DisInfoWars with Tom Secker: Marxism in the Truth Movement

Marxism usually gets a bad rap in the Truth Movement, but the two share a lot of key ideas. This week I explore the schizoid relationship the Truth Movement (or sections of it) have with Marxism, looking at how the notion of 'waking up' functions in much the same way as 'class consciousness', how both Marxists and conspiracists predict the inevitable self-destruction of the economic system, and the downright bizarre confusion over Marxism's approach to central banking. I conclude that Marxist ideas, or at least very similar ideas, turn up in sections of the truth movement that you might least expect.

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Thanks for the episode Tom. Informative. Point of clarification: does your rejection of the hypothesis that the Bolshevik Revolution was funded by Wall Street mean that you reject Antony Sutton’s work on this topic, as I assume most people that hold the view that Wall Street did play a role have been influenced by Sutton’s research?

    • twistedpolitix says:

      That’s EXACTLY what I was going to ask!

    • Orenda,

      I don’t so much reject Sutton’s work as see a lot of holes in it. For example, Sutton talks about Wall Street funding the Bolsheviks, but neglects to mention that the only evidence he found was 1 banker giving them money after the revolution, and the same banker gave twice as much to the Bolsheviks’ political opponents before the revolution. Frankly, I think Sutton is a nut for whom intellectual honesty is an afterthought at best.

      Almost everyone who believes this idea about Wall Street points at Sutton’s book. What I’ve never seen anyone who believes that idea do is actually talk about the evidence. It’s just ‘there is this book claiming it, so it must be true’. That’s the sign of someone believing something because they want to, not because they have good reasons to.

  2. Steve Budge says:

    Can you recommend reading on the Bolshevic Revolution Tom?

    • Although more of an ideological analysis than an historical one, reading Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith by James H. Billington would be a very good start, and to some degree is in alignment with Tom’s assertion about the origins of the Bolshevik Revolution, although it should be noted that the author does not address the Wall Street question.

    • Steve,

      Not in terms of books, no. Fire in the Minds of Men is a lot better than Anthony Sutton, though I don’t agree with it entirely. But this is the point – reading Sutton’s book you wouldn’t even be aware that the Bolshevik revolution was the second revolution in Russia that year, or the third since the turn of the century. This lack of context is what enables Sutton to advance his theory…

      • Tom,
        Are there other sources besides books we can be directed to in order to more fully understand your perspective on the Bolshevik Revolution? As it stands, there has been much more offered in terms of which sources are incorrect and/or intellectually dishonest, but not a great deal has been suggested that would accurately and precisely articulate your point of view. Thank you.

        • Orenda,

          I’m not trying to be evasive or obstructive, it’s just that I’ve never seen or heard of a book that even discusses my view of the Bolshevik Revolution. If I knew of such a book then I would say so. In essence it’s all about the relationship between the secret police and the anarchists (the true revolutionaries). Lenin was, as his MI5 file says, just a figurehead.

          • Tom,
            Admittedly, I am bit perplexed. As a fellow researcher, understanding your perspective through an examination of the same sources you have reviewed to arrive at your informed opinion is my primary focus. Because I am unaware of your sources, I have no way to to do this. I do thank you for responding, however, and remain an interested listener.

          • Oranda,

            I do not know of any such book. I arrived at my opinion of the Bolshevik revolution after reading lots of different stuff (for example, that Lenin/the Bolsheviks two main guys in the Duma were working for the secret police, and reading Lenin’s MI5 file which paints a very different picture of him, and reading Arthur Ransome’s letters from when he was in Petrograd in this period and was an acquaintance of the Bolsheviks).

            Likewise, my longer view of Russia (that revolution became inevitable) is just based on Russian history. Look at how many revolts and uprisings and aborted revolutions they had in the 300 years before the 3 revolutions at the start of the 20th century. I can’t name a book listing all of these and assessing their impact and consequences because I don’t know of any such book.

            As such, I’m not really sure what to tell you. To list all the different sources that contribute to my perspective would take all day, and there isn’t one or two main sources because as far as I know no one (in the English language) has explored the idea that Lenin was ultimately an agent of the Russian deep state.

  3. This guy drips with sarcasm and cynicism, and… sounds like a ”card carrying” fag! Those Brits, love that high tone accented shit, and they are a bunch of Nancies!

    Didn’t learn anything from this episode. He throws too many entities all together into a mishmash of incomprehensibility. He doesn’t like Marx. He also doesn’t like ”truthers”,
    He is completely obscure.

    No, I read a book from JBS book store once… “None Dare call it Treason”, a big part of the theme there was how the communist revolution and regime, were really a creation of the west, more or less to bottle up Russia, and keep it on ice for future exploitation. Not totally far fetched now put against that suggested by ”Grand Chessboard…” where Eurasia is in the sights for real.

