

And just as one person sees a troll, and another person sees someone with a strong counter-opinion, one person sees an insult and is offended or riled, and another will see nothing like that at all. There's no way a concise set of guidelines can sift and sort all that.

The same goes with what’s on topic. One person will suspect a deliberate attempt to derail the thread; while another may see a lateral-thinking cross-linking to a related topic. (The on/off topic thing is interesting. Other threads can veer wildly off-topic, but no-one cares; that’s because emotions haven’t already been raised by the hot topic of the thread’s central theme.)

In some cases, an off-topic post is clearly made. It may not be a deliberate attempt to divert. People can read complex arguments and be stimulated to share or inform about all kinds of things. But the principal at play here is always to RETURN to the main topic, and for everyone to support that.

And finally on that, a thread on a certain strongly-felt topic is very likely to attract and stimulate counterpoints. That’s fine. Again, that's how we learn. And again, it’s HOW those counterpoints are posed that’s the issue.

If those reading this can sit with a moderator's hat on for just a moment, you may see that all far from easy to manage. It's like a business or civil meeting full of very passionate people who are not agreeing. The key, one more time, is how that passion is expressed.

Please consider this. Here are the predigested bulletpoints:

• This thread will re-open in 24 hours.
• This is NOT censorship.
• We are not publicly admonishing anyone here.
• We encourage diversity of opinion, and spirited information-backed debate.
• KEY to this is that the debate should be appropriate and courteous. There are ways of disagreeing strongly while holding others in respect.

Many thanks to all. There are MANY MANY MANY other interesting threads here to keep anyone on Planet Earth amused, informed, educated and engaged for a day!

If this step doesn’t seem to have any effect, certain members can be blocked from posting on a particular thread (i.e. for them it’s read-only), if the mods feel that’s warranted. There are also a number of other steps we can take.

What we DO want is for people to learn. Avalon is far more than a simple message-exchange vehicle, like Facebook or Twitter. It’s a library, or even a university. (Read and absorb every thread we have here, and you’ll know more than any human alive. )

I’ll close by referencing one of the seven key recommendations showcased by Stephen Covey in his excellent book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. His 5th 'habit' is:

• Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.

This blog post, all about that, is WELL worth reading if you’re wondering what to do next.

• https://huffingtonpost.com/joanne-la...b_5609892.html

[Bill Ryan]

Folks, the thread is now open again.

As Richard Dolan says at the close of every one of his radio shows: — be kind to each other.

[AutumnW]

Well, it's been awhile. Thanks Bill for the grace period.

I would suggest that people be kind to each other but also firm in the face of blowhard tactics, talking down and questionable 'research'. Example--Alex Jones and Breibart are NOT legitimate sources. Are they always wrong..No. Are they often wrong and biased...yes!

Alex is currently being sued by the parents of two children killed at Sandy Hook. These people not only had their kids killed, they had to put up with being labelled 'crisis actors' and subsequent death threats.

If someone does want to wander off topic, that's fine with me. However, if they do so with a belittling tone and know it all, overbearing attitude and insane links I will report it and I hope it is acted on.

[AutumnW]

Posted by Fellow Aspirant (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Onawah, I would hope you'd still take the time to answer my legitimate questions on post #540 which do pertain to the discussion as you originally brought them up in your posts with the point of supporting the main argument- Trump Is Not the Answer'. This is a very complex discussion encompassing many topics. If you want to defend your stance and why you feel the way you do, you should be able to easily tell us why you support such groups and their nefarious agendas. The articles you post garner more questions to some of us and not solutions as they're presented. I question you to understand your POV not to pick on you as maybe there's something I'm not understanding.

I see this as a 'discussion' forum more than just a cut and paste environment. If what's being posted can't be supported with legitimate sources of support then you are only speaking with conjecture and not necessarily facts. It almost borders on slander against a person for the sake of smearing their name using false narratives. I think Avalon is better than that.

First, I think that this forum is to be treated as a place for discussion, too, but not as though it's a court of law, or some undergraduate Moot Court. I think that if someone wishes to voice his or her opinion, then it should be listened to and respected, regardless of how many links one is able to include to justify it. Having an opinion is a legitimate reason for posting to a thread.

