This article appeared a couple of weeks ago over at Alex Jones' infowars.com, and I decided, this is one we have to just sort of let percolate for a while, before commenting.
My problem here is not merely the reliance upon an "insider source." Granted, that reliance raises the usual problems of insider sources: how do we know that this isn't a deliberate "meme" being planted by the very elite holding the meeting, that they are, indeed, panicked by Ron Paul and what he represents in terms of economic and financial philosophy?
Once one phrases the question in terms of economic and financial philosophy, the questions multiply like rabbits. Consider this statement:
"Back in December 2007, best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin told the Alex Jones Show that the U.S. intelligence establishment was considering assassinating Paul as a means of derailing the Ron Paul Revolution, which later gave rise to the Tea Party and spawned a generation of anti-big government grass roots activists."
Now, anyone who has read my books knows I have respect for Estulin's Bilderberg research, and, for that matter, admire Alex Jones for his attempt to cover and expose these types of stories.
But I have to wonder, is there really a Ron Paul revolution? If so, then coupling the Tea Party to that revolution has to make me wonder: where were these staunch advocates of constitutionality during the recent votes on the National Defense Authorization Act? Where were the protests? the marches?
I don't see a revolution here, I see nothing but a coopted movement at best, and yet another elite-driven and created "movement" at worst. And if the Tea Party represents the Ron Paul revolution, I am as skeptical of it as I am of all the occupy movements.
But on the other side, if these insider sources are indeed telling the truth, it's good news, in a sense, that these elites are panicked. I've been arguing for a long time that they are showing signs of it, if one is willing to look, and if one is willing to drop the dogma that they are omnipotent and their plans are omnicompetent and infallible. But one doesn't need an insider source to tell us that, either.
Nor did we need an insider to tell us that the Bilderbergers would be upset over someone like Ron Paul and openly(at least, openly at their secret meetings) be wishing for the convenient airplane crash to take out the meddlesome anti-imperialist Congressman.
The real news here might be that there are insiders in the Bilderbergs and similar groups that are, themselves, revolted by the manifest failure of these elites, and if that's the case, I suspect more and more "insiders" will come along. If so, then we need to weight what they say against corroborating contexts.
See you on the flip side...