    But still, no sense mixing up all the stuff into a mishmash. Why can’t Marx be read, as is perfunctory in study of economic, etc, with out the Labeling. You could read Shakespeare without being labeled a Shakespearian. Or etc. See the mind hobbles that are on some issues. (and what’s he say about blldg. #7? haha. )

    Well he might be entertaining, but not much good for shedding any light on stuff.

    • Say What Ed nelson….
      This Little Islander…
      From Bornholm….That is is in Denmark.
      Yes…Let us..What Did We Do….
      We Came in Longboats…
      And Did Yorkshire…Hard…Very Hard.
      We Did Just That.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire
      Now…A little Pop song for You, on the Chessboard.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NJ3OpY6X0k
      Best Regards
      Jens and Bornholm.

      • Jens, the other day, I heard something in some blog about the Veekings and their violent reputations, but, it made a lot of sense, So unlike the usual concept of a bunch of wild fun loving bikers/boaters off on a lark, which is the official story, maybe it was different, and because: Just feature a hard working bunch of fisher folk and farmers deciding to take a ”working vacation” across hundreds of miles and leagues on the rough North Sea, to go and ”pillage and plunder” in Yorkshire and around’.

        More like the Norse in their trusty boats were paying a visit to even up a score for being invaded by the Anglo’s and their Roman paymasters. for invading and using the Christian churches, built like fortresses, and used as such.

        Most of the time the Norse are slow to get mad, but when they do, well.

    • Ed Nelson,

      Very funny.

      • ed nelson says:

        Hey Tom… What is funny?

        You write a hundred miles an hour… but I don’t get your drift… what is funny?

        I will continue to correspond… respond… tell me.. I don’t get your coomment : Funny: what do you think is ‘funny’…? I am dead serious!

      • ed nelson says:

        Hi Tom Secker… You did a damned good impression of a English Accent… hahahahaha

        You probably grew up in anaheim….

        You did a gaddamed good impersonationof a gaddamed Enlish prig… (screwball)… hahaha

        glad you didn’t get mad at me… for calling you out ont it….

    • This is of course the same John Stormer that was a member of the Council for National Policy. The same disgusting far right “think tank” that has been controlling the JBS for years.

    • Might I reduce a bit the snark and dear god do I agree with you. Some brits I can understand when they talk, Canadian English is slightly different depending on the populated area, but it’s close to American English. While Australians might as well carry a card saying “I’m Australian, Not British”.

      Tom’s earlier episodes were better. The fact this is the last episode for a while indicates a mid-life/utilitarian crisis.

  4. 344thBrother says:

    Tom:
    Thanks for the Alex Jones segment as requested.
    I’ll have to listen again to comment intelligently, but on first blush, I think whoever you listen to in the so called Truther culture is not who I ever hear much from. I admit knowing jack squat about Marxism, never have read Marx or any of the other references you mention. But, even though I do listen to a pretty wide spectrum of Truther broadcasts, and read a fair amount of it, I rarely hear anything about Marxism.

    I do agree that Alex Jones has moved closer to the “War on Terra” than previously, but it seems that this is in response to the Radical Islam movement and all the complaints coming in from Sweden, Belgium, London (You haven’t seen this?) etc. . From what I’ve seen, I tend to agree that while the war on Terra started out as 100% bullshit, the fact that we’ve bombed these countries so badly has made the war a self fulfilling prophecy, and that a completely unregulated immigration policy from Mexico, Overseas or Canada even is a really bad idea.

    I do object to your invective. against the entire movement as inbred, etc. . Christian… etc. . Obviously this is a subject that’s close to a nerve, but honestly, I come from a pretty darn red necked part of the country (Loggers) and bikers and I just don’t see what you’re describing.

    Could this be a primarily British viewpoint in the Truther community? I’ll listen again and maybe have better questions and comments, but until then, Merry Christmas to you and yours and many happy returns of the New Year. God knows we need it.

    peace
    d

  5. twistedpolitix says:

    Tom,
    I have to admit that this episode felt more like a release of divide and conquer. I felt as if you were scolding all truthers that dont fit your high standards of professionalism and beliefs. I dont write, tweet, or even think about Marxism much so I really dont get into debates about the finer aspects of that ideology. Yet, in every other statement in your podcast you ripped on every form of truther out there.

    And what is so ironic is that Sibel and crew are working to created a much larger and effective independent media organization. That will take people of all creeds to support.

    Just something to keep in mind next time you are nitpicking at the truther movement. You can find my nonsense on twitter at @twistedpolitix and http://www.twistedpolitix.com

    • Maybe it’s also important for the listeners to be tolerant and accepting of a wider range of commentary?

      As long as Tom’s rhetoric is on point, maybe it’s worth listening to. I am just starting to listen to this episode so I cannot comment further. Just as an aside, I would listen to the ‘Hitler apologists on RBN, only to help rid myself of the ‘conditioning’ that accepted from the lame stream media.’

