Alex Jones - COINTELPRO? Fascist Tool?

[Mal7]

So I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact here that Cenk and his team are incomparably more objective (in general) than Alex 'Jarhead' Jones, who is certifiable.

And if I'm a commie shill for saying that, then please do send your complaints to my boss at the Kremlin :D

Personally I don't agree that Cenk and his team are incomparably more objective than Jones, not even "in general". I don't agree with everything Jones says, and likewise I don't agree with everything that Trump says. (Also, Jones doesn't agree with everything Trump says. Roger Stone doesn't agree with everything Jones says, etc. . .)

On the matter of who is more objective, maybe it is safer just to say that, politically, if you favour State Socialism (bigger government, less individualism), you are more likely to find Cenk's ideas more satisfactory (TYT have been huge Bernie fans). If you favour Libertarianism (smaller government, more individualism), you are more likely to find yourself agreeing with Jones.

One area where Jones message has changed is on this idea that he wants some people's revolution in the streets. Back when he was making videos on the Police State, and the militarization of the police, one could interpret his message as wanting an armed population to defend themselves against government tyranny. Now on the other hand, while still in support of 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, Jones is defending the police against the attacks that are being made on them. He sees the BLM movement for example as an orchestrated campaign funded by globalists to further divide society.

On the whole, I think the Infowars team have been doing a good job of covering the elections, including protests and interviews on the street.

I do think Jones provoked Cenk a bit in the Alex Jones/TYT clash. Alex's story was that someone had invited them onto the set (not Lee Ann McAdoo, the Infowars reporter who was accompanying him), but that Cenk may have been unaware of the invitation. Some people might disapprove of this kind of provocative journalism, that's fine. Jones also bumped into (not quite literally) Karl Rove at the airport on the way to the RNC, and made some videos about that. Yes I think the Infowars team are too Islamophobic, but I also think radical Islamic terrorism is a problem. I don't think Alex Jones is a "Neanderthal-like moron" as you have said. I actually think Jones is very intelligent, well-educated, and humorous. I think this show from June where Jones answers questions from Reddit users was very good:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39nEXPVsNiA


Personally I think Putin in Russia and Trump in the USA is the world's best chance for a stable international order and avoiding a possible WWIII. Some people don't want the "center to hold", and would rather see the international order collapse, the sooner the better, and then create something completely different. That's fine, but that train of thinking doesn't appeal to me. A collapse may be inevitable, but I am not wishing one on. In great social revolutions, the cure can be worse than the disease.

On the matter of which US president Putin might have a preference for (though of course Putin wouldn't publicly state who he preferred), it is interesting that Trump's current campaign manager Paul Manafort has some Russian connections:
http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/2016/07/25/paul-manafort-the-vladimir-putin-connection/ "Paul Manafort: The Vladimir Putin Connection"

 

[luc]

On the matter of who is more objective, maybe it is safer just to say that, politically, if you favour State Socialism (bigger government, less individualism), you are more likely to find Cenk's ideas more satisfactory (TYT have been huge Bernie fans). If you favour Libertarianism (smaller government, more individualism), you are more likely to find yourself agreeing with Jones.

Hi Mal7, I think it's important to think beyond ideologies here (socialism vs. libertarianism) - these are often just tools for pathologicals to divide and conquer and spellbind the masses. As Political Ponerology points out:

To individuals with various psychological deviations, the social structure dominated by normal people and their conceptual world appears to be a “system of force and oppression”. Psychopaths reach such a conclusion as a rule. If, at the same time, a good deal of injustice does in fact exist in a given society, pathological feelings of unfairness and suggestive statements emanating from deviants can resonate among those who have truly been treated unfairly. Revolutionary doctrines may then be easily propagated among both groups, although each group [normal people vs. pathologicals] has completely different reasons for favoring such ideas.

In other words, the ideology doesn't matter to pathologicals, it's just a tool for reaching their goal to create a world where they are the kings, where they call the shots and are protected against "normal society", which they despise.


For example, a pathological communist leader might say something like this: "We finally need a just system, we need to fight those capitalists wherever they are and create a whole new state based on justice and equality!"

What normal people understand: "Yes, we have been kept poor for so long, working all day long so that a few rich people can get richer! Let's create a new system by following this guy!"

What the pathologicals understand: "Let's create a system where I always have the moral high ground, and nobody can say anything! I can redistribute the wealth into my pockets and kill my enemies, and those idiots will cheer me! I'm above the masses!"


