Wednesday, 9 January 2013

In Defence of Alex Jones

Sorry if this disappoints any readers, but I'm with Alex Jones, not necessarily on the gun control thing, but in general. That alone assures my obscure and irrelevant toenail-clipping-note in Catholic blogging history as an outright fruitloop. By the way, on the issue of gun control, if I were a US citizen, wouldn't like to take a gun out of the cupboard and shoot a government official when he came to take my gun away. After all, he's only doing his job, like a traffic warden.

The mainstream media has all but gone to sleep in terms of being a vigilant check on the abuse of power by Government. The Telegraph investigated and reported on the Liverpool Care Pathway, to its great credit, but there is no sense that the injustice of it is something that people should actually get angry about. You know - the Government are paying doctors and nurses to kill people. I constantly ask myself why there are not hoards of people on the streets calling for the arrest of traitors within the walls of Parliament.

The Telegraph investigated and reported on the abortion 'gendercide' scandal, but, again, there is no sense that this is a grave injustice that we should all be very angry about. The Telegraph investigated and reported on the 'Climategate' fiasco in which it was all but made clear that whole populations had been hoodwinked by a vast network of institutions relying on the data of one group of scientists who were intent on 'hiding the decline' in temperatures. There is little sense that we have been deceived and that we should be angry about it, aside from one or two bloggers for The Telegraph.

Alex Jones took up all these stories broken by The Telegraph and more and went on camera to get mad about it. Yes, he actually cares about people and the future that his children will inherit. He actually, shock horror, feels passionately that the eugenic mindset sweeping Government and vast organs of the State are...wait for it...wrong and evil! He believed the Bush administration was evil. He believes the Obama administration is evil. You can't say he isn't consistent.

And its not just a stiff upper lip English thing. In the US, the mainstream media have given up, also, on the primitive ideals of journalism that give rise to reporters calling things 'wrong', or 'evil'. The great divide opened up between the mainstream press and alternative news sites like those of Alex Jones over such events as 9/11 and 7/7.

9/11 is the elephant in the room for the mainstream press. In both of these events, the mainstream media went to ground and steadfastly refused to investigate them. In both cases, whatever Governments said happened on those fateful days, happened according to their official accounts.

Meanwhile, Infowars was asking questions about how three towers can fall into their own imprint in such speed without the use of explosives and was producing reams of interviews with eye witnesses saying they heard 'explosions' in the towers before they fell. Then, hundreds of architects and professionals from other fields got together to explain how the towers falling as they did was, in fact, a defiance of the laws of physics.

A wall of silence was erected around Ground Zero so that anyone questioning the 'official story' was to be branded a nutjob, the testimonies of eyewitnesses ignored because it would be 'impossible' for the Government and the media to spin their own population such a huge yarn. To this day, anyone who questions the official version of events is derided by journalists in the mainstream press who believe they have the monopoly on truth and, indeed, sanity. This is, itself, an indication that we are entering a new era in which ideas are, themselves, dangerous. You'll never hear a word about the annual gathering of Bilderberg regulars with the world's billionaires, but, thankfully, Alex Jones is always there to let Joe Bloggs know what is going on. Similarly, a wall of silence is erected around this annual event. To anyone with an inquisitive mind, this is rather disturbing, especially as representatives from the world of politics, business and the media are regular attendees.

If - if - agencies working with Government rigged the towers - three of them - with explosives and pulled them on the day of 9/11, then it is a game changer. The entire world's mainstream media says that this did not happen. Alex Jones is a spokesperson for a group of totally ignored specialists in their chosen fields who maintain that it did. If Government agencies were involved in the 9/11 event then that changes everything about how the US citizens should see their Government. It would ensure that the Government were enemies of the people, not their friends.

The Fourth Estate is meant to have incredibly high ideals concerning freedom and the defence of the people against those who abuse their power for evil and corrupt ends. Nowhere is there more complacency about the nature of modern Government than in the mainstream press. Why? Because, in truth, they are not conspiracy theorists. All good journalists are investigative journalists. In order to be an investigative journalist you cannot just swallow whatever information Governments and Corporations give you. In order to be a good journalist - in order to defend your fellow citizens from being trampled upon by those in power - you have to be a conspiracy theorist. You have to be able to question "the official line". That is what made James Delingpole blogger of the year.

