Project Censored (PC), the news criticism organization made up of scholars, journalists, and activists that annually researches and selects stories overlooked or ignored by mainstream news media, has recently published a lengthy article on its website, titled, “Disinfo Wars: Alex Jones’ War on Your Mind,” by Nolan Higdon.[1]

The piece argues that Jones is comparable to a nineteenth century false prophet touting the imminent return of Christ; a figure prone to perennial error whose “reporting is vast in focus and lacking in evidence.” The bombastic Jones, the argument goes, besmirches more sober inquiry into the power elite, even suggesting that the talk show host, activist and news impresario may be part of a larger counterintelligence program that works in tandem with corporate media to delegitimize other independent inquiry and activism centering on deep events like 9/11.

Jones is a skilled interviewer who covers very important topics with an array of knowledgeable guests. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this has allowed him to cultivate a sizable audience. He is also, no doubt, an often irksome on-air presence who is prone to Howard Beale-like outbursts and far-reaching streams of thought that sharply contrast with accepted modes of reportorial technique. Further, he is a steadfast advocate of just about everything haunting the psyches of those who identify themselves as Progressives—gun ownership, skepticism of “climate science,” a critical stance on US immigration policy, and, yes, a preoccupation with revealing a shadowy transnational elite.

If one is to accept the lofty assessment of certain thinkers who speak from their positions in academe and policy-forging bodies, Jones also epitomizes the chest-thumping libertarian survivalist, who thus invariably possesses a “crippled epistemology”—evident in the alleged hodge-podge of conspiracy theories he espouses and promotes.[2] Yet it is questionable whether these disingenuous taxonomies are at all helpful in assessing an individual’s capacity to produce worthwhile journalism.

Even if Higdon’s appraisal of Jones as a journalistic charlatan can bear scrutiny, the broader concern is that PC has chosen to abandon its own essential impartiality to assail one of its own honorees.[3] After all, the organization’s unambiguous stance in evaluating and designating important news produced by alternative media involves the avoidance of what essentially amounts to political prejudice that could itself lead to … well, censorship.

I have been an admirer of Project Censored for almost twenty years. Their style of media criticism served as an inspiration for my pursuing a career academe, and I have been more than thrilled to contribute to PC’s most recent yearbooks. Thus the notion that the entity would lash out at any public figure in such a fashion is troubling. Further, the article underscores what may be a less apparent problem, specifically how the organization’s criteria for evaluating the news can be compromised by subtle biases that may elude its own field of vision.

“Disinfo Wars” fails to distinguish between Jones’ on-air antics and Infowars’ journalism. It thereby proceeds to indict an alternative news outfit that often produces timely and well-researched stories on a host of topics regularly ignored or misrepresented by mainstream outlets—indeed, material that falls squarely within PC’s own criteria for “censored news.”[4]

This is because the faculty and students partaking in Project Censored’s nomination process exercise a bit of their own censorship that is not entirely intentional. This is either done subconsciously by researchers who recognize the “dangerous” survivalist or otherwise “alarming” features and themes of outlets perceived as similar to Infowars. Or, they partially acknowledge the merit of the issues addressed in these journalistic venues but under the perceived threat of informal censure dismiss such entries out-of-hand as “conspiracy theorizing” or otherwise politically incorrect. Efforts such as Higdon’s can only further ensconce the cloistered worldview that facilitates such practices.[5]

Regardless of a news outlet’s political foundations, if the material it produces is fundamentally sound and fits PC’s criteria for censored news, these methods are censorial in nature and fundamentally undermine the institution’s stated mission, credibility, and broader vitality going forward.

With this in mind, “Disinfo Wars” suggests that in a growing field of alternative news media producing important work from a variety of political perspectives, PC’s leadership has taken the low road in dealing with a difficult and unacknowledged discrepancy in its own political predilections and evaluative processes. Failing to concede this and seeking to maintain an air of impartiality, it now derogates a media personage and outlet producing undeniably important work that is at least as concerned and focused on corruption in high places, threats to civil liberties, and an extremely dangerous American foreign policy as the journalism generated by the array of Progressive news media PC increasingly tends to celebrate.

Most disturbingly, Higdon’s contention that Jones is a fanatical and deceptive soothsayer is based largely on the work of writers such as Alex Seitz-Wald, Jeremy Stahl, Mark Potok, Alexander Zaitchik, and Jonathan Kay, media personalities like Rachel Maddow, and dubious if not defamatory websites including “RationalWiki” and “AlexJonesDebunked.”

The stock-and-trade of these figures and entities is mobilizing the “conspiracy theory” smear to delegitimize specific individuals and ideas–a technique that Higdon contradictorily suggests is essentially a pincher movement vis-à-vis Jones’ wild exploits. Yet here Seitz-Wald, Stahl, Potok and their cohorts constitute the foundation for the stream of invective directed at Jones.[6]

While “Disinfo Wars” singles out Jones as a principal cause of the truth movement’s narrowed legitimacy, we would be well-served to look a bit closer to home. A foremost reason that Jones’ research and activism on 9/11 have come to occupy center stage is the vacuum created by the overall timidity or disinterest of Progressive-Left scholars and public intellectuals toward 9/11 and similar phenomena. Such indifference long-preceded the popularity of Infowars, inadvertently served the Bush-Cheney cabal, and has only been perpetuated by Obama’s illusory leadership. It also remains a strong (albeit indirect) contributor to the continued mayhem throughout the Middle East.

For close to four decades Project Censored has been a significant and largely impartial signal of hope that highlights the fundamental importance of news and information to democracy and a more just world. It cannot fulfill that noble purpose by adapting the malicious and unfair methods routinely used by corporate media to assail public figures and their viewpoints. Rather, it should more forthrightly address potentially suppressive practices in its own undertakings that serve to limit a fair and accurate evaluation of contributions from all alternative news media regardless of their political bearings.


[1] Nolan Higdon, “Disinfo Wars: Alex Jones War on Your Mind,”, September 2013.

[2] Cass Sunstein, “How Voters Can Escape From Information Cocoons,”, September 3, 2012.

[3] “Censored Story #2: Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty,” “Secret Patriot II Destroys Remaining U.S. Liberty,” Alex Jones/, in Peter Phillips and Project Censored, Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Stories, New York: Seven Stories Press, 38-41.

[4] The same may be said of the journalism from more beyond-the-pale news vehicles like Activist and Yet increasingly pieces that are seen as falling outside of the Left alternative media circuit appear at best infrequently among PC story nominations.

[5] PC’s tendency toward a more explicit politicization is evident, for example, in its nomination of reportage on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2013 Report, “Hate Groups and Antigovernment Groups on the Rise in US,” as a Top Censored Story. “Censored Story #5: Hate Groups and Antigovernment Groups on Rise in US,”, September 2013. I have questioned the soundness of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s methods and overall trustworthiness elsewhere. See, for example, “Extremist Publicity and Historical Reality,”, March 14, 2013.

[6] Such figures also sit uneasily alongside the names of respected scholars like Peter Phillips, Lance deHaven-Smith, and Kathryn Olmsted.


Leave a Reply

120 thought on “With “Disinfo Wars” Project Censored Abandons Principles”
  1. What many academics and news people fail to get is that young people are looking for alternatives to get information. Alex is dynamic enough to entertain them, kooky enough at times to make them have some good laughs, and informative enough to get them thinking. It’s a great combination and it cannot be “learned” in school. It’s funny how the “truth” media has become the new alternative media. Go James! Thanks for your reporting.

  2. I find it odd that on the biggest stages, particularly in front of the masses, that Alex acts like a lunatic. The ‘power structure’ as Alex describes it, must be pleased to see that behavior playing out that people find repulsive and embarrassing. I see him as a opportunist COINTEL type, and additionaly there is a girl who works for him named Molly whom I believe has worked for a CIA contractor.

  3. I have always liked Jones, it is hard no to. However, he worries me when he pulls stunts, as he did on Piers Morgan, whom I do not like,(and that is not hard either) during the gun debate last winter. Here he is given the ultimate mainstream forum and he blows it! C’mon Alex! You could have taken Piers Morgan apart in any argument. Where were you? That was the truth movements big chance, and you went hog wild shouting Morgan down for 15 minutes. I was… disappointed.

    1. Rich, the majority of feedback I have heard or read about concerning the Morgan interview of Jones were positive. Yes, a few, like yourself, were displeased, but overwhelmingly, the results were that it stirred the gun debate, made good points for the pro-gun position, and kept the dialog going.

    2. This is part of the plan. Jones is a fraud. I saw the Morgan interview too and Jones was a complete idiot screaming that no one will take his guns away. Its all a show, and Alex Jones is part of it. I’m disappointed this website is defending Alex Jones.

    3. At around the same time while interviewing Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Piers Morgan essentially lost it. While Pratt maintained his eloquence and poise in the debate, Morgan became frustrated and began calling Pratt names. The whole thing was a disaster for those advocating stricter gun control measures in the wake of Sandy Hook.

      I thus think it is safe to conclude that Morgan is likely working for pro-Second Amendment/gun rights groups behind the scenes. After all, why would he throw the interview like that in such a blatant way? Either that, or Morgan is working for a secret intelligence agency–probably MI6–as “controlled opposition.” As you know, he is British.

      1. Dr. Tracy, I thought it was Alex Jones who lost it when he was interviewed by Morgan. Jones acted like a complete fool. He made gun owners and the right to bear arms look like a complete joke. The fact that Morgan even had Jones on his show, plus with the way Jones was acting, I believe it was completely set up. I rarely hear reasonable gun advocates on the lame-steam media (but I have to admit, I’ve largely tuned out) so this makes me believe they hand-pick the ‘advocates’ so that gun-supporting people look stupid.

