Your future....

Sweet! "Alex Jones" is solid code for TUNE OUT.

the general shepard account is better 2dank, he gets the full broadcasts up within an hour or so of the broadcast ending and edits out all the ads...at least for me his chanel comes right up when you search "alex jones full show"

i have not listened to the thursday broadcast yet, but maybe ill get a chance tomorrow during work and ill pop back in here to discuss.

i listen to jones several times a week, although i usually turn it off when he starts interviewing guests or has guest hosts take over for him.

i am not convinced of anything he is saying about covid - every time he makes a claim and i look it up, its totally exaggerated and misconstrued, imo intentionally...pretty much feel the same about all other topics he brings up. i generally enjoy his outlook on free speech online, and often find common ground or humor in some of his criticisms of the dems, but i have yet to find a single shred of serious evidence for any of the conspiracies he espouses.

ill pop back in here soon - but please keep in mind, the usual responses of mischaracterizing alex or not actually "doing the research" will not apply here - i listen to jones regularly.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/announcement/united-states-of-conspir...

>> i listen to jones several times a week <<

Do you listen for factual information, or fictional entertainment?

Obamagate!

mostly entertainment, but its also a pretty good way to understand some of the more absurd right wing talking points - they often originate with jones and as they move down the ladder to folks like tucker carlson or donald trump, they are sanitized of conspiracy, but the main point still stands and its useful to understand where some of these ideas started getting disseminated.

and although i cant think of any examples ATM, sometimes he brings up an issue i am not familiar with, and while his characterization is typically always absurd, i can go search out other reputable sources to learn about the issue, but it was brought to my attention originally by jones

Alex Jones is Bill Hicks' best character ever.

You beat me to it Turtle... at one point they show Alex Jones testify under oath that he is a mentally disturbed person who "sees conspiracy in everything."

Daylight nails it with one addition>>>> i am not convinced of anything he is saying about covid (or anything! 9/11, Sandyhook, etc) - every time he makes a claim and i look it up, its totally exaggerated and misconstrued, imo intentionally...pretty much feel the same about all other topics he brings up..... but i have yet to find a single shred of serious evidence for any of the conspiracies he espouses.

The sad part is how many idiots who cant think for themselves believe everything he says!

this is going to take awhile. i know you mentioned agenda 21(or is it 201 or 210? cant remember) in your original post, but jones tends to always mention agenda 21 alongside the rockefeller foundation's alleged "operation lockstep". jones repeats several quotes he attributes to lockstep several times throughout the 8/13/20 broadcast, as well as during many of his other broadcasts over the past few months. he claims "operation lockstep" is a rockefeller foundation document that outlines a plan to create a pandemic and use it to usher in a global police state - or as jones likes to put it, a prison planet.

the most worrying quote that he presents us with is this -

"LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback"

that is a word for word quote from a rockefeller foundation document. seems pretty concerning - and it should! anyone who reads or sees things like this and immediately dismisses it because it is associated with "conspiracy" does not understand the importance of liberty in america and using our constitutional rights to defend it.

but by the same token - anyone who sees that and jumps to conclusions about world government without looking into it further is just as much a sheep as someone who takes everything they see on CNN/MSNBC at face value.

there is this funny little thing called CONTEXT.

the context here is that there is no rockefeller foundation document called "operation lockstep". it does not exist. the above quote is from a rockefeller foundation document titled "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development". here is the full .pdf file histed on archive.org - https://archive.org/details/pdfy-tNG7MjZUicS-wiJb

nowhere in this document does it refer to "operation lockstep". it does not use the word "operation" in any way that could be construed as being associated with what they call "lockstep". this is not an operation, a plan, or blueprint...they are potential future scenarios that could play out based on a variety of ccircumstances, none of which are in any way set in motion by or funded by the rockefeller foundation, at least not according to the document.

here is the lockstep quote in context -

WHY SCENARIOS?The goal of this project was not to affirm what is already known and knowable about what is happening right now at the intersections of technology and development. Rather, it was to explore the many ways in which technology and development could co-evolve — could both push and inhibit each other — in the future, and then to begin to examine what those possible alternative paths may imply for the world’s poor and vulnerable populations. Such an exercise required project participants to push their thinking far beyond the status quo, into uncharted territory.Scenario planning is a methodology designed to help guide groups and individuals through exactly this creative process. The process begins by identifying forces of change in the world, then combining those forces in different ways to create a set of diverse stories — or scenarios — about how the future could evolve. Scenarios are designed to stretch our thinking about both the opportunities and obstacles that the future might hold; they explore, through narrative, events and dynamics that might alter, inhibit, or enhance current trends, often in surprising ways. Together, a set of scenarios captures a range of future possibilities, good and bad, expected and surprising — but always plausible. Importantly, scenarios are not predictions. Rather, they are thoughtful hypotheses that allow us to imagine, and then to rehearse, different strategies for how to be more prepared for the future — or more ambitiously, how to help shape better futures ourselves.

