Once again, you’re proving my point for me.
Everything you wrote is exactly how cult followings form:
grandiose claims, zero evidence, and a belief that one man is right while the entire world is wrong.
Let’s break down what you’re repeating:
1. “Armstrong is the best news source in 25 years.” That alone tells me you’re not looking at news — you’re looking for confirmation.
Armstrong doesn’t report. He predicts, rewrites history when he’s wrong, and blames conspiracies when he’s really wrong.
2. “He has offices, employees, 10–15 locations” Nobody can name them.
Nobody can verify them.
Nobody can prove the staff exist.
His “global offices” are as real as his “peace plan meetings.”
3. “A 55-year-old billion-dollar AI computer” You understand how insane that sounds, right?
The Apollo Program computers weren’t even on that scale, and Armstrong supposedly built one in the 1960s that’s still unmatched today?
And it conveniently can’t be inspected, tested, reproduced, or validated by any expert in the field?
That’s not AI.
That’s a prop.
4. “He was framed because the computer is too powerful.” No — he went to prison for fraud because he committed fraud.
Court records exist.
Evidence exists.
Victims exist.
None of them thought he was being persecuted for exposing “the cycle of empires.”
They thought he took their money.
5. “Every intelligence and financial agency listens to him.” Funny how none of them cite him.
None of them contract him.
None of them reference his “models.”
This claim has one source: Armstrong.
If the CIA, MI6, NATO, BIS, IMF, and EU were all relying on Martin Armstrong, the world would know.
6. “He predicted everything — 9/11, Covid, Russia, Ukraine, J6.” Go find the pre-event predictions.
Not the retconned posts after the fact.
You won’t, because they don’t exist.
He does the same thing astrologers do:
predict everything vaguely, then later take credit for the ones that vaguely fit.
7. “People don’t listen because of brainwashing.” No — people don’t listen because they think critically and require evidence.
You’re explaining skepticism as “mind control,” which is what every conspiracy influencer says when challenged.
If someone disagrees, you don’t consider the possibility that Armstrong might be wrong — you assume the world is corrupted.
That’s not analysis.
That’s indoctrination.
8. “The world is being run by ancient playbooks, Hitler, WEF, CIA in 195 countries.” This is exactly the problem:
a totalizing worldview that can absorb anything, explain anything, and justify anything — as long as Armstrong is the one who “saw it first.”
That’s not geopolitics.
That’s religion.
9. “Why wouldn’t anyone listen?” Because:
- nothing he claims is verifiable,
- every prediction is wrapped in conspiracy,
- “the computer” is a mythical talisman,
- his followers explain every failure as sabotage,
- and he’s been wrong more than he’s been right — but never admits it.
The irony?
You accuse others of being biased and blind, while you’re defending a man who literally cannot be questioned in your worldview.
If he’s wrong — it’s because of the CIA.
If he’s right — he’s a prophet.
If he contradicts himself — the elites interfered.
If he fails — “they framed him.”
That’s not critical thinking.
That’s unconditional belief disguised as analysis. |
