Mark Dice's approach to the Illuminati

I took a look at Mark Dice's book about the Illuminati at Amazon where you can read a few pages of it. He does a good job of introducing the material, showing he understands where the reader is at, as Springmeier does not, but then he begins his introduction to his argument by saying that people wonder how 9/11 could have happened, or how an economic collapse could happen and so on and so forth.

Well, I don't wonder. I figure it's just the usual, human sin, and I also know these things are God's judgment on the nation, and Dice claims to be a Christian so he should know that too. But he thinks there's something strange enough about such events that we need to look behind the scenes to HUMAN manipulators. I think this is faulty reasoning. I see no need to postulate intentional manipulation of events at all. People being people is enough to explain events. Fallen humanity being greedy or negligent or self-absorbed or vindictive on a small scale can accumulate to large disasters. Satan's work in contributing to such human failings to bring about his own plans is a reasonable assumption too, but Satan doesn't need conscious accomplices in his plots. And the overarching explanation that God is in charge of it all and permits such things as judgment pulls it all together.

Satan can pull off amazing things people alone can't, if God wills it, and if God wills it amazing exactness can be seen in some events (the symbolism involved in the 9/11 targets is fascinating to think about), but human beings just don't have the power or precision of planning that is attributed to them in these conspiracy ideas. The Pentagon was only slightly damaged, the White House was missed altogether as the passengers of the plane defeated the hijackers. Human beings are an imperfect lot. The plans of fallen men as often go astray as hit their target. The TRUE conspirators of 9/11 have been identified as far as I'm concerned.

So I feel no need for a conspiracy theory to explain terrible events. Apparently some people do feel such a need. I'm very impatient with all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 myself. I don't expect our intelligence to be as perfect as apparently some people do. I can easily accept that a Muslim plot to attack our institutions got past our radar, because God has lifted His protection of the nation to that extent and no other explanation is necessary. None of the scenarios I've seen cooked up "prove" that human agents on our side of the WTC plotted this attack. I think it's all ridiculous.

Do I need to know anything more than that God is judging the nation? I really don't think so.

Which isn't to insist that conspiracies couldn't possibly exist. The Muslim conspiracy existed after all. Why isn't that one sufficient? Why must there be a HIDDEN conspiracy? I really don't get it. Any that do exist should be exposed and prosecuted. But the usual conspiracy theories are simply not believable.

So to my mind Mark Dice is off to a bad start in even making this claim that events make no sense without a human plot to explain them, or another human plot than the one we know about. That's already conspiracy-thinking. According to the introduction to his book, he's going to focus a lot on 9/11 and I've got to say I've heard enough silly speculation about that to last me six lifetimes so I have no interest whatever in reading his book.

But I would really really like to see someone write a book that would examine all the claims truly objectively some time and really show the part that human beings played.

Springmeier's book about the 13 "Illuminati" families is pure delusion

After my last post where I simply vent my reaction to this book about the Illuminati I figure I should come back and spell out just what the problem is. The book is Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier and I could barely get through the first few paragraphs. The book is advertised as based on years of research and highly documented, although the online version seems to have left off all the documentation.

I'm sure the guy has read a lot but he has no clue how to present his material, how to muster his evidence to prove his point. I suspect that has to be because he can't, he's jumped to conclusions and not followed the evidence he's found. That's what I have to suspect based on the shoddy way he's put together the material.

It starts right out listing the names and discussing them. Jacob Astor is the first on the alphabetical list (why is it alphabetical? If you want to show the interconnectedness of family ties wouldn't you trace them historically rather than alphabetically?):

The original founder of the Astor fortune was John Jacob Astor (1763-1884). John Jacob Astor was born in Walldorf, Duchy of Baden (Germany) from a Jewish bloodline. The Jewish origins have been hidden, and quite a number of various ideas of the Astor’s heritage have been put into circulation by the Astors.

