Dr. John Alexander, Warrior Monk — Reality Denied |373|


Grant Cameron hasn't given us an update this week, but Dark Journalist published a decent round-up yesterday...

Like me, he thinks the whole Delonge/CIA "Soft Disclosure" clown show stinks to high heaven.
thx. I've been trying to get on top of this, but Grant is very prolific :)

has anyone made the 10,000 foot level connection with Wilbert Smith memo and WSJ release. this is was main focus of my post-
Before banking (and bankers) arose in the 14th century Italian cities (as far as I know), why people fought the wars? There was warfare before a single banker walked the Earth, you know...
Actually banking goes back 4000 years at least to ancient Assyria and Sumeria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Earliest_forms_of_banking

I suspect its probably impossible to have a nation without banking of some kind, and in addition a bank that is willing to invent value from nothing so that a nation does not collapse due to something as petty as not having any money.
Last edited:
We do this in the United States. Every kid who signs up to go kill people in foreign lands does so voluntarily.

The problem is not that men abide their wholesome, good natural instinct to protect their families and communities. Self-Defense is a basic human right.

The problem is that most people don't know All wars are nothing more than factions of elite Bankers fighting each other for control of acreage.

A critical part of that deception is the absurd idea we've seen in this thread that "Some Wars Are Good & Necessary".

Fight that ignorance, and you do more to move the world toward PEACE than anything else.
That just leaves the greedy and the psychotic:

I was working in an internet cafe (remember those?) when Iraq 2 started and over the first month or so five ex military guys came in (separately) to finalise their papers so they could go off to Iraq as mercenaries. They were all very excited to be getting a biiig pay cheque..... so, that's 5 guys from 1 small town in South Africa!

I'm actually surprised that a corporation hasn't yet cut out the government middle-man and waged a fully private war.....

The East India Company (EIC), also known as the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) or the British East India Company and informally as John Company,[1] was an English and later British joint-stock company,[2] which was formed to pursue trade with the "East Indies" (in present-day terms, Maritime Southeast Asia), but ended up trading mainly with Qing China and seizing control of the Indian subcontinent.

By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the British East India company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army.[6] The company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[7]
I think it's an oversimplification to say all wars are banker's wars. It is true that this is one of the causes. The real causes of war are always found in the psyche of the participating nations. A big reason for war is fear. Specifically fear of being attacked by another nation. The nation that fears being attacked will attack first.

Another reason for war is the warrior mindset. This mindset projects that there is honor in going to war and that young men must go to war to prove their valor. This mindset was very prevalent in ages past and still quite active today. Think of the Samurai in Japan or the warrior monk as described in the podcast. Some have sought to gain self-worth by going to war and proving their ability and skill in killing other people.

Another reason is a desire for material gain. You see this outpictured in the past by groups such as the Vikings, pirates, and Huns. You see it today in the military industrial complex. This complex has enormous influence in many countries. It makes money when nations are fearful of other nations and when they go to war and need to buy armaments. The bankers also promote war for material gain.

Another reason for war is the quest for power which is often mixed with the desire of gaining more territory. This idea has often been cleverly disguised as a benevolent desire to spread a religion or political ideology such as democracy.

People have an internal programming that makes them naturally not want to kill another human being. Ideas are used to neutralize this natural programming. Ideas such as survival of the fittest, the "them or us" mentality, that killing is natural (nature red in tooth and claw) etc.
In modern times (I am not talking about tribal warfare among hunter gatherers) 99% of ethnic and religious hatred / conflicts are fomented by one or more "leaders" trying to consolidate their power on at least one side.
Last edited:
Where do populations acquire this Fear of other nations?
It may appear that a physical condition or threat exists first before the fear. I think that the fear exists first which magnetizes the threat. This is also why some people who believe life is a struggle will magnetize to themselves struggles with other people who have the same viewpoint of life.
In modern times (I am not talking about tribal warfare among hunter gatherers) 99% of ethnic and religious hatred / conflicts are fomented by one or more "leaders" trying to consolidate their power on at least one side..
Agreed. However, a nation often has the leadership it deserves. In other words something exists in the psyche of a nation in order to allow a certain type of leader to hold power. Also if there is no flame of fear or hate in the psyche of a nation for a leader to fan it will be impossible to provoke that nation to war.
Alex, thank you for this interview with Col. Alexander. He has had a pretty good pulse as to whats up with phenomena like UAP (UFO) and the paranormal in general for many years. I take him at face value when he says he met with top administrators/directors from the 3 lettered agencies and was unable to affirm of any existence of programs (I assume white or dark) related to UAPs. Of course, this means with those he talked to none were aware of the DOD AATIP program. Since they were unaware of that program they are most likely unware of others that may very well still exist. FWIW, I would guess most political appointees are not aware of the details in black projects, other than perhaps from a vague 300 mile up overview perspective. It seems this whole “need to know” classification process needs to be overhauled … especially as to how it relates to UAPs. The president, heads of appropriate agencies and their related congressional committees must be brought up to speed on these details (assuming they are not already).

