Alex Jones and Bullying by the Establishment

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones and Bullying by the Establishment

Alex Jones and Infowars are getting slammed in a manner that is not persuasive, to say the least. That is why this thread is in Persuasion Techniques. This is a case of what not to do.

Take a look at following crap on a sister site Alex owns. You can't see it on Infowars right now because the establishment bullies have triggered a DDOS attack on the site.

Infowars.com Site Goes Down Amid Big Tech Censorship
Comes as social media giants try to silence political speech ahead of midterms

The subtitle is correct. This is all about the midterms.

During the past presidential election, Hillary Clinton complained about Alex Jones by name. Also, Clinton's poodle, Mueller is currently targeting Roger Stone in a Hail Mary attempt to make his investigation relevant and influence the upcoming elections. Roger co-hosts his own show on Infowars. Do you believe in coincidences like that? 

As this thread develops, I will list the crap the crony corporatists and deep state are doing to Alex, but I want to ask you something right now.

You may hate Alex Jones or think he is insane. But after being thrown off Facebook, YouTube, ITunes, Spotify, Pinterest, the autoresponder MailChimp and several other major social media sites, including payment processors, all within the same time frame, and now when you go to Jones's own site, Infowars, you get this:

... because hackers are blasting Denial of Service robot attacks on his site so no one else can access it, do you this this is OK?

Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

Or do you prefer free speech on the Internet?

For me, this is despicable and I am weighing my own options about shutting down my own presences at some of the crony corporatist sites like Facebook, etc. For the time being, though, I'm waiting to see what happens.

Need I remind folks that this is how it works before authoritarians take over something big? As in the words of Martin Niemöller:

Quote

First they came for the Jews 
and I did not speak out 
because I was not a Jew.
 
Then they came for the Communists 
and I did not speak out 
because I was not a Communist. 

Then they came for the trade unionists 
and I did not speak out 
because I was not a trade unionist. 

Then they came for me 
and there was no one left 
to speak out for me.

 

Granted, we are talking about the ability to speak on the Internet and not physical imprisonment, but the way this thing is unfolding, it is serious and the pattern is the same.

Luckily, Alex's support has grown because of this bullying. The Internet is just too big right now. And since, thankfully, net neutrality regulations have been neutralized, the government does not have its grubby mits on throttling whoever the regulators find objectionable. 

So despite the cronies and deep state thinking they can guarantee Democratic Party wins in the upcoming midterms by shutting down popular opposing voices (and they are starting to go hogwild with lots of other sites--if you look into this, you will be amazed at the brazenness), I don't think they understand how this will resonate with the typical American spirit. 

One thing is for sure. They are not persuading anyone by this bullying.

They are only singing to their own choir.

And, unbelievably, they have accomplished the impossible propaganda-wise. They have turned Alex Jones into a legitimate victim and martyr for a massive victimization story to be used during the elections.

Congratulations, idiots.

Un-frigging-believable.

Now live with the consequences.

Michael

[william.scherk]

The news just keeps getting more depressing ... (as of two hours ago)

-- this report from Oliver Darcy may or may not be related to this:

Le heavy sigh.

[jts]

Is there evidence that government is involved in banning Alex Jones and Mike Adams?

 

[KorbenDallas]

Still down:

[Brant Gaede]

They are setting themselves for antitrust.

I agree.

--Brant

we are at war

[Brant Gaede]

They are  following the NFL to self destruction.

There are too many Americans still in America.

They kick ass.

--Brant

or will

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

The news just keeps getting more depressing ... (as of two hours ago)

-- this report from Oliver Darcy may or may not be related to this:

Le heavy sigh.

Why? Don't you know war? 

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, jts said:

Is there evidence that government is involved in banning Alex Jones and Mike Adams?

Jerry,

Where does one get such evidence? The FBI? The intelligence community? 

With the shape these agencies are in these days, good luck with that.

Maybe Hillary Clinton can help.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

This looks to be the offending video that got him banned from Twitter for 7 days:

 

On Periscope, which is owned by Twitter, Alex Jones tells supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against antifa, the mainstream media, and “Chicom operatives” https://t.co/OBHSFc3ofC pic.twitter.com/ntQbh9IKxz

— Media Matters (@mmfa) August 14, 2018

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is cute.

Near the beginning of the audio (click on the graphic and the audio controls appear), Owen played a recording of a website that was criticizing Alex Jones on a livestream on YouTube and got cut off mid-transmission--with a strike and everything. They were bashing Alex and standing up for YouTube!

