I liked this comment I received this morning about my “Itanimulli” post–which as of today has been clicked an astounding (for this modestly trafficked blog) 20,291 times:
Blah, blah, blah… while the conspirationists behind closed doors go on about their “daily” business of stripping the masses of their freedoms, slowly but more and more surely, they pay people like Goldwag to “debunk” all the theories that threaten to expose any truth.
The Koch brothers don’t inject lots of money into buying corrupt republican politicians; Maurice Strong is just a kind man; The Bilderberg Group is formed only by kind people who have as priority to make the average citizen as wealthy as they are; Clintons are not members of the Bilderberg Group; Madam Clinton doesn’t wear the eagle lapel with the head turned the opposite side of the American Eagle- symbol of the masons; David Gergen wasn’t caught on camera by Alex Jones getting mad about a simple question about Skull and Bones Society ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE&feature); Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld have no hands stained by blood; etc, etc….the list can go for hundreds of pages…
However, explain please for “absurd people” who believe that there’s some truth in some of these oddities the symbols encrusted on the tie of the statue located in Elberton, Georgia.
Or for that matter explain the Georgia Guidestones Monument or the Khaballistic symbols and statues found in the new Denver airport that have been already exposed.
How much money do you get paid to “debunk” these factoid truths, mister Goldwag?
(Your name is Jewish, isn’t it?)
First is the assumption that I’m being paid big money to do what I do. The infinite corruptibility of just about everyone (except of course, the handful of intrepid gnostics who swallow the red pill) is an a priori assumption in conspiracist thinking. You need it to explain how literally millions of people agree to participate in such terrible schemes–unless you simply presume that they are evil by nature (as people with Jewish names apparently are).
Then there are the presumptions that I would defend the likes of the Koch brothers, whose documented history of Bircherite conservativism goes further to explain their activities than any amount of speculation about secret occult allegiances, or that I don’t deplore Bush, Cheney, et al. Third is the David Gergen video. People who post links shoulld really take the trouble to watch them–Gergen went ballistic when asked about Bohemian Grove, not Skull & Bones. He was pissed because Alex Jones snuck into the Bohemian Grove retreat, filmed some of “The Cremation of Care,” the silly allegorical pageant that they’ve been putting on since the 19th century, and tried to pass it off to the gullible public as an ancient Babylonian human sacrifice rite.
And finally, there is the self-negating idea that secret plotters compulsively advertise themselves. The Georgia Guidestone monument’s Rosicrucian symbols suggest to me that it was designed and erected by a follower of the Rosicrucians or some other occult society. And yes, the tie that FDR is wearing on that horribly executed bust appears to be festooned with magical symbols. One might oppose the Rosicrucians’ beliefs, one might believe they are satanically inspired, but you can hardly claim that they are dark secrets when they are emblazoned all over a gigantic monument. Ditto for Mrs Clinton’s supposed Phoenix pin. Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that it is a magical pagan symbol and not just an ugly brooch. How is it secret if she wears it in public and allows it to be photographed? If it’s all over the Internet, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s not secret at all? The same goes for the Anasazi and Navajo-inspired murals in the Denver airport. Even if you grant the dubious assumption that they are Kabbalistic, how much more public could they be? And more so for “Itanimulli.” If the NSA really is secretly affiliated with the Illuminati, wouldn’t their cryptographers have been able to come up with a more uncrackable code than spelling its name backwards?
All of this reminds me of the hysterical scenario that Matt Taibi wrote in his The Great Derangement, in which he imagines Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Feith cooking up the conspiracists’ version of 9/11:
Feith: If we know the planes won’t collapse the buildings, isn’t it possible that other people will figure out that the planes didn’t collapse the buildings?
Cheney: Yes. But those other people will be a tiny minority of mostly nonscientists who’ll deduce the whole plan by researching the matter on the Internet. But we can count on their groundbreaking, visionary research being ignored by the manstream scientific community, which will continue to insist the planes caused the collapses.
Feith: Why can we count on that?
Cheney: Because the mainstream science community, like the whole of the corporate media, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even the manstream leftist political opposition, will naturally be in either conscious or unconscious assent with our plan.