Here's a place where some referencing is needed, perhaps some discussion of his sources. I have no reason to doubt the facts, but when you get into claiming such things as hidden origins the honest reader needs more than your assertion.

John Jacob Astor was a butcher in Walldorf. In 1784, he came to America after a stop over in London, England. Although the story is that he came to America penniless--and that may be true--he soon joined the Masonic Lodge, and within 2-3 years had become the Master of the Holland Lodge No. 8 in N.Y. City.

I don't get the connection. Is being penniless an obstruction to being a Mason? "Although" he came to America penniless, he joined the Masonic lodge. This is a non sequitur ("it does not follow").

(This Holland Lodge is a prominent lodge in that many of its members have good connections to the Illuminati elite. An example of just one Lodge #8 member is Archibald Russell, 1811 - 1871, whose father was President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years: The Royal Society of Edinburgh).

Isn't this the sort of thing this book was written to prove? Illuminati activity here and there? But all he is doing here is baldly asserting some supposed "good connections" to the "Illuminati elite" without a hint as to who they are or why I am to believe they have anything to do with the Illuminati. Then he gives an example which would supposedly back up his assertion, but all it is is another bald assertion: a member's father was "President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years" again not a word about how he knows this, what his sources are, why I should believe him, or even what the Illuminati is and why I should care. This is a very strange way to start out a book that is supposedly intended to PROVE Illuminati connections. Apparently all he's going to do is assert the connections and not prove anything. Does he think his blathering about all these names somehow amounts to evidence?

By 1788, Astor was a master of Masonic lodge#8. This is rather interesting considering Astor could not speak English when he arrived in America, and supposedly was very poor.

Again, is poverty an impediment to Masonic membership or advancement? Shouldn't he be explaining what this means? Also, some people are good at languages and four years is pretty good time for having learned quite a bit. It would be interesting to know how Astor went about learning English. But Springmeier assumes everything, doesn't bother with presenting the relevant facts.

John Jacob Astor was always very famous for being coldhearted, anti-social, “a man who didn’t have charm, wit or grace.” (This quote comes even from a relative of the DuPont family who wrote a sympathetic Biography entitled The Astor Family.) If this man lacked social graces and was so cold, and was so poor during his first years in the U.S., why did he rise to such prominence in Freemasonry? Certainly not because of his social graces. For instance, one time later in life at a meal given for elites, when his hands got dirty at the table he reached over and used the shirt of the man beside him to wipe his hands.

Where's the reference to the mentioned biography? He asks how a man with such a personality could rise so high in Masonry, but how would the reader know? Why is he asking us? Surely somewhere in all the material he read somebody discussed this if it's important. Are social graces necessary to rising in Masonry? How would I know? Why doesn't he discuss this? How are we to understand the incident with the shirt? Was that really a sign of a cold personality? Such a strange story requires better explanation, best a quote from the source of that information. Was it a display of arrogance, truly astonishing arrogance, or a strange idea of a joke perhaps?

Then at the end of the same paragraph we come on this amazing non sequitur:

The original financial break came by carrying out a series of shady and crooked real estate deals in the N.Y. city area.

He goes from discussing the man's "anti-social" personality, which we are supposed to take on his word since he supplies no references, to some unexplained "financial break" based on shady deals, again without a reference to ANYTHING to support it. And it doesn't belong in this paragraph. Anyone who writes like this simply can't be taken seriously.

The next break came when two men who are now known to have been in the Illuminati gave John Jacob Astor a special government privilege. The two men were Pres. Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin--both Illuminati members. The United States government had placed an embargo on all U.S. ships from sailing with goods in 1807. But Astor got special permission from these two men for his ship to sail with its cargo. His ship sailed and made close to a $200,000 profit in that day’s money.