Any journalist who buys the "'official story" about anything to do with Government has ceased to be a journalist and has begun to be a civil servant. Those in the media deriding Alex Jones need to work as hard at putting their necks on the line, investigating and being passionate about the truth as he is. The price of that today is humiliation and the knowledge you'll never get hired by any mainstream newspaper again because in every mainstream newspaper organ, corporation rules okay.

If today's journalists want to remain mediocre then that is their affair, but those who wish to be extraordinary journalists and reporters should not be mocked for saying extraordinary things just because these things threaten the comfort of the status quo - even if those things undermine the very foundations of the contract of trust between Governments and their own people. Catch Alex Jones while you can, because within the next few years, I suspect we shall see some draconian internet regulations coming his way and the way of many who care for the public interest. If you read his site, you'll know about forthcoming internet regulations and be mad about them. If you read The Telegraph, you probably won't have heard of them.


Solly Gratia said...

Good for you. I sometimes think Alex Jones sees conspiracies everywhere and is the US David Icke, but he is a investigative journalist who asks serious questions and doesn't take 'shut up' for an answer. Non-Americans don't really get the subculture that Jones represents, but some of that culture got behind Ron Paul and showed up American politics for what it really is.

Lynda said...

The novelist, and former SEAL, Matt Bracken has a very good essay showing why American citizens out to be free to keep their firearms. It's addressed to the law enforcement official who would be required to confiscate their guns if their possession became illegal. It's called "Security Man". He draws on various state genocides in history where the target population was first castigated and disarmed.

Lynda said...

Apologies. The essay is "Mr Security Agent".

Sam said...

Hi Laurence,

As a fellow Catholic and non-fruitloop I wanted to offer some commentary on your ideas concerning conspiracy theorists & their theories. I’ll just take it point by point here, hopefully you will do some balanced reading and stop believing any old tosh commercial websites put out (with a view to making a quick buck from the gullible!)
1) “the 'Climategate' fiasco in which it was all but made clear that whole populations had been hoodwinked by a vast network of institutions relying on the data of one group of scientists who were intent on 'hiding the decline' in temperatures. There is little sense that we have been deceived and that we should be angry about it, aside from one or two bloggers for The Telegraph.
Deep breath here….. You are confusing legitimate doubts concerning global warming (which relate to the complexity of the system) with outright fraud. Any impartial internet search will reveal that so-called ‘Climategate’ has been comprehensively debunked. If you choose to take a single set of emails from a marginal university (East Anglia) and falsely interpret them to fit your preferred model of climate change that is your prerogative. But to allege that this constitutes deliberate fraud is not only disingenuous, it’s stupid. You could only think that if you hadn’t (or refused to) read the pages of back and forth concerning the issue.
2) “Alex Jones . . .actually cares about people and the future that his children will inherit.”
This is probably the daftest aspect of your daftness. It’s ultra-conspiracy suspicion that overlooks the most obvious point: why do you assume a theatrically irate commercial journalist isn’t also lying? The best way to do this is to forget Alex Jones for a second and consider his more successful archetype, Glenn Beck. In a recent interview with Forbes magazine, the ulta-capitalist publication of the super powerful, Glenn Beck (wearing a hundred dollar bill suit) said the following: “I don’t give a crap about politics, I’m a businessman! I don’t think half the stuff we report is true, but if people want to pay for this then why should we treat it different to any other commodity? Why not make money out of feelings?” See any of the literature on ‘survivalist commerce’ for more details. Websites like ‘Info Wars’ are not serious – they are fun by tongue in cheek frauds who want to make money out of people like you. When you condemn the media for not reporting the stuff ‘honest’ journalist Alex Jones tells you about you’re behaving like the detective in The Purloined Letter, missing the clue that is so obvious you forget to look for it, namely, the commercial motives of the source you choose to believe.
3) 9/11 is the elephant in the room for the mainstream press. In both of these events, the mainstream media went to ground and steadfastly refused to investigate them. In both cases, whatever Governments said happened on those fateful days, happened according to their official accounts.
Laurence, the 9/11 conspiracies have been so thoroughly debunked that no one with a brain still believes them. The media did not ‘go to ground’; they had no incentive to investigate a wild theory made up by stoners. David Ike says the media ‘went to ground’ rather than reporting on the lizards who run the world. I.e. the fact that a journalist does not waste time investigating an idea for which there is no evidence and lots of counter evidence is, for you, proof of foul play.
Can I ask a simple question: Why do you think the US government staged 9/11? I presume you’re not a structural engineer, so the so-called evidence can’t be what sways you (since it’s impossible for you to understand what the engineers’ evidence means or whether it’s reliable without a degree in the subject). You must therefore think there is some other, non-evidence based reason to doubt thousands of eye-witness accounts. Can we hear your reasons?