The guy asked: How can they make fun of Alex being a conspiracy theorist when YouTube does crap like that?

LOL...

I uploaded a new episode, "War Room - 2018-Aug-14, Tuesday - EMERGENCY: Infowars Site Under Attack! ", on #spreaker #1a #alexjones #freeinfowars #infowars #rogerstone #usa #warroom https://t.co/RHIAWJ9D0A

— infowars (@infowars) August 15, 2018

This is going to be messy, but it sure is going to be entertaining.

 

The crony corporatists will lose, but I fear they will try to assassinate Alex or even President Trump on the way down. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

This looks to be the offending video that got him banned from Twitter for 7 days:

Korben,

Did you see how Media Matters reported that?

I just now watched to the video they posted (the one you embedded). Alex said people need to have their "battle rifles" ready by their bedside. He was saying to get ready to ward off attacks, not go out and shoot up people.

Media Matters is a Soros operation and Brock is Soros's poodle.

These assholes are going to get people killed for real.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Did you see how Media Matters reported that?

I just now watched to the video they posted (the one you embedded). Alex said people need to have their "battle rifles" ready by their bedside. He was saying to get ready to ward off attacks, not go out and shoot up people.

Yea, and Alex took a really long pause before saying it as if he were thinking about his words carefully.  There does appear to be some context dropping by Media Matters.  In my opinion what is happening is these companies are banning him for his body of work, yet are trying to find specific instances to warrant a ban.  I'm saying this because I think this is what is going on, not because I'm defending him.  I'm definitely not a fan of his.

 

[jts]

Yaron Brook has no use for Alex Jones. AJ is a conspiracy theory nut and a disvalue, says YB..

YB says AJ has a right to do his stuff but youtube and all those have a right to ban him but government does not have a right to ban AJ.

 

 

The question is: is government involved? Government has no right to censor.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

There does appear to be some context dropping by Media Matters.

Korben,

Say it ain't so, Joe. Media Matters? Drop context?

LOL...

They must be slipping because normally the tell bald-face lies. I guess they were too lazy to make one up this time.

 

Read the book if you ever get the time. It's by a top journalist who worked for CBS News for years, won five Emmys, etc. Then you will know how Media Matters operates.

The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote by Sharyl Attkisson 

18 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I'm definitely not a fan of his.

Rest easy. Nobody I know would ever accuse you of that.

 

Still, it boils down to what kind of world do you want to live in? One were people are free to say what they think, or one where ideas in public speech are controlled by gatekeepers? Especially around election times?

No one shows their adherence to principle defending only those they agree with.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, jts said:

YB says AJ has a right to do his stuff but youtube and all those have a right to ban him but government does not have a right to ban AJ.

Jerry,

If the government does not have a right to censor Alex Jones, then YouTube definitely does not have that right. It--and especially its parent company Alphabet--is a private company on paper only.

I would agree with Brook if these social media giants were not so deeply in bed with the government. For an easy example, they were weaponized by the US government during the Arab Spring.

These companies gave up being private a long time ago. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... they are starting to go hogwild with lots of other sites--if you look into this, you will be amazed at the brazenness...

Here's an example of how this is spreading.

Notice, I don't even know who Jay Dyer is. Have you?

He's some gaia dude or something. Probably talks about the nasty things esoteric symbols mean. And who cares about that?

Yet the ban fever is catching on.

Styx has a very good big picture analysis of the moral panic running rampant in the current social media scene.

Styx said something else relevant to this issue I found interesting, but it's not in the above video. I want to mention it here, though.

He said the giant companies who are being brigaded by CNN (and Media Matters and others) and caving will inevitably leave up real kooks like David Duke. The reason is they can point to these kooks as proof of their tolerance, but the fact is, these kooks have no sway with the general public. The sites being banned, harrassed and so on are ones where the owners are more sensible even if they get near the fringe. That's because they make sense to a lot of people.

Brigaded means being attacked by a small number of people backstage who claim to represent a vast number of people, but who do not. This is a tactic Media Matters uses constantly (see Attkisson's The Smear for a breakdown). Without funding from Soros, Media Matters would not be economically viable. It's not a free market company selling services or information. It's a propaganda attack dog.

It looks like CNN has started using this tactic, too. CNN is going to learn the hard way that you do not