What is the strange compulsion to watching something which actually repulses you?
In the case of Alex Jones, it's something like trying to figure out what the agenda is - and I confess that frequently I have wondered if Alex Jones is an agent of cointelpro or disinfo. Is Beyond Tangy Tangerine in reality the Kool Aid that Jones blabs about metaphorically - to which he now jovially says he is addicted?
There is one area where he fails any test to determine how genuine he is (and never believe anybody who is so aggressive in their claims to be genuine) and that is his (and frequently others at Infowars) fidelity to the truth. I have already made it quite clear that the claims of Paul Joseph Watson that he cannot get an appointment with a private doctor in the UK are utter bullshit - either on his part or on the part of Jones. The story has recently morphed into Watson's inability to get an appointment with a specialist but this is equally mendacious.
Recently, there has been the sensational claim that 'Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes' which Alex Jones has repeatedly reported as a call to set fire to skeptics' homes. Now, I am neither a climate skeptic or alarmist - I actually find the subject quite fascinating if confusing - but I tend to believe that there is something extremely fishy about the whole global warming agenda which is obfuscated by an abundance of contradictory information. So, in essence, I am a climate change doubter - and as such I reserve the right to have multilateral doubt. As far as the claims made in the story and Jones' rants are concerned though, there is not a shred of truth to the allegation that anybody called for the burning down of anybody's house - merely that nobody should take action to put such a fire out. Now, to Alex Jones and his army of devotees, there is no difference between dropping a stone and not picking it up but to those who have an adequate degree of discernment, there is a gulf of difference. Making such claims is blatantly dishonest and actually taints everything else that he and his claque propagate.
Then there was the call from a pastor who objected to Jones' repeated assertions that all the clergy are government informants - and in effect turning people away from the church. In this instance, Jones played dumb and made out he didn't understand what the pastor was saying and played his usual game of muting the caller whilst he went off on a rant which took a circuitous route away from the topic and returned with the explanation that it is necessary to scare people with the truth. The caller was audibly exasperated if not beaten into submission by Jones' bullying censorship and slipped away with a few polite words.
During his evasive rant, Jones made claims that he is a good actor and a comedian. He is neither - he is just the star of his own show - and his dearth of thespian ability was recently exhibited in the painfully awful production, New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen.
When you are part of an industry which depends on sensationalising issues in order to sell products, you are very likely to over-egg the pudding. And when you have a carpet bombing approach involving multiple websites, podcasts, live broadcasts, DVDs and a raft of merchandise, cranking it up to squeeze out more juice is inevitable. There is no difference between Alex Jones' wilful and perfidious exaggeration and the 'sexing up' of the case for war against Iraq.
You cannot lie and claim to stand for truth.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Friday, 16 March 2012
InfoPuppy waits four weeks to see a doctor in England? Huh?!
If Paul Joseph Watson claims to have had to wait four weeks to see an NHS doctor and told Alex Jones that you cannot see a private doctor in the UK without Government approval, he's a fucking liar!
If he didn't, then Alex Jones is a fucking liar!
If he didn't, then Alex Jones is a fucking liar!
Thursday, 2 February 2012
I can't take it...
That's it! I can't listen to it anymore.
For about the third time this week, Alex Jones has been 'interviewing' a fairly knowledgeable guest only to persistently interrupt them mid-sentence to bark out something he has yelled out many times before - probably because he cannot bear the thought that an expert guest might think that he doesn't know everything already.
I say 'interviewing' because what Jones does is anything but. He endeavours to engage his guests in the kind of banter which takes place whilst propping up a bar when in fact they have far more interesting information than they ever get the opportunity to share. Good interviewing technique is actually the polar opposite of what Alex Jones does - allowing the interviewee more than just a moment to draw breath and in fact sometimes artificially creating a pregnant pause in order to allow the other person to extrapolate, explain or even digress.
I don't delude myself into believing that Alex Jones reads this or that he would take any notice if he did but he is not going to be able to reach beyond those who are already in his grasp if he arrogantly believes that people outside his catchment are going to adapt to his style because it would require the antithesis of what he preaches, i.e. the dumbing down of the potential audience.
He rails against the sports watching public for caring more about their team's results than the erosion of liberty but yells at those who listen as if they are ogling at the sports channel. He actually would be more suited as a wrestling commentator.