      It’s important to listen to what is said, and criticize the rhetoric, not necessarily the commentator.

      ps. Alex Jones is a shill, can’t believe I used to listen to that guy, towards the end I tried challenging his listeners on pp, but that was pretty much a futile effort, the more lies and lazy thinking people are willing to accept, the harder they are to reach, and ultimately it’s a matter of how much time do you want to spend helping someone else when you need to be helping yourself and the people that really matter.

    • Twistedpolitix,

      It’s impossible to criticise the truth movement without being accused of ‘divide and conquer’ or of shitting on people who don’t live up to my standards. In truth, I’ve had this reaction throughout my entire life when criticising pretty much anything that people identify with, this is by no means limited to the truth movement.

      I’m happy for people to have different views to me. Being the sort of person who disagrees with everyone about everything I’ve had to get used to the world being full of people who disagree with me. I’m not saying any of these people should be banned, censored, silenced, criminalised – nothing of the sort. But if they talk a load of bigoted horseshit then I am going to call them out for it, as I would anyone else.

      I don’t consider criticising a movement that claims to be radical for its misunderstanding of the most widely-read political philosophy in human history to be ‘nitpicking’. I think it cuts to the heart of everything that’s screwed about the truth movement. It’s a truth movement that doesn’t give a toss about truth, which makes a claim to superior knowledge but is fundamentally ignorant on most of the topics it discusses, which claims to be offering something radical and new and different but most of the time either offers no solutions or spouts cliches. Frankly, it’s a bus that is going nowhere that I was never on.

      • twistedpolitix says:

        Where is the LIKE button? Nice response on the 1st 2 paragraphs.

        I did not mean to say you were nitpicking about Marxism but you are right that many, including myself, have not read the source materials and do not know much about it. In which case, we shouldnt be speaking negatively about it either.

        But is it safe to say that ” It’s a truth movement that doesn’t give a toss about truth, which makes a claim to superior knowledge but is fundamentally ignorant on most of the topics it discusses, which claims to be offering something radical and new and different but most of the time either offers no solutions or spouts cliches”

        There is no single “truth movement” so are you referring only to those that you were specifically describing in your podcast? Because they remain nameless, I am not sure. The ones with the 10 planks. Who are they?

        • You’re right that there is no one single truth movement, like any cultural/social/political movement it is a multiform entity.

          But at the same time I cannot think of any single part of the truth movement that is actually gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, having open and honest debate about different interpretations of evidence – any of the things you would expect a truth movement to be doing.

          Defining exactly who I’m talking about (who I’m criticising) in this podcast is not that easy, but anyone who discusses cultural Marxism solely in the sense of accusing various modern cultural phenomena of being Marxist, they would be in. I literally cannot remember anyone in the alt media actually quoting from Adorno or Marcuse. Not that I am a fan of either, though I quite like Walter Benjamin who has been associated with the Frankfurt School. But if people want to discuss the Frankfurt School and the influence of their Marxism on modern culture then fine, it’s all good with me. But if they just don’t bother reading anything before recording a podcast or writing an article about it then I don’t just think I have a right to mock and insult them, I think I have a duty to do so.

          Likewise the ’10 Planks’ horseshit. Anyone who has put that out, and not subsequently admitted their error, is fair game for mockery. Look before you leap, as always, is the only real lesson for us. And I’m guilty sometimes of offering glib, poorly formed opinions but I generally do that in private conversation and I at least try to check myself before I wreck myself in public. It’s not as though I think I’m perfect at this, I’m certainly not, but I try a lot harder than most, and if everyone tried a little bit more that would, in terms of overall momentum, add up to a lot.

  6. twistedpolitix says:

    And yes, do cover the dialectic you spoke of at the end of your last episode. That sounds interesting.

  7. jackdonovan says:

    Tom, you talked a lot about how people mention marxism without really reading anything, but you barely quoted any marxist.

    It’s completely false that marxism is “not clear” about WHY capitalism will fail. That is the whole point of Marx’s Capital! It’s all about fetishism, alienation, and why that will ultimately be the downfall of capitalism. You might not agree with the argument, but it’s “abundantly clear” that the “why” was central to Marx.

    • Jack,

      For sure, Marx devoted a lot of pages to why he thought capitalism would inevitably fail. I was criticising Marxists for being unclear on this point, not Marx himself.

      But since you’ve brought it up – be honest, how much of what Marx said has actually come true? Because the type of capitalism we have now is not the same type that he was analysing in the second half of the 19th century in Britain, is it?

  8. Not sure what kind of response you’re looking for.

    In general I think many people are just trying to grasp the reality, the world they are living in. They see the wrongdoings and the injustice yet are unable to clearly identify ‘the rulers’ nor their agenda. Here is where it mostly becomes a game of chance. Whats the persons background, what cultural influences, what ‘teachers’ do they come across and so on.

