Conspiracy Theory Terrorist
35 2016-01-07 by 911bodysnatchers322
TLDR: salon article is propaganda piece to conflate all conspiracy theories and theorists with Alex Jones, which the court of public opinion has decided is a crazy person whose opinions are therefore invalid. Their aim is to make conspiracy theorists 'terrorists'.
Tito333 recently submitted a Salon article, "The fanatical dogma of Alex Jones: How the right-wing huckster has made conspiracy theories into a religion"
Over the years, I've noticed they all say similar things of Jones:
- Extreme right-wing, conflating his ideology with tea party, waco, militias, even hinting at white power groups
- Paranoid, and therefore mentally unstable
- Apocalyptarian, and therefore loose-headed
- "Gun Nut" (gun rights advocate), and therefore dangerous
- Mockery of Jone's perennial FEMA camps fearscaping
- Mockery of False Flags fearscaping
Of course the characterizations are all true of Jones and he's certainly very provocative in a wildly melodramatic pollyanna type of way; oscillating from barking to crying and other Jonesian histrionics. But he knows this is the sizzle that sells. If Jones weren't outrageous, then FOX and friends wouldn't have anything to say about Jones, nor would his videos go quite as viral. He also knows--that is if you don't believe he is himself a disinfo agent for the state/Israel--that he can trojan horse some truly subversive information during his weird and cringeworthy and altogether amusing emotional breakdowns.
All that said, I've listened to Jones for countless hours and the only things I can say about his believes--if I may speak for him--is he's a libertarian who wants the government to stay out of people's lives (no more mass surveillance and intrusion), stop grubbing for control, and serve the people. He wants the government to stop tormenting people through mind manipulation and exploits of social spychology, including but not limited to abusive propaganda in media, tv and film; astroturfing in social media; disenfranchisement and demoralization of folks through contravening the majority's will and political demands via backdoor lobbying and political blackmail. He wants the us military intelligence to stop enabling the elite child rape circles, to stop being the worlds biggest hypocrite over the so-called drug war, and to stop making war on the whole planet.
Yep, sounds entirely batshit.
Anyway, until someone provides more credible evidence than I've seen for Jones being some kind of agent provocateur (yes I've seen him infiltrating the gun rally with a bullhorn video. I chalk that up to him agitating so that both he and they get more coverage...which also serves himself and his own narcissism), I will just continue to see him as a conspiracy theory profiteer and kind of an oaf but with good intentions, which are to side with the people v the government.
At any rate, regardless of which side of the Jones argument you happen to land, his silliness is being used, effectively even, by the state to discredit conspiracy theories and theorists, generally. A perfect article is in the shitty salon article itself:
Very few national tragedies are genuine, according to Jones. 9/11 was an inside job. Sandy Hook was an inside job. The Boston Marathon bombing was an inside job. Oklahoma City was an inside job. Of course, there’s no evidence for any of Jones’ theories, and just about every angle in his dossier on these events has been debunked by an armada of both experts and nonpartisan investigators. But in any mass casualty event, there are always unknowns — holes in the story. And that’s where Jones thrives.
Notice what happened here? They've characterized Jones' fearscaping as a kind of taint-sandwich that discredits both the 9/11 inside job theory as well as everything else...simply because they claim they are nonfalsifiable nor provable theories. They also lied and said there was no evidence of any theory and that those theories were debunked by experts...it's a battle folks...for the mind. (And of course you can't prove something if you can't get authorities to accept even valid evidence)
A conspriacy theory needs one contradictory fact to question the whole thing. If we are to accept the Salon author's logic as correct--that problems with any one of Jones's fearmongerings discredits all of his fearmongerings--then the Salon author is unwittingly validating conspiracy theory itself! Because this type of 'one small lynchpin fact discredits the whole' type of thinking is exactly the breakage in the chain-of-custody caused by the 1 uncomfortably subversive fact that creates the conspiracy theories in the first place. They can't have it both ways, without themselves being hypocrites and therefore wholly invalidated themselves (along with everything else they say).
Digressing for a minute, the big problem I have personally with discreditors is the fact that 9/11's official story is bullshit. There is no smoking gun. There are 50 smoking guns (or more). We keep uncovering smoking guns. Unfortunately for them, about 5 of those smoking guns are physical laws in chemistry and physics that--if the official story is true--were violated.
Anyway. This kind of tainting of the conspiracy well is why I think the Salon article is clearly another propaganda piece from the establishment to further discredit conspiracy theories, and conspiracy-thinking.