First financial break shady deal, second financial break special government privilege. Not a clue as to the facts in either case, no references, no quotes, just the assertion that it happened as told. Now he's suddently connected with these two "Illuminati members" although there isn't a hint given what that means or how he knows or why anyone should believe him. Likewise he flatly asserts that Astor got this special deal and the insinuation is because they were Illuminati, without the slightest attempt to justify that explanation, no quotes, no discussion, nothing.

Astor strangely profited greatly from the War of 1812, which crippled almost all the other American shippers.

What made it so strange? Does the man get no credit for financial ability? So far all this is nothing but dark insinuations that nefarious actions are afoot without anything to prove it. I suppose he's not even aware he's not supplying evidence, because it's all a complicated fantasy in his own mind and that's all HE needs to be convinced, but the honest reader needs quite a bit more than the conclusions of Springmeier's fantasies.

Astor also worked together with George Clinton, another member of the Illuminati, on land deals. Even at that period in history, British intelligence worked for the Committee of 300 and for the Thirteen Top Families, it is interesting then, that John Coleman who had access as an intelligence agent to secret documents, discovered that the original John Jacob Astor was also a British secret agent. The Thirteen Families have very intimate roles with the American and British intelligence cults.

Another "member of the Illuminati" I'm supposed to take his word for although to this point I haven't a clue what being a member of the Illuminati even means, how he knows this about anybody and so on. I guess there's no such thing as being good at making money, you need the help of the Illuminati, whatever that is, and we'll never find out from THIS book. Oh and Astor was also a secret agent. At least he gives a reference for this, it would be nice though to have the title of the book and a quote or two for support, and then he jumps to the broad statement that the thirteen "Illuminati" families are involved in intelligence "cults" whatever those are. If even half of this is true, it should make fascinating and informative reading, but we'll never find out from this guy. It's all gobbledygook.

Prior to 1817, John Jacob Astor entered into the fur trade and remained the biggest player in the fur trade until he got out of it in 1834. Over the years, he had managed to build up a monopoly. How he managed to push everyone else out is a good question.

See, just another bald assertion, insinuation, accusation. To Springmeier it's a "good question" how Astor got to the top of the fur trading business. Isn't it even POSSIBLE the man had sharp financial abilities? Why MUST there be nefarious plots lurking in the background. This seems to be all Springmeier has, suspicions, that seem to make sense to him but do not amount to evidence for anyone else.

Bear in mind, white people had been trapping furs in the New World for several centuries, and the Indians for who knows how long. Then this guy Astor comes along and in a few years totally owns the whole industry! Again this could only have happened, because the occult power of this Astor family gave them the right.

Prove it, Springmeier, prove it. If it's true it should be a fascinating revelation of known contacts and wheeler-dealer carryings on and whatnot, but all you are giving us is these flat assertions. You believe them, but you are not proving any of them.

The most rational conclusion is that this is your own paranoid fantasy. At the very least you haven't a clue how to write a book and someobody else should write it. At worst you are deluded by your own suspicious nature and imposing your delusions on the reader.

The man became powerfully influential. We know that much anyway without this book. But the book is SUPPOSED to be proving that this was because of shady deals and occult influence and so on and so forth but there isn't ONE clue in any of it that that was so. Sorry. Not one. ALL NOTHING BUT ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS, not a shred of proof. I skimmed ahead in the Astor story, I glanced through some of the other stories. It's all the same hodgepodge of insinuation without facts.

Is Mark Dice better? He also writes on the Illuminati. Unfortunately I'm not going to spend the money to buy his books to find out.

If you want me to believe in the reality of Illuminati influence, as opposed to merely the influence of wealthy people whose politics I may happen to dislike, you are going to have to do better than this.

ILLUMINATI BLOOD LINES???? GIVE ME A BREAK!