Having read through the last several pages here, I think I can guess why Onawah is lagging in his/her responses to you, we-R-one, that being that anything s/he posts to support his/her position will be met with an overwhelming avalanche of cut 'n' pastes by you that do nothing to further the discussions that this thread was instituted for. Such aggressive bullying with its over the top floods of information would take hours and hours to respond to, and the likely outcome of a genuine effort to support one's claims is only, as far as I can tell, going to result in an even more massive salvo of disinformation (Info Wars as source? Really?) meant to stifle any further comment. Why not dial back your diatribes' volumes a bit, select a couple of pertinent and truthful points for each, and go with those, instead of overwhelming your targets with exhausting mountains of "fact"? I've noticed that the Trump supporters around here are particularly verbose with 'fire hoses' of information, much of it from their favourite alt-right bloggospheres' fake news agents. So, please don't take the 'high road' wrt expecting answers for each of your points, as though each and every one of your 'claims' is a hill to die on, or that you or the forum is being disrespected somehow. Also, please don't take someone's lack of response as a victory for Trump supporters - sometimes responding to you lot is just not worth the effort.

Staying on topic would be a good start.

Cheers,

Brian

Very well said, Brian. Thank you for taking the time to so eloquently attempt to explain, define a problem.

[AutumnW]

We R One,

In spite of all of the differences of opinion, I think it IS very important to draw everybody's attention to the fact that the most destructive forces in the current system have PR bodies that 'green wash' them. Oil companies that present a green face through different agencies and advertising is one pretty lurid example. So, thank you for providing that information.

Now, in the same spirit of "things aren't as they appear" and the use of "ruses" I wonder about Agenda 21. It might be part of a similar psi-op, funded by Big Oil, to rouse extreme fear of government control. What makes me suspicious is how this psi-op (if it is one) curries hatred for socialism AND environmentalism at the same time.

Imagine how great that is for mining companies, oil companies and financiers to function in an environment where people accept a destroyed environment because they think the alternative is Agenda 21.

Just a thought.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Well, it's been awhile. Thanks Bill for the grace period.

I would suggest that people be kind to each other but also firm in the face of blowhard tactics, talking down and questionable 'research'. Example--Alex Jones and Breibart are NOT legitimate sources. Are they always wrong..No. Are they often wrong and biased...yes!

Alex is currently being sued by the parents of two children killed at Sandy Hook. These people not only had their kids killed, they had to put up with being labelled 'crisis actors' and subsequent death threats.

If someone does want to wander off topic, that's fine with me. However, if they do so with a belittling tone and know it all, overbearing attitude and insane links I will report it and I hope it is acted on.

If I were forced to place an even odds wager right now, on the question of whether any students were shot inside that Sandy Hook school that day, I'd wager that none were shot.

Does my saying thus mean that I am guilty of an overbearing attitude and of using blowhard tactics ?

~~~~~~~

To answer my own question, I don't think it means that.

I have little doubt, given all that I commented on, over many years, that I have at times presented an overbearing attitude, used blowhard tactics, and relied on insufficient research or questionable sources.

But I don't think that my current leaning, as just expressed above, on that particular question (how many students died at Sandy Hook), after doing quite a bit of reading on the question, is an example of such failings.

~~~~~~~

Rather something else is going on, and I'm having some difficulty putting my finger on it.

~~~~~~~

Earlier this week I encountered what seems like the same phenomenon in my "real" life, as my ex-wife, to whom I was married twenty years, was visiting me from California to attend a graduation ceremony for our wonderful son here in Texas. She's more of a "California liberal", and the last time I identified with any major political party, I would have been closer to "Texas conservative."

Pretty much any expression by myself of a view on any "political" topic immediately got her dandruff up. As best as I can figure (and I still can't claim to understand such things well), it was as if any statement of my view on such a topic came across to her as if I were forcing my view down her throat. She would gag. If I had been forcing my views on her, then gagging and resisting might have been entirely appropriate. But so far as I am aware, I hope and prefer that she have her own views, on whatever topics she considers. It's her life, her mind, and I hope she continues to live it well.

~~~~~~~

I sense two things happening here, on the forum, sometimes.

One of those things I just illustrated with a personal vignette. A straight forward presentation of a contrary view can feel overbearing to a dissenting party.

