Why Alex Jones will live forever

Why do you think? Nobody's ever going to assassinate this worthless piece-of-shit except maybe one of his followers, one of his audience, like George Lincoln Rockwell. Yes, there are people stupider than him: the morons that listen to his radio show and watch his clips, buy the merchandise, and frequent his opportunist advertisers.

Let's be crystal clear about this: these people are sick as well as semi-literate.

Malcolm X was real. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was real. Patrick Henry was real. All the Civil Rights workers and union organizers who were murdered by goons and corrupt cops were real. As nuts as he was, the radical Abolitionist John Brown was real. The murdered Illinois Black Panther Chairman Fred Hampton was real. Even Bobby Kennedy was more real that this clown and his pack of retards, and he shares the same honor as the rest: he died for what was right. In fact, it's pretty obvious that they were so real that it was almost inevitable that they were going to die.

Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Kurt Nimmo, Alex Constantine, and the rest of the conspiracy-mongers are not real, they're frauds, and they're selling an anti-government agenda, literally, to paranoid idiots. When people like this won't listen to you and go running to the irrational like some screaming Mullah, you know you're seeing a religion, a cult, and that makes them vaguely dangerous to the general public, but not the citadels of power. Were they a genuine threat, they would would at least be seeing some of the harassment we saw during the 1960s-70s that was unleashed on the antiwar movement generally, as well as all the other social justice groups and movements of that time. None of that is happening to Jones and company, contrary to their claims.

The whack-jobs will point to someone like Hal Turner, stupidly, being their lot in life, yet Turner unmasked himself as an FBI informant who was likely goading the same kinds of idiots into lawless action, a provocateur.

Who is Alex Jones? Really. At best, he's a craven liar and a demagogue, making money off of the whipping-up of fear and paranoia in a historical moment where it's literally yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. I will go as far as to say that much of what he says and writes is not protected speech and that his time is coming before long. It will be belated, but he's got to be taken down, and very, very hard. Quit going to his site. Quit allowing people to post links to those sites. Ignore him. Let him dry-up and blow away like he should have over a decade ago.

It's working with a certain GOP pundit with an enlarged Adam's apple...

By the way. Fucking grow-up.

Alex Jones has been backpeddling about Charlie Sheen this week by taking a vow of silence (please extend it to all utterances)...

WWW--Yesterday, syndicated conspiracy nut radio jock Alex Jones [GASP!] was making some really baseless about the also completely wacko Charlie Sheen being "innocent" when it's pretty clear that something's incredibly amiss about this recent incident with his new wife, the fact that they were both dangerously drunk, and that he was definitely wielding a knife yelling, "I'm going to kill you!" at her and had to be restrained by others. The 911 call is online and on television today, it's everywhere, and it gives a new layer of meaning to "911" once again since Jones has been fobbing the always-intoxicated Sheen as a "truther," meaning someone who thinks the WTC was felled by alien technology...

Let's not forget that Sheen has a very prolonged history of sexual and substance-addictions and has even had to come under intervention from his poor family, poor Martin Sheen, a man who I assume is very ashamed of his son right now. Jones certainly knew about Sheen's problems before becoming associated with him., something we can safely presume that he did to suck-off some of the troubled star's fame to bolster site hits and merch sales on his constellation of websites and other media. In other words, the mugs, t-shirts, poorly produced DVD documentaries, and crypto-racist posters and shirts of the current president, weren't selling briskly enough to keep the new Father Coughlin afloat in the kind of luxury he's been used to. He has a lot of mouths to feed, and besides, he's fat.

But yesterday, Jones was trying to "minimize" the damage against Sheen without much basis or luck. Not that that's anything new, but today...nothing, nada, he's moved on from the subject with nary-a-comment of explanation. There's an pretty obvious reason for this silence having to do with sticking one's foot in one's mouth: Expect Sheen to become so radioactive--as radioactive as Fatty Arbuckle or D.C. Stephenson--that Jones stops talking about the movie star almost entirely, if not altogether. Why did Jones ever want an association with Sheen? That's obvious. Charlie Sheen's famous and it props-up Jones's own absurd conservative, anti-government line that's mistaken as genuinely progressive and populist, it "mainstreams" him, a trick possibly learned from Ron Paul. He's not "mainstream," he's a far-right demagogue who's been given too much rope, but with some luck, he's going to hang himself with it before long.

So, what happened between yesterday and today? The dumbass (who has more-than-adequate resources to discover the truth) probably actually read the Colorado police reports or had someone like Kurt Nimmo hand him copies of the reports out of concern, and he stopped talking about it altogether today. Wise move, but the statements stand and were heard. Note that the facts have never stood in the way of Alex Jones and that there was never an objective truth he wasn't willing to avoid or to accuse of being part of "the conspiracy." He and Kurt Nimmo had no problem whatsoever in claiming that the DC Madam was "suicided" by imaginary government operatives when there was and is no evidence whatsoever to conclude it. Reportedly, in March of this year, Jones fired erstwhile compatriot and shill, Jeff Rense, one of the other twits peddling this hollow meme that also fosters the impression of an ubiquitous police state (something supporters of one would want out there) while at the same time reviling it, a neat trick.

