What is Alex Jones' Agenda?

Post Reply New Topic

I just watched this interesting documentary about Alex Jones. I've been trying to figure him out since the bohemian grove thing, and the conclusion I came to is that he's a stalking horse for the Republican party, and a means to make militant libertarians out themselves (this might not be so bad if AJ wasn't simultaneously recruiting them), as well to make anti establishment movements of all kinds ineffectual, and promote the lie that market deregulation is synonymous with individual liberty. This documentary convincingly posits that AJ acts as a recruitment agent for the establishment. A way to move people away from humanist ethics, and toward the selfish pursuit of power. This is an angle I hadn't considered, but after watching this, I think it's probably true.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRFKXpUJc0[/youtube]

This doc nicely illustrates what this propaganda does to sincere people when they believe it. The way it can make honest people destructive to themselves and their communities.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ_ZiX_Tek[/youtube]

So, anyway that is my current opinion, I would be interested if anyone has a different take.

Funny, AJs hard core listeners are some times called crazy conspiracy people by the establishment and you think he is part of a conspiracy. Interesting. hes an intense guy in real life a lot like he is on the air. Hes main goal is to make money for his company while spreading his ideas. You could call him an "infopreneur."

I am not sure how you could call geeks on the opposite side of the street from a protest or federal building with a cell phone camera "militant libertarians" just because they are trying to get youtube views. If anything they are more likely to play the victim card when the police ask them for their name just to try and dramatize it on the internet. Not unless you have accepted the brain washing from the MSM about libertarians. He clearly caters to neopolitical hipsters, if you cant see that then you have fallen for the ruse. He jockys for a part of the same audience than a Joe Rogan type of personality acquires and there is much known over lap between the two. Considering how much he attacks the republicans calling him a Republican plant is also laugh worthy, he does them absolutely no favors.

AJ makes a lot of good points, the MSM is a complete fraud and a lot of the things he has claimed or predicted have come true. Some of the other things he has said were hysteria click whoring. As sad as this may be its worth mentioning, he is one of if not the the largest voice out there speaking up about police brutality against people with disabilities. He has been talking about it for a long time, now its become a popular subject, in part because he has helped bring awareness to it. He also rightly predicted that it was start becoming more and more common. An alarming amount of the "crazy" things hes be talking about for a long time are gaining main stream acceptance as issues we need to address. Young people are surprised when they find out that prisons are privately owned and that they lobby to keep pot illegal because it helps them make more money. Those kinds of issues go on an on, there is no shortage of those kinds of insane problems in this country that AJ has been talking about.

An increasing large portion of the young adults in this country are just completely disillusioned with the current political situation and our overall version of government as a whole. They are starting to see that the Republican-Democrat way of doing things is an out dated ceremonial joke. People are out right abandoning their respect for the governments authority altogether. D or R in power, a silly plant is still going to put you in a private prison and there is still going to be unneeded pointless wars. The Joe Rogans and Alex Jones are a kind of voice for those types of people. Rogan tends to reverberate what he thinks younger people are attuned to in order to reverberate with them while Jones tends to brandish his own ideas and tried to do it an a way that is appalling to them. Its not as much about New Zion or WW3 as you might believe.

I used to listen to him for entertainment, his show used to be very news heavy covering stories that you didnt hear on the MSM because they didnt want you to know about them.

His show is boring now.

There's nothing new about the John Birch Society, and Laissez-faire rhetoric that Alex Jones propagates, apart from a deeper understanding about how to market these ideas successfully to different demographics.


The fact that Alex says things against Republicans and individual corporations actually makes his message more convincing. However, If you follow and accept Alex' narrative arcs to their conclusion, you'll find you usually end up voting Republican, and support the expansion of corporate tyranny.


AJ says many true things. The best propaganda tends to have some truth in it to make it seem plausible. AJ's narratives, and analysis of causation are usually nonsense. If you don't understand why things are happening, your ability to do anything about them is nil.

Most of what you are saying is just fluff.


Ok so what do you want? Do you expect everything he says to be exactly 50/50 politically speaking? Is that natural? Is that even normal? He is a self stated conservative, wtf do you expect? I am also a conservative but I hate the republicans because they are a bought off failure. Yes a lot of what I am for is what the R's claim to be for also. That does not mean I am a Republican and it does not mean I will vote for them if I dont like them.

You have autism like me yes? By comparing AJ to the John Birch Society you might be doing something called "hyper associating." Sorry, but you are giving the right wing establishment way way way way way to much credit on this one.