Here's how it works:
- ) Mention Alex Jones
- ) Characterize conspiracy theorists as people who listen to Alex Jones (let me ask you, how many of you here actually listen to Alex Jones or believe him whatsoever? I think maybe 5% and they are the /r/conspiracy "tourists" / "browsers" / "dabblers" or newbies)
- ) Attach Alex Jones to all conspiracies, and invoke it as an insult.
- ) Call Conspiracy a Religion with Jones as the Pope
- ) NEXT >>> Call conspiracy theory "dogma"
- ) NEXT >>> Call conspiracy theorists, "radicalized extremists with conspiratorial dogma"
- ) NEXT >>> Thus, conspiracy theorists are terrorists.
#2 is key. You just wait. It's where they are going with this.
38 comments
7 cttechnician 2016-01-07
I listen to Alex occasionally for three reasons.
He's like a canary in a coal mine.
He is occasionally on point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
He's amusing, in small doses.
Do I take it 100% seriously? Hell no.
You're pretty much spot on about how they're using him. A big part of it is going to be attaching it to people who are "aware of their rights," especially in regards to guns. People who talk about freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure/privacy advocates, and people who talk about our right to keep and bear arms are on the short list for those to discredit.
4 bgny 2016-01-07
I'll take a ranting Jones over some bimbo reading a script on TV anyday.
1 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
Be careful about the ad hominems though. It's another easy way to get your ideas discredited.
1 Jango139 2016-01-07
Depends on the bimbo. If it is Erin Burnett, I'm watching her...legs and chest before Jones seven days a week and twice on Sundays.
1 bgny 2016-01-07
You have to watch CNN because of a girl in a skirt? You've explored the internet yes?
1 Jango139 2016-01-07
The point was: I'd watch a hot bimbo read from a teleprompter rather than listen to Alex Jones.
3 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
I'm glad I found the non-tourists of /r/conspiracy, because most of Reddit is a joke. Hence the Salon article.
Thank you for being intelligent.
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
I've found the +friends button very useful. Any time I realize someone is a nontourist here I +friends, even if mostly disagree. That way I can prefilter on the postlisting. I know this is basic redditing 101, and redundant for me to mention. But not sorry about that.
2 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
Not familiar with +friends. I've been a lurker for like 3 years, but it's taken /r/conspiracy to make me active. Where can I add you?
1 NotNowImOnReddit 2016-01-07
I'd actually never thought of that. Perfect for this sub. Thanks.
2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
Well I admit I do to. Usually not him but his underlings. Sometimes they have a good piece. Very rarely I like to watch the ones where Jones starts banging his hand and then crying. "ooohh the sun the moon the stars all have Gods blessing" then "what are they doing to us!" Sometimes he actually sounds a bit like farting preacher.
6 FlatPlane 2016-01-07
Alex Jones doesn't talk about the Flat Earth.
There is that.
4 jarxlots 2016-01-07
He also does not like talking about Israel.
3 bgny 2016-01-07
If he talked about Israel too much he would be labeled an antisemite and so conspiracy theorists I general. So I'm ok with him not harping about it. What popular media figure can criticize Israel too much without committing career suicide these days? The antisemitism label is very effective there.
3 RIPfatRandy 2016-01-07
Flat earth... even he isn't that crazy... Controlled opposition has to be somewhat believable. Flat earth, not so much. Only fools think the earth is flat.
4 MisoSoup 2016-01-07
NASA shill!
/s
1 SokarRostau 2016-01-07
Have you ever wondered how those phishing scams work? They are always full of ridiculous grammar and appalling spelling, how can they possibly think you'd fall for that? What all that bad grammar does is filter out people like you who can't fall for the trick. You're too smart and cautious. The kind of person they want uses that kind of spelling and grammar in the first place, so they ignore the grammar in the letter. If you're not alert enough to realise that blizzzard.com or battel.net are fake links, then you're just the kind of person that will fall for the scam.
Flat Earth is a phishing expedition for useful idiots.
2 RMFN 2016-01-07
Flat earth = flat dick. As above so below.
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
Flatties for the fatties
2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
Since he's a disinfo agent, then flat earth must be true. laff.
1 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
An oversimplification, but an elegant one.
1 SokarRostau 2016-01-07
There might be a reason for that.
It's either a case of him not playing for the 'right' side to spread FE disinfo, or it's a case of "don't shit in your own backyard". He'll scream until he's blue in the face about just about anything else, but not this.
2 Thrice_Baked_Ham 2016-01-07
Quite honestly, I’m not sure why they’ve not false flagged this sort of thing already.
Ah, but they’ve already invoked “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult. They don’t need a face for it. A face can die.
5 bgny 2016-01-07
That's the real reason Alex Jones has not been killed. They are using him as a conspiracy poster boy to discredit all of us and conspiracies in general. The only fault with Jones is that he makes it easy for them with his antics. Though I do enjoy his show in moderation.