  4. Dr. Tracy writes:

    “Disinfo Wars” fails to distinguish between Jones’ on-air antics and Infowars’ journalism. It thereby proceeds to indict an alternative news outfit that often produces timely and well-researched stories on a host of topics regularly ignored or misrepresented by mainstream outlets—indeed, material that falls squarely within PC’s own criteria for “censored news.”[4]

    I’m not personally a big fan of Jones, mainly on account of the way in which he often ‘connects the dots.’ I’m often left with the impression that he reaches for conclusions that the ‘facts’ that he undeniably brings to light warrant. Yes, the stories are well researched and timely, and Jones is by far and away more informative than anything that can be found in the MSM. Nothing wrong with ‘critiquing’ Alex’s work, however. All sources of information, especially at the level where they begin to ‘interpret’ the ‘probable’ significance of the ‘facts’ they uncover, should be scrutinized. I would certainly recommend Alex Jones over mainstream journalism, but someone like, for example, James Corbett over Alex. Corbett, however, is not American. But not that that really matters.

    Dr. Tracy writes:

    “For close to four decades Project Censored has been a significant and largely impartial signal of hope that highlights the fundamental importance of news and information to democracy and a more just world. It cannot fulfill that noble purpose by adapting the malicious and unfair methods routinely used by corporate media to assail public figures and their viewpoints. Rather, it should more forthrightly address potentially suppressive practices in its own undertakings that serve to limit a fair and accurate evaluation of contributions from all alternative news media regardless of their political bearings.”

    This, to my mind, is the nub of the matter, the very reason why ‘the limits to public discourse’ are so severe, especially among that fraction of the population whose role it ought to be to inform the broader public and follow ‘leads’ wherever they may lead. The censorship doesn’t merely derive from a subconscious bias to conform to main and established currents of opinion, but more worryingly from the palpable threat of subtle and not so subtle ‘retaliation’ from on high. For ‘journalists’ and ‘academics,’ thinking too far outside ‘officially’ sanctioned ‘limits’ is potentially ‘suicidal,’ certainly in terms of career opportunities, and sometimes in a more literal sense.

    Something is amiss. Is it 1984 already?

    1. “Is it 1984 already?”

      Youbetcha, Norm. It’s the point I was making in my recent, lengthy, and somewhat agonizing debate with Mark. I think that’s what James’ Ingsoc post was telling us.

      What’s fantastic about James Tracy is that we can listen to him in an hour long interview (last post) with an avowed lefty former academic, and pretty much acknowledge that he’s on the same page–or at least feel comfortable in that conversation–yet stand up for Alex Jones when a lefty outfit that James admires smears him.

      That is to say that James Tracy is an honest broker, and a true scholar and gentleman. He’s never unhinged in interviews, in his writings, or in his video chats. He’s admirable as the day is long.

      I have no idea if Jones can be trusted. I have pondered the question for years. I know that suspicion comes with this game; infiltrators are everywhere. Everyone suspects everyone. But does great work, and that affords him the benefit of the doubt, I conclude. If he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, well, time will tell.

      For anyone who cares to know, I lean strongly toward the Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard position of anarcho-captialism, which makes libertarianism look conservative. The state is our worst enemy, and whatever we can do to make it go away we should do with all our energy. Naturally, they despise Alex. I do not. Purists of that sort, as much as I admire them, are victims of the adage ” a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Thus, they despise most everyone.

      We can’t ever know for certain if the people telling mostly truth are compromised. Babies and bathwater come to mind.

  5. I can’t agree with your assessment more, James. Even though I have a strong distaste for Jones’ style of loudmouth ranting, and absolutely reject many of the attitudes and beliefs subscribed to by Jones and his libertarian/right wing cohorts – their belligerent, flat earther denial of climate change, their tendency to conflate the agenda of the corporate elites with socialism (truly hilarious!), and the racism that drips from so much of their code words – none the less, I completely agree that they present a far more serious and fearless inquiry into so many topics that remain far beyond the pale for so many progressive journalists and public figures.

    I have also been a long time follower of Project Censored, and am dismayed to see them joining in on the mainstream demonizing of Jones for his inquiry into taboo “conspiracy theories”. Actually, I find the very term “conspiracy theory” extremely infuriating, all the more so when it is employed by progressives to attack the credibility of those who question the official narrative on particular events. The term has been very deliberately insinuated into our collective subconscious as a means of thought control, scarlet letters of shunning and ostracism meant as an object lesson for all, that certain belief systems (BS) may not be questioned. The fear of contamination by association is part of this, and no doubt this is what motivates many progressives to distance themselves from certain ideas, to the point in many cases (such as this one) of publicly joining in on demonizing and marginalizing those who step over this line. This is truly deplorable, it does indeed represent intellectual censorship, and I will let Project Censored know how I feel about this. Thanks for your good work!

    1. The elites do want socialism. Not the kind that Tarpley promotes but the kind where the government takes everything away from you under the pretense of giving it to others but really just keeping everything for the ruling class. Neofeudalism. Nothing for you but they are exempt and own it all. It really is not complicated. For the most part Jones does well explaining this but sometimes promotes the idea that the wellfare class is bankrupting the country when it is the oligarchy bankrupting the country by about million to one.

  6. Well, I just read the Project Censored piece in question. It does cast a slightly different light on the situation. Here is one quote from the piece I agree with: “It is not that there are not demonstrable false flags in history, it’s that Jones does a shoddy job of proving it where other scholars have dedicated their careers to discussion on such matters, and as a result of Jones’ sloppy fear-mongering, their work gets dismissed by many in the public once it becomes associated with Jones.”

    I would certainly agree that Jones’ wild eyed, loud mouthed, blustering style makes it easy for many people to dismiss him immediately, and have the unfortunate effect of discrediting the veracity of whatever issue becomes associated with Jones in their minds. I find that I tend not to use links supplied by info wars as a means of substantiating points I make in my writing for this reason, even though I might agree with what it says.

    1. It is important to note how the passage quoted here is prefaced by material from Jonathan Kay’s Among the Truthers, which–speaking of shoddy work–is as painful to read as it is an unfair treatment of the Truth movement. Among other distortions, it unconvincingly seeks to link those involved in the movement to anti-semitism. A comprehensive review of the volume is available here. Honest and serious inclusion of such a loaded work would entail a discussion explaining Kay’s obvious linkages to conservative media outlets, neoconservative think tanks, and perhaps even the intelligence community. No such effort is made.

      Still attempting to imagine exactly how the dynamic would play out whereby Jones’ journalism and commentary interfere with an academic project addressing like phenomena. Let’s see … a scholar produces a series of peer-reviewed articles or a book-length treatment of one or more false flag events or the equivalent, the work[s] sees the light of day, then it is dismissed by the broader public because Jones makes remarks on the same thing. It seems a bit far-fetched. Perhaps we might have to consult individuals such as Peter Dale Scott, Francis Boyle, or William K. Black and inquire of their experiences in this regard.

      1. Hi James,

        Would you agree that Noam Chomsky’s position, on whether 9/11 could possibly have been a false flag event, could in any way have influenced the manner in which the work of David Ray Griffin might have been received in the public domain? How far-fetched of an influence might that be? And what of his influence among academics?

        Jones is no Chomsky. Quite the opposite. But he kind of fits what Chomsky doubtlessly had in mind when he blithely declared the ‘idea’ as being simply beyond the pale.

        I’m not so sure that the ‘dynamic’ is as far-fetched as you would like me to believe.

      2. Rachel Maddow’s attempt to discredit 9/11 “truthers” (notice that clever smear?) and wing nut “conspiracy theorists” (like you and me) that question the official narrative of events such as Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing – by using Jones as the exemplar of our “type” – is a classic example of this phenomenon. As I said before (below), this is an indictment of Maddow at least as much as it is of Jones – but it is hard to deny that Jones’ unfortunate STYLE of delivering the message has a way of undermining the actual CONTENT of the message, and can indeed serve the ends of those who wish to discredit the validity of certain dissenting viewpoints without an honest examination of of the arguments being raised.

  7. Respect to Jones, Tracy, and others;
    we know exactly what the controlled reptile ‘news’ media is –
    we know where to find honesty compassion intelligence guts

  8. Hard for me to argue with this point from the PC article: “The corporate press has ignored most evidence-based researchers’ conclusions about 9/11 by falsely identifying anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement with Jones and his unproven, sensationalist claims. Thus, following the 2013 Boston Bombing, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow argued that the 9/11 Commission Report and the Popular Mechanics volume titled “Debunking 9/11 Myths” refuted “9/11 truther” theories. She argued that contrary evidence had failed to dissuade advocates of continued 9/11 investigation because those beliefs are “too ideologically and, I think, emotionally satisfying to the people who espouse them.” She then attributed claims linking the Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting; the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut; and the Boston Marathon bombing as false flag operations to Alex Jones and his Internet radio show Infowars and Prison Planet website, thus making Jones the public face for all “conspiracy theories.”133 Reports like Maddow’s falsely associate the legitimate research of groups like Scholars for 9/11Truth & Justice with Jones’ factless speculation.134 This classic straw person fallacy makes for good propaganda against those who actually research and factually support their claims about controversial issues.

    However: this is at least as much of an indictment of Rachel Maddow as it is of Alex Jones, is it not?

    1. Hi Stuart,

      You write: “However: this is at least as much of an indictment of Rachel Maddow as it is of Alex Jones, is it not?”

      Indeed. And I, like you, find it difficult to disagree with the content that you quote from the PC article.