The other thing is that sometimes we present our views with more disdain for the dissenting views than is necessary.

~~~~~~~

I would suggest two, related, remedies.

I would suggest that whatever others think of our views is seldom important. As a long standing administrator, I've had more opportunity than most to be criticized by others here, on the forum. Most of the time, after I look briefly to see if there is something of value in the criticism that I happen to be ready to learn, or something that I can honestly remedy, I conclude that whatever "emotional angst" was included in their criticism is their choice, their life, about which I can usually do little that would be beneficial and well received. So ... in short ... let others bloviate ... that's their cud to chew on. [ Aside: I sometimes decide that the best way to respond to what I consider to be bogus or antagonistic replies is to refocus my efforts on better understanding and presenting my own views. Not all dissent requires, or even benefits from, a blow-by-blow rebuttal. ]

On the other side, grant others the space to hold whatever views they hold, within a wide margin of error. As someone who has held just about every position in the political spectrum, from left to right, over the decades, perhaps this is slightly easier for me than some. I've held most of the views that I now disagree with, and disagreed with most of the views I now hold. So I imagine that the other person I now disagree with is myself, from some other decade of my (pleasantly) long life, and try to threat them as I am grateful others treated me, back then.

~~~~~~~

In final summation: be generous in accepting the views of others, and gentle in presenting one's own views.

Or, as Jon Postel said of Unix networking protocols:

“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.”

~~~~~~~

P.S. -- The above does not address another question, of what is, or is not, too far off-topic. Different thread creators (and probably different moderators) have different instincts and preferences on this question. I have no suggestions at present on this conundrum.

[AutumnW]

Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

[DNA]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

Alex is pointing out the faults and corruption in the system and you cheerlead the corrupt system to take him down. Your faith is misplaced in my opinion.
If Alex had only done the Bohemian Grove video he would live on in the whistle blower hall of fame as an outstanding inductee. But Alex has down so so so much more than that.
At this point Alex has become the flag bearer, the gold standard, the Babe Ruth of his field.
The things he talks about take a bit of research before they become clear.
It takes some time.
The only problem here is that we are running out of time.

[Jayke]

Posted by DNA (here)

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

Alex is pointing out the faults and corruption in the system and you cheerlead the corrupt system to take him down. Your faith is misplaced in my opinion.
If Alex had only done the Bohemian Grove video he would live on in the whistle blower hall of fame as an outstanding inductee. But Alex has down so so so much more than that.
At this point Alex has become the flag bearer, the gold standard, the Babe Ruth of his field.
The things he talks about take a bit of research before they become clear.
It takes some time.
The only problem here is that we are running out of time.

I noticed, with Alex Jones, that his presentation style became even more manic, evangelical, blowhard and preacherish after taking on Paul Joseph Watson as an editor. Alex Jones, in my view, allowed PJW to become infowars voice for the conservative crowd. While Jones adapted his personality to appeal more to the southern state, Bible Belt demographic.
So if you can’t stand Alex Jones (and honestly, I find listening to him is like listening to nails on a chalkboard) but that’s by design in my opinion, and it means you’re not his intended demographic. Whereas, Paul Joseph Watson, does some great videos for infowars, that really resonate with me.

Jones has also recently financed, Tommy Robinson, in the UK as well; who is building a strong fanbase of support, especially among the white-collar working class. A lot of people are being woken up to the NWO agenda by these people. A positive shift in consciousness is definitely occurring.

So Alex Jones—who is helping wake people up to illusions—versus Corey Goode, who is trying to delude people with illusions, I know which one I’d rather support.

Like the illusion that Trump is going to get sued by Sandy Hook parents, I’d make a wager that it’s never going to happen, just more distractions for the bread and circuses.

[AutumnW]

Posted by DNA (here)

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

Alex is pointing out the faults and corruption in the system and you cheerlead the corrupt system to take him down. Your faith is misplaced in my opinion.
If Alex had only done the Bohemian Grove video he would live on in the whistle blower hall of fame as an outstanding inductee. But Alex has down so so so much more than that.
At this point Alex has become the flag bearer, the gold standard, the Babe Ruth of his field.
The things he talks about take a bit of research before they become clear.
It takes some time.
The only problem here is that we are running out of time.

DNA,

I am cheerleading efforts to get the truth about Sandy Hook out. I assume the parents suing Alex Jones will out him for the carnival barker he has become. I used to read info wars all the time and I appreciated the role he played post 911. But now, like Steven Greer, it's more about pursuit of money, not truth. There are more than a few individuals out there who are converting people's genuine angst and anger directly into cash. It's one weird alchemy.

For alternative media I like to read Fisk, Pilger and Seymour Hirsch. I believe it was Fisk who went directly to Douma after the 'gas attack' to expose it for what it really was -- hypoxia. He did all this without trying to sell me a natural herbal remedy too!

[AutumnW]

Posted by Jayke (here)

Posted by DNA (here)

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

Alex is pointing out the faults and corruption in the system and you cheerlead the corrupt system to take him down. Your faith is misplaced in my opinion.
If Alex had only done the Bohemian Grove video he would live on in the whistle blower hall of fame as an outstanding inductee. But Alex has down so so so much more than that.
At this point Alex has become the flag bearer, the gold standard, the Babe Ruth of his field.
The things he talks about take a bit of research before they become clear.
It takes some time.
The only problem here is that we are running out of time.

I noticed, with Alex Jones, that his presentation style became even more manic, evangelical, blowhard and preacherish after taking on Paul Joseph Watson as an editor. Alex Jones, in my view, allowed PJW to become infowars voice for the conservative crowd. While Jones adapted his personality to appeal more to the southern state, Bible Belt demographic.
So if you can’t stand Alex Jones (and honestly, I find listening to him is like listening to nails on a chalkboard) but that’s by design in my opinion, and it means you’re not his intended demographic. Whereas, Paul Joseph Watson, does some great videos for infowars, that really resonate with me.

Jones has also recently financed, Tommy Robinson, in the UK as well; who is building a strong fanbase of support, especially among the white-collar working class. A lot of people are being woken up to the NWO agenda by these people. A positive shift in consciousness is definitely occurring.

So Alex Jones—who is helping wake people up to illusions—versus Corey Goode, who is trying to delude people with illusions, I know which one I’d rather support.

Like the illusion that Trump is going to get sued by Sandy Hook parents, I’d make a wager that it’s never going to happen, just more distractions for the bread and circuses.

Jayke,

Thanks for your analysis here. I've watched a few PJW videos and been impressed. His take on pop music is bang on. I will take a look at Robinson too. You have helped to illuminate what I find repulsive about Jones here though. He has crafted his style to appeal to a demographic. In other words, he has become a product, no different than Democratic politicians who play up their Southern roots, like Clinton, to capture those votes. It's fake, so I know longer take them as seriously.

With Sandy Hook he went wayyyyy overboard and hurt real people. Manic dot collecting to whip up controversy isn't okay. Waking people up is one thing, encouraging more paranoia than is necessary ( and God knows being mildly paranoid is understandable) is dangerous, divisive and fundamentalist. It becomes black and white thinking when those who question Jones are viewed as being asleep, unaware, bovine cud chewing herd animals, in league with the govt. or the devil.

It is Alex Jones who is being taken to court about his crisis actor claims with regards Sandy Hook.