The objective truth never stopped him from yelling the sky was falling in the run-up to Y2K, so to keep listening to him and thinking he has a shred of credibility because he's singing your tune is simply intellectually dishonest, a lie to oneself, that deepest-of-cuts. The late (Milton) William Cooper--author of Behold a Pale Horse--even saw Jones as a fraud and a liar, as he would have known having beheld one in the mirror the majority of his short life. A wolf knows a wolf. I have to assume that the radio show's site has the show archived from yesterday, so hit it, I'm not going to listen that crap, it's infotainment for the terminally paranoid bigot (including people with a predisposition for psychosis who smoked too much pot, took one-too-many hits of LSD).

The dead speak, again and again, accusing the living, even when they were the same kind of fraud--especially because they were the same kind of a fraud. Jones could be caught in lies and mistakes forever and his moronic crowd would keep believing, like the flock led by another man with the same last name...

Behold, the persistence of stupidity: flogging a stale horse.

Listen, at your own peril: http://www.thealexjonesshow.com/listen.html

(Milton) William Cooper disussing Jones's December 31st, 1999 Y2K sham: http://www.archive.org/details/WilliamCooperDiscussesAlexJonesY2kHoax

"Twenty lines with the President," a fictional fiction, fictionally, by Charlie Sheen:

http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2009/09/twenty-lines-with-president-fictional.html

Conspiracy LLC.™

WWW--This is likely to be the last thing I'm going to write about this species of bottom feeder (no, not Bill Bastone, another fish-to-fowl). The vast majority of these people who write on so-called "conspiracies" tend to be completely off--not just in their contentions, but in their minds. Many of them and their readers are--flatly-put--mentally ill individuals who are so messed-up that they created a new religion.

Their writings will never accomplish much of anything substantial, except diverting people's attention from what really needs to be done to change things. They will never spawn a real or constructive political movement with any real results. What they accomplish is to demoralize people, making genuine social and political problems into a mythology of hopelessness and demoralization. Some of them are definitely on the payroll of the FBI, the CIA, and other aspects of the intelligence community, either as assets or as operatives, just as some journalists are.

That they're pathetic is a given. LavaCocktail's Jay Beldo summed it best for me today: "Conspiracy itself has become a bottom line commodity no different than I-Pods or Nike tennis shoes, sold by various fear/profit mongers." Yes, the primary motive here is sales, primarily of books, but also mugs, t-shirts, DVDs, CDs, and other worthless collectibles for the desperate. How is this any different from fundamentalist Christian hucksters? It isn't. I like Jay, he gets it. He understands we have to keep our minds positive and clear, and we have our own paths to take. I recommend his website highly.

Sure, Alex Constantine will probably try to bait me on this again, but rest assured that he and others have got their work cut-out for them. There was no defamation on my part, I wasn't the one who yelled "liar" over and over again on my site. My right to the opinion that Constantine and his ilk are pricks, bastards, assholes, morons, and scum, is secure in the First amendement. It's also my opinion that these arch-conservative turds have very little respect for the right to free speech, unless it applies to them. The Bolsheviks and German National Socialists held the same attitudes.

Lavacocktail.com nominates Alex Jones "Fear Monger of 2008"

WWW--And boy has he earned it, although I could mention someone else with the same first name for runner-up. But we won't dwell on that, let's hold dangerous opinions about other nuts, namely Alex Jones. At least he's never threatened to sue me for holding opinions about him.

I wasn't surprised that another blatant alarmist--Naomi Klein--has been on his radio show. Right, I mean we don't have enough paranoid conspiracy theorists in America, so one with a well-developed...uh, will to power comes down from the great white north, eh, to tell us the wrongliness™ of our ways.

Thanks, thanks a lot: we need more paranoia in bad times. I don't buy--literally, I don't--her "crisis capitalism" theory at all, it's too simplified, too pat, like Marx for cliff notes. If they had anything relevant to write or say, something might actually have happened to them. They don't. Yes, Alex Jones may have won "Fear Monger of 2008" for his dionysian rants on how everything is under control and that a police state is imminent.

Scratch that--Alex Constantine wins, he's got me scared at least, making threats of defamation suits and whatnot. The problem he has is that he called me a "liar" on several occasions on his website making already dubious legal claims void. Having the opinion that someone's writing wildly speculative theories about someone's death for money is protected speech because it's an opinion, nothing more.

I've written that Kurt Nimmo, Jeff Rense, and Alex Jones are just a few along with Constantine who I feel are trying to milk this particular theory for attention, maybe even cash. Considering the fact that Constantine just avoided a similar situation in court himself over Psychic Dictatorship, he could be enacting a psychologically-reflexive action towards me. This has a scientific basis, as it's understood that an organism will inevitably strike-out against a source of pressure or duress. Strange people. Very strange.

And the winner is:

http://blog.lavacocktail.com/2008/12/21/fear-monger-award-2008.aspx?ref=rss

A take on Alex Jones as utterly strange as the subject itself: http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

Constantine vs. Janovic

WWW--Alex is on his third-installment of a two-part piece (don't ask) about me. You know, what's so unfortunate about all of this is that I probably agree with him on numerous points on far-ranging topics.