    And what references do they have to fall back on anyway? Mostly the ‘great ideologies’ of the early 20th century. Marxism or Communism, National Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism etc. Mere passing of time has made these all unsuitable and obsolete to define todays power structures. Only traits or characteristics of all those ideologies can be found, which is fine and can be useful to gain some understanding. Problem comes when people assume these characteristics define the entire system.

    Add to that over a century of propaganda and distortion, concerted effort to discredit competing ideas and ideologies. Words like fascist or nazi have lost all real meaning. It just means “bad” and “evil”. Communist doesn’t fare much better. People like Alex Jones call everything nazi, fascist and communist. Doesn’t matter if these are diametrically opposed because they just mean “evil people in power wanting to do evil things”.

    It’s hardly surprising people who listen to such meaningless rhetoric get lost and confused.

    But at least they are trying. No matter how wrong hey get it, they are trying to understand the power structures and the objectives of the ruling class. They are dissenters and object to whats going on. Also not all have the capacity to read and understand Das Kapital, let alone the works of philosophy out of which the major ideologies sprang.

    Perhaps we need new definitions and concepts to describe and characterize todays systems. What good are ideas and ideologies concerning the nation state, in a world where the nation state is quickly fading and eroding?

    nb. My own fall back position is international crime syndicate. The present power structures operate and function very much like traditional mobsters and organized crime syndicates. I am unsure as to how great a role, if any, ideals and ambitions for a better world still play. Most if not all of whats being implemented can be explained as the ruling crime syndicate cementing their position and trying to increase their hold and reach. I don’t see much authentic ideology behind it at all. Which, if correct, makes it even more fruitless trying to interpret our present reality using archaic models. Looking how a cattle farm is run might be more educational.

  9. Tom, your reports are usually very informative and thought provoking but this one seems a bit dismissive and angry and brushes people off in one broad stroke. Alex Jones might be blustery and hyperbolic but you are completely incorrect of your off handed comment about his views on the war on terror. He has ALWAYS (and still) said that the war on terror was a concoction of NATO and the western intelligence agencies to provoke fear, gift money to the military-industrial complex and to get people to give up their liberty for ‘security’. Have you been listening to him or just getting your ideas from reports ABOUT what he is saying? He has not wavered on this, indeed, it tends to form a backbone for many of his ideas.

    • twistedpolitix says:

      Actually, Alex Jones completely did a #flipflop on #ISIS and the #WaronTerror during his interview with Trump. Go watch it and then come back. You will Be AMAZED! That’s why I made the comment that those who argue that he is controlled opposition stand on stronger ground as of late.

    • Macfly,

      I don’t waste my time reading other people’s reports about what Alex Jones said. I judge things for myself, and he is 100% on board with the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America and take over the world with Shariah Law and this is why the Mexicans are flooding in like coackroaches and why we have transsexual bathrooms appearing in schools and this is all some sort of Liberal Leftie Muslim Gay Commie Jew agenda. He always hinted at this when Bush was in power, but since Obama’s been in office he’s gone full retard, he even has people like David Duke on his show and cowtows to him because he knows it plays well with his jew-hating inbred bible-toting cretinous target audience.

      And I concluded all this by simply watching a few of his videos. To me it is quite obvious.

      • twistedpolitix says:

        Wait, I don’t think I have ever heard Alex Jones talk about Israel and Zionists. I agree with the rest though. I stopped listening to him because he never talks SOLUTIONS. That’s why I like James Corbett so much. At least he is making an attempt at providing ANSWERS to questions.

        AJ should be a pit stop on the truthers way to a better place.

  10. candideschmyles says:

    There were no comments when I finished listening to this episode for the first time and as my comments on the previous two episodes have been less than supportive I did not want to open the commentary with yet more negative feedback. I am glad I waited. On the second listen I still disagreed on some points, covered by other comments above, but I see where you are going with this now and you are right to go there. As someone who finds themselves continually at odds with any single narrative I applaud your conviction in stating these alienating and controversial truths. Whether they are greater or lesser truths is for the individual thinker to decide, but truths they are.
    The problem with any ideology is it is an ideology. The way the human consciousness processes and assesses any ideology is flawed at the outset and makes them a poor tool for social management. Yet humanity clings to them like an infant a comfort blanket. I meet very few people who understand that the adoption of an ideological position is the same as the usurpation of logic and reality. Yet there is no model, no dialogue that I have found that manages to move us beyond ideology. And those that came closest were doomed to be constructed as ideologies themselves. Unfortunately the tactics of the various regional Mafia outfits that pose as governments do too good a job of imposing fear, discord and uncertainty for the kind of peace required to move mentally and collectively beyond ideology and see global management of humanity and its resources as a logistical issue only. The era which sees the death of politics is a long way off.

    • Candide,

      I’m glad you waited because this is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for – I don’t expect or want people to agree with me, I just want to talk about things that I think are important that hardly anyone seems to want to discuss. Maybe I’m wrong about a lot of things, I am not plugged into that scene anymore. But fundamentally, if the truth movement can’t criticise itself and its worst habits then what use is it to anyone? It becomes just another vapid, commodified subculture made popular by the information age.

