Currently watching Alex Jones’ documentary “Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement” (2007), which you can watch free online on google videos or on JohnLocker.com. Little over an hour into it and he’s definitely delving deeply into the issue of globalization by looking into the Bilderberg Group, the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway, explaining the notion of a New World Order and asserting that it’s well underway.
How accurate is this documentary and the “conspiracy theory” it puts forth? That’s for each of us to assess for ourselves. Don’t believe anything you’re told on face value. With that said, I personally find Alex Jones’ assertions very provocative, intriguing me to look further into the claims he and others made in the film.
Alex Jones maintains the following sites:
InfoWars.com – “Because there is a war on for your mind”
PrisonPlanet.tv
PrisonPlanet.com – “The truth will set you Free”
In the documentary, Alex asks: “Why don’t we learn from the mistakes of our ancestors? Why does humankind find itself bound in a cycle of bloodshed and enslavement?”
He goes on to say:
Predatory elites have always rationalized their oppression by claiming that they are superior and have the divine right to rule when all they really are is a gaggle of ruthless psychopaths, parasitically feeding on the host population until their cancerous movement causes the collapse of the host.
There have been thousands of tyrannical governments in history and less than 10 that can truly be called free.
Pausing it an hour-and-a-half in, the discussion on eugenics needs to be replayed and chewed on for a minute. Backing up to China’s policies on euthanasia, organ transplants, and forced labor, listening carefully to his speculations on what drives elite psychopathy toward genocidal extremes again and again. Eugenics. And what is eugenics? It originated as a branch of psychology that theorizes the evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin to explain physical, biological adaptations over time, determined by survival of the fittest, can too be used to create a “social Darwinian model” with the end goal of “perfecting” the human species. This is a very serious topic because it absolutely relevant in the times we live in, on the cusp of entering a new era where ethics are of the utmost importance if we’re to continue to survive and thrive. People are quick to dismiss these topics, inaccurately believing them to be relics of history that died with WWII. Oh, contraire! World War II was only the beginning, a taste for what’s to come as we increasingly become a global society ruled by a removed and secretive few. We really don’t know what the future holds, but the possibilities don’t sound too pleasant.
The world as a gigantic pyramid scheme…that’s what we’re currently facing. There is no evidence to suggest it plans on slowing anytime soon either. This we do understand.
Ya know, it’s very interesting to stop and contemplate Darwin’s theories, especially as they are being misapplied to control human social life. But what strikes me in this moment is how in some ways I can relate with that instinctive reaction—that repulsed “gut feeling” that many Christians report experiencing while considering Darwin’s proposals. I have it too, and I’m a non-Christian/non-religious proponent for teaching evolution in schools. His theory doesn’t feel complete, does it? We accept it as fact, and in many regards it indeed appears to be, but it feels as though something is left out. Where does the soul factor in to the equation? We are souls with bodies and minds. That is what it means to be human and perhaps on a more basic level it is experienced by all lifeforms. We don’t know. But we should start asking these questions before we begin hacking into the human psyche with drugs and torturous forms of “therapy” or allow a tiny minority of elitists to define for us what it means to be ‘normal’ and healthy.
Psychopathy (otherwise known as sociopathy) is…little understood and involves a prolonged and severe lack of conscience. What’s scary is that these terms get twisted to where they can be applied to dissidents, as this 1996 article in Psychiatric Times clearly does in claiming half of all cop-killers are psychopaths. To quote:
The killers’ characteristics referred to as antisocial personality in the FBI report were as follows: sense of entitlement, unremorseful, apathetic to others, unconscionable, blameful of others, manipulative and conning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible. These killers were not simply persistently antisocial individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD; they were psychopaths- remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends.
The article was written by Dr. Robert D. Hare, one of the supposed “leading experts” on psychopathy. Yeah, I already know of him. He wrote the book Without Conscience, which I personally didn’t find too useful and quit reading partway through. That was about 3-4 years ago, back before knowing anything about Dr. Hare and hoping to find useful information to aid in protecting myself from predators in the future, having dated what turned out to be a sociopath a couple years prior. This book didn’t provide the answers I was looking for, but maybe I should give it another chance.
Why he speaks of psychopaths as separate entities from sociopaths I don’t understand when anyone in the field will tell you the two terms are used interchangeably. Makes me wonder if Dr. Hare isn’t drawing a distinction that doesn’t honestly exist, categorizing people according to other traits, whatever those may be. The checklists used in the book omit the human factors that may have motivated the crimes or behaviors, creating an assessment based on shallow criteria, effectively dismissing considerations for why the crimes were committed with the suggestion that there is simply something organically wrong with people’s brains. Sure, that might be true, but we’d need in-depth studies to determine which segment of the population is truly this way, which is not something that can be easily assessed. There is a major difference between enacting anti-social behaviors and being a true sociopath—the utter lack of conscience in the latter but not necessarily in the former.