Maybe it's the American WWF mentality which drives or demands this kind of presentation - let's face it, US documentaries, whether it's National Geographic or Jesse Ventura, never allow the viewer to pause for thought and they all repeat the tantalising lie, 'coming next...' a dozen times or more so that when 'it' comes 'it' is either no surprise or worse a great disappointment.
At the final debriefing when the planet is in rubble and those with a ponderous nature wonder where it all went wrong, the inability of those with the ultimate power - the billions of inhabitants who gave political power to the privileged elite - to raise their consciousness above the level of the constant noise of game shows, 'reality TV' and children's television will be a primary cause and Alex Jones' inimitable style will have contributed to either maintaining a dumbed down audience or repelling those who must struggle to keep their chins out of the swamp of idiocracy.
For about the third time this week, Alex Jones has been 'interviewing' a fairly knowledgeable guest only to persistently interrupt them mid-sentence to bark out something he has yelled out many times before - probably because he cannot bear the thought that an expert guest might think that he doesn't know everything already.
I say 'interviewing' because what Jones does is anything but. He endeavours to engage his guests in the kind of banter which takes place whilst propping up a bar when in fact they have far more interesting information than they ever get the opportunity to share. Good interviewing technique is actually the polar opposite of what Alex Jones does - allowing the interviewee more than just a moment to draw breath and in fact sometimes artificially creating a pregnant pause in order to allow the other person to extrapolate, explain or even digress.
I don't delude myself into believing that Alex Jones reads this or that he would take any notice if he did but he is not going to be able to reach beyond those who are already in his grasp if he arrogantly believes that people outside his catchment are going to adapt to his style because it would require the antithesis of what he preaches, i.e. the dumbing down of the potential audience.
He rails against the sports watching public for caring more about their team's results than the erosion of liberty but yells at those who listen as if they are ogling at the sports channel. He actually would be more suited as a wrestling commentator.
Maybe it's the American WWF mentality which drives or demands this kind of presentation - let's face it, US documentaries, whether it's National Geographic or Jesse Ventura, never allow the viewer to pause for thought and they all repeat the tantalising lie, 'coming next...' a dozen times or more so that when 'it' comes 'it' is either no surprise or worse a great disappointment.
At the final debriefing when the planet is in rubble and those with a ponderous nature wonder where it all went wrong, the inability of those with the ultimate power - the billions of inhabitants who gave political power to the privileged elite - to raise their consciousness above the level of the constant noise of game shows, 'reality TV' and children's television will be a primary cause and Alex Jones' inimitable style will have contributed to either maintaining a dumbed down audience or repelling those who must struggle to keep their chins out of the swamp of idiocracy.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Stop interrupting! Let's hear somebody else for a change!
Stop interrupting your guests and callers, PLEASE!
Is it remotely feasible to you, Alex Jones, that somebody else might have something to say which is more interesting than the stuff you repeat endlessly?
I just heard you cut off three callers who were on the verge of expanding on very interesting topics to band on about the top level agenda, i.e. it's all planned, documented, proven, yada, yada, yada...
You do not need to listen. You are the all knowing, all teaching guru who can learn nothing from any mortal who does not have their own daily radio programme. But we, the peasants, would sometimes like to hear what other people have to say.
You like to tell your listeners that you are a journalist or documen'ary filmmaker, well how about behaving like a professional instead of endlessly brow beating the world with your loud opinions.
Unfortunately, we will never know what the callers were about to say before you rudely shouted them down. One thing is pretty certain, it would have been a damned sight more interesting than your blether.
Is it remotely feasible to you, Alex Jones, that somebody else might have something to say which is more interesting than the stuff you repeat endlessly?
I just heard you cut off three callers who were on the verge of expanding on very interesting topics to band on about the top level agenda, i.e. it's all planned, documented, proven, yada, yada, yada...
You do not need to listen. You are the all knowing, all teaching guru who can learn nothing from any mortal who does not have their own daily radio programme. But we, the peasants, would sometimes like to hear what other people have to say.
You like to tell your listeners that you are a journalist or documen'ary filmmaker, well how about behaving like a professional instead of endlessly brow beating the world with your loud opinions.
Unfortunately, we will never know what the callers were about to say before you rudely shouted them down. One thing is pretty certain, it would have been a damned sight more interesting than your blether.