But there's one point I doubt I'll ever agree with over--barring credible, tangible new evidence--and that's the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Perhaps I've been wrong about his motives and he's just writing about it on some kind of tangent, I don't know or care. [Ed., 12.22.2008--Call it a "retraction," or whatever you like, but I no longer think his motive was for money.] He has his issues and I have mine. But I believe that he and others couldn't be more wrong. [Ed., 12.22.2008--On this I'll never waver unless some solid evidence is forthcoming.] I got to know this woman over the period of ten months, mainly through emails and less than a handful of phone calls, and I pitied her, I empathized with her.

Mr. Constantine can make all the defamatory allegations he wants to--they're baseless, and he should watch what his hands are typing a little more closely. These kinds of half-assed theories won't help us get any closer to the truth of this story, but that's not what I think they're designed to do. What are they designed to do? To feed someone's ego.

At this writing, I have yet to be presented with any solid proof that Jeane was murdered, zero.

That hasn't stopped several of these "conspiracy researchers"from clutching-at-straws. For example, I'm aware of Blanche Palfrey's inconsistent comments early on that she didn't notice any desperation or suicidal behavior in her daughter prior to her death. I have it on good word that Mrs. Palfrey's health and memory are in decline. Since May of this year she's corrected herself on this in the press, probably with the assistance of her remaining family members and counsel. She's 76 and has a long-term heart condition. I wish her and her family well.

Also at this writing, I have good reason to believe Mrs. Palfrey is no longer the executrix of her daughter's estate and that it's now being administered by Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe's Preston Burton, the late DC Madam's former and final criminal defense counsel. Burton was appointed (imposed might be a better term, but Palfrey accepted him) at the end by the Court with the removal of Montgomery Blair Sibley as civil/criminal counsel by the defendant.

After that, Burton did some furious jockeying to run the Palfrey Estate, even causing a commotion at her funeral, something I have on good word from a reliable source.

Why was Sibley removed? Palfrey told me she wanted it and that "things were said that cannot be taken back." It was our final telephone call, in January 2008. As much as she tried to paint the split as acrimonious, she didn't sound convincing. There are other factors: who was whispering in Palfrey's ear that his defense strategy was imperiled? In the case of why Sibley was removed--a matter of sealed court records--I also have good reason to believe this is related to her suicidal behavior and a specific utterance she made in the presence of counsel that created a legal situation. It's unknown if she made similar utterances in the presence of Preston Burton at any point.

A suggestion to Mr. Constantine and other researchers: look into the period that Sibley was replaced as counsel, it's crucial and it was unusual as most of the entire legal proceedings and trial were. There's another narrative here, and it's not the accepted one that was swept under the rug by the press, prosecution, and the Court. You might want to look into the strong possibility that Palfrey under-reported her earnings in a major way, perhaps the easiest thing to prove in a case with charges of money laundering, misuse of the mails, and the presence of the IRS in the investigation.

Why wasn't she charged with under-reporting her income? Her properties and assets don't jibe with the accepted narrative that she made $2 million from 1993-2006, it doesn't fit. There are reasons to believe she might have had offshore accounts and that the government was and is aware of them.

Why not take a look at what we do know? Why not look at the smoke rather than concocting something unprovable--blank hearsay--out of whole cloth? Because it's easy. That's all I have to say about Alex Constantine and his dubious theories regarding the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.


Postscript, 12.22.2008: Alex is now writing on his site that I've "defamed" him, even while he's called me a "liar" over and over again, which could easily fit into that category. My personal take? He has no more basis than anyone to claim injury, I could just as easily claim it from him. But I won't, because I respect the right of others to their opinions and that speech is free and protected under the First amendment. Nothing I wrote about Constantine was done with knowing intent--I never wrote anything I knew for a fact to be wrong, the blank truth.

All this said, I would be happy to share various pieces of information from the Palfrey case itself with Mr. Constantine, he might be able to offer his own insights. I'm willing to admit that they could be very valuable. It's his call. Again, it wasn't a murder, he and others have it wrong, he and others have nothing solid to prove the assertion with, and yes, there are issues of real importance that should be dealt with like having a rudimentary knowledge of the Palfrey saga. I don't believe Alex Constantine does by a long shot, and that's OK.

But, hey, at least Constantine has written recently about Jeffrey A. Taylor. That's what bothers me so much about all this--we probably agree on a lot more than we don't. In fairness, we have both been wrong in our approach to all things Palfrey. But it hasn't just been about him, and I no longer think his motives were necessarily "bad," just wrong-headed and reactionary.

The majority of my comments have been directed at multiple-theorists, including Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, and Jeff Rense, so Constantine shouldn't feel left out, I've written on them as well and in even starker terms. I am not out to get him, but the theory is flat-out wrong. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it like anyone else. What kind of message he's trying to send by threatening to sue someone for disagreeing strenuously with him on specific points about the death of someone is beyond me.