The Bones said...

Sam, you are entitled to your views.

Thank you for your charitable post.

To believe the three towers fell on 9/11 because of fire, when in history no such buildings have fallen into their own imprint in 7 seconds due to 'fire' is to make an act of faith.

The act of faith is the trust you put in both the mainstream media and the crooked Government.

It is an act of faith that AGW is true - not a fact of science. Still, you are entitled to your beliefs.

May I suggest that when Mr Jones's website suddenly gets closed down, it was not because he decided to stop reporting.

Sam said...

Hi Laurence,

I suppose my point is, readers are likely to be 'disappointed' not for your accepting a critically-minded conspiracy theory but for not being critically-minded/conspiracy-inclined when analysing a big fat fraud like Alex 'son of Beck' Jones.

Just to cut back to your claims for a second (if I may). You say, "to believe the three towers fell on 9/11 because of fire, when in history no such buildings have fallen into their own imprint in 7 seconds due to 'fire' is to make an act of faith."

Well, it wasn't just fire now was it. The fuel-laden aeroplanes might have had something to do with it. And, for the record, here is a partial list of reinforced steel structures that have collapsed due to fire:

Site and Sound Theater; McCormick Place; Kader Toy Factory; Mumbai High North Platform; Interstate 580; Windsor Tower; Faculty of Architecture Building.

All of these buildings demonstrate the apparently well-accepted architectural principle that intense heat generated by flash fires can sufficiently weaken the steel girders and prompt rapid building collapse. This was not a one off, it was simply the most spectacular instance of a generally understood phenomenon.

This leads to your second point. You say, "the mainstream media and the crooked Government" are inherently untrustworthy. Well, here's the problem. Your argument is a bit circular. You criticise the 'mainstream media' for not reporting the truth, but the only reason you have for not believing their testimony is true in the first place is you have decided, a priori, that they are untrustworthy (ditto the government). Well, as you said, you can think what you like (though I am disturbed by this basically relativist attitude to factual claims), but then you can't justifiably condemn the media for lying if the only evidence of their lying is your prejudiced stance.

To rephrase my point a little (and, believe me, I am trying to persuade you because I care. I care about brother Catholics not being duped): I believe the 9/11 'official' story for 4 reasons:
1) More experts have said the official story is correct than have disputed it. Significantly more. As I pointed out earlier, neither of us is an engineer. If I/you were, it would be legitimate to use your own expertise to challenge the mass of experts. In the absence of such expertise I have to suspect a person who chooses to believe a (tiny) minority is biased and has non-evidence based reasons (i.e. they are choosing to see evil where there is none. Generally to be avoided for the purity of one's soul I find).

2) The experts who dispute the official story are, on the whole, not reliable. They have made careers out of publicising their skepticism and are therefore interested parties. None of these experts is prepared to answer the evidence of those who disagree with them and will generally only debate with non-experts. Given these facts, I don't think they are reliable, even without knowing the science behind their claims.