...

CHOOSING THE CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES

During this project’s scenario creation workshop, participants — who represented a range of regional and international perspectives — selected the two critical uncertainties that would form the basis of the scenario framework. They chose these two uncertainties from a longer list of potential uncertainties that might shape the broader contextual environment of the scenarios, including social, technology, economic, environmental, and political trends. The uncertainties that were considered included, for example, the pervasiveness of conflict in the developing world; the frequency and severity of shocks like economic and political crises, disease, and natural disasters; and the locus of innovation for crucial technologies for development. (A full list of the critical uncertainties identified during the project, as well as a list of project participants, can be found in the Appendix.)The two chosen uncertainties, introduced below, together define a set of four scenarios for the future of technology and international development that are divergent, challenging, internally consistent, and plausible. Each of the two uncertainties is expressed as an axis that represents a continuum of possibilities ranging between two endpoints.

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY / POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT

...

GLOBAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT

This uncertainty refers to both the amount of economic integration — the flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas — as well as the extent to which enduring and effective political structures enable the world to deal with many of the global challenges it faces. On one end of the axis, we would see a more integrated global economy with high trade volumes, which enables access to a wider range of goods and services through imports and exports, and the increasing specialization of exports. We would also see more cooperation at the supra-national level, fostering increased collaboration, strengthened global institutions, and the formation of effective international problem-solving networks. At the other axis endpoint, the potential for economic development in the developing world would be reduced by the fragility of the overall global economy — coupled with protectionism and fragmentation of trade — along with a weakening of governance regimes that raise barriers to cooperation, thereby hindering agreement on and implementation of large-scale, interconnected solutions to pressing global challenges.

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

This uncertainty refers to the capacity at different levels of society to cope with change and to adapt effectively. This ability to adapt can mean proactively managing existing systems and structures to ensure their resilience against external forces, as well as the ability to transform those systems and structures when a changed context means they are no longer suitable. Adaptive capacity is generally associated with higher levels of education in a society, as well as the availability of outlets for those who have educations to further their individual and societal well-being. High levels of adaptive capacity are typically achieved through the existence of trust in society; the presence and tolerance of novelty and diversity; the strength, variety, and overlap of human institutions; and the free flow of communication and ideas, especially between and across different levels, e.g., bottom-up and top-down. Lower levels of adaptive capacity emerge in the absence of these characteristics and leave populations particularly vulnerable to the disruptive effects of unanticipated shocks.

Once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four very different futures:

LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian eadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback

CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues

HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge

SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems

 

here is one of the more important and easy to understand explanations of what this is - 

THE SCENARIO NARRATIVES

The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive — rather, they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like. Each scenario tells a story of how the world, and in particular the developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years, with an emphasis on those elements relating to the use of different technologies and the interaction of these technologies with the lives of the poor and vulnerable. Accompanying each scenario is a range of elements that aspire to further illuminate life, technology, and philanthropy in that world.

all in all, not very exiting. basically mental masturbation for rich elite philanthropists. 

im not here to cheerlead the rockefellers, or try to debate whether they are good or bad in and of themselves, but "operation lockstep" does not exist, is not an operation, and the quotes jones takes out of context refer to imaginary scenarios created to prepare for and consider possible futures - like i said, mental masturbation for the elites.

2dank - please explain to me what i am getting wrong if you disagree - i am not interested in debating larger issues, or the rockefellers and globalists as a whole at this time - that can come later in this thread, and im totally down to do that, but currently im only considering responses that are direct rebuttals to points i have made about "operation lockstep", or responses pointing out parts of the document i may have missed or misinterpreted -  iunderstand this may be abit hipocritical since i glossed over your mention of agenda 21 in favor of lockstep, but im more framiliar with lockstep, and doing serious research on the UN often involves watching long videos of UN functions - ill get to agenda 21 tomorrow evening or the following evening.

hope to hear from you soon 2dank - i will not be letting this thread go, and you will never make another post on the zone without me hounding you about this unless you engage me in debate on this issue, and many others i will raise in this thread over the coming days relating to alex jones.