So, I thought well maybe after all I should do some looking into this Illuminati thing and related conspiracy stuff. I am writing this post after the briefest of encounters with the material in this arena, a look at the book about "bloodlines" by Fritz Springmeier and a glance at some stuff by David Icke, also a brief comparison of some of their assertions about various personalities with Wikipedia entries on the same people, and although it is very early in my investigations I have little interest in going any further (though I may, who knows) and although my assessment at this admittedly early point may have to be modified down the road, who knows, for the moment my impression is that

THIS STUFF IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE! It's written in such a way the reader hasn't a chance of ever finding out what's a fact and what's not. What are probably facts are all mixed up with bald assertions, wild guesses, speculations and imaginations, insinuations and accusations in an incredible hodgepodge of craziness.

Knowing me, I won't be able to let myself get away with such an assessment because it's based on so little acquaintance with the material, so I'll probably have to read more of this nonsense, but it often happens that my first take on this sort of thing is only confirmed and deepened as I study further. I really don't know what I'm going to do at this point since I already need a break from it and can hardly stand the thought of reading any more. I'm disgusted that anybody thinks such writings qualify as "documented" when that's precisely what is lacking.

Relation of the head covering to Genesis 6

Just a little blurb for a new post at Hidden Glory I titled "Head covering, Long hair, the Watchers and the Nephilim.

Yet another post on Bohemian Grove, Pt. 5, *Groan*

OK, one more post on the Bohemian Grove. Not that I'm going to say anything new, but here's a particularly blatant example of the same old. I'm just fed up with this kind of nonsense and this is a big fat ad that reaches the height of stupidity, from that same "Cutting Edge" (WAY OVER the edge if you ask me):

This is an ad for a DVD titled Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove, or Order of Death, including two of Alex Jones' films on the Bohemian Grove. It's all based on his ONE brief crashing of the place, in which he got ONE very shaky film shot of the "Cremation of Care" event and NOTHING ELSE while he was there, and yet his ONE brief incursion into the Grove without ANY OTHER CONTACT yielded enough material for TWO films? Must be padded with a lot of extraneous stuff to supply insinuations from his own imagination, and yet it supposedly

Proves Presidents Bush and Clinton, plus officials like Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, are Satanists!

OH GIVE US A BREAK! Go see the 1981 news video about the place I posted earlier for a much-needed reality check. I just put it at the bottom of this post.

Alex Jones presents his newest film, "The Order of Death", an amazing and horrifying look into the rites and rituals of the modern day descendents of Babylonian mystery cults. "Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove" documented the first ever hidden camera incursion into the Grove and the bizzare pagan ritual, the Cremation of Care, practiced by its members, all men, including both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and Henry Kissenger to name but a few.

Bizarre pagan ritual, ha! It's a bunch of aging fraternity boys being entertained with a mock ritual to launch their vacation camp-out in the redwood grove, put on by the THEATRICAL CORE OF THE BOHEMIAN CLUB, WHICH WAS FOUNDED BY A GROUP OF ACTORS. The guests' cares and worries are "put to death" in this mock sacrifice, after which they hoot and holler and guzzle beer like any gang of American guys (as opposed to pagan priests), according to the 1981 news video. Besides, there are plenty of OTHER pictures of the Cremation of Care to be found on a Google Image Search. It's not as if Alex Jones was needed to get us one. It's not all THAT "secret" in other words, but Alex Jones keeps milking his one brief invasion of the grove for a hundred times what it's worth.

Scroll down to the You Tube video of the 1981 news report that SHOWS A PICTURE OF THE CREMATION OF CARE even that far back. Not all THAT secret, is it? All Alex Jones accomplished was to get an inferior shaky shot of the same thing, nothing new! Also, in that same news report someone who DOES know a lot about the Grove event and wrote a book about it is also interviewed, someone who spent a lot more time learning about it than this Alex Jones with his ONE-TIME VERY SHORT experience there. That's ALL he has, that one VERY BRIEF visit in which he got a bad shot of the Cremation of Care, and all the rest of his information is made up out of his own imagination to pad his publications. Nobody should pay good money for that tripe.

