[credibility] credulity and where the truth lies

This started out as an attempt to collate all Anonymous's links for November and four things stood out:

1. how many damned posts I've actually written [phew];
2. how many links the Anonymii have provided;
3. an interesting piece by UK Daily Pundit, in the main stream, on David Kelly;
4. a piece on Nicholas Rockefeller which puts us into the traditional bind:

Many of you know of an interview by the film maker Aaron Russo with Rockefeller. Trouble was, I came across it in among a mass of Alex Jones/Illuminati/David Icke material which usually floods the first few Google pages on most of these topics.

The essential problem with this material is that no one rational will accept it the way it's presented. It needs independent corroboration to get mainstream acceptance. I also found a scurrilous phone conversation with Russo and Michael Medved and though Medved shows himself to be a complete horse's backside, Russo does himself no favours either by trying to force talk of New World Order and so on past Medved, supposedly to the people.

So, in the end, we're left with wild accusations, counter-accusations and allegations which, if true, are chilling but if the product of a disordered mind, are counter-productive. The only thing which could be said at this point is that it's standard tactics to discredit an interviewee by running the conversation in a mocking tone and with a grin on the face from the outset [e.g. the Fox on Sunday interview with Bill Clinton] and then labelling and packaging the other as a “demented mind”.

Imagine the same interview by phone over Olly North's Iran Contra activities, before the thing came out. The tone would have been the same. So it's deeply dissatisfying.

Then I look at the photo above of Russo and Rockefeller and they weren't exactly enemies, would you say? So it might have been likely they did actually have an interview. And Russo came out and related the conversation later. And Rockefeller is not on record anywhere I can find denying the substance of what was said.

I don't see Russo being sued anywhere. Which raises the question of why? The only explanation I can find is that the alleged comments by Rockefeller are so wild that anyone reporting them would be labelled a kook by a listening public and dismissed – the comments don't need refuting. Also, Russo's manner is wild and unfocussed.

There is another explanation in line with what I know from other sources about these people – that it was a set up and both were having a good laugh feeding pap to a credulous conspiracy theory industry. That whether or not it was true, it could never be taken as true the way it entered the public sphere.

For what it's worth, this is a description of that interview:

This was around the time he had those infamous conversations with acquaintance Nick Rockefeller who had tried to recruit him into the Council on Foreign Relations.

Russo related in an interview that Rockefeller had told him, 11 months before the 9/11 attacks, that there would be an “event” that would trigger U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that the Rockefeller financial empire had bankrolled the women’s movement with the intent of breaking up the family and gaining control of the minds of children, and that the long-term goal of the globalists is a microchipped population that could be controlled by “the bankers and the elite people.”

“Related in an interview that Rockefeller had told him” is not good enough. Where is the interview itself? I don't want to see Jones interviewing Russo. I want to see Russo interviewing Rockefeller. Alternatively, why doesn't Rockefeller simply quash the idea that he said those things?

As I mentioned above, deeply dissatisfying, the way they like it.