-1 Thrice_Baked_Ham 2016-01-07
That and he gets plenty of things wrong.
Oh, certainly.
He’s good for remixes, at least.
2 bgny 2016-01-07
There's not many examples I can find of him getting it wrong, unless you consider disagreement getting it wrong.
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
There's this thing I invite you guys and gals in /r/conspiracy to do which is a kind of level-of-effort and monetization video analysis of youtube videos and documentaries we see, to derive from this 1) possible agenda, 2) possible deep pockets / nondisclosed funding. A kind of loose and very subjective heuristic that tries to "fuzzily determine how much time, money and effort was spent on making this, irrespective of the end result"
Using this analytical filter, you can gauge that videos such as the above 'Alex Jones Remix: Renai Circulation'. This video suggests that either a strikingly talented, female or homosexual male teenager Japanese or anglophone otaku somehow managed to get ahold of hundreds of hours of Alex Jones footage to 'remix'. It's possible these video dissections are culled from youtube, but considering the difficulty of downloading, extracting, organizing, loading into premier or sony vega studio, transcoding each clip, using after effects and other animation / video effects software..it's clear that this person has spent quite a ridiculous amount of time simply to make one statement: that Alex Jones is nuts. They cannot hope to make that money back on the youtube ad revenue with just 100k views. They'd have to get into the many millions of views. I could be wrong about that, but then again, I didn't see a single ad on that video, which means it's not even monetized!
Think about this. Really think. They would have invested, I assume a talented person, well over 20 hrs in making this one video. And it's not even that good. It's ok, it's fun and whimsy. But the level-of-effort doesn't really do anything except maybe as a loss leader. After all that channel has 60k subscribers...maybe it's just a freebie for them. Seems like a lot of work though.
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
Just want to add that it's possible that a fan spent all that time making that video, but ... otherwise, how do they account for their time? Who paid them for their obviously very skilled talent that is at high-demand (ie: video editing == high compensation in web companies)?
3 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
That's a good point, but James Corbett pointed out how that 'insult' of conspiracy theorist is starting to lose ground. Primarly because of him, because of us here, because of AE911truth, and because of the documentary, the "Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy".
So they need to rekindle and redouble their efforts every once in a while. When invoking Alex Jones starts to wear off, then they'll really be grasping. Who's after that, David Icke? That purple paigeboy on Gaim, David Wilcock?
3 bgny 2016-01-07
Alex had David Icke on the show yesterday. Good interview. Icke wrote another book too, can't wait to read it. Have you ever read any of his books?
2 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
I've never read his books personally, but I'm JUST beginning to shake the ice of my social programming. Not being sarcastic, you people have truly added to my critical thinking.
Why do you like his books if you don't mind me asking?
3 bgny 2016-01-07
Icke likes to write about out how totally insane our current prison reality is. He has written a dozen huge books about it. He covers a vast range of subjects from holographic universe, to secret societies and bloodlines, to breaking down the attacks on humanity through media, education, medicine, science, and religion. His 900 page book "The Perception Deception" is probably his best and where I would start.
2 SDSelect619 2016-01-07
Much obliged, I will certainly start there
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-01-07
No but I've listened to him plenty. Then I realized the only reason I was listening to him was on the authority of his british accent.
1 NotNowImOnReddit 2016-01-07
"Y'allQaeda" might be that first step.
Theoretically speaking; now that doctors have to report if you're insane, cause... you know, gun violence. And they can track your every thought online, cause... you know, terrorism...
All they'd really have to do is make "conspiracy theorism" into a psychological disorder. You'd probably be diagnosed automatically by an algorithm which tracks and measures your social/online behavior (along the lines of what China is currently implementing). It's simple. If you score below the line you're diagnosed by your doctor, and reported to the feds, as having an unfortunate case of conspiracy theorism. Then you're treated as a potential "terrorist".
Not really a need for a false flag on this one. A dose of propaganda and some manufactured consent should do the trick.
2 officer_fava_beans 2016-01-07
I'm terrified by how realistic that sort of scenario actually is.
2 delelles 2016-01-07
The whole gun rally bullhorn thing happened because Jones and the event organizers had personal beefs with each other. Jones was definitely trying to show his dominance by hijacking the rally to piss off his perceived enemies in Austin.
1 Jango139 2016-01-07
I've never been a fan Alex Jones personally. I've viewed him as a snake oil salesman from the beginning, and from what I've seen through the years, think he isn't as independent as he claims. I've watched some of the videos from his site though. I also go through the articles, but not for the commentary or analysis of the Infowars writers, but for the sources they are citing.
In regards to #2: IIRC, they already have in several different instances.