A pathological libertarian leader might say: "The government is so big that they suck us dry, and all those rules take away our freedom! They are all corrupt and steal our money and dignity! Let's create a new system where they leave us alone and we can enjoy our property and freedom!"

What normal people understand: "Yes, our lives are miserable because of all those rules and corrupt politicians who only enrich themselves! Let's create a new system based on freedom by following this guy!"

What the pathologicals understand: "Let's create a system where I always have the moral high ground, and nobody can say anything! My wealth that I aquired by cheating, lying and shady business practices will be protected forever! I can kill my enemies by accusing them of being "statists" (or immigrants for that matter), and those idiots will cheer me! I'm above the masses!"


So, we have the same result, regardless of the ideology. I think it's important to factor in pathology and ponerology when observing these dynamics, otherwise we will come to the wrong conclusions.

As PP points out:

We also indicated that our social, psychological, and moral concepts, as well as our natural forms of reaction, are not adequate for every situation with which life confronts us. We generally wind up hurting someone if we act according to our natural concepts and reactive archetypes in situations which seem to be appropriate to our imaginings, although they are in fact essentially different. As a rule, such different situations allowing para-appropriate reactions occur because some pathological factor difficult to understand has entered the picture. Thus, the practical value of our natural world view generally ends where psychopathology begins.

Familiarity with this common weakness of human nature and the normal person’s “naïveté” is part of the specific knowledge we find in many psychopathic individuals, as well as some characteropaths. Spellbinders of various schools attempt to provoke such para-appropriate reactions from other people in the name of their specific goals, or in the service of their reigning ideologies. That hard-to-understand pathological factor is located within the spellbinder himself.

 

[Mal7]

I do agree that different ideologies, from what could be called the "Left" or the "Right", "progressive" or "conservative", can all potentially be used intelligently to improve society, or ponerized to create a worse society.

I have generally thought of myself as "of the Left" for most of my life. In the last couple of months though, it seems to me that it is particularly on the Left that many seem to be almost losing their minds at the prospect that Donald Trump could actually be the next President. It seems to me that it is on the Left that many are swallowing media propaganda whole, becoming less tolerant of different political opinions, and contributing to divisions in society.

What I like about Libertarianism is that it is saying "You can have any political ideology you like. . . Just don't harm others, and don't insist that other people should all have the same ideology as you do." I think even this kind of philosophy can become ponerized. Does Alex Jones present a ponerized form of a libertarian philosophy, and I have fallen fall under the illusion that it is true libertarianism? Well maybe he does. Perhaps we could just say it is an open question, and one we may disagree on. At this point in time, I think it may well be the "Left" that is becoming more ponerized than the conservative, libertarian "Right". At a different point in time, it could be the other way around.

I have been following videos from Infowars and elsewhere about the Social Justice Warrior movement, the controversies about feminism, Milo Yiannopoulis (controversial British supporter of Trump, who has been touring USA recently), Christina Hoff Sommers (critic of contemporary feminism, who has called it "madness").

I used the word "individualism" in my previous message, but am not entirely happy with that word choice. To clarify, I mean "individualism" as a kind of opposition to the kind of identity politics that is going on at present, where one race or class or gender is being pitted against another, often without much regard to the actual facts of a case. After the Orlando nightclub shooting, I found it troubling that some people were immediately blaming the white patriarchal culture for it. Then later at a vigil for the victims, again a social justice warrior took the microphone at the event and used it condemn the stupidity of white people. I can post the links to these particular videos if anyone is interested. Anyway, here are a couple of short recent Infowars videos with the same kind of identity politics / victimhood narrative going on:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgqDC_y7u9I "Wow! Racism with The Left Is Out Of Control!"

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1360nk0tUhI "Your F***ing White Male Privilege Silences Trans Binary People"

I am not saying that racism or sexism don't exist, they do. What I think is that this kind of accusatory, divisive protesting is not actually helping solve anything.

While I am sure most people involved with Black Lives Matter are peaceful and just want people to stop being shot, I think there are also criticisms that can be made of BLM. For example, BLM supporters have on many occasions refused to acknowledge the inner city black-on-black gun violence problem. I think by working with the good cops, or at least the less-bad cops, to improve the police culture and make it less racist, they would achieve better results than by the open hostility to all cops that is too common among BLM.