      The ‘outlandish’ interpretations by Jones of the ‘information’ that scholars and honest researchers have unearthed in connection with recent ‘events’ that are most probably ‘false flag operations’, in effect undermines the efforts of those scholars and researchers.

      For people, though they may be uninformed, are not completely bereft of reason. If once in their minds obviously ‘raving claims’ become associated with ‘events,’ they will be apt automatically to discount all and any well founded ‘claims’ that logically entail conclusions ‘similar’ in form to the ‘obviously nutty’ conclusions being drawn by the likes of Jones. Even a man like Noam Chomsky succumbs to this very ‘reaction,’ even though of all people he ought to have known better.

      So there certainly is a mutually reinforcing dynamic between Maddow’s disinformation and Alex Jones’s rantings: the latter, in the minds of ‘reasonable’ people, legitimizes the content of the MSM and thereby ends up laying matters to rest that ought to remain front and center in people’s minds.

      1. You said it, Norm. “So there certainly is a mutually reinforcing dynamic between Maddow’s disinformation and Alex Jones’s rantings: the latter, in the minds of ‘reasonable’ people, legitimizes the content of the MSM and thereby ends up laying matters to rest that ought to remain front and center in people’s minds.” I think you just condensed that overly long, redundant PC article down to one paragraph.

  9. Why is no one bringing up Mollygate? The Stratfor connection? I think great stories can come out of Infowars but at the same time I think we all need to realize that this connection is here and not put too much faith into one source.
    Here’s a video of what seems to be Alex Jones sabotaging a 2nd amendment rally in Austin, TX. If someone could explain how I should interpret this otherwise I would greatly appreciate the clarity…

    1. Your on point with this. I’m convinced Alex is COINTEL and I think I’ve seen enough evidence to conclude this, much of it my discernment in listening to his show day in and day out. He is hoodwinking most of the truth community. I can’t believe they can’t see it. I guess they don’t realize that as along as only a minority wake up the ‘globalist’ will reach victory. Alex greatly helps not waking up the hipsters and ‘popular crowd’ because of the way he acts.

      1. At the end of the day, at bottom, it doesn’t matter that Jones is COINTEL or not. He may very well be. But lets give him the benefit of the doubt. The ‘effect’ of his antics remains exactly what it is. Either way, in my opinion, he is compromised and compromising.

      2. Kyle and Norm, please explain. If jones is CIA, what is the objective? He promotes individual freedom and liberty, every day, for the world to hear. His “show” has led me to question things I would have never questioned otherwise like the federal reserve and 9-11. How this is a bad thing which strengthens the corrupt power elite is beyond me. That being said Jones is not perfect, does exaggerate at times, does go overboard with his rants sometimes, and I will never buy his products.

        1. Hi Jason,

          See the Stuart Davies’ post above, stamped “October 3, 2013 at 11:28 am,” beginning with the line, “Hard for me to argue with this point from the PC article:”

          What Stuart quotes from the PC article is worth some mulling over.

          The upshot is that an efficient tactic to discredit a narrative in people’s minds is to find ways of associating that narrative with other narratives that most ‘reasonable’ persons would at first blush find absurd or outlandish and, therefore, to be dismissed out of hand. The result of this forced association is the tainting of the narrative to be discredited with an aura of irrationality, so that it also gets treated as being but one with the ranting of the lunatic fringe.

          It is difficult to deny that Jones’s ‘reportage’ is a hodgepodge of outlandish claims intermingled with more legitimate affirmations that the establishment would rather remained obscure or generally disregarded.

          Jones may or may not be CIA. Not that it would make any difference one way or the other.

          Hope that helps.

        2. Jones NEVER points to the real culprits who are dismantling this country’s wealth and our liberties. He actually covers for them.

        3. So the objective is to put the information out but skew it in a way that benefits the power cartel? I’m not buying it. The effect is that I find myself at odds with the power cartel and seek to rectify the situation. They would be better served by not putting out the information in the first place.

        4. Hi Jason,

          Its not that ‘they’ are putting out the information. It’s that the information is already out there and ‘they’ want to discredit it. Certainly, the result is imperfect, as in your case. Jones will certainly win an audience. On the whole, however, Jones, to the majority, is on the fringe, at least in terms of the catechism he preaches.

  10. I was disgusted by the hatchet job on Alex Jones too, but there is one principle that Project Censored didn’t violate. That is its quest for academic respectability. Peter Phillips, its main leader for the past few decades, once wrote a piece that Project Censored wasn’t a Left project. Michael Parenti, who I greatly admire, left the project after many years, I suspect for ideological reasons. Peter Phillips once requested a paper of mine to teach to his classes. I wasn’t interested.

    There is an irreconcilable conflict between telling the simple holistic truth about people and power, and Proclaiming academic Impartiality. All truth is ideological, including mathematical truth. 2+2=4 is highly ideological when it is applied to people. It states that any two persons, rich or poor, male or female, White or Black, young or old, when added to any two other persons, equals four equal persons. Logical equality, in social or people theory, implies social equality.

    There is no such thing as impartial social theory; it is an invention of the Western tradition and is exemplified, as a Proclaimed value, by the Western university. Foosh. You are either on the side of people or power, or straddle the two, but none of this is impartial. Assertions are either true or false, relevant or irrelevant, important or trivial, but they are not impartial. They always take a side, or evade taking one.

    Alex Jones, as a rightest populist, takes a side. His style is not my style, but he says truths the mainstream media doesn’t. He is limited by his audience and his beginning in Texas.

    Texas is not a favorite state of the leftish denizens of California. The standard directions for getting there is to go West until you smell it, and then turn South until you step in it. But there are millions of decent people in Tex\as, and now they know a little about the homicidal conspiracies conducted by American power.

    What is worst about Jones is that he panders to racism. He and his journalists largely oppose Obama not for his policies, but for the color of his skin. Some of his articles elicit literally thousands of outbursts of gutter racism.

    Race and racism is the great Unmentionable in the American truth consensus; indeed in Western truth. The current belief is that if we ignore it, it will go away. So the truth institutions are colorblind, coloredeaf, and colordumb. This is fatal. You do not exude a poison by ignoring it; it is necessary to expose it. This the academy fails to do, as it fails in so many other ways.

    1. Completely off-topic: ten thumbs up for Parenti! Brilliant guy. Incredibly penetrating. Superb orator. First rate expositor. The man certainly deserves to live forever!

    2. I liken the racism and picking a side to him working for the ‘other side’, because the racism in conjunction with the antics is not going to wake up many on the right and almost all of the left. Look at everything through the prism of if you were the power structure how would you like the leader of the truth movement to act? Well I’d like him to act exactly like Alex Jones to be quite honest.

    3. Always appreciate your thoughtful comments, Mark, but I have to question this. Jones “and his journalists largely oppose Obama not for his polices, but for the color of his skin.” Perhaps a study comparing their coverage of Bush Jr. versus Obama is in order. But this also brings up a more fundamental concern regarding public discourse itself. Should we refrain altogether from criticizing Obama on his activities while he is in office? If we do refrain from critiquing Obama, should we do so because of the color of his skin, because he is the President of the United States, or both? If one refrains from criticizing Obama’s actions and policies because of the color of his skin, are they being racist? Or perhaps are they considered a superior citizen than someone who does? If so, under what criteria?

      If Jones and his crew are indeed as racist as you suggest, and apparently seek to foster and perpetuate racism (I do not frequently peruse comments on blogs other than this one), why is it that such intelligent Black intellectuals and activists as Cynthia McKinney, Dick Gregory, Professor Griff, Chuck D, KRS One, and Larry Pinkney ever agree to appear as interviewees on his radio program or in his films? A portion of an interview between Jones and Larry Pinkney was even rebroadcast on Black Agenda Report a few months ago. Are they simply a “self-hating” lot?

      1. KRS One and the rest probably don’t listen to the show daily, and the way he promotes the racism is subtle many times. Just look at the comments on Info Wars and you’ll see it pretty quickly. Jones wants to keep it crude and hateful because if he was to act like you do Professor Tracy he might just wake up the masses. Not the disenfranchised and those who would have woken up anyway.

        1. Kyle, not sure what your beef is with Alex jones, but you’re way off the mark, perhaps intentionally so. Three months before 9/11, Alex Jones predicted there would be an attack on the WTC that would be blamed on bin Laden. Google it. The reportage of his team is rock solid and the stories he has broken in the last few months are nothing short of astounding (missing nuke from Dyess air force base, CIA insider on Benghazi, Steve pieczenik on the Navy Base incident). I frequent professor Tracy’s site because I get the same brand of truth here that I get from Alex Jones radio show. You may quibble about his style and persona (frankly, I think it’s compelling), but the stories his team follows are cutting edge and never found on mainstream media. You obviously don’t listen to his show, given your dopey comments.

      2. One of the activists you mention, Cynthia McKinney, is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, so she may not be invited to be on Jones. I get totally annoyed watching her and Kevin Barrett helping 9/11 truth and mixing in pro-Palestinian jargon at the same time. Will one of them come clean about the violent culture within the Muslim world where women are abused?

        Jones is horrible about women’s rights and the right to choose. He also doesn’t always follow a story to the degree it should be followed but overall does a good job of waking the public out its fantasy life of living in a democracy.

        Good job lately on Jones about Boston and the friends of the accused. It seems we have a gov that indulges in human sacrifice with the ritual killing of either a Muslim or African American victim as in DC for public cleansing. It appears the victims may have been part of drills gone wrong for them.

        1. “Jones is horrible about women’s rights and the right to choose.”