Aren’t people generally remorseless toward those they’re combating as perceived enemies or threats? And what is this shit: “disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible”? Doesn’t it really depend on whose ‘norms’ or definition of “socially acceptable behavior” we subscribe to? Because they control the law doesn’t mean they get to control human beings. That’s not the deal that was agreed upon by the people and our governments. Dissent has to happen if the status quo is to be interrupted, and labeling dissidents as “psychopaths” only serves to distort reality. Are all psychopaths inherently irresponsible? No. Are they all non-conformists? Absolutely not. Plenty conform quite well in their day-lives and even hold jobs in high power positions. Here is another film that asserts there is a rising awareness of what’s been coined “industrial psychopaths” who rather successfully infiltrate the business world, though as a warning, the ending promotes controversial “treatment” that I can’t yet agree is a viable solution. What prevents the definition of psychopathy to be distorted and twisted to suit political agendas, thereby serving up higher and higher numbers of the population as guinea pigs for “treatment” via implants to change behaviors deemed anti-social?
You cannot determine a psychopath based on one episode of violence any better than you can accurately diagnose ADHD by meeting with a child only once. Gotta go back and judge a person over a continuum, including their childhood to an extent, including their upbringing and family relations, and assess all displays of anti-social behaviors, whether criminal or not, keeping in mind our own biases inevitably due in part to common misinformation. A psychopath like Ted Bundy is easier to peg, at least on paper, because his actions were so far outside of what’s okay that no reasonable person can excuse them. But what does a psychopath in a Big Business environment look like? If he’s not out hacking up people, can we even tell what we’re looking at? His track record may reflect both extremes, from inexcusable callousness in handling some matters to appearing charitable and philanthropic in other areas. Why? Because successful sociopaths (the term I personally prefer using) are smart enough to know that balancing their actions helps stave off public scrutiny, or because they actually do care to some extent when it comes to certain initiatives, like sponsoring little league baseball or funding programs in schools that serve the dual-purpose of spreading their marketing strategies to captive young audiences while appearing charitable in the public eye. Why we insist on falsely assuming that sociopaths are maniacs obvious to the naked eye is beyond reason. We should instead ask how we might be inadvertently assisting psychopaths with our patriotism and ready compliance.
Returning to the movie at 1:31:25…
Makes me a little nervous about Planned Parenthood. Doesn’t completely surprise me, but I’d need to learn about their history since I’m admittedly ignorant. The film also mentioned Margaret Sanger who we learned about in a Women’s History course, and I vaguely recall us briefly discussing the controversy enshrouding her expressed views on eugenics.
The documentary’s clip from Aldous Huxley discussing his book and George Orwell’s 1984 was a treat. As much as his writing style and conclusion seemed weak, his message was very intriguing and can be seen in action today in our national pharmaceutical experiment using the general public as guinea pigs for psychotropics and SSRIs.
Continuing with the film…wow, it’s like watching Idiocracy in action. People don’t seem to get that all this science being done comes with patents to ensure only select companies (like Monsanto) have rights to using these technologies, expressing no obligation to necessarily use it for the public good. People seem to assume that these technologies are free and that we’ll have access to their benefits, never realizing how quickly such advancements tend to wind up in the wrong (private) hands. Bertrand Russell is another author I’d dearly like to read at length. Remember the book mentioned is The Impact on Science and Society.
What Alex Jones says about foster children and prisoners being at the mercy of the government’s whims is true (in terms of 2/3rds being on psychotropics, though I can’t speak on the average number of pills prescribed) and is a topic that’s interested me for a while now, particularly the criminal justice system since that’s my academic area of study. It’s truly disgusting how much power the state has over these members of our society, and when it comes to the prison population, the numbers are only expected to grow. Hence so many prison expansion programs. They weren’t built for nothing. What we define as criminal is about to take on new meanings.
As for the environmental concerns, this goes to show we really don’t know what we’re facing here. Unarguably, humans and big corporations have damaged the environment, but what consequences will follow we do not know.
Haven’t heard of “transhumanism” or “post-humanists” before. Ya know, this and another video I watched earlier on nanotechnology reminds me of the mechanical dog that injects poison in Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451. What initially seemed stupid now looks much more clever in this light. Haha
The “radical life extensions” mentioned in the film reminds me of the talk by Aubry de Grey on TED.com on why we age and how to extend lives with advancements in cell research. It can be found on this post or on TED directly. I remember while watching that back then thinking this technology will undoubtedly be cornered by the very wealthy and won’t likely be easily accessible for the general population. It appears Alex Jones would agree with this assumption.
“Suicidal nihilism”…hmmm…makes me think of the characters in Alice in Wonderland, a book I really ought to read. Acting for the sake of acting, looking at life as though nothing really matters outside of what they will into being. How is that not grandiosity? Sounds like a bunch of sociopaths/psychopaths to me. 
Overall, I found this documentary worthwhile viewing, if only to collect names and factoids to research later for yourself. For a little while I’ll look up some of the terms used and organizations mentioned and add links throughout this post. Read the rest of this entry »
)
hehe 
Eight more days left to go on it though.
What is this country coming to?
Hehe. Why not? This is what one does for entertainment when cable television isn’t an option. Screw being spoon-fed diversionary tactics and an endless stream of ads (not that you can avoid ads online either). So, without further ado…
Newsvine