Friday, 25 November 2011
It's all going a bit John Wayne
Things are a bit busy for much INFOWARSwatching at present butI did hear Alex Jones seemingly extolling the coward, John Wayne, who managed to wriggle out of military service during the Second World War whilst portraying himself as a hero in countless Hollywood war movies.
A bit of a faux pas during the ongoing Ventura/Icke feud, given that David Icke went to great lengths to expose Wayne as the gutless egotist that he was.
Curious that the normally media savvy Jones should have anything but contempt for Wayne.
A bit of a faux pas during the ongoing Ventura/Icke feud, given that David Icke went to great lengths to expose Wayne as the gutless egotist that he was.
Curious that the normally media savvy Jones should have anything but contempt for Wayne.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
MoneyBomb date goes off in Alex Jones' face
During the recent InfoWars MoneyBomb - something akin, during these austere times, to the scrap metal drives of World War II - Alex Jones interviewed Jesse Ventura, former professional wrestler (i.e. phoney wrestler), Governor of the State of Minnesota (ftrom 1999 to 2003) and, dare I say it, former Navy Seal.
The interview took a meandering path between an unsuccessful legal case against the TSA for their invasive search techniques, a mooted 'dream ticket' of Ventura standing as Ron Paul's Vice President and the forthcoming third series of his dumbed down television programme 'Conspiracy Theory'.
At one point, Jones suggested that Ventura should interview David Icke - not least because Icke was due to start a series of speaking engagements in America.
Now, all three of these characters have problems when it comes to credibly putting forward contentious ideas to a population stupefied by idiotic television and junk food.
Jones attempts to pass himself off as a neutral who has transcended the left/right paradigm whilst occupying a near extreme right wing entrenchment. His loud, bullying, egotistical persona is enough to turn any curious intelligent first time listener off. Whilst the issues he covers are of undoubted relevance, his logic has more holes than a string vest.
Ventura, on the other hand, whilst also being loud and egotistical, is a few rungs down on the evolutionary ladder from Jones. Viewers are constantly reminded that he is a former Navy Seal but looking at him it is impossible to forget that he was also the epitome of fake, a professional wrestler. Nothing shines intellectually. His television programme is presented in a typical American fashion, i.e. a ten minute programme puffed out with the help of advertisements and ad nauseam repetition to fill an hour. The point of the programme usually having withered from being reheated half a dozen times before its ultimate damp delivery.
Contrastingly, Icke is extremely sharp and intelligent and witty. Icke's Achilles heal is in the fact that he has a number of times, for whatever reason, gone wildly off course - at least in terms of remaining within a waveband of popular credibility. I have no doubt whatsoever that had it not been for what Icke calls the 'Reptilian Agenda', the views he espouses would be widely acceptable - in spite of the damage his reputation suffered at the hands of Terry Wogan. It is often speculated that the 'Reptilian Agenda' is a device for concealing the truth in plain sight flanked by a discredited fallacy.
But it seems that the Ventura/Icke date arranged by Jones did not go according to expectations, as can be read on David Icke's website:
Jesse Ventura - Pet Detective
During an interview with Jon Ronson for his 2001 series 'Secret Rulers of the World', Jones called Icke 'a turd in a punchbowl' (see video) but has since managed to cosy up to Icke - though he clearly looks uncomfortable whenever he is filmed talking to Icke.
It seems that those who often caution against divide and rule are themselves at the head of it, wittingly or otherwise. The fallouts are like conspiracy gossip - like celebrity gossip but possibly costly.
Conspirity fallouts are nothing new and they provide nothing positive to the pursuit of truth. There will be hardcores of Icke and Ventura fans metaphorically squaring up to each other as I type - as well as some people who will very likely feel that they have to make some kind of choice.
Unfortunately, incidents like this present even more garbage to try to see through but maybe the outcome will be positive if the exercise of digestion helps to separate the nutrients from the shit.
The interview took a meandering path between an unsuccessful legal case against the TSA for their invasive search techniques, a mooted 'dream ticket' of Ventura standing as Ron Paul's Vice President and the forthcoming third series of his dumbed down television programme 'Conspiracy Theory'.
At one point, Jones suggested that Ventura should interview David Icke - not least because Icke was due to start a series of speaking engagements in America.
Now, all three of these characters have problems when it comes to credibly putting forward contentious ideas to a population stupefied by idiotic television and junk food.