      As to moving beyond ideology – this is possible in individuals but perhaps not on a mass scale. When you put more than a million people together they start doing some very odd things that individually most of them would never do. Ideology is collective by nature, because it is born out of language. It is because we can describe in language a vision of a better world that we can then develop an ideology that will supposedly lead us to that better world. It sounds convincing because our whole description of causality is grammatical, thus a beautiful grammar of possible future history (which is what ideology is, I think) is far more important in convincing people than whether that ideology is grounded in reality and draws logical conclusions.

      And how the hell you counter that, I don’t know.

  11. Tom,
    Great podcast. You managed outline some of what’s bothered me on a number of aspects of particular flavors within the truth movement. Generally speaking, I think “isms” (capitalism, communism, marxism) tend to render themselves relatively useless as an accurate means of describing any particular ideology as it applies to a specific social structure. Maybe they offer some sort of general baseline, but much like religion, the doctrine offers (or demands) a set of guidelines to be applied in the abstract, but in practice, how this applies in the real world and the particulars of that time and space, is subject to interpretation.

    When contradictions arise, as they inevitably do, the fallback tends to revert to the ideological “ism” or faith in the abstract, where a tribalistic defense of that concept and the comfort of certainty lends itself to outward hostility and rejection of that challenge or disruptive contradiction in whatever shape or form it may take. For whatever reason, there seems to be prevalence of various forms of absolutist adherence to these baseline ideological positions within certain (if not most) areas of the truth movement, that the contradictions can become ridiculous (if not problematic).

    I had a bigger idea of where I meant to go with this when I started, but I think I’ll do everybody a favor here (especially myself) and leave the thoughts there instead of wasting time trying to salvage a more precise point from layers of abstraction. At the moment, the sentence I just wrote is slipping into that abyss, so I’ll just let it slide.

    Again, nice one, Tom. I think you might have dropped a stick of dynamite on discussion, but that’s what this is about to some degree, is it not?

    • It was also nice to hear someone pointing out the prevalence of white supremacist ideology in the truth movement. I feel like I’ve had to do more wading through that crap in its different varieties in my pursuit of the truth than I’d care to. I’m pretty sure this is one of the aspects, at least in the United States, which has limited the reach of some of these ideas or made their accessibility prohibitive, but that’s another topic for another day…

    • BennyB,

      Thanks for your kind words. I’m not trying to drop a stick of dynamite, I’m just calling things as I see them, and as I know quite a lot of other people see them (broadly) but for whatever reasons don’t tend to voice as explicitly as me.

      But yes, part of the purpose in talking about this stuff is to try to crack it open, talk about the truth movement as a cultural and sociological phenomenon that, like any other such movement, can be discussed by the people participating in it. Plus it’s an interesting example of everything you’re saying about ideology. Believing in an ideology is quite similar to the cult mentality, itself an extreme form of the tribal mentality that seems to be de facto human nature. It is as much about a sense of social security as it is about believing in something. People will defend the thing that gives them a sense of security with more vitriol and violence than they will defend themselves, in some cases.

      I find this hard because I find anyone who agrees with me all the time to be extremely boring. It’s not that I don’t admire grand narratives and great ideologies for the powerful ideas they no doubt are, it’s just that I don’t expect any of them to actually bring about the reality they predict and lay claim to. Everything in its right place – realistic expectations are much better than unrealistic ones. It’s easier to dream than it is to try to fix something. As such, ideology is the path of least resistance for a lot of people.

      Yeah, I’m not really saying anything specific now either.

      Best,
      Tom

  12. twistedpolitix says:

    I should point out that many of us subscribers are part timers. We have jobs and families and go to extraordinary efforts to get educated about geopolitics, current events, the fals left right paradigm, etc. I myself ride a bike to work 4-5 days a week for 40 min each way and listen to BFP, PBC, Corbett, Mike Rivero, PeaceRevolution Podcast, Tom Woods, Next News Network, Peter Schiff, Keiser Report, Boom Bust, SGT Report, mostly economics.

    There is NO WAY I could keep up with the root sources, the best sources, on all topics like a professional full time journalist.

    Rather than insulting us, try pointing out how we are 2 sides of the same coin, or point out how the SUBTLETIES between Marxists, Neo Nazis, Climate Changers, Neoliberals, etc are dividing us, or better, are being used to divide us.

    • TwistedPolitix,

      I am not a professional full time journalist. Nothing I said in this show takes any special education to know or understand. That said, I do have the advantage of not having children, which frees up a lot of time for reading.

      ‘the false left right paradigm’
      ‘2 sides of the same coin’
      ‘are being used to divide us’

      Do you not see how all of these are truth movement cliches? Or if you don’t see them that way, can you see how I might see them like that? To my mind there is a difference between left and right, we’re not all just 2 sides of the same coin and not all of these things are being used to divide us. I simply don’t believe in that worldview. So no, I don’t think pointing out these cliches will do any service to anyone. In fact, I’d be patronising everyone listening and doing them a massive disservice if I fell back on these cheap, lazy, simplistic explanations of the world.