"The Order of Death" picks up where "Dark Secrets" leaves off. This new work exposes the connections between the Bohemian Club and Skull and Bones and other occult secret societies. Jones explores the roots of the Grove and its links to occult networks dating back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.

The Skull and Bones is just another fraternity, this one for young Yale students, for the scions of the rich and powerful, just a silly secret club of kid stuff antics with a spooky death theme, that is shared by families with common political interests. Good grief.

The only connection with Bohemian Grove is that the same wealthy families are represented in both places and the entertainment gets into silliness. As for the roots in "occult networks dating back to Egypt and Babylon" all Jones did was assume that big owl statue is more than just a big owl statue to invoke knowledge and wisdom for a bunch of men reliving childhood summer camp, assumed it MUST have pagan connotations, and went looking for anything to prove his own assumption. He tracked down some connections with the meaning of owls in some pagan religions and declared his own findings to be The True Reason for the Cremation of Care rite, no matter WHAT the attendees think. He also made the big mistake of connecting Moloch with the owl, for which Scott Johnson showed there is no evidence, which ought already to blow his case. This is all nothing but a huge imaginative invention with no grounding in reality.

his new film delves deeply into the history of the Grove where powerful men make decisions that affect the world but are completely hidden from public scrutiny. "The Order of Death" details how the Grove has been the backdrop for some of the most earthshattering events in human history including the development of the Starwars program and the Manhattan Project.

Gee whillikers, batman, we gotta go bust this place. Oh puhleeze. When big name politicians get together ANYWHERE we can expect them to be working out events that are going to impact our world. BIG DEAL! If there's a case to be made that information is being kept secret that ought to be made public, none of that requires the specific location of the Bohemian Grove as some special sort of breeding ground for such plans.

"The Order of Death" also features never before seen footage captured by a daring former Grove employee including an astounding look inside the owl worshiped at the Cremation of Care ritual.

Ooo, I bet that's a big surprise! There are descriptions of the inside of this owl to be found online already. I ran across them myself in my researches, and it didn't seem interesting enough to dwell on. It's apparently a big hollow statue. So what? And this refrain that this owl is "worshiped" is utterly ridiculous.

Note: "Cremation of Care" is a know Illuminist Satanic ritual; therefore, Presidents Bush and Clinton and all other American leaders participating in Bohemian Grove are proven to be Satanic!

Woo hoo, boy, that must be a surprise to THEM! Imagine that, participating in this "known Illuminist Satanic ritual" (in which Jones even got it wrong about Moloch and owls) which makes them "Satanic."

AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEVER GETS MENTIONED: This summer event hosts at least TWO THOUSAND guests. There's a picture of an enormous number of men sitting at end-to-end tables that are laid out in a semi circle in a clearing, in that same 1981 news video I keep mentioning. They aren't ALL political bigwigs. Are they ALL "Satanic" because they all witness this phony "sacrifice?"

How come this guy Jones isn't being sued for libel? Or is some libel so over the top it's not worth the trouble?

What I'd like to see is a REAL Christian Watchman ministry take this guy down.

Here's that 1981 news report on the Grove:

Bohemian Grove pt 4 "Sexual depravity"

I thought this topic was finished. I keep forgetting about the "depraved sexual activities" the members of Bohemian Grove are accused of. Here's what an ad for a book at Cutting Edge Ministries says:

8. Bohemian Grove

The Bohemian Club (founded in 1872) and the Bohemian Grove enlist top male leaders for scandalous and depraved sexual activities. "Every Republican president since Herbert Hoover has belonged. . . Here is a small sampling of some of the prominent members: Stephen Bechtel, Jr. . . Joseph Coors . . . Et al."["Secret Societies and their Members." page 4 of 4.]

Of its near 3000 members, other participants include(d) the Bushes, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Merv Griffin, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Danny Glover and others. ". . .some of the most powerful men on earth doing despicable sexual things . . . nude and semi-nude men worshiping a giant idol of an owl in a deeply occult ritual, and what appeared to be an actual human sacrifice of a burning, screaming white man . . . ."