Ok so if his causation theories are off wouldn't that seem to contradict your idea of him working for the establishment? I tend to agree with some of his reasoning but its a mixed bag, some of it I disregard other things seem plausible.

In conclusion, I do not out right support AJ, but I strongly disagree with your opinion. I believe that your own liberal bias is why you try to lump AJ in with the Republicans. You show your obvious bias when you said that he will side with the republicans more often than the Democrats. He is a known conservative but other than that fact you provided nothing that links him with the establishment. Establishment Dems and liberals are known to not like AJ and they commonly try to paint him as a Republican plant in order to make him an easier target. People have been trying to do this for more than 10 years and it has always been a losing strategy. The first video you posted is a childish joke, from 2011 and only 800 views, did you make this video? Gee, I wonder why the comments are turned off on this masterpiece of the internet? I couldn't get past the first few minutes it was that bad. Vice videos are always good. You have not provided anything to convince me about your theory and have no evidence.

-Ron Paul will promote non-protectionism/free trade, Jones finds arguments *against* free trade. (Socialist ideology)
-Ron Paul will say, "we should honor the 1%", Jones develops arguments that the 1% are evil (Socialist ideology)
-Ron Paul will say, "let the states decide LGBT laws", and Jones develops arguments that are anti-LGBT (Christian ideology)
-The fear of the "NWO" New World Order / "Globalization" are fears Socialists express (i.e., competition will take my job, and lower my pay, (Socialist ideology)
-He speaks out against "global capitalism". (Socialist ideology)

He claims he is a libertarian/conservative, however, his audience is likely poorer, lower educated/low skilled people. So libertarian/conservative ideas are likely not be agreeable to these people.

So he appears to wrap 'economic Socialist ideology', 'Christian ideology, and 'Anti-Statism' together and calls it "libertarianism/conservatism/patriotism".

Fear of NWO and globalization = anti competition? How does that make since? If anything that would equate to protectionism not socialism any way. I have never hard him speak out against "global capitalism" ever in the entire time I listed to him. Yes, AJ has self proclaimed Christian ideology, what is the problem with that? I share some of those ideas also but would still rather have the states decide also.


I am not sure what you even mean with your last statement. Are suggestion that because some of his audience might be lower income and that because you assume those people to not agree with libertarianism it therefore means AJ does not actually support libertarian ideals? Isnt that kind of far fetched? Oh well, I am done defending him lol.

Actually, Bob Dacy, has filled in for Alex on numerous occasions. He is a Bircher, and has spoken in depth about the JBC on numerous occasions on the Alex Jones Show. AJ has also had the leadership of the JBC on several times, and has praised them repeatedly. For example:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJ_ngHcT7I[/youtube][/youtube]



Nope. Accurate analysis, and true facts are necessary for successful activism. Why would you imagine that an oligarchical establishment would want that?


Just watch the first video. I strongly doubt you will disagree afterward.


I lump AJ in with the Republicans because, I have listened to him for years. Although he might say individual things against Republicans, when you follow and accept his narratives to the conclusion, more often than not you wind up voting republican and accepting core tenets of GOP ideology such as their assumptions about Laissez Faire. It's probable that part of Alex Jones role is to market the Republican party to people who view themselves as outside of mainstream Republican mores. In any case, regardless of whether that is his formal role, it is his unambiguous effect.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_720zj3TnaQ[/youtube]



Just watch the first video to the end. You will be convinced as I am that he is no anti establishment dissident as he claims to be.

Last edited by Stannis on 28 May 2014, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Socialist Party of the USA
http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html

Quoted: "We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)".

Socialist ideology is to say that 'free trade' lowers the pay of workers, and costs jobs.



His show is primarily about rich bankers/capitalists/elite "screwing" over the working man. This is what one would hear at a Socialist meeting.

He is strongly opposed to "globalization" (as stated by people in video #2 above)

Quoted: "Anti-globalization ... is critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globa ... n_movement



Nothing. However, it is not "liberty", so, it makes him look like a hypocrite.



Yes.

What poor people are open to hearing that they can help themselves by lowering taxes on the rich ? That is the promise of Capitalism ("rising tides raises all ships".)

He rails on the rich bankers, the elite, the 1% .. it is like attending a Socialist meeting.

Alex Jones is an entertainer, he is catering to his audience. His agenda is to make money. It's best not to take him too seriously, he'll say some interesting things from time to time and sound the alarm over certain issues but a foundation of ideological thought he is not.