      • twistedpolitix says:

        Take a look at the other comments here. Obviously, others were offended. But you know what, forget it. The world is fucked anyway. We’ve had non stop war since god knows when and now the majority of people appear to support Trump and so when he gets into office we’ll take out Iran and all the conspiracy theorists will be right but it wont matter because we’re all arguing about differences between our own world views.

        I just thought that maybe the answer to the question “what should we DO about it?”, a question that Sibel discussed in the Round Table not long ago, is that we should TAKE ACTION in the form of activism, and I mean get in front of our politicians and get them to admit what is going on and get them to fight or get out of the way.

        We all listen to BFP and other truther material because we want to be educated. We should also want to do something about it, otherwise, aren’t we just part of the problem? Apathetic

        You are putting together a new media venture. For what purpose? To gather more subscribers, to awaken more people, so they can bicker about the differences between Marxism, Capitalism, Fascism, Collectivism, and Socialism? I should think not.

        You are a brilliant journalist and I respect you and your work. I’m just saying, try not to tear us all down for not thinking like you.

        • So what if some other people were offended? Would you honestly rather listen to something that just recycles the same old truther cliches but which will never, ever make you question what you believe, or would you rather take the risk of being insulted and actually listen to something that is outside of your comfort zone? Is the purpose of the alt media to make conspiracy theorists feel good about themselves?

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            Is the purpose of the alt media to make conspiracy theorists feel good about themselves?
            Tom ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘truthers’ are not interchangeable labels.
            Please try to be more careful when bandying them about.

          • Way to avoid the question…

  13. doublek321 says:

    I have to listen to this podcast again to sort out all my thoughts but I’ll say this. Instead of you criticizing others for their incorrect thoughts, why not just bring up what you hear that is incorrect and just dispute it.

    I will admit that I don’t like when people use words like “fascist”, “marxist”, etc because it’s unclear what they mean to that person. But I don’t think it makes a “truther” a bad person for using these words. Plus let’s not forget the whole redefining of words by TPTB (e.g. calling Ron Paul an “isolationist”) helps to muddy the whole situation.

  14. CuChulainn says:

    congrats! the ne plus ultra of puerility and infantilism.

    • CuChulainn says:

      to be precise: puerility of thinking, infantilism of affect

    • ed nelson says:

      good point there!

      infantilesm…. purile…. etc..etc.

      OK… let me offe rthis… watching sportsl Turn off the “F” sound” and just watch the action… just watch the game!! you don’t need the mouthy bastards telling you what you see!!!

      Turn off the sound and watch the show It is much better without the idiots telling us what we see
      Sports is much more interesting to me…. with out those monster idiots telling all kinds of shit… jus turn off the sound,,, and the games are pretty great!!!

  15. It’s pretty much been down hill since Jones wife divorced him. Irrational exuberance, one of those nice qualities which plays well with exorbitant consumerism.

    • twistedpolitix says:

      We should have a 1-800-Confer Call or something where we can speak about certain topics of the day in a group format.

    • twistedpolitix says:

      His wife left him? That’s sad. When did that happen?

      • I think it might have been at the beginning of this year. If I had to put a bet on when everything started going down hill, seriously, it might have been August 2014, that is about the time Jones started going off the deep end with his end of the world Ebola crap. There was also a big drop in ratings around that time too. To be honest, I don’t even think Jones is the worst mouth on that platform, I think PJW takes the cake with his obvious and hackneyed attention scams, but Jones is the ring leader, and there has been a lot of shady dealings going on with his org for a long time.

        • Ciaran,

          I agree, PJW is just a nasty, stupid troll of a human being. And his accent is very dodgy – like he’s a privately educated southerner pretending he’s from a northern working class town. Basically, I don’t believe he’s anything even close to a genuine human being.

          • ed nelson says:

            who is pjw… I have an idea who he is… who I am thinking fitts the bill … complete a-hole

            I think I know the jackass from TV…oh… PJ complete idiot liar.. LIAR

  16. To my mind there is a difference between left and right

    I agree with TomS here. In fact I have a working definition of right and left that is unambiguous enough for me, and that you could see as a concept of proof that there is an observable difference between left and right. Namely: There is an observable thing called the wealth distribution. Some are rich, others are poor. Next, there are various ways of reducing that information to let’s say a single number that indicates how much richer the rich are than the poor. You can now classify people by the opinion they have about that difference:
    You’re left-wing if you want the difference to become smaller.
    You’re right-wing if you want the difference to become bigger.

    I’m aware this is a simplistic definition of things for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that most people will say they don’t want the differences to become bigger, while at the same time supporting policies or making personal choices that will in fact increase the rich2poor difference. That being said, I’m convinced that at the core lies a difference in political views that is unambiguous enough to justify the use of the left-wing and right-wing concepts.