Here for example is what I think was an interesting video (not from Infowars this time) of a couple of black Trump supporters debating a white Liberal outside the RNC in Cleveland on, among other things, BLM in relation to black-on-black gun violence. Towards the end of the video, the white Liberal brings up how Trump is bigoted towards Muslims, and is met with the very fair objection I think that "Obama's killed more Muslims than Donald Trump has":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv4D4hNH6jY&feature=share "Black Trump Supporters debate White Liberal RNC Cleveland, OH "

 

[Mal7]

Jones was asked about Molly and he said:

https://youtu.be/cPecL7XyRZU

...she worked at Stratfor for 1,5 months and wrote a paper on china. Now according to this screenshot, she formally stated on her Linkedin Page, that she worked there 11 months:

_http://petersantilli.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Molly-Maroney-LINKED-IN-Screenshot.png (sorry for the bad source there...)

And now she states that she worked there 4 months:
_https://www.linkedin.com/in/molly-maroney-72bb1960

So what is true now? Maybe she is still working for them?

And surely it is also just a coincidence that Stratfor's headquarters is ... guess where... in Austin, Texas.
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor

Yes the same Austin, Texas, in which Jones media empire is located...

All just coincidences of course! Or as Jones puts it above: "You suffer from mental illness" if you think that is a little bit odd.
LOL!

I think Jones gives a perfectly good account of Molly Maroney in the YouTube link above. Jones says that the University of Texas is located in Austin, and many journalism graduates he has interviewed have had unpaid internships at Stratfor. He says that in his opinion Stratfor puts out government propaganda. Jones admits some of his sources are in the CIA or military. This doesn't mean that they are evil incarnate. They may be part of the system, and yet have objections to the system. General Michael Flynn for example is someone from the military that has made pretty serious accusations about just how messed up US policy in the Middle East has been.

Real whistleblowers do exist, even if not all whistleblowers are what they seem.

Is Lee Ann McAdoo one of his handlers, just like Maroney likely is?

It's possible.

I don't know if Lee Ann McAdoo is a real name, but I wouldn't hold it against her if it were a false name, as she has received many threats.

What about when a reporter from RT comes to work for Infowars? Is this supposed to be an Infowars agent returning from a foreign assignment with RT? Or an infiltration of Infowars by an RT agent?

I realize this was not TYT usual studio, [. . .]

This was at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. It was some area outside the main theatre, where different organizations had spaces allocated to them to set up a stall or make broadcasts from.

 

[Joe]

Mal, I think the problem here is that what is going on in the USA today is both horribly confused and largely manipulated/manufactured. So as far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't recognize that, and espouses one manipulated ideology over the other is missing the point. The only person, as far as I can see, who had both the personal charisma and proper approach to effect any change in the USA was Bernie Sanders. But he has been effectively pushed off the stage by the established authorities. Even if he had somehow managed to win the nomination and election, the first time he tried to make any significant changes, he would likely have met with an accident.

 

[Niall]

Roger Stone, by the way, is the author of The Clintons' War on Women, a bestseller among US conservatives. I started reading it, but Stone's claims of both Clintons routinely raping women then threatening their lives (and even having them killed) have almost nothing to back them up.

I'm gonna backtrack on this for now. I've since picked up his book again... and, so far, it's well written, and Stone is cautious to not speculate or presume anything beyond what can reasonably be suggested about the Clintons' proclivities.

So I'd love to know why Cenk blew his top at Stone, calling him 'the worst liar in American media'. What other stuff has Stone published or been involved in?

Mal7, you seem to know the score here. Got any leads?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Roger Stone, by the way, is the author of The Clintons' War on Women, a bestseller among US conservatives. I started reading it, but Stone's claims of both Clintons routinely raping women then threatening their lives (and even having them killed) have almost nothing to back them up.

I'm gonna backtrack on this for now. I've since picked up his book again... and, so far, it's well written, and Stone is cautious to not speculate or presume anything beyond what can reasonably be suggested about the Clintons' proclivities.

So I'd love to know why Cenk blew his top at Stone, calling him 'the worst liar in American media'. What other stuff has Stone published or been involved in?

Mal7, you seem to know the score here. Got any leads?