Opposing NAFTA isn't socialist, saying that the elite are screwing over the working man isn't socialist.

is agenda is to see how many rocks of crack he cab slam up his two nostrils and still say "false flag" 47 times in a row before his percolating jugular bursts a guyser

Never heard of him. Wouldn't recognise him if I tripped over him.

I cited a link above that -opposing free trade agreements - is the ideology of the Socialist Party of the USA. So how is the ideology of the Socialist Party of America not Socialist ideology? These people are calling themselves Socialists , and saying here is what it means to be a Socialist.

Searching google "Socialism oppose free trade" we can see Socialist parties around the world with the common belief of being opposed to free trade.

Why do you think they oppose free trade ? IMO it is because they see as Karl Marx noted , the owner "screwing over" the "working man" (i.e., exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie).

You are making extremely weak arguments. To say that just because some socialists also opposite NAFTA does not mean that opposition is an innately socialist agenda. Sorry bro, but the socialists do not have a monopoly on ideology. You can no take a fringe tenant of one statement from a specific group and just completely acocciate that idea solely with them. The fact that you are not well enough educated to know the difference between corporatism and capitalism seems to be a problem for you.

Or maybe I am wrong and all the NOES on this list are also by your logic just socialists arnt they?

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 3450 RECORDED VOTE 17-Nov-1993 10:36 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 102 156
Republican 132 43
Independent 1
TOTALS 234 200


---- AYES 234 ---

Allard
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantwell
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Combest
Cooper
Coppersmith
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Emerson
English (AZ)
English (OK)
Eshoo
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Fish
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
Lambert
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Lowey
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meehan
Meek
Meyers
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce
Quillen
Ramstad
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stenholm
Studds
Stump
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thomas
Thomas (WY)
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Upton
Valentine
Walker
Whitten
Wolf
Wyden
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

---- NOES 200 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews
Applegate
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bentley
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Byrne
Canady
Carr
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Edwards (CA)
Engel
Evans
Everett
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Hughes
Hunter
Inglis
Inhofe
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Maloney
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Martinez
McCloskey
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Natcher
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Saxton
Schenk
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shuster
Sisisky
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

It only passed with 34 votes, but lets just unilaterally declare everyone whos against it a socialist.

Its kind of insane consider what has happened in Mexico since NAFTA. Do you really think that Mexico is a better place now. Since NAFTAs passage Mexico has become a 3rd world nation run by drug cartels but I am just a socialist because I am against it. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Why dont you try reading some of the fine selections from this digital library I have taken the trouble of organizing for you? You might find it enlightening.



Its not an ideology, its what actually happened. Unless maybe you would care to argue that Mexico is some how a good example at this point?

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ha ... channel=sb


"After 20 Years, NAFTA Leaves Mexico?s Economy in Ruins"
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/aft ... _20140109#



Since you are so inclined to telling other to search google. . .

You picked a miserable topic to try to discredit Jones with. I mean seriously, of all the things AJ talks about you had to make this your issue?



More power to him. If I had the money...... Accept crack rock doesnt go in your nose...er but w/e.

Last edited by RunningFox on 28 May 2014, 12:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Ron Paul opposes NAFTA. NAFTA isn't free trade, it has thousands and thousands of pages of regulations/quotas/tariffs in it. It is a managed trade agreement.

"Fringe group" ? I cited the platform of the USA Socialist Party. As I noted earlier, google has many articles of Socialists groups opposing free trade. If you are so confident in knowing what you are talking about, how about citing a single Socialist party in the world that will support free trade ? There may be some out there, so good luck.

These battles are fought all over the world between the Socialists (labor /trade groups) vs the Capitalists.

The Socialists groups/parties fight for trade/labor unions and "workers rights", while the Capitalists push for free trade agreements that may result in lower pay for workers, and possibly sending jobs overseas.

This is why all these Socialists group oppose free trade, because they see it has lowering pay and/or losing jobs.



Karl Marx said it best ...

To the question, ?what is free trade under the present condition of society??, Karl Marx?s answer was: ?It is the freedom which capital has to crush the worker.?

source, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/200 ... licy-trade

I find this really strange your love for Mr. Jones is so great that you are in denial of what Socialism/Marxism is about.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 28 May 2014, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So you just completely ignored everything I said in my past post that totally destroyed your entire argument? Wow, ok. Well pretending like reality doesnt exist is a way of living i guess, not a good or healthy one, but it certainly is one.