    Now I’m also aware that this, in a way, constitutes what you might call a “division” in society, and that “Divide and Rule” is an effective way to go about ruling.

    I’m also aware that the practical consequences of following a right- or left-wing policy can be a sort of contradiction in terms: If we simplistically equate money and power, and the state imposes a leveling policy, then typically a minority is going to have the power to impose a wealth redistribution, thus contradicting the idea of equality.
    For the right-wing policies, first of all they’re not sold as aiming to increase the difference between rich and poor, but rather as an effort to introduce freedom. Now that freedom in practice tends to be directed to the lucky few, who will abuse that freedom to the detriment of other people’s freedom. From there one might be tempted to conclude that the whole notion of a state is a screwed-up concept that will tend towards the removal of both freedom and equality, that therefore a “choice” between left and right is a false choice or something.

    Last but not least, I think I’m aware of the difference between Republican vs Democrat parties is fundamentally theatrical in nature and that in the end, they serve the same interests.

    Now from there to conclude that the difference between left and right is a “false paradigm” is a weird and mostly ambiguous and undefined notion to me. Whenever I hear somebody utter that phrase, I do a quick replace of (Left, Right) by (Democrat, Republican) and then it makes enough sense to me to be willing to keep on listening.

    Because in spite of all these arguments, and whether or not there are third choices etc, the question remains: Are you OK with the current distribution of wealth (/power) in this world?

  17. I don’t see any problem with calling out these neo-nazi white supremacists within the movement. They are a cancerous plauge that needs to be stopped. Too many within the movement have tolerated or put up with these scumbags. They do nothing but spread hate.

    On the other side of this we shouldn’t be so thin skinned when it comes to criticism. The alt-media/truth movement should never be a place where we all come to hear the same tired old garbage, and then pat ourselves on the back because we are “awake.” I find that many people are great at dishing it out but can’t take it when someone calls out a glaring falsehood, mistake, what have you.

    And just to throw in my two cents about Sutton: this was a man who was totally fine with giving talks to the cult known as the Church Universal and Triumphant. This is a cult controlled by Elizabeth Prophet who also gave talks at events funded by members of the Council for National Policy. Why are we taking this guy seriously? He is a joke.

  18. twistedpolitix says:

    Tom,

    You wrote: the notion of ‘waking up’ functions in much the same way as ‘class consciousness’ and therefore tied the truther movement to Marxism by way of similar response to similar stimulus. Are there ways in which this current truther movement, splintered in many factions, is NOT waking up in numbers great enough to matter. In fact, society seems to be pleasantly distracted with phones, tablets, social media, etc meanwhile they are losing civil liberties, losing property rights, and constantly falling into debt to barely stay afloat.

    Like Aldous Huxley said, “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution”

  19. I havent listened to anything in a while, including this, and I am NO WHERE near as educated as you boogers but…

    1) The overt system is a superficial syatem. Capitalism fails. Communism fails. All for the same reasons. They concetrate power, and limit the dialogue of society.

    2) What (organizational systems?) does and what doesnt concentrate power? Perhaps it is time to take on a new mindset that sits outside the systems and focuses on the matrix from which they arise, aka the grand system. I really wish you would look at that and put it in light of Quigley’s evolution of civilizations, and whatever other material you k ow of on the subject. Systems, societies, civilizations… all rise and fall. And now, thanks to technology we may very well be looking at a species levels system, ours, rising, falling, and possibly being replaced by what we create.

    I have seriously started thinking of spirit level systems. What is left behind when you die, but the spirit of yourbprime values… that which you hold most dear and guides your (re?) actions?

    In the end this worldly dialogue is just the result of basic concepts about what should and shouldn’t be being expressed upon the medium of what we know as reality.

    But what if what we know as reality, and here I will direct your minds eye with the term “human system”,… what if our human system is simy insufficient to express our prime movers, our hope and dream, within this medium of “reality”?

    What if our (our prime mover/motivator) greatest hope lies outside this box of human dialogue?

    I think the solutiona will not be found within the current paradigm, and that the definition of current paradigm must take into account all motivating factors, even those outside the politcal systems and hopes available to us currently, as all current options seem to be a failure.

    Right now you have hope because you have the internet. A new medium of dialogue. But even it is insufficient.

    Perhaps the solution is technological. Technology is the only game changer.

  20. Ribbit-Mark says:

    TomS:
    Is the purpose of the alt media to make conspiracy theorists feel good about themselves?

    RibbitMark:
    Tom ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘truthers’ are not interchangeable labels.
    Please try to be more careful when bandying them about.

    TomS said:
    Way to avoid the question…
    Tom, you know and I know and everyone else here at BFP knows that your question was a rhetorical one.

    For the most part, I am a truther and I resent being referred to as a conspiracy theorist, even indirectly as is the case here.