          “It seems we have a gov that indulges in human sacrifice with the ritual killing”

          Well, maybe you need to see the connection here, Marzi. Alex hates the murder of babies (I do too), and thinks that empowering women to murder their children without conscience is in fact a hatred of women. Making them heartless murderers is not supporting “women’s rights”; but it is right up the government’s alley–you’d be fifty million times more accurate if you had written you second quote: “we have a gov that indulges in human sacrifice with the ritual killing of either a Muslim or African American victim, or one of our own most innocent children slaughtered before getting the chance to breathe air, as in DC for public cleansing.”

          Alex is a conservative, and he’s consistent. Nothing wrong with that. If he’s “horrible” about women’s rights on anything other than opposing making them heartless murderers, I’d like an example.

        2. For Patrick below. Whether or not a life is in the womb depends on which episode of church history is being referred to as it was always changing.

        3. Is that the point, Marzi? Honestly. You say that his hatred of abortion is one aspect of his being “horrible” on the subject of women’s rights. That’s not true. One person dies in the transaction, and defending that person’s right to live is not an attack on the murderer. It’s not anti-woman. You can claim that the child is not a child. Hell, you can claim it’s a turtle, or an aardvark for all I care. The point is that you can’t say that the defender of that child’s rights, by virtue of his defending them, is against “women.”

          And again, if you can find a single example of Alex being “horrible” on the question of the rights of women, please provide it. Otherwise, apologize.

  11. As an old “expat” I find this war of words between truth teller very comical . I have it very interesting that non of these young people have not mentioned “William Cooper or Mae Brussell” with their investigative work, that gived the media a heartburn on a regular basis some time ago. History always repeats it self in strange ways.

    1. Interesting you mention Mae Brussell. Have listened to her tapes many times. Incidently,, it seems, has picked up on many of Mae’s themes to enforce the danger of old and neofascism resurfacing (or emerging from deep underground) to taint current geopolitics. Most of Dave Emory’s posts open a whole other view of reality.

  12. A salient point in Tracy’s Rebuttal…

    ” A foremost reason that Jones’ research and activism on 9/11 have come to occupy center stage is the vacuum created by the overall timidity or disinterest of Progressive-Left scholars and public intellectuals toward 9/11 and similar phenomena”

    Alex Jones is discrediting anyone outside the mainstream paradigm? Not one mainstream reporter will touch 911 with a ten foot pole to this day. They won’t even touch on why we invaded Iraq. That must be because some guy with a radio show in Austin is a willing/useful idiot Cointelpro agent.

    If you don’t like Jones or think he’s not informative enough, find a better media outlet. Or better yet, become a better media outlet.

    1. I concede I may be wrong in my assessment but what if I’m not? What if Jones is COINTEL and if so what is he doing that the rest of alternative media should not do? He sets trends and patterns that many others follow in alternative media. I digress.

      1. I’d also hate to think that Alex Jones is involved in any sort of beguilement, though I’m suspicious of how close he likes to get to the ‘ultra’ elite at The Bilderberg Fringe Festival, held annually at The Grove Hotel, Watford.
        Are the ‘fringe’ completely detached from the inner party, showing us the truth and reporting on ‘events’ that the MSM wouldn’t even touch? Or is the ‘fringe’ the outer party, cordially invited, well connected and unwittingly (or wittingly) part of the plan? I would like to be wrong – maybe I’ve a suspicious mind.

    2. I have given Alex Jones a lot of thought. It has occurred that he is slightly Attention Deficit Disordered. Have watched the way he has trouble controlling impulses; what might seem deliberate interruptions of guests (very annoying) may be due to his inability to keep his thoughts in check. He runs on full-steam pressure. Also, you can’t dismiss the ego behind the mind. It makes me wonder if anyone in the public eye is really free of sophisticated mind-bending techiques.

      Jones’ co-option of the local Austin 2nd Amendment rally was meant to give his program some sharp film clips. He was out of order. Can’t defend this type of behavior.

      Chomsky, Maddow, Amy Goodman–leftists to a tee–at times run off the rails. They are countered by the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Piers Morgans
      (oh, his so up-scale Brit accent–very persuasive), etc.

      What does it actually amount to? Entertainment. Much ado about nada.

  13. My suspicion about Jones was aroused because of his claims about crashing the Bohemian Grove party years ago. Who does that and gets away with it? My suspicions were confirmed however when he interviewed a man who claimed to be a psychologist and who also claimed to be the real-life Jack Ryan (of the Tom Clancy novels). Over the period of several lengthy interviews this man made overt threats on the life of Barry (Obama) Soetoro. Under normal circumstances, I think Jones and/or this guy would’ve gotten a visit from the SS (Secret Service) at the very least. So who, other than counter-intelligence gets away with this sort of thing?

  14. I think anyone who makes those who seek truth like “tin foil hat” wearers are needed to be viewed with suspicion. It’s only those who can speak with clarity and truth who will be heard by those who have been spoon-fed lies by the MSM. We need to look,sound and behave reasonably to be heard.

  15. I looked through the summary of pieces that Project Censored sent me and they certainly appear tame. More so than when I last looked at them. I usually get them used at the local library, except once when Mickey Huff, the director, talked me into buying one new. So they are usually for years past. I had the distinct impression that the pieces in this year’s edition were more muted and irrelevant than past editions. Two articles on Iceland? Not hot stories.

    But you have to understand that I don’t anything about journalism, and I think telling truth to power is a waste of time. The powerful are not interested in truth, they are only interested in power. So truth should be told to the people to help unite and organize them to combat anti-people power.

    But Project Censored appears to have joined the anti-Conspiracy media. This was not always the case. They printed a scientific article by Jones once on the internal demolition of the Trade Center Towers, which caused Robert Jensen, a professor of media, and Norm Solomon to demonstratively resign from the editorial staff. I was communicating with Jensen about something else at the time, and explained to him how disgusting this censorship was.

    But now Project Censored appears to have joined Jensen. It’s good that James, as a professional specialist, keeps up with these things. They should not be allowed to get away with it without comment Especially at a time when there is a danger of imposing a police state.

  16. James, great piece! I like that Jones’ overarching “thesis” is hard to argue with. Jones describes his “new world order” as a corporate-criminal “government” fully hijacked by special interest corporations; he rails against big business as our de facto government. That’s why Greg Palast goes on his show, and it’s the common ground with Thom Hartmann, etc. Jones is sloppy sometimes, but 90% of what he says is documented/verifiable. Project Censored’s own director, Mickey Huff, has cited the “One World Corporation,” or “Global Dominance Group,”
    see also:

    As a Jones’ internet listener for about five years now, what I find fascinating is that on virtually all of the “big” events over that time, I have found him to be remarkably prescient about the basic trajectory of political and “deep state” events. “The Obama Deception” film plays today like a prophetic playbook predicting the “more effective Evil” of the Obama regime, albeit interspersed with some of Jones’ trademark bombast and histrionics. Re: Fukushima, Sandy Hook, the Boston incident, the massive surveillance state, the TSA expansion, the drone/detention/assassination terror complex, and many others, Jones and his reporters have provided invaluable information and sometimes have appeared to expose or sabotage the (apparently false) mainstream narrative.

    I’m still agnostic as to whether Jones is a card-carrying Defense Intelligence Agency asset. Given the massively surreal nature of our times, nothing would surprise me. However, I think he is largely effective at “waking ~many~ people up” from their unthinking slumber and osmotic absorption of mainstream news pablum. For this reason, if he is DIA, I am perplexed as to why they would continue to employ/deploy someone who in my opinion is a valuable truth-teller with regard to GMO’s, vaccination hazards, deep-state false flag events, the basic arc of the one-world corporate takeover, etc. One possible answer: Jones seldom attempts in any disciplined manner to ~marshall~ and ~organize~ his following to take specific, measurable political actions. For example: “Folks, today, I want you to call this phone number (xxx xxx 1234), and demand that the Monsanto Protection Act rider be stripped from the spending bill!” Does Jones diffuse or overwhelm people, or empower and energize them? In the end, is Jones all sound and fury, signifying nothing? I conclude that he’s a fascinating figure, and overall, a force for positive change.

  17. One of the basic reasons we are here is our gut instinct that we are being told lies by the media and are trying to determine what the truth is. Never went to the PC site and now certainly have no reason to. Alex has a flamboyant style, which probably gave him the platform that reaches many, appreciate his passion but usually just read the articles. There was a good one today on smart meters before the DC shooting episode took over the airwaves. The networks of course were praising the good work of the police who shot and killed an unarmed woman with a child, who was no doubt a big security threat. One reporter indicated the area where she initially hit a barricade, may have been an innocent mistake as it is not really clear the road is blocked off, the lines are still painted as if it was still a roadway. Being from the north, can attest the roundabouts are confusing and intimidating, as most people do not yield as they are supposed to, and panic may ensue when you feel you are trapped with no escape. While the networks pandered the concept that these poor police were working without pay which is a total falsehood, Alex proposed another innocent American may have been murdered. Imagine this poor woman, who now has been reported to have mental problems and is from CT, panicked when confronted with many armed goons, just as the NYC SUV driver with his family was surrounded by crazed members of a motorcycle gang on the highway….

  18. Fantastic article, Dr. Tracy. One of your very best. You captured a very nuanced situation and handled it well; I wish everyone in the true invisible college of enlightened souls were this precise, careful, and perceptive.