BTW, I'd heard plenty of accusations of Bill raping women, and plenty of stuff about the Clinton body count, before Stone's book came out - just hadn't heard the two put together! On the rape angle, check this out: http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm

I haven't read anything by Stone, but I get a newsletter from his co-author, who strikes me as VERY meticulous in his research. I don't think he's necessarily right about everything (he focusses pretty much strictly on LBJ's involvement in the JFK assassination, for example - I think that's just a tiny piece of the puzzle), but he strikes me as a serious researcher.

 

[Mal7]

So I'd love to know why Cenk blew his top at Stone, calling him 'the worst liar in American media'. What other stuff has Stone published or been involved in?

Mal7, you seem to know the score here. Got any leads?

In this particular clash of Alex Jones with TYT, Cenk says to Stone: "Didn't you admit that you lied about Eliot Spitzer?" The question is at 1m 57s in this video of the incident:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH2oUrtQFYA - "The Young Turks VS Infowars Spectacle" - Alex Jones Channel

Then Stone replies at 2m 04s "No. Eliot Spitzer he's a good guy?".

Stone's reply is actually much more audible in the following video at 2m 44s, but the audio of Cenk's earlier line can't be heard in this video:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM "Young Turks Flip Out On Alex Jones " - Alex Jones Channel

There is a little more on the Eliot Spitzer scandal in the SourceWatch page on Roger Stone:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_J._Stone,_Jr.#Life_and_career.2C_1993-2003

I ordered Stone's book on The Clinton's War on Women 10 days ago, but it hasn't arrived yet, so you are ahead of me there. Stone s most recent book is Jeb and the Bush Crime Family (2016).

Stone has been a Republican party insider. He was a White House aide to President Nixon, and worked on getting Reagan elected. He was involved also with Bush campaigns. I am not sure which election he stopped helping the Bushs and started criticizing them. I remember in one video he said to his eternal regret he had helped one of the Bushes to get elected, I can't remember which Bush or find the video again at the moment. But anyway, he is highly critical of the whole Bush dynasty today, back to grandfather Prescott Bush.

Nixon is often thought of as one of the bad guys of history. I am not very well informed about Nixon, but in Nixon's favour it is interesting that Hunter S. Thompson, who was a great critic of Nixon at the time, calling him an "evil dwarf" or something, more recently said that compared to George W. Bush, Nixon looked like a liberal. ["“I miss Nixon. Compared to these Nazis we have in the White House now, Richard Nixon was a flaming liberal.” - Hunter S. Thompson]

Stone says in this video at 33m 30s that he was wanting Donald Trump to run for President as far back as 1988:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiTDw9y8uy8 "Bush, Clinton Crime Families Exposed" - The InfoWarrior

According to Wikipedia, Stone was a lobbyist for Donald Trump's casino businesses for many years.

Stone was an official adviser to the Trump presidential campaign until August 2015. He is pretty obviously still involved in Trump's campaign, though not with an official position within the campaign.

 

[Mal7]

Stone has been a Republican party insider. He was a White House aide to President Nixon, and worked on getting Reagan elected. He was involved also with Bush campaigns. I am not sure which election he stopped helping the Bushs and started criticizing them. I remember in one video he said to his eternal regret he had helped one of the Bushes to get elected, I can't remember which Bush or find the video again at the moment. But anyway, he is highly critical of the whole Bush dynasty today, back to grandfather Prescott Bush.

I think this was the video I was thinking of:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcz-ZeupJoU#t=16m12s "Roger Stone Reddit /r/The_Donald AMA" - The Alex Jones Channel - May 26 2016

At 16m 28s, Stone says:

And yes I’m still doing penance. I helped elect both Bushs. What a mistake.

Also in the following video at 1h 04m 08s, Stone talks about the timing of when he stopped working for George W. Bush:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjKFLPgBrh8#t=1h4m8s "The World Vs. Donald Trump" - The Alex Jones Channel - February 26 2016

Alex Jones: You’ve been the consummate insider, but always promoted kind of Barry Goldwater libertarian ideas since you got in, I know you’re a fan of Goldwater. You finally just broke on the system. When was the moment that you became such a resister, I mean just putting out the most hardcore books and material about the power structure ever?

Roger Stone: The Iraq war was what did it for me. You see until then I didn’t really understand the big picture. Once it became clear to me that we were rushing to war on false pretences, I realized that the mistake of George W. Bush was an enormous mistake, and I had to atone for it in some way. And that’s when I started talking about what I had seen and what I had heard, and I began putting the big picture together [...]