 >>>>>basically mental masturbation for rich elite philanthropists. 

I think it's somewhere in between a conspiracy and mental masturbation.

These scenarios are eventually used to create policy,

FYI
 

dabs and alex jones is an acceptable form of entertainment on a dbmb.

congrats dL, you made this thread your bitch.

almost nobody can step to me on alex jones, tod...except probably jon ronson and the knowledge fight podcast guys - knowledge fight is a daily podcast that is often almost as long as jone's marathon broadcasts where these two guys pick apart and debunk the previous day's alex jones show broadcast.

the knowledge fight guys, and myself, and i think to a lesser degree ronson, tend to have a more compassionate view of alex than many folks who are not familiar with him...for instance, i genuinely do not think alex is a white supremacist - he can be ignorant, biased, and in some cases prejudiced, particularly when it comes to muslims, trans people, and he tends to characterize current issues with the black community and police more as black v white than what it truly is - black v systems of power and enforcement, by doing things like bringing up black on black, or black on white crime statistics as a rebuttal to statistics involving black folks and their interactions with police - truly stupid, bigoted and downright gross...but at the same time i genuinely believe him when he says he wants people of all colors and backgrounds to be involved in his movement...black, arab, whatever...if you agree with his political viewpoints i think he honestly wants you in his camp regardless of color. 

sandy hook - jones did not send people to harass sandy hook families. he discussed a possible conspiracy at sandy hook, and people took it upon themselves to do harass the families. was what he said about sandy hook wrong? yes, even he admits that now. was it hurtful, and stupid? yes, of course. but the media narrative that he "sent people to harass sandy hook parents" is not true.

the media often mischaracterizes alex, and that gives alex more credibility in the eyes of his fans because he can point out how the mainstream media is lying about small things he has done or said, so they mustt be lying about bill gates and george soros...the funny thing is, is that there is so much crazy shit he says there is no need to mischaracterize - the mainstream media totally glosses over his calls for people in his movement to retaliate against possible physical attacks from "the left" by finding "high value targets", saying "you will just have to get on that plane" - implying you should be flying to some power city and assassinating a prominent democrat/leftist target. jones is always careful to say that violence should only be defensive, hes not saying we sqhould kill anyone right now, etc - but he gives no clear definition of an "attack" and spends the rest of the 3hr broadcast going on and on about how the left, globalists and the "chicoms" are attacking america in all these different ways, like an engineered pandemic used to usher in a global police state headed by a cabal of satanist pedophiles. if i thought thats what was really happening id want to kill people too - and i think he knows this and does it anyway.

every day i am waiting for the other shoe to drop - id say there is a fairly high chance that before alex jones leaves the public eye, someone will kill or assassinate someone based on his broadcasts. i dont see a random shooting as a significant possibility, that does not jive with jones at all - more like someone on the far left will be shot at a protest, or there will be an assassination attempt on a prominent progressive politician or member of the business/political elite/deep state.

I find Daylight to have a steady voice of reason in these parts... definitely surprised to hear he consumes Alex Jones regularly but to each his own.  While certainly not the same, I listen to conservative programming and consume moderate Republican content to get their views on current events.  I think overall it helps me to see the bigger picture in many things.  Strictly consuming liberal media and letting that 100% shape your opinions isn't much different than the other side strictly consuming their own media machines.  I am firmly left of center but believe compromise and pragamatism are part of the bedrock of a healthy democracy.

With that said, I have to say I fucking hate Alex Jones' programming.  Sure he seems like a funny guy on podcasts like Joe Rogan and not everything he says is a crazy conspiracy suggestion but it is just not for me.  I spent 15 years of my life frequenting sites such as Drudge Report and other garbage and over the last few years have made an effort to eliminate as much of the toxic media I can.. it's like junk food IMO.

My highschool/college sweatheart's Dad and brother were DEEP on Alex and I recall having numerous conversations with her Dad how the holocaust was basically a big hoax.  "No, well, it DID happen a little but NOT ANYTHING like how large scale we've be sold".  Ugh.

.. I read Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage when I was 15.  Ugh- I think I need to shower now..