    1. Dr. Tracy, it seems the the regime and its media are intent on keeping you busy. Hasn’t it appeared to anybody that the Capitol “shooting” is yet another drill by the US Gestapo? Another neanderthal Obot serving her “president.” She believed Obama stalked her? How brainwashed must you be to believe this idiotic official story? It is astounding how many ignorant and immoral people the regime can find to act in all these pseudo-shootings. The goal of this psychotic exercise? This time it is not about gun control; it is to show Americans that the US Gestapo does not hesitate to shoot young mothers in front of their children (even black ones!) to ensure complete obedience by ignorant masses. The inevitable conclusion is that America is run by lunatics and sociopaths. The remaining question is WHY does the regime so desperately want Americans to fear it? Americans are generally law-abiding and very complacent, quite unlikely to revolt. This includes individuals perceptive enough to see the bigger picture. Why, then, does the regime insist on terrorizing Americans? Is the regime getting ready for something big or is it simply paranoid?

      1. Think you are spot on. It appears with all the closings of previously never closed, never manned, national treasures, they are provoking civil disobedience and thus the need for martial law. They are even attempting to close the ocean in FL! Know a fisherman there who cannot go crabbing, which is his livelihood, because all the boat ramps are closed. Makes me want to bring my boat down there and confront the traitors who stop me!

        1. I’m not excusing Dr. Tracy but it’s not easy keeping up with the blizzard of staged events run by and for corporate USA. Yes, I’m aware that the majority of the buffoons walking the streets today actually believe this tripe but most of us here “get” that everything that we see on TV is fake.

  19. Wahoo! James Tracy just hit a grand slam over the wall, way up into the cheap seats! Read his dissertation with rapt attention and it resonated to the bone. Beautifully said with just the right touch of passion laced with grounded rationality.

    Alex Jones is often infuriating, but one cannot deny the splendor in the mass of exposed MSM-generated poppycock. Independent of his coming, I began awakening to the schism between real and invented events before Jones reached Kindergarten. I was jolted into an unsettling realization by the book, “The People Shapers” by author/social critic, Vance Packard, way back in the mid-seventies. Piece-by-piece, the puzzle came into focus; my journey to the light began in earnest. Once bitten by truth, there is no turning back.

    This realm of consciousness is no place for the timid of heart. We all have biases and an agenda. I just want to make sure I weed out the wheat from the chaff and am honest with myself. It is easy to get sucked in by the undertow of popular culture–the pull is almost irrestible.

  20. One issue that stood out greatly that made me question Alex Jones true intent was his absolute REFUSAL to cover Sandy Hook. He simply refused to speak about it, there were minimal articles posted and I remember seeing a Paul Watson video actually addressing this point, because Jones’ followers were clearly unhappy that Jones never covered it.

    When Jones finally spoke of it, it was in “alleged” “perpetrators” couched vague PR speak.

    I use his site as a source for facts, but do not place ANY faith in his “opinions.”

  21. I am not familiar with project censored. Their critique does seem illegitimate. That doesn’t excuse Alex Jones. He frequently hosts guests like Larry Charles, who explained to Jones of the Boston Marathon 2013 event, “Bombing things—that’s what Muslims do.” Charles has returned as a guest since. He also hosts someone named Joesph Farah, whose work in counter intelligence is documented in an article by Tony Cartalucci entitled, “Joseph Farah – Neo-Con, Cognitive Infiltrator” ( Unlike the “hit piece” on Jones by PC, Cartalucci brings to light Farah’s associations, which are damning and hardly qualify him to provide honest analysis. Cartalucci has been featured on numerous times but we had to look elsewhere to see this particular piece.

    Then you have lobbyist Joel Wallach and his touch-and-go “supplements”, Jerome Corsi (who, reportedly, could be found on the Romeny campaign plane in 2012) and his tireless (largely pointless) search for Obama’s father, and a steady stream of Infowars guests that clearly add nothing but confusion (“clear as mud”). Let us not forget the foolish support for Ron Paul, who clearly is not on the same frequency as your typical truther and who, frankly speaking, comes off as a conman.

    It’s true that the left likes to imagine they are enlightened as they stare at reflections on the cave wall. The typical man or woman of left political ideology cannot be bothered to care about a total war, about the increasingly visible signs of tyranny in the West, or about the metal particles in the air they breathe; they are too busy thinking they heard someone utter a racial slur or that a homosexual wasn’t liked enough in Russia—on “Facebook”. These people are an embarrassment. It’s humiliating to share space with them.

    I’ll go one further step than Tracy on the consequences of the left’s indifference on 9/11. I believe the Iraq war would have been prevented if a few of their louder voices were heard publically discussing controlled demolitions. Images of casino demolitions juxtaposed to the WTC demolitions, etc could have entirely drowned out the war drums. Instead, we had to listen to leftist critics get bounced around like basketballs, wasting time debating the farcical issue of “WMDs”. By mimicking tv personalities were they pretending they were on tv: did they desire stardom? or were they just unable to see the trick of it? Who knows. We do know they have successfully prevented nothing, so far. On the other hand, some honestly about the identities of the monsters that have invaded Syria has been effective in delaying Syria’s destruction. And you can cite Infowars as a source.

    If you want to hear the dirt on false flags and dirty wars you might hear it first at But isn’t that only because infowars is the biggest beacon? The left’s inadequacy does not excuse libertarian failings. There are better sources. In the cases of the Boston Marathon 2013 media event and the Sandy Hook 2012 event, this very site was a better source. Perhaps Infowars could be better, too. Not with the likes of Joseph Farah and Larry Charles though.

    1. I listen to Alex every day and can say with certainty that he never had a guy named Larry Charles on the show. Say what you will about Corsi, he is a rock solid investigator and provides incredibly important insight on Benghazi. You may think that the search for Obama’s actual birthplace is “useless,” but it’s not because Alex Jones isn’t working hard enough on the story — it’s because mainstream media refuses to cover the story.

      As for Sandy Hook, Heather is wrong. He’s covered it thoroughly on the site and on his show. Do a search on the site and you’ll find 434 articles on Sandy Hook.

      I see Professor Tracy and Alex Jones in a similar light (although their personas are vastly different). Alex is bombastic (“I’m just trying to wake people up”) because he has a sense of urgency and an overwhelming sense of responsibility. The COINTELPRO accusations feel like a psy-op and as Professor Tracy points out, it seems the people who are trying to discredit Alex are the ones who are trying to make YOU believe the official story of 9/11.

      1. No psy-op here I will apologize if Jones turns out to be the real deal, I listened to his shows for many months and I’ve seen him interrupt people talking about putting out thousands of flyers and a number of other oddities coupled with the psychotic ranting almost every time he goes on MSM. So this is why I feel the way I do, but I do think 9-11 is an inside job for the record. I also care about the truth if enough to admit if I am wrong.

        1. You are in some excellent company about 9-11. There are many engineers, a Canadian mathematician named Dewdney who used to do the puzzles for now-disinfo rag Scientific American, and even Ed Asner who like me find the three implosions of the day mighty suspicious. I might add that the passengers on the jets could never have used cell phones, but that would gild the lily. People who solve puzzles know it was a hoax. People who get that there are malefactors of great wealth steering the country also know it was a hoax. And there were many hoaxlets to follow, enough to make you dizzy and wondering if everything is a movie (it isn’t though – they want you to be disoriented because then they can keep on committing crimes and stealing). If you just look at it this way: the world has always been run by gangsters of one kind or another. Sometimes they really get the upper hand, as now. What we want is to prune them way back and stop them from turning the country into a third world dictatorship. History is all about this push pull. Keep pushing and don’t back down.

        1. Bill Fred – stand and deliver. He’s a fraud because . . . ? Infowars was one of the first to put Professor Tracy on air after his report on Sandy Hook got him vilified by the likes of CNN’s Anderson CIA-ooper.

          Also, Bill Fred, the entire piece above by Prof. Tracy is largely a defense of Alex Jones’ alternative news reportage. So you think Prof. Tracy agrees with you?

        2. uh . . . what? Both Prof Tracy and Alex Jones are villified by the MSM. So you think that means Jones is controlled opposition? This is when the concept of a psy-op BECOMES the psy-op. At that point, then nothing is real.

        3. Perhaps Alex Jones himself will explain it better than either Kyle or I.

          Something about being cautious about strangers bearing gifts — although, actually, Alex refers the main ‘idea’ being touted by the PC article as the “turd in the punch bowl” effect.

          The man obviously has a talent for turning a phrase.

          And he obviously also agrees with the PC article’s over-riding thesis.

      2. Sorry–the name I wanted to bring up is Larry Pratt. The point remains.

        If I were obsessed with Obama, the search for his father might be interesting. It is relevant that he’s a cia spook, as Wayne Madsen shows. But I don’t see what an obsession with Obama does for any particular cause. He’ll be gone soon and then what?

    2. I don’t agree that the left is indifferent to 9/11, but I do agree that more prominent progressive writers have shown the same reluctance of prominent personalities of other political persuasions to put their “respectability” at risk by questioning the official narrative on 9/11 and other controversial topics related to conspiracies of the corporate state. Very few “respectable” media or political figures of the conservative/libertarian persuasion have taken that risk either, and those that have were immediately attacked and forced to retract their words. (Sarah Palin comes to mind, I’m sure there are other examples).

      This is the real crux of the problem on getting a half way honest hearing on the evidence pertaining to 9/11 and similar events. I have no doubt many prominent progressives such as Chris Hedges and Jeremy Scahill have a pretty good sense of these things, but also clearly understand that they would be roundly attacked, ridiculed, demonized, and “discredited”, left, right, and center – even by liberals such as Rachel Maddow – if they dare to step over certain lines. James Tracy is fully aware of how this works, aren’t you James? So writers, academics, and journalists have a pretty dismal choice – step carefully and restrict your criticism within certain parameters, or sacrifice your mantle of “respectability” and sacrifice your career for full integrity and freedom to express the truth on certain taboo topics. Politicians, if they wish to get elected to anything beyond statewide office (if that, in most cases) have no choice at all on this matter.

