Are John Paul II, Ron Paul and Alex Jones All on Same NWO Team?

According to long time Paul supporter and Jones listener, 'it's all too obvious' if you take time to connect the dots.

By Greg Szymanski
Dec. 31, 2007

The corrupt alternative media, including the GCN and RBN networks and American Free Press newspaper, should "be dismantled piece by piece" and new stations and print outlets allowed to emerge -- outlets not afraid to discuss the Vatican-led New World Order and its many tentacles like the Knights of Malta.

"It is my New Year's hope in 2007 that the alternative media begin to police itself since they are covering for the Vatican and Jesuit Order's involvement in the New World Order," said former military intelligence specialist, Darryl Eberhart, adding it is obvious much of the alternative is controlled since it fails to criticize the Vatican at any level.

And why is it important to begin to seriously question the motives of those alternative media hounds like those in the mainstream media who don't "tell the whole Illuminati story and just blame the Jews or Bilderbergers"?

It's important, say many researchers like Eberhart, because "millions of people now go to the alternative for answers."

One example of the obvious media black out on anything Vatican related can be found daily on the Alex Jones show or called by some the Alex Jones alternative media machine since he has a large media and fan following based on calculated deceptions.

"I know Alex and he has developed a special kind of blindness when it comes to anything related to the Vatican-led New World Order and Jesuit infiltration throughout the centuries," said Greg Szymanski, editor of the Arctic Beacon. "Looking at how he operates, he has to have a higher authority setting his guidelines and basically telling him what to say and how far he can go. And it is obvious by the people he aligns himself with."

Although Jones fools a lot of people by sidestepping the Vatican issue, one long time listener, Rick Friedrich, has finally caught on and is no longer one of them.

In a recent in depth analysis of the Alex Jones, the Papacy and the Ron Paul connection, he said:

"I have compiled further evidence of the incredible delusion and fundamental contradiction of Alex Jones concerning John Paul II. If you never saw it, check out the page on his site where he says the Pope must not have been NWO because of the way he died and how old he was, etc. This is unbelievable. I can't believe how obvious this all is.

"After listening to the Alex Jones show for years, as well as reading his network of websites, there is precious little to be found there about the Vatican corruption in history and in modern times.

"Even though Jones tirelessly rants minute by minute and spouts forth threats of revenge and attacks against this "NWO and their minions," we only find one or two mentions about the Pope's involvement of such! In the below link we find one such example without any comment or reference to the following quote:

"Bush senior proposed that Pope John Paul II become "the chaplain of the New World Order"

Friedrich also starting connecting the dots among Jones, Ron Paul and the Papacy and has now retracted his support for Paul, providing readers with an updated analysis. A full reading of his findings can be found at http://rpmgt.org/RonPaul.htm#delusion

Here is a significant portion of Friedrich's important comments:

"We are in desperate times and are all looking for people we can trust. When someone appears to offer an answer we are naturally excited and motivated. I have loosely watched Ron Paul for some 6 years and was excited about him running for President. I even wrote several articles and posted them on my website: http://rpmgt.org/RonPaul.htm

"I was sincere in my research of this person but I did miss some things until last week. I will show some matters below that have completely convinced me of my error and that directly. Since I did present a positive endorsement of this candidate I feel the need to share why I feel I was mistaken. I do not endorse anyone else.

Ron Paul and John Paul.

A few more reasons why I was mistaken.

Ron Paul has recently stated publicly that he opposes a new world order and globalism as well as bodies such as the Bilderberger group's ideas. He said in the recent YouTube Presidential debate that people behind such groups have a "conspiracy of ideas." http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=181930

On the other hand he is open to making America trade with all nations such as China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Ron Paul also praises world leaders such as Pope John Paul II who attended a Bilderberger meeting with Clinton, supported the formation of a European Union, and who called for a New World Order and a one world religion. He called him "one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity." http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul242.html

"The Pope's commitment to human dignity" was "grounded in the teachings of Christ" which Ron Paul supposed led him to oppose the death penalty. At the end of his first speech on the subject before the House of Representatives, after the Pope's death, he concluded that he was "pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life "... While these comments focus on a few issues, it is hard to overlook the sexual scandals that have rocked the church pertaining to the sanctity of life under the Pope's leadership (among other serious disregards of the sanctity of life too numerous to mention).

In the second speech Ron Paul praises the Pope for being "a great man of God and peace" and rebukes politicians for not honoring him in such a way during his life, and for "support [of] policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings." http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

He further rebukes them of hypocrisy for having "very short memories." We would ask that same question to the aged doctor with his opposition to the New World Order and the formation of a North American Union if he has either changed his mind or has a "very short memory"? He said further, "Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for maintaining that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time." Considering that "Catholic teachings" and "rules" never "discarded", still retain the exact 'infallible' doctrines that called for total dominance and prescribed the bloody Inquisition, we find this hypocritical rebuke most astonishing. Despite any claims of regret about the longest and largest holocaust in human history, which also resurfaced during WWII where the same doctrines justified the Vatican uniting with Hitler and other tyrants to resume the same kinds of holocausts, official Catholic doctrine remains the same with no attempts to remove such "Catholic teachings" from their "rules". http://arcticbeacon.com/movies/catholic_inquisition_torture.html

He further rebuked the members of Congress while saying "that the Pope's pronouncements were theological, not political." Yet it would be very hard to understand how the actions and words of the leader of the Vatican were not political. Indeed, the doctor as a "very short memory."