N.B.the same goes for other 'evidence' that conspiracy theorists often cite. E.g. news interviews with subway passengers who claim to have heard 'a bomb' or 'an explosion'. Quite how this proves foul play is beyond me. I mean, if you were on an underground train and heard a massive BANG, then saw smoke filtering down the stairs, your first reaction to the guy shoving the microphone in your face would be to say you heard a bomb. In fact, I would be more suspicious if they said 'I heard a plane hit the twin towers', since that would be a bizarre inference and a crooked government is likely to have planted them there.

Sam said...

3) The official story is simply more consistent with other facts we know about the event. To postulate the US government decided to stage the attack introduces significant questions. Such as (for example): (i) why did they do it? (ii) was it just the government or were the World Bank involved? (iii) what did they want to achieve by this that was impossible to achieve with less risk and planning?

All of this can be summed up as saying the biggest problem with conspiracy evidence is anything and nothing can be evidence. Why, if you think the government and mass media conspired to fake a terrorist attack, do you think the reports from a few eye-witnesses appearing ON the media is reliable evidence? Why, if scientists and engineers have been co-opted and forced to lie in service of the New World Order, do you believe the few scientists and engineers who tour the country presenting their theories? I mean, it's not a very good cover-up job is it? The government and media killed thousands of innocent people in a con trick but then allowed conspiracy theorists to go public. In fact, if you're REALLY a conspiracy theorist, shouldn't you see THEM as the false flag? I.e. it would be far cheaper for the government to create Alex Jones and get people all paranoid.

4) No one else blew whistle. Single biggest flaw. Russia/China/Iran never said zip. Alex Jones found out the US were lying by using Google, China didn't (in spite of their vastly superior surveillance capabilities). Hmmm, I wonder who to believe here.

On Jones specifically:

Same problem as above. You say "May I suggest that when Mr Jones's website suddenly gets closed down, it was not because he decided to stop reporting." Why didn't they just shoot him four years ago when he was an obscure syndicated shock jock? Why would they let him publish films and books (and make millions) before acting? This government capable of flawlessly staging a massive terrorist attack, witnessed by thousands of people (or paid actors?, this bit isn't clear either) are remarkably slack at silencing critics. But anyway, the critics have yet to offer any EVIDENCE. Saying 'I don't believe in the evidence' is not producing evidence. If you don't believe what every engineer says about reinforced concrete, that is your problem. But until you or Alex Jones comes up with hard evidence of foul play (a letter, a smoking gun, an audio tape) then this is a non-starter, it's just navel gazing stoner fantasy stuff, no?

Finally, more comments on the reprehensible Mr. Jones:

1) infowars/prison planet - different blogs, same adverts, same guy. Not suspicious? Not even a tiny bit? Reckon it might just be a business?

2) The Beck issue- Glenn Beck is the highest paid media personality in America. Let that sink in. Mr conspiracy makes more money than any other journalist. Who's mainstream now? Alex Jones is currently copying Glen Becks corporate model stroke for stroke.
Jones made over $2 million last year and now has a staff of dozens producing his content. He is not a lone wolf, he is the head of a (small) media empire.

3) Has Alex Jones ever, ever, EVER, disputed a conspiracy theory? I mean, what are the odds. Seriously, EVERY single conspiracy out there is true? Hmmm, and again, hmmm. Be a bit more discerning you plank!

God bless,

Sam said...

Weird, the New World Order, acting in conjunction with the European Court of Human Rights, who you and the UKIP/conspiracy theorists/inexorable drive to destroy religion amongst politicians theorists believe should be shut down, has actually voted in favour of religious freedom. Still, I'll wager you won't modify your tone and realise this 'New World Order' stuff is all just a load of smoke being blown up your bum by charlatans and money-grubbing 'non-mainstream' media businessmen. But still, nice to see that we live in a world where such things happen, there is light, and it isn't all a one way traffic of suffering and evil (as the perverse minds of conspiracy nuts would have us believe)

The Pontificate of Abuse

I have in the past had some experience of abusive relationships. They are profoundly painful even when you love the person involved. It ...