      1. And simply because it is a bit of a stretch for some to believe that anyone akin to Alex Jones getting in on spreading the truth about 9/11 could actually impede the spreading of that truth, from the website “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,” under the section titled “Perception and Propaganda: Misinformation” :

        “Dubious Theories

        The vast majority of mainstream press articles that describe alternatives to the official narrative of the 9/11/01 attack do not seriously address anomalies and unanswered questions. Instead, they highlight unsupported or easily-refuted claims — the work of “conspiracy theorists” lacking critical thinking skills — and portray those as representative of all challenges to the official version of events.”


        I get the impression that there may be a congruence of opinion between Project Censored and ‘The Scholars’ themselves.

        Sorry, Stuart, but in an oblique way I thought this sort of tied in with what you were saying, here. Perhaps this belongs somewhere else among all of these posts, or at least in couple of other places. But to be sparing and economical, I’ll just leave it here.

  22. I have to say that the comments section on this blog is becoming equally as nauseating as the bible thumping, sometimes racist, police and military defending misspelled comments on infowars.
    I just don’t get it. How can people be intuitive enough to see through the sandy hook hoax and boston etc. (and realize that there really were actors role playing the whole thing, at least the parts they have shown us) and still believe in global warming and think that killing your unborn children is merely a choice? I have fallen for that line of thinking before(twice) and no, it is much more than just a choice. It is a choice that will leave you with a sick empty feeling for the rest of your life if you are man enough to really acknowledge what you did.
    To call Jones or the right wing racist is absurd and is really just race baiting on your own part. Sure I think it might bother Jones deep down a little more that Obama pretends to be black than if it were some white SOB like bush, it does me too I think, but that is a far cry from being racist. I think that at least people occasionally got a chuckle out of w’s stupid antics/speech and the goofy ass look on his face when that guy threw a shoe at him. I can’t stand anything about obama, his looks, his voice, the cadence of his speech is just repulsive to me as it is with a lot of people. I think it is just part of being human that some things will bother you more than others, for some it might be a christian that really, really irritates you – does that make you a bigot? All I know is that Jakari Jackson is probably the classiest dude on the infowars crew – does that make me racist? You cant blame infowars for the comment section, it is filled with trolls and people from varied viewpoints. I watched how the republican party just went nuts for Herman Cain and if there were a black liberty minded candidate you can bet alex would support him. Instead we got buttstain Obama. You can bet the next president will be an even bigger pile of shizz.
    Alex certainly has his shortcomings, money grubbing, sucking up to celebrities, low self esteem/big ego and dancing around unpopular truths like crisis actors but he has woken up more people from their slumber than any other single person. some people follow him like lemmings and others like myself can barely stand to hear his voice anymore after listening to him for years, but he is really good at appealing to conservative leaning people, so good that all the phonies on the right try to emulate him in their own ways. His performance on Piers was fantastic! I laughed so hard, the whole world got a taste of the alex jones show “you put on the jolly roger and I’ll put on the red white and blue” classic. what did anyone think he would do, deliver such a nuanced argument that the lemmings watching Piers Morgan would be 2nd amendment advocates? impossible. He went and acted like alex and appealed to the kind of people he appeals to, what more can you ask? One person is not going to appeal to everyone, you have a target audience and you try to get them to see some things from a different perspective than the msm offers. It is kind of like Abby Martin, I doubt that she really believes in “climate change” but she wants to appeal to an audience that does and push through some other issues that wouldn’t get through otherwise. Does that make her cointell pro? Or successful at reaching an audience that someone like jones repulses? I could go on talking about others forever but it seems like an exercise in futility.
    I have to say that Dr. Tracy’s approach of elucidating the truth in such a coherent manner regardless of social implications is really refreshing. I wish more people had that skill.

    1. There’s a portion of Plato’s Republic that distinguishes the instrumental from the intrinsic (false flag). Guardians, today’s technocrats (found in various NGOs/foundations and International Councils) make use of both to obtain their ends. 9/11 or the Boston Marathon media event are obvious tools to incite change (no matter how blind one is to how they happened). Abortion, on the other hand, has been made out to be a natural right. It’s been made out to be a cultural feature of free and progressive societies. In reality, we’re looking at the partial implication of a massive eugenics program, with the devaluation of human life as outcome. (One should look for the historical evidence of this statement before dismissing it.) The same may be true of the talk of global warming that is now morphing into talk of climate change (absent mention of chemtrails, always). We are supposed to create a carbon free world; that has a certain consequence for carbon based life forms (humans). The latter are not tools that incite a prefabricated reaction. Instead some fundamental new culture is supposed to be (or, to have been) developed.

      Plato stipulates the best result is accomplished through a consolidation of the intrinsic and instrumental. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course. Major events are made to trigger deeper societal changes. They are the explosive material that clears room for a “foundation.” A false flag in this way has many purposes.

      To the question of why someone can grasp the falsity of the Boston Marathon operation and not abortion, I’d point to a cultural change that has disguised a eugenics program as women’s liberation. Many simply cannot have a doubt about a belief that has come to feel natural, no matter how self-destructive it is. The Boston Marathon operation, because it was an event, was unusual. One is left in the heat of the moment to judge the validity of what they are hearing. It has become quite natural to trust the word and story of the man-in-uniform, but perhaps even today, many remained uncomfortable with the circumstances of a police state and the arrogant disposal of due process.

  23. It seems more than amazing that the theatrical and prescient Jones came along just in time for the 9/11 inside job. His accurate “prediction” of 9/11 — as a mere twenty-something kid — launched a disinformation career that promises to span decades.

    The forces that put him in place in the lead-up to 9/11, ready to marginalize that and other legitimate conspiracy theories with buffoonery, certainly know how to run a psyop.

  24. Many thanks to all for their contributions and facilitating exchange on this post. My initial intent was to critique Project Censored, with Jones as an unfortunate symptom of a much larger problem.

    A predominant theme in the comment stream echoes one suggested in PC’s article–that Jones is somehow a disinformation artist with certain designs contrary to his audience’s.

    Perhaps Jones is a nefarious double agent or what have you, out to misguide the truth movement. But then again, maybe he’s just the type of guy who’s stuck in third gear most of the time and who’s found a purpose, as those who know him well will attest.

    There are few public figures who cannot be attributed a dual clandestine role in a distant public’s imagination. Since Jones talks about such subject matter frequently, it’s unsurprising that his detractors use such qualities to question his overall prominence and effect.

    On a related note, does Jones have to take on the stylistic and behavioral features of someone who’s auditioning for an anchor post on the PBS News Hour to be credible and overall deemed legitimate? If so, who exactly has set the standards for the distribution of information and parameters of debate, and why do they seem to be so darned milquetoast?

    What Jones does on a regular basis is indeed an American tradition–a political advocacy style embodied in the nineteenth century “stump speech,” a form of appeal that has fallen by the wayside or been otherwise suppressed in the national psyche, largely replaced by a predominantly technocratic journalism and politics.

    1. If the MSM can make money off lies and disinformation. Jones should be able to make money with good marketing of the truth and exposing the propaganda by the MSM. It may not be perfect but it is an alternative.

    2. Hi James,
      You write: “There are few public figures who cannot be attributed a dual clandestine role in a distant public’s imagination. Since Jones talks about such subject matter frequently, it’s unsurprising that his detractors use such qualities to question his overall prominence and effect.”

      I wholly agree with the purport of what I presume you mean by that sentence: anyone can be suspect on the basis of the “objective” ‘qualitative aspects’ of their work as ‘journalists.’ And so that ‘suspicion’ is really irrelevant to the matter at hand, given that the focus of the discussion is more narrowly on the ‘qualitative aspects’ of Jones’s work, irrespective of whether these could be interpreted as ‘evidence’ for suspecting that he has links to the ‘intelligence community.’ Granted.

      Does this then mean that if I focus on the manner in which some (or even most) of ‘the qualitative aspects’ of Jones work undermines the ‘legitimate’ evidence based elements in his work, that I am probing a ‘probable nefarious connection to the criminal elements in the establishment?’ We both know that the one does not ‘necessarily’ follow from the other. Without any connection whatsoever with any like a COINTEL operation, Jones work can be shown in terms of its self-standing ‘qualitative aspects’ to be counterproductive to all and any efforts to expose the truth about events that it claims to be exposing. After all, the whole issue over the MSM not living up to what is supposed to be their role in the public sphere comes down precisely on the ‘qualitative aspects’ of their reporting.

      If the effect of Jones’s work is, in qualitative terms, an obfuscation of sociopolitical reality, he should be called out on that, just as you yourself call out the MSM, and although Project Censured proclaims itself the watchdog of the mainstream and should remain focused on the mainstream, a once marginal Jones becoming mainstream begins to fall within the purview of its mandate and thus a legitimate object of concern for PC. And if anything Jones does can be shown to buttress the disinformation being disseminated by the MSM, he is rightly ‘called out’ on it by PC.

      You write: “On a related note, does Jones have to take on the stylistic and behavioral features of someone who’s auditioning for an anchor post on the PBS News Hour to be credible and overall deemed legitimate?”