Some people who oppose the Globalist neoconservative agenda, as Ron Paul has been well known for, are troubled by the fact that he coauthored a book in 1993 with Lewis E. Lehrman who is a neoconservative and one of the directors of The Project for a New American Century. People may explain away that connection but the late Pope's actions in promoting the United Nations as well as a new world order were very obvious to everyone. Further, the Pope made great efforts to make all world religions into one, contradicting the obvious fundamental differences they all have in reference to origins, meaning, morality and destiny.


While Ron Paul now says he does not support the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones, he has appeared on his show numerous times over the years in a way which gave most people the opposite impression. This has prompted critics like Glen Beck to ask Ron Paul directly what his views about government involvement with 911 terrorism are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YUukbFgQcY

Paul responded to the surprise of many conspiracy theorists that the theories were bizarre and preposterous while advocating that instead it all came down to a bad foreign policy and leadership ineptness. While it is true that the specific theories Beck asked about, which Paul used those words to describe, were one set of theories, Paul nevertheless did give a categorical rejection of all conspiracy theories for that event and used the same language when asked on other programs. Two things that were the most surprising about Paul's belittling statements against what Alex Jones holds as obvious fact, were that Ron Paul claimed to never even hear some of the well known theories Glen Beck had addressed, and that Alex Jones continued his support and respect for Ron Paul in the same way as if the interview never happened.

Firstly, Ron Paul has heard these theories numerous times over the years in numerous interviews on the Jones show, as well as from numerous persons who have corresponded with him both as a Congressman as well as a presidential candidate. This denial is an obvious lie. When I asked the dailypaul.com forum what their thoughts were about this, many argued just as Beck said, that he had to lie. Secondly, Alex Jones has been an outspoken and harsh critic of those who disbelieve his theories. His continued support of Ron Paul contradicts many years of criticizing of others who made the exact same statements as Ron Paul has just made. Further, while Jones has avoided almost all discussion about the Vatican and the NWO he did produce an article opposing the Pope a few years ago when he pushed for the NWO

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/pope_bush_proposed_chaplain_nwo.htm

To be consistent, if it were anyone else, Jones would have dismissed Ron Paul as endorsing the NWO for his comments about the late Pope (as well as for they way he dismissed Jones' theories)..

The Alex Jones media machine has been a major contributor to the Ron Paul campaign. Most of Jones' listeners support Ron Paul. The question we have after the Beck interview and the praising statements about Pope John Paul, is why? The two are mutually exclusive. Alex Jones' doctrine and practice has called Ron Paul's views as stated deceitful and cowardly for someone in his position. But he will not act consistently. Instead, he went on the attack against Glen Beck for asking the questions Americans wanted to know about Ron Paul. Even Jones' sidekicks the Watson brothers, who run his websites and write articles for him, thought the interview went very well. But Jones said on his show that he disagreed with these brothers. Very revealing indeed!

Jones has further stated on radio that he was significantly influential in getting Ron Paul to run for President and also that his camp coined the term or started the recent Ron Paul Revolution. During the same period where Paul was distancing himself from 911 conspiracy theories, Jones published totally unsupported claims about NWO assassination plans for Ron Paul:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121407_assassinating_paul.htm

This was a major subject on the dailyPaul.com forums for the next week even though there was much action to stop all discussion about it. I'm sure this will bring many thoughts to peoples minds... The Watson and Jones team have continually used these kinds of sensational claims in the past. Notice the strength of the argument in the following statement: " Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news [about a Ron Paul assassination plot] during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today."

Jones always draws a lot of attention to his industry whenever such prophetically false claims are made to scare his audience. Typical with all cult groups, the prophesy is given with some disclaimer and hope that it will not happen, but the natural impression is given to all followers that it will definitely happen. When it doesn't happen, and the hype is long gone, the disclaimer is then used to justify the sensational prophesy. Jones has done this repeatedly, and actually daily reinforces the false predictions. He is bound to be right one time out of a hundred. But just last year in the summer he gave a very solemn warning that the end was really coming this time. War was about to start up like we have never seen it, within a month. This was special and equal only to his prediction about 9/11 (which he falsely claimed he was the first to warn about). Well actually he did make a real fool of himself and his followers on December 31, 1999. The disclaimer clause in this more resent case was that his listeners could make a difference by activism. Nevertheless the terror continued to scare everyone in the same way that so many cult leaders have scared their sheep.

Lest you think Ron Paul is way above these kinds of things, the fact is that he has continually appeared on the Alex Jones show over the years and has spoken sympathetically with Jones as he made numerous sensational claims. Late this summer, just before the Ron Paul Revolution really took off, Ron Paul made the following statement on the show: "If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so. The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/280807_iran_attack.htm

This fit in perfectly with all the hype Jones was engaged in for the last 3 or 4 years about Iran. First it was April 2005, then Fall of that year. Then Fall 2006. Now we have about a year to go. But now things have changed with Iran. The scare tactics will continue. Both these men criticize the government for scaring the people into following them, but they are on record for doing the same. Every time Alex Jones produces a new scary terrorism video of the nature of an Osama video, which many times features Ron Paul, it successfully draws in more support for this scare media industrial complex. (I should mention here also that GCN is actually owned by ABC!) Alex Jones always asks the fitting question on his show (or at least he used to), Who stands to gain? It should be evident by now. See also A Critique of Alex Jones' Endgam3 Documentary.

Are these predictions and associations and endorsements a sign of hypocrisy and poor judgment or something merely accidental that is not worthy of our attention? Hope and fear for America may be a little more accurate. We hear that Hollywood went on strike but it appears the entertainment has just moved to the Internet.
 

Here is another video to watch  by a patriot wise to how Alex Jones fronts for the Vatican:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=2301&st=375&

ggggg