When one veil of illusion drops off, remember there are several more layers beneath it. Jones is one more veil.

Thank you for your response. You have been polite and communicate very well.

[Joe from the Carolinas]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Paul,

I don't agree with you at times, like about Sandy Hook but you are always very polite so it's okay. I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

I have issues with both of the public figures Alex Jones and Corey Goode. Observing forum behavior, there is one measurable difference which may explain why the forum “went after” Corey Goode and has not gone after Alex Jones with the same passion. One of them was a member here, one is not.

I don’t visit Alex Jones’ site, I used to be a loyal daily listener. I realized Alex is just headline chasing and selling products, nothing wrong with either of those, but I don’t want to waste my time listening to a dude that activates my stress response.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
I am saddened and disappointed though that Project Avalon, as a forum, isn't taking a stand against Alex Jones in the same spirit that they went after Corey Goode. Maybe in time PA will. The man is a liar a conman and a schnook, imho. If he loses the judgements in court it should prove to one and all pretty conclusively that the story is just that -- a story. At that point, if it ocurrs, I hope you discourage links to his site.

It might have been that the Avalon forum felt a particular obligation to publicly state our changed understanding of Corey Goode, because we had played an important role in his earlier rise. We have played no such role in the rise of Alex Jones.

Personally, I find Alex Jones to be a mixed blessing. There was a time when I was more of a right wing Republican and I listened to Alex more. Now I am more of a cynical conspiracy theory nutcase and iconoclastic analyst, and I can't take much of Alex Jones. But, in any case, I find him and his websites to be a more complex mix of the good, the bad, the bold, and the ugly, of information, insight, disinformation, and blind spots, than I find Corey Goode.

I don't think we should necessarily discourage discussion of or links to the work of either Goode or Alex, as a general case. Rather as always, we should encourage the various perspectives, insights, evidence and analyses that further our discussion and support the well being and awareness of our members, guests and indirectly other beings.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
It is Alex Jones who is being taken to court about his crisis actor claims with regards Sandy Hook.

I no longer find the American court system to be a good indicator of the truth.

I might still cheer when whomever I consider to be a "good guy" wins, or a "bad guy" loses, but who brings a civil case against whom, or why they state they do so, tells me little.

[onawah]

It's been a while since anyone posted on this thread, but hopefully things have changed enough now on the forum that it will be safe to air info and opinions here about things the Trump Admin is doing that are NOT the answer, without knee jerk reactions from pro-Trump members.
Beginning with a great comment from Autumn as follows:

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Imagine how great that is for mining companies, oil companies and financiers to function in an environment where people accept a destroyed environment because they think the alternative is Agenda 21.
Just a thought.

From Environmental Working Group's email today:
"BREAKING: EPA Sides with Big Ag and Fights Court Order to Ban Chlorpyrifos!
Tell the EPA it’s time to stand up for children’s health and finally ban chlorpyrifos!
Unbelievable!

The Trump administration is placing the interests of Big Ag and chemical companies above protecting children’s brains.
Last week, the administration announced plans to fight a court order to ban chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide that can cause brain damage in children. Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency’s own scientists show that chloropyrifos impairs children’s IQ and brain development.
The EPA’s move is outrageous. We need to ban chlorpyrifos now.
The EPA was on track for banning this pesticide last year, but before he resigned in disgrace, former agency chief Scott Pruitt cancelled the ban at the last minute – just a few weeks after meeting with the CEO of Dow Chemical, the world’s largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos.
After months of public outrage and legal battles, a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days, saying there was no justification for the cancellation. But the administration is stubbornly challenging the court order.
We must fight back. Will you join us?
Sign our petition and tell the EPA it’s time to stand up for children’s health and finally ban the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos!
Take action here:
https://secure.ewg.org/p/dia/action4...k=ACTION_Chlor

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has put chemical industry profits ahead of public health and it won’t be the last. Just look at what the EPA has done already:
Allowed hazardous chemicals like chlorpyrifos, TCE and methylene chloride to stay on the market.
Insisted that Monsanto’s infamous pesticide glyphosate is not linked to cause cancer, contradicting the World Health Organization.
Delayed or suppressed studies on non-stick PFAS chemicals and formaldehyde.
We’re so close to getting this dangerous pesticide out of our environment and away from our kids. The administration is making a last-ditch effort to appease the chemical industry. We need to make sure they know Americans won’t stand for it.
Stand up with EWG and make your voice heard! Tell the EPA to stand up for children’s health, not chemical industry profits
ADD YOUR NAME: Protect kids from the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos. The EPA is out of excuses and must take action on this chemical NOW!
https://secure.ewg.org/p/dia/action4...k=ACTION_Chlor
Thanks for standing with us."

Alex Formuzis
Vice President of Communications, EWG

[Flash]

All politicians and presidents/prime ministers are working for the oligarchy, all of them, including Trump.

Trump is just a change in official power and in who is backing who. But at the end, it is not about people. My opinion. edit: I think Trump is backed by another branch or the military, but by power hungry people anyhow, him being one too.

I do think the same for Canada and Trudeau - and I know for a fact that usually politicians who are elected at corner stone positions have been groomed for years prior by the oligarchy.

Easier to do when we have dynasties of politicians (which is not Trump case here, but Trudeau's case, the Clintons, the Bushes, and more. edit: I meant here that those are groomed basically from early childhood, those from dynasties, while a guy like Trump who was most probably groomed later on (like early adult). Do I have proofs, none. But I still think this happened since he was talking presidency in early adulthood.

edit: in other words, Trump is not the answer, he is an immense powder cake thrown at us.

And the Clinton and democrats are far from the answer either, they are still more dangerous in my opinion. And more corrupted.