Im in agreement with Luis Elizondo, the former director of AATIP. The next step ought to be an insistence on healthy discussions within the legislative branch and so forth on how we move forward. In my view this is needed in order to complete the process of normalization of this topic. To this day, many people refuse to discuss this issue. There are many reasons for that. A completely open public discourse without the ridicule factor from the media, politicians and the academic/science community is long overdue. Funding will be needed. We must develop perspectives and direction from all levels and certainly not only from the DOD and intelligence agencies viewpoints … which has been the case for well over a half century.
I had a nice hour long dressing down w/ the Col. :) after the interview where he tried to re-emphasize this point... unfortunately it doesn't hold up:
Wilbert Smith, the top radio engineer in the Department of Transport, had headed the study up. Following a trip to visit with “United States officials,” Smith returned to Canada writing a TOP SECRET MEMO seeking funding for his proposed research. As a part of the evidence he had been given in the states he listed five items.

1) The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher than even the H-bomb.

2) Flying saucers exist.

3) Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Vannevar Bush.

4) The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.

5) The United States authorities are investigating along quite a number of lines, which might possibly be related to the saucers such as mental phenomena.

What puzzled me about Alexander was that he stayed within a certain 'respectable' line about UFOs and ET in contrast to the 'witnesses' that Greer has lined up in his videos, and who claim a very different story. Is Alexander out of the loop, along with Vallee and other long time researchers? Greer's collection of witnesses (supposedly high level military insiders) would dispute points 3 and 5 above. They would say the MO is known and has been exploited for ages - and hence 5 is known.

I would have been keen to hear Alexander's take on Greer and his claims. Are there actually two levels of official US responses to the ET/UFO matter? Or is one legit and the other complete BS? And which is which?

For me Alexander's main value was his historic insider status - a soft bit of intriguing story telling that adds a human dimension to what is otherwise a pretty fantastic tale. I suppose as these guys are getting in years their stories are now not so much revelations as adding 'colour' to what we already know pretty well. On the other hand Greer's insiders are telling heavy duty stuff (if you believe them) - and that leads to a pretty crazy rabbit hole that take you into a very weird world with anti-gravy machines, visits to Mars and the Nazis. I haven't gone down that particular rabbit hole because I honestly can't tell truth from BS at that level and tend to rely on my bias - which is conservative and sceptical. My bias is to call BS on confident assertions that have no verifiable evidence.

So I listened to Alex and Alexander chatting away as if this other stuff didn't exist - in reality or as a lurid BS fantasy -and that was kinda weird for me. Alexander must know about Greer, and you'd think he has an opinion given Unacknowledged was released in 2017. If you will excuse my clumsy attempt at an American allusion - it is like talking about football while the super bowl is on and talking about previous seasons and not mentioning it all.
I haven't gone down that particular rabbit hole because I honestly can't tell truth from BS at that level
I have ventured deep down that rabbit hole and can report back that your decision to avoid it was wise.

After diving deep and sorting through countless steaming piles of B.S. searching for a few flecks of gold, one winds up well-versed in speculative historical trivia, but empty-handed in the Truth department.
If you enjoy learning history, but don't like reading dusty old books, this week on Tim Kelley's podcast Professor Richard Spence did a good overview of his book detailing how Bankers started World War 1/2 and genocided 80 million people...

MP3 for mowing the yard or commuting:



His book is an expansion of Prof. Sutton's classic Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution...


If you enjoy learning history, but don't like reading dusty old books, this week on Tim Kelley's podcast Professor Richard Spence did a good overview of his book detailing how Bankers started World War 1/2 and genocided 80 million people...

You might like this article too:
The Myth of Global Markets Explains Why The DC UniParty View POTUS Trump As a Risk To Their World Orde

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.

♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
"Free trade" is a myth because multinational corporations control supply in each country in order to get the highest possible price each country. None of the academic arguments supporting free trade apply because global trade is not free trade.

Multinationals also lobby national governments to enact trade policies they prefer. Under the current international trade regime, trade policies favor undeveloped countries. This means multinationals can extract profits from trade agreements claimed to protect the poorer countries. They created an unfair system so they could extract profits from rich countries.

President Trump's trade policies, focusing on fair trade is intended to prevent Americans from being exploited by unfair trade agreements.
This thread has gone wildly odd topic, and I think we could really do with a separate politics thread, but it is hard to get people to agree!

@Alex Without a proper section of the forum to put these discussions, they simply take over threads on other topics.

I tend to agree with Jim that maximising trade between countries, is not a good in itself (as it was presented when the present system was being set up). Without lots of checks and balances, it rapidly degenerates into a system in which companies exploit the Third World for their labour, and either shed Western labour, or force wages down towards Third World levels.

I feel part of the problem, is the terrible human tendency to see politics in terms of vague abstractions - free trade - power to the people - democracy - free speech - free movement of people - freedom to bear arms - etc. Indeed, if you can stuff the word 'free' into a slogan, you can sell the craziest of ideas.

President Trump seems to avoid sloppy ways of thinking - such as the idea that more trade must be good - and actually focusses on the practical consequences - which have been the creation of rust belts in the US.

A spokesman for the steel manufacturers in the US pointed out that the cost of an average $36000 US car might rise by one or two hundred dollars max, as a result of these trade restrictions.

Yet for that tiny increase in price, jobs would be created in the US, which would probably improve people's health, and reduce crime. If you factor in more of the knock-on effects, keeping more trade at home is obviously a good idea.

US ideas often cross the pond, and I hope a similar rethink starts to take place in the UK.