    • Mark,

      My question wasn’t at all rhetorical. An awful lot of the alt media is just about reinforcing pre-existing perceptions and making people who repeat the same things over and over feel good about doing so. Just like any cult/religious movement.

      Flip it round the other way, try criticising conspiracy theories and see what reaction you get. I’ve done it for years, and the number 1 reaction is like that of a child who has had their toy taken away – a tantrum, getting angry at me personally, accusing me of being this and that, taking offence, sulking, bitching – basically anything but saying ‘you’re right, I believe something that’s utter bullshit’.

      And if people can’t say ‘I believe something that’s utter bullshit and I’m going to stop now’ then what right does the movement have to call itself a ‘truth movement’?

      As to the distinction between ‘truther’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ – I have no idea what the distinction is in your mind or why you’re insisting that I’m referring to you (personally) as one of them rather than the other and taking offence at that. There is nothing here that I addressed towards you personally. That you’ve taken it personally is another example of the exact phenomenon I just described.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        My question wasn’t at all rhetorical. (Is the purpose of the alt media to
        make conspiracy theorists feel good about themselves?)

        Do you honestly expect anyone here to believe that the alt media’s purpose is to make conspiracy theorists feel good about themselves?

        An awful lot of the alt media is just about reinforcing pre-existing perceptions and making people who repeat the same things over and over feel good about doing so. Just like any cult/religious movement.

        I am in total agreement with this line of thought.

        Flip it round the other way, try criticising conspiracy theories and see what reaction you get. I’ve done it for years, and the number 1 reaction is like that of a child who has had their toy taken away – a tantrum, getting angry at me personally, accusing me of being this and that, taking offence, sulking, bitching – basically anything but saying ‘you’re right, I believe something that’s utter bullshit’.

        Again I am in total agreement with this line of thought, however why in the world did you decide to pull conspiracy theories out of the thin air?

        What exactly did you “flip around” to end up with conspiracy theories?

        And if people can’t say ‘I believe something that’s utter bullshit and I’m going to stop now’ then what right does the movement have to call itself a ‘truth movement’?

        Now all of a sudden you return to the ‘truth movement’ as if it is completely interchangeable with
        ‘conspiracy theorists’!

        As to the distinction between ‘truther’ and ‘conspiracy theorist ‘ – I have no idea what the distinction is in your mind …

        I will now spell out the distinction in no uncertain terms.

        A ‘truther’ is a person who seeks the truth.
        A ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a person who theorizes about conspiracies.

        A truther may or may not be a conspiracy theorist.
        A conspiracy theorist may or may not be a truther.

        A truther may smoke cigarettes, drink, take drugs, drive fast cars, paint, play football, fly a kite, construct conspiracy theories, or have a million other qualities.

        A conspiracy theorist may enjoy opera, play bridge, like dogs, drink, chew gum, be a truther, be American, skateboard, like French toast, or have a million other qualities.

        … or why you’re insisting that I’m referring to you (personally) as one of them rather than the other and taking offence at that. There is nothing here that I addressed towards you personally.

        I am not insisting that you are referring to me personally.
        I stated that I resent being referred to as a conspiracy theorist, even indirectly as is the case here.
        Others who hold my point of view about being labelled a conspiracy theorist with a broad brush may harbor similar resentment.

        That you’ve taken it personally is another example of the exact phenomenon I just described.

        I am not taking this personally Tom. I am simply asking you to be more careful with your choice of words, in this case, ‘conspiracy theorist’.

        Given the title of your podcast (Marxism in the Truth Movement) the more appropriate question to have posed here would have been:

        ‘Is the purpose of the alt media to make truthers feel good about themselves?’

        The fact that you chose to use ‘conspiracy theorists’ instead of ‘truthers’ is quite revealing.

        Are truthers and conspiracy theorists interchangeable labels in your mind?

        If not, perhaps you can explain why you chose to draw the ‘ct’ (conspiracy theorist) card?

        Most truthers are acutely aware of the derogatory connotation attributed to the ‘ct’ label by the CIA and the MSM since the mid-60’s.
        The blanket term (ct) is used by these groups (CIA/MSM et al.) in an attempt to marginalize people who don’t toe their official line.
        To be sure, some ct’s are on the kooky side. There’s no question about that.
        But some are completely sane individuals who have put forward theories that have stood the test of time and now form the solid foundation that proves the government’s 9/11 OCS is a bag of lies.

        Given that most truthers are not conspiracy theorists (in its literal sense) and they are loathe to be labelled as such, why mention the term at all in your piece?

  21. Not just at youtube, perhaps are there trolls…

  22. wallace gromit says:

    Its ironic that Tom goes on at length in this podcast, making comparisons and points about Marxism which are completely shoehorned, when deep and relevant commentary could be made about the religious traditions that actually do affect and influence these dynamics more than any such abstract and high-minded ideology.

Speak Your Mind