Jones attempts to pass himself off as a neutral who has transcended the left/right paradigm whilst occupying a near extreme right wing entrenchment. His loud, bullying, egotistical persona is enough to turn any curious intelligent first time listener off. Whilst the issues he covers are of undoubted relevance, his logic has more holes than a string vest.
Ventura, on the other hand, whilst also being loud and egotistical, is a few rungs down on the evolutionary ladder from Jones. Viewers are constantly reminded that he is a former Navy Seal but looking at him it is impossible to forget that he was also the epitome of fake, a professional wrestler. Nothing shines intellectually. His television programme is presented in a typical American fashion, i.e. a ten minute programme puffed out with the help of advertisements and ad nauseam repetition to fill an hour. The point of the programme usually having withered from being reheated half a dozen times before its ultimate damp delivery.
Contrastingly, Icke is extremely sharp and intelligent and witty. Icke's Achilles heal is in the fact that he has a number of times, for whatever reason, gone wildly off course - at least in terms of remaining within a waveband of popular credibility. I have no doubt whatsoever that had it not been for what Icke calls the 'Reptilian Agenda', the views he espouses would be widely acceptable - in spite of the damage his reputation suffered at the hands of Terry Wogan. It is often speculated that the 'Reptilian Agenda' is a device for concealing the truth in plain sight flanked by a discredited fallacy.
But it seems that the Ventura/Icke date arranged by Jones did not go according to expectations, as can be read on David Icke's website:
Jesse Ventura - Pet Detective
During an interview with Jon Ronson for his 2001 series 'Secret Rulers of the World', Jones called Icke 'a turd in a punchbowl' (see video) but has since managed to cosy up to Icke - though he clearly looks uncomfortable whenever he is filmed talking to Icke.
It seems that those who often caution against divide and rule are themselves at the head of it, wittingly or otherwise. The fallouts are like conspiracy gossip - like celebrity gossip but possibly costly.
Conspirity fallouts are nothing new and they provide nothing positive to the pursuit of truth. There will be hardcores of Icke and Ventura fans metaphorically squaring up to each other as I type - as well as some people who will very likely feel that they have to make some kind of choice.
Unfortunately, incidents like this present even more garbage to try to see through but maybe the outcome will be positive if the exercise of digestion helps to separate the nutrients from the shit.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
InfoPuppy Yaps at Mail Woman
In today's Daily Mail (2nd November 2011) there is a risible article by freelance journalist, Meghan Keneally, purporting to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement:
Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
The article, as anybody with any interest in 9/11 Truth would immediately realise, does nothing of the sort - it actually proves the anomalies to which the likes of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - ae911truth.org - have been drawing attention for years.
But InfoPuppy, Paul Joseph Watson, attempts to respond with an article with the lethal precision of a sucker tipped child's bow and arrow:
‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ Actually Validates Them
In his article, Watson points to Keneally's accusation of 'conspiracy theorists' inventing 'wild claims' having, for the second time, two paragraphs earlier made a wild claim and then goes on to repeat it. He said:
'Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.'”
'Yes you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams”'
Then says:
'If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.'
And later concludes:
'...Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.'
Whilst WTC 7 may not have been an external steel framed building, why does Watson ludicrously make such a statement when external steel framed buildings are hardly uncommon.
Anybody familiar with the subject will probably know the point Watson was trying to make but by writing such a badly thought out article he makes himself look like a smart-arsed idiot.
Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
The article, as anybody with any interest in 9/11 Truth would immediately realise, does nothing of the sort - it actually proves the anomalies to which the likes of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - ae911truth.org - have been drawing attention for years.
But InfoPuppy, Paul Joseph Watson, attempts to respond with an article with the lethal precision of a sucker tipped child's bow and arrow:
‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ Actually Validates Them
In his article, Watson points to Keneally's accusation of 'conspiracy theorists' inventing 'wild claims' having, for the second time, two paragraphs earlier made a wild claim and then goes on to repeat it. He said:
'Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.'”
'Yes you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams”'
Then says:
'If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.'
And later concludes:
'...Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.'
Whilst WTC 7 may not have been an external steel framed building, why does Watson ludicrously make such a statement when external steel framed buildings are hardly uncommon.
Anybody familiar with the subject will probably know the point Watson was trying to make but by writing such a badly thought out article he makes himself look like a smart-arsed idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)