      Is it the bombast of Jones that is objectionable or something else? I think it is something else. It is the sort of thing, for example, that Norman Finkelstein demonstrates about the work of Alan Dershowitz, that if you follow up the man’s claims in an honest and scholarly fashion, checking up on the footnotes and comparing the attributions Dershowitz makes to various individuals with what those individuals actually wrote or said, you discover a pattern misattribution and false referencing that is difficult to construe as anything but out and outlying. And that is the problem, isn’t it, that people accept at face value what the ‘appearance’ of honesty professes without making an effort to follow up on their own, quite independently, in so far as they are able, the claims being put before them. That is they do not do the work that must be done to verify the ‘integrity’ of the source of information they take at face value.

      If only half of what Jones spouts is well researched and verifiable and the other half is invented and unverifiable, where does that leave his integrity as a source of information?

      And how does that ‘sloppiness’ impact the reputation of the people whose work he relies upon and that happens to be of the utmost quality?

      Hopefully, I have not digressed too far off the topic.

      1. Please, Norm. If Jones lied 99% of the time (and I think most can tell some things said on his show are more for entertainment purposes – e.g. David Icke), and yet that 1% of truth made a positive difference in opening peoples eyes to powers oppressively manipulating them, then it’s a good thing.

        1. I agree, Jason, that if someone can open your eyes to something ‘criminal’ that was happening right before your eyes, but to which you were blind, that is a good thing.

          But if you knew for certain that, to use your example, 99% of what comes out of my mouth was shear fabrication and confabulation, or deliberate lying, would you trust me as a source of information? Are you going to do the follow up on all 100% of my claims so as to distinguish that one true claim I spout from among the other 99 false ones. Finkelstein discredits Dershowitz by ‘documenting’ out and out lies in the latters purported scholarship. As a truth teller, Dershowitz is unreliable. In other words, to be certain that he is telling the truth, you have to go and verify each and everyone of his claims. On the other hand, if you cannot find a ‘pattern’ of deliberate falsification or even only a ‘pattern’ of inaccuracies in any of the claims made by, for example, a guy like Finkelstein, you can pretty well trust the guy to speak the truth in so far as he knows it and in so far as he does not utter more than he claims to know. Between an honest man and one who is dishonest or simply unreliable, who should I choose?

          If you can trust someone who lies 99% of the time to tell you the truth about anything without having to verify all of his claims, well and fine. That is your choice. My standard for trusting someone to tell me the truth is quite a bit higher. If over time, as become familiar with someone’s annotated work, I begin to discover frequent lapses in the accuracy of what is being referenced or in the manner in which what is being referenced is being interpreted, the person looses credibility in my mind and is stricken from list of person’s you can trust to tell the truth, by and large. And the ‘pattern’ doesn’t have to be half-and-half. I expect referencing and cross-referencing to be close to 100% although I recognize that as being humanly impossible. I also have a sense, imperfect as it undoubtedly is, of when a person is drawing illogical conclusions from a set of ‘facts’ that they have correctly amassed or gathered. If, to my mind, a person manifests a recurring pattern of ‘non sequiturs’ in his thinking or writing, not to be unkind, but I eventually arrive at the judgment that, like a compulsive liar, he is not to be trusted in the conclusions he arrives at, even if he is reasoning from a set of well founded ‘facts.’

          Apparently, we do not share the same standards of accuracy for discriminating between trustworthy and untrustworthy sources of information.

        2. Maybe the 1% aka turd in the punch bowl is the whole point. Think of the stakes here, the key is to wake up the masses.. not us, folks like us are going to wake up one way or another in time, we don’t need anyone to assist. It is the hipsters and popular crowd and the trendies who need to be appealed to. To me ranting and arguably psychotic behavior is a nail in the coffin to those folk waking up which is needed if we’re going to turn the tables on the ‘globalist’, otherwise before too long it’l be too far along and they will thwart us to deep into the unwanted scenarios.

        3. Hi Kyle,

          I must say that I much enjoyed that. Alex Jones agrees with everything that the ‘dissenters’ in this series of posts have been arguing. Beautiful!

        4. But, Jason, doesn’t that bring us to ask why he hosts a Lindsey Williams, a David Icke, a Larry Pratt or a Joseph Farah? If I hand my megaphone over to known disinformation agents, what does that make me? What does that make Jones. There’s a liberty, a very old liberty, of the free speech monster—i.e. it eventually eats you. It’s free to do that, because it can.

        5. I think you give Jones too much credit and not enough to the masses. By the way, Norm, in that scenario trust neither and rely on common sense. They are both capable of lying, cheating and stealing without you knowing.

    3. Those critical of Jones and not agreeing with everything he says, reminds me of what I thought was one of my greatest essays in a creative writing class. To my dismay, my grade was just barely passing, the professor declared, I missed the point entirely of the assignment! Creative writing was not apparently, what I perceived it to be! If we all agreed with each other on everything, we would not be human beings, just robots. Can certainly understand why avoiding the whole SH event would be the most comfortable position to take given the major grief we all endured with the possibility it actually happened. Perhaps now that the files are closed until eternity, the building will be demolished, uncounted millions have poured into the recovery and it has been declared that for the good of the citizens, dangerous drugs prescribed will never be announced, lest those in need might stop taking them, possibly Jones and Tracy might consider a debate on what transpired. Before SH, never considered any 9/11, JFK, et al truth theories and since, the flood gates have opened, every event is questionable, especially when the news covers one 24/7.

    4. “does Jones have to take on the stylistic and behavioral features of someone who’s auditioning for an anchor post on the PBS News Hour to be credible and overall deemed legitimate? If so, who exactly has set the standards for the distribution of information and parameters of debate, and why do they seem to be so darned milquetoast?”

      That’s just the question Mark Steyn asks in a brief post on his website today:

      I gotta say Face The Nation and Meet The Press would benefit from a little of this. Syrian pundit Dr. Akram Makkana and Free Syrian Army political coordinator Luay al-Miqdad discuss the Assad chemical-weapons deal on al-Jadeed TV:

      Mr AL-MIQDAD: That criminal Bashar al-Assad would even hand over his wife to remain in power…

      Dr MAKKANA: You would hand over your mother and sister, you filthy pimp… You are scum with no honor. You were born of Israeli semen.

      EMBARRASSED HOST: Please. Some expressions you can’t use…

      “Born of Israeli semen”? As they say in Europe, it’s not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist.

      I bust a gut when I read that.

  25. Hear, hear, Dr. Tracy. HIgdon’s article is so filled with problems that I could not finish it. Yes, I read Infowars, and I don’t necessarily agree with every contention. But Jones and his colleagues have been right on top of the news, right away, with solid information conveyed in short, well-written (and often wickedly humorous) articles. Those who criticize him for his bombastic style, or the accuracy of his predictions, are missing the mark entirely, and exposing their own ignorance.

  26. Thank you, James, for your comments on Alex Jones. I went back and looked at some of the articles and comments, and it appears in addition to the racism, he also prints anti-racist articles and comments.

    The articles and comments on the Trayvon Martin trial were racist; the trial was racist from beginning to end. The Judge, prosecution, and police all threw the case in favor of Zimmerman, who murdered Trayvon.

    However, the Jones writers and commenters were really outraged by the police shooting of the black woman with the baby in Washington, and the 30 second ovation given them by Congress. Both I and my wife, who is an appellant defense lawyer, thought it the same kind of case, and legally it was. But a friend, who was working class, thought they were entirely different kinds of cases, but he couldn’t articulate how. Maybe I’m missing something here, since other factors are involved as well, and as Freud said, all incidents are over determined.

    I got a bad impression of Jones at the deep politics conference in Santa Cruz in 2010, where my daughter went to school. The major speakers were California academics; Griffin, Scott, Parenti, Phillips. A good journalist, Barry Zwicker, came from Canada, and there was also a Texas contingent led by Jones ex-producer, who I think was named Smith. They always hung together, and were not shy about stating absurdities.

    At dinner I told Parenti that one of them argued that the perps of 9/11 came from outer space. Parenti said that I was just de-legitimating the conference, but, although I admire him enormously for his gutsiness and talent for writing sentences, in this instance, as I explained, he was wrong. Marrs, who apparently wrote a good book on the John Kennedy assassination, stated publically that Obama was a “Marxist socialist.” This is Texas speak for “nigger.”

    But in journalism I suppose you have to take the hide with the fur. I’m glad you don’t say stuff like that, although some of the most articulate commenters here espouse primitive Christianity and a loony form of Ann Randism. You, James, are the next generation of the California academics, although there is apparently a good group in Canada as well, in addition to spreading all over the world. The homicidal conspiracy theories of elements of the American power system are being legitimated in public discourse, whatever they are called, and this involves an historic change in the American ideological culture, and consequently in the media.

    1. “although some of the most articulate commenters here espouse primitive Christianity and a loony form of Ann Randism.”

      You make that sound like a bad thing, Mark. I’m guessing you’re thinking of me. Is my being articulate your consolation prize? I’ll cherish it always, storing it alongside my primitive portrait of Jesus and my collection of Rand novels.

        1. Of course, I was trying to make you laugh. I’ve never read Rand, and possess none of her novels. I was mocking Mark, who seems to enjoy caricaturing the belief systems of people he does not know.

    2. Here we go again, the huffington post zombies are race baiting again.

      The trayvon trial was about racism? Huh? Zimmerman is puerto rican or something – certainly not white. I have never heard of a court expressing racial preference to puerto ricans before – that is a first. If they were racists wouldnt they want to lock up the latino since they already got rid of the black guy? No the reason the court sided with zimmerman was because trayvon was a gold toothed thug. thugs really don’t get respect anywhere it has nothing to do with the shade of zimmermans skin.
      texans don’t speak in code. the word for nigger in texas is nigger. I promise.

      1. To me the racism is so give the main stream open doors to attack alternative media, to me it is part of the cointel-pro strategy. Maybe I’m thinking too much into, I’m not sure.

        Additionally I see Natural News (friends with Jones) do the same thing with their articles so as to create a main steam/alternative paradigm and neutralize movement towards truth among the masses. I think if Mike and Alex are friends they must be in on the same game unless Mike has no idea, which I highly doubt.

      2. You are making a lot of assumptions about everyone. People who do not care for facts make unnecessary trouble. Zimmerman is the son of a white man. He is a repeat thug, not Martin, no matter your prejudices about black teens who smoke pot. Zimmerman killed a harmless man. The facts show that Martin was appropriately where he was, and Zimmerman wasn’t, not after the police told him to lay off. All the evidence shows it. It does not matter, actually, who was what race. A life was taken, no matter how any politician tried to exploit it afterwards. I am not going to be happy if this site is just about scoring points against one race or another. That is not what is wrong with this country, that it is no longer segregated or something. No what is wrong is that we are lied to about very important matters – and that is generally white on white mental cruelty.

  27. Excellent article. Nolan cites as authorities several authors and organizations whose work is highly dubious, with no warning to the reader.
    Andrew Kreig
    Author, “Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters”

  28. Ahhh……imagine that…..a battle inside the “INFOWAR”! So what’s new? Here’ s my take on the ongoing and ever-evolving Jones juggernaut. Alright so I tend to look at the whole AJ issue as sort of having two distinct purpose driven parts, each with its own features and functions, operating simultaneously and somewhat symbiotically. There is the actual data content/information(the “product”)of which there is an astounding, amount and vast array of) part, and then of course there is the way he delivers (tone,technique,mode of technology,style,etc.); as well as the way the audience receives,that information (messaging). Together the two parts create a media environment that will effect the experience of the consumer. As technology advances and evolves at ever increasing rates, not only do the ways we take in media change, the technology of that media changes everything about the human that experience it. In fact, our reality is more effected by how we receive our information, then by the information itself.
    “The media is the message.”- Marshall McLuhan

    With all that in mind, this is how I see it—
    ~ part 1= lots of heavy information on a variety of topics from many sources and points of analysis(varying degrees of reliability). Alex doesn’t always present things with total accuracy, balance, or in proper context. That said….if one looks further into most of the info he presents, they will usually find something there that deserves to be examined/considered further(and that no one in the “MEDIA” ever reports on at all), and lots of the info is factually accurate.
    ~part 2= Most of PC’s criticisms of Alex’s personal characteristics and behavior are actually pretty much legitimate. I go back and forth on whether he is an operative of some sort or just a socially irresponsible, narcissistic, egomaniacal public figure with unethical business practices. I often wonder if his “Operation” (as he refers to it) is actually “OPERATION INFOWARS” a covert intelligence/psychological operation and that he may not be fully aware of what it actually is and who is really controlling it. Maybe we’ll find out one day………..or not? ‘Til then, use discernment and do your own research!

  29. So according to Project Censored there are big problems with what Alex Jones is doing but Russia Today is fine. It’s profoundly absurd. I see other glaring errors here too.

    They accuse Jones of wrongly profiting from this situation. OK. Let’s see a complete accounting of all donations and profits received at Project Censored then? Let’s see where the money is coming from? Let’s see who’s making money? And let’s see who’s working for free?

    Prof. Tracy, I’ve been following your work as much as possible. Thank you for it.


    1. Thanks for your kind words, Paul.

      In Project Censored’s defense, they essentially run on a shoestring budget. This isn’t difficult to do in terms of an academic/semi-academic organization since much of the labor is provided by faculty who take it on as research and/or service and bring on interested students to participate.

      I nevertheless suggest that outlets Higdon in part relies on, such as Media Matters, indeed rely on substantial foundation funding, with their main figures being paid very handsomely indeed. Some others are similarly questionable.

      1. I got Media Freedom Foundation’s Form 990 for 2011 from I’m looking at it now. I think it says that they received $528,036 in “grants and contributions” that year. I also think it says that $475,00 of that was paid out to “Grants and other assistance to governments, individuals, and organizations outside the United States”.

        Will you explain this to me?

        1. Thank you for the information. If I could explain this I would, and I appreciate you making note of it here. I am not a member of PC/MEF’s board of directors; I merely contribute to their volumes and have been an admirer of their work for many years.

          When I last checked MEF’s financials (2010 990) the return indicated total revenue of %48,347 and net assets of $15,790. Of course, this is a substantial and likely unprecedented increase in resources.

        2. I think Martin should have mentioned that as well. It was otherwise a very good interview.

          That subject was discussed. Why not contact PC and ask them directly?

        3. I’m watching this video again now. It’s clearly false. Huff and Martin do not mention that Martin is on the board of directors at Project Censored. Martin refers to Project Censored as “they” at 00:15 clearly stating that it is group separate from herself. This is not the truth.

          They do this off a Kremlin funded broadcast. They do this as they attack others as seen in their article on Alex Jones.

          Again let’s see where their money is coming from and going to now, please.

          Huff states at the end that he’s interested in teaching people how to think. Prof. Huff, my guess is that your arrogance will be your downfall.

        4. James says November 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm – I think Martin should have mentioned that as well. It was otherwise a very good interview. That subject was discussed. Why not contact PC and ask them directly?

          It’s not a good interview if it’s presenting a false reality, sir.

          I was having an email battle with them over their connection with Russia Today. To me, there is certainly no way Russia Today can be a positive force in this situation considering where the funding is coming from. It’s wrong to empower it in any way. It’s obvious.

          It got pretty wild. When I asked Huff to explain the their 2011 Form 990, he told to look at the financial records. They did not provide me with any records. Then Huff and Phillips both shut down communications with me.

          I don’t see any explanation of the 2011 990 online anywhere. You say the matter was discussed. Am I reading the 990 correctly? Where did that $528,036 come from? Where did that $475,000 go?

        5. It was a good interview, in my estimation. The things they discussed aren’t being discussed anywhere else. I also think Iran’s PressTV often does an excellent job on topics and issues that barely get mentioned in US corporate media. Should I dismiss that outlet as well because it’s state-funded? I usually tell students that the best method in staying informed is looking at an array of news sources.

          Mickey has always been above the board with me, and yet we agree to disagree on some topics, such as Jones.

          Again, as for the 990, I think you should take that up with them because it’s not my business or organization and I am not their surrogate. It would be especially indiscreet to discuss such a matter in a public forum such as this.

        6. If Russia today has an ulterior motive (I think it is easy to deduct they do) then why do so many alternative media outlets line up closely with the way they share information? I would really like to have a deeper discussion on RT and what the strategy is. Are they trying to further a controlled opposition and if so how and how do we combat it.

        7. James says November 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm – “It was a good interview, in my estimation. The things they discussed aren’t being discussed anywhere else. I also think Iran’s PressTV often does an excellent job on topics and issues that barely get mentioned in US corporate media. Should I dismiss that outlet as well because it’s state-funded? I usually tell students that the best method in staying informed is looking at an array of news sources.Mickey has always been above the board with me, and yet we agree to disagree on some topics, such as Jones. Again, as for the 990, I think you should take that up with them because it’s not my business or organization and I am not their surrogate. It would be especially indiscreet to discuss such a matter in a public forum such as this.”

          Indiscreet. So your saying that the source and final destination of approx. $500,000 at Project Censored in 2011 is a secret. It’s absurd, sir. I told you above that I did take up with them directly and privately. They refused to answer and shut down communications with me. This is why I’m asking you about it here. I respectfully ask you again to see to it that this information becomes public, Prof. Tracy.

          I don’t know about Iran’s PressTV. State-funded is one thing. Funded by the same source as the FSB is something else I think, sir.

        8. Kyle Sainz says November 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm – If Russia today has an ulterior motive (I think it is easy to deduct they do) then why do so many alternative media outlets line up closely with the way they share information? I would really like to have a deeper discussion on RT and what the strategy is. Are they trying to further a controlled opposition and if so how and how do we combat it.

          Oh it has to be. There’s no way it could be anything else. It’s obvious. I don’t how to combat it. It should definitely not be empowered in any way.

  30. Skimming over the comments I noticed that some readers have picked up on some of the worrisome anomalies associated with Jones. While recognizing the helpful role infowars has played in disseminating hidden power elite agendas, we must also be brutally honest with ourselves about serious concerns which indicate some form of controlled opposition going on.

    IMO, the biggest red flag to date was Infowars’ considerable coverage of Wikileaks despite very clear signs that Assange was working a psyop. Even Assange’s rude dismissal of 9/11 Truth wasn’t considered, much less his obvious ties to the Establishment, having a Rothschild lawyer, and favorable coverage by the press, etc. – not to mention Wikileaks seemingly sparking the Arab Spring, a much desired aspect of TPTB’s wish list on the road to their Greater Middle East Project.

    Now that the MSM has lost credibility and followers to alternative sources of media, we are witnessing the MSM move towards evermore extreme limited hangouts and that includes giving Jones some exposure on their networks. In turn, Infowars has substantially increased the number of MSM articles on its website. This is classic synthesis and also serves to undermine alternative media by desensitizing the public to darker truths thus stealing the thunder from bona fide alternative news sources on the internet.

    We also cannot ignore the common criticism that Jones’ rarely tackles solutions, instead proffering mostly doomer reports that reinforce a sense of utter helplessness.

    It is possible to have gratitude for the role Jones and Infowars have played in waking up and educating the willing masses while simultaneously closely examining some serious concerns – these are not mutually exclusive principles.

Leave a Reply