[And] they choose who will be allowed to run for the high office of president and the vice president of the U.S.A."["Expose of the Bohemian Grove." P.1; 06-05-02]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH THING GOES ON AT BOHEMIAN GROVE AMONG THESE GUESTS? Where are the pictures? There are plenty of pictures of events at the Grove, of men sitting around in ordinary dress. Where is the testimony of others who were there? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

We know there must be a fair amount of homosexual activity that goes on there, if only because Richard Nixon said so, calling it the faggiest place he'd ever seen or something like that. Well, the Bohemian Club is made up of actors from San Francisco, so it's a good guess there IS a lot of homosexuality there among them and their friends at least. But nobody has yet shown that the big name guests are involved in any of that, the people so many seem to be so intent to smear with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to discredit them.

This utterly ridiculous idea that the theatrics around the "Cremation of Care" are anything close to a "deeply occult ritual" much less an "actual human sacrifice" I've already touched on. Apparently the actor who played the "sacrifice" in some productions did a great job of screaming for his life -- or the recorded sound effects did. If that much is so ridiculously misrepresented I have no doubt the participation of all those big name politicians in "depraved sexual activities" is similarly misrepresented. And I already saw how some of this kind of misrepresentation got manufactured by the book by Cathy O'Brien, who is the subject of my last post. (By the way, didn't someone say she claims to have been inside Bohemian Grove? How did that happen if women aren't allowed there?)

This is irresponsible. This Cutting Edge guy is not a "watchman" this guy is a scandalmonger.

Scott Johnson quotes from Cutting Edge from time to time. Get a clue, Scott Johnson.

I hate having to get into all this fringe stuff, like the Cathy O'Brien book and the Bohemian Grove. I'm obliged to as long as I listen to talks by someone like Scott Johnson and he takes it seriously. I stopped listening to him for a long time because he went over the edge too many times for me, but recently I've come back to listening again and have been hearing some talks I do appreciate -- such as his report on Maitreya's plans to appear soon with a "star" heralding the event, the series on the Hebrew Roots movement, and an older series on the tribe of Dan which he biblically documents very nicely (I'm not so sure about the earlier part of that series where he gets into the "Merovingian blood line").

However frustrated I get with him sometimes, I end up thinking that a great deal of what he has to say is necessary and useful information. As usual it's a matter of taking what's useful and throwing out the rest. I believe we are in the very last days and I didn't need him to tell me that. I've personally experienced some occultic phenomena that many Christians haven't, so I'm probably much more open to discussions of this sort of thing than others, and I think it's important to know about it in the last days, as we are told that the Antichrist will dazzle with false "signs and wonders," and anyone who doesn't know just how dazzling they can be may be deceived by them.

But the same people who track these things also have a distressing habit of getting off into the fringe areas where they function as little more than gossip hounds and fingerpointers.

O Watchman, clean those glasses (Cathy O'Brien's outrageous empty accusations)

In one of my posts about the Bohemian Grove I touched briefly on Scott Johnson's acceptance of the allegations by one Cathy O'Brien against many government leaders in her book, Trance: Formation of America. I decided to see if I could find out more so I went to You Tube and found a speech she gave divided into seven parts. I managed to get through five and a half at this point. If after posting this I listen to the rest and it substantially changes my view of things I'll be back to correct anything I say here that needs correction.

What's amazing about these videos is how much of absolutely nothing she actually says. She just rambles on and on in an abstract way about generalities. A lot of theoretical hoo ha about how the mind supposedly works, how mind control is possible with really nothing at all to show that she actually experienced anything of the sort. She speaks of all the "abuse" she experienced without giving a single fact you could pin it to.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway that this woman is mentally deranged is that her naming of names includes only BIG name politicians. No assistants or secretaries or second-stringers for her, no mere grunts in the service of the One World Order, they are all well known public figures she identifies as her acquaintances and tormenters. Why should such top-level people involve themselves with a mere guinea pig in some experiment, which is of course what she claims to have been. Why are there no names of subordinates at all?