 

[Niall]

Jones on Russian TV (with Dugin! Putin's Rasputin! Gasp!):

https://youtu.be/zEJq749-Qo4

He's actually making sense

Note the 'Comrade Jones' theme. He does have a sense of humor after all!

 

[Cosmos]

Jones on Russian TV (with Dugin! Putin's Rasputin! Gasp!):

https://youtu.be/zEJq749-Qo4

He's actually making sense

Note the 'Comrade Jones' theme. He does have a sense of humor after all!

Yep. Also this one was shared far and wide, before Trump won:

https://youtu.be/RMMscY7Btus

If we like it or not, "Jones" made a very good service there, to hinder Killary from becoming president and getting votes for Trump, while presenting what Putin said in a sensible way. I still think Jones will and can say anything, because he is mainly interested in his megalomania type of being, but I'll have to give him kodus there, whether he intended it that way, or not.

Jones made a big stand against Killary, no doubt about that.

 

[michaelrc]

Thank you Pashalis for posting your thoughts. He does guest many great investigative journalist that are becoming a dying breed it seems.

 

[SummerLite]

:D hahaha! the skit at the end was very funny! Jones does have a sense of humor and his exaggerated impersonations have had me laughing on several occasions. He had good coverage after the election which is when I started watching him more then I have in may years. He has a few women journalists which are a refreshing break from his bombastic style and are easier to listen to at times. Now that the drama has died down, allowing for a sense of peace at the moment, I watch him less, but his program has been a good source.

I'm fortunate, i think, to have a certain openess in my being that allows me to stay open, simply put. When circumstances change, i can go to sources I've declined in the past and find value there. It confuses many people I've been checking out Ann Coulter (!) recently as well... she has certainly been treated VERY rudely in the liberal/biased media over the years. Although I haven't looked into her work with any depth, she seems intelligent and well researched. I don't need to agree with all she says (she was for the Iraq war as an example) to appreciate information she offers.

Another somersault occurred in my psyche recently with Roger Moore. I know his motivations have been scrutinized here but I hadn't anything concrete to form a opinion on personally. I saw a short clip of him recently (maybe on Alex Jones) urging people to take to the streets on inauguration day. To me this is adding fuel to the Soros agenda. All these years he's supposedly, supported blue collar workers, decried loss of jobs, been against foreign intervention, and railed against corporate corruption (all of which Trump claims to reject as well). Yet, he has supported H. Clinton, (since Sanders was taken out of the race), knows better then 62,000,000 voters, a large percentage being blue collar workers. He's adding conflict and division. I wonder, has he been merely, a pied piper, gatekeeper all along? Here is the psychological manipulation of celebrity at work. I also had a immediate, spontaneous, physical reaction to him at the beginning of that video which i always pay attention to. The reaction was one of repulsion. Was my "truth detector" sounding an alarm? I have never been a person that judges anyone by their physical weight which doesn't indicate what their soul is, and I emphasis that here. This "reaction" was intricate with his physical appearance as well. He looked like he'd gained more weight, was pale in complexion and had a flaccid quality to him. Was i registering a "truth" to his character or merely a consequence to my changed perspective on the "liberal agenda" ? It was a Alex Jones show I recall now, as Jones called him Java the Hut (correct name for Star Wars character?).

Here are a few personal experiences and observations, thanks for considering and allowing.

 

[mkrnhr]

Another somersault occurred in my psyche recently with Roger Moore. I know his motivations have been scrutinized here but I hadn't anything concrete to form a opinion on personally. I saw a short clip of him recently (maybe on Alex Jones) urging people to take to the streets on inauguration day. To me this is adding fuel to the Soros agenda.

I'm sure you mean Michael Moore, not Roger Moore the actor of James Bond :)

 

[SummerLite]

YIKES!!!!!!!! What a mistake!! Yes, I meant Michael. I go through all that detail and get his name wrong several times! Hmmm, a glitch. What does it mean? I knew I got it wrong vaguely but ignored it. Maybe sitting in front of my computer to long.

Thanks mkrnhr, :D, hopefully I haven't thrown people into a complete state of cognitive dissonance with replacing Michael Moore with Roger Moore, my apologizes. That's quite a switch, hocus pocus. This is how we end up with fake news so thanks for catching that, very perceptive of you. :)

p.s. Goes to show how much M.M. influences my life when I cant even get his name right!