If she actually heard George Romney talk about using mind control methods in global education (part 4), surely such a speech should be publicly available. Why doesn't she reference it? Or was this a private meeting in which he spoke only to a few special chosen such as herself?

Without identifying a single policy of Robert C. Byrd's she broadly claims

"He has made sure that more and more states' rights are lost. He manipulated the Constitution,"

but gives not a single quote, and makes not the slightest attempt to explain why she brings him up.

It's just a hodgepodge, in fact basically nothing more than a word salad of half-baked pseudoscience plus accusations against name after name, skipping from one to another with no point to any of it.

"The different criminal operations that I was forced to participate in during the Reagan-Bush administration are detailed in our book Trance Formation of America. That information was compiled for Congress as testimony."

Wouldn't you think a fact or two might nevertheless be forthcoming in a speech of such length as this one to support such an outrageous accusation as "criminal operations"?

"I've known Dick Cheney through Gerald Ford since 1975. He is the most brutal person I've ever encountered personally by far, but it's his attitude and his agenda that is so frightening." (part 6).

Wow, she gets away with that sort of general statement without the slightest attempt to back it up, and then she just goes rambling on to the next subject. And people take this woman seriously!

"I've known Bill Clinton since 1979 when he was governor of Arkansas ... through some CIA blackops ...cocaine operations going through Arkansas."

As with all her references to public figures in this part of the speech the information goes nowhere. She tosses out an allegation, really nothing more than namedropping, giving no more information than is already public knowledge, and passes on to something else.

"Schwarzenegger wants to change the Constitution to make it possible for himself to run for President. He's a good friend of Bush's."

Again, completely irrelevant information. No point to it, no context. Just throwing names out to smear them all with vague hints at terrible complicities in who knows what. She just skips from one thing to another. Again, it seems to be merely name-dropping.

She also heard "Bill Bennett" talk about this and that, worked with him she says.

Where are the people she accuses? Isn't it normal to expect that the accused be heard? Well, probably she's so obviously off center that nobody thinks she's worth answering. But at least shouldn't there be some whistleblowers against such craziness?

Or if they're her friends shouldn't they offer a word in her behalf?

Isn't it normal to expect that a FACT OR TWO be produced in support of an allegation of such terrible things as she imputes to various men? (And women, even Hillary Clinton apparently). DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE IS ANY MORE?

You can even see her struggling for what to say next at times as she loses her thread of thought. She seems to count on being able to produce some sort of gobbledygook and she does indeed manage to do that but there are times when she looks a bit frightened that she doesn't know what to say next, but then she comes up with some more word salad and all is fine again. I think this must be because it's mostly made up, it's not from knowledge or even memory at all.

That anyone takes this stuff seriously is the tragedy here. This woman is seriously deluded. I think there is a medical category for her particular kind of derangement. "Delusions of grandeur" came to mind. Google led me to "megalomania" and "delusions of persecution." The entry at Wikipedia is being questioned but it is at least descriptive of what I was trying to get at. It's not a mental disorder in itself although it may be part of a psychosis.

The amazing thing is that anyone sat through over an hour's worth of her delusional ramblings, that anybody takes her seriously at all.

The Watchmen who have set themselves to expose frauds and delusions in these last days should be working to expose THIS sort of fraud instead of falling for such pernicious nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Unfortunately she's a very sad case and probably was abused. A few others doubt her testimony but apparently think she and her husband are doing it for money. My impression is that she's doing it for more psychological reasons. And for all I know there's a GRAIN of truth in some of her testimony but there is simply no way to find out because she's so untrustworthy a witness. In any case, her testimony is so far from reliable you have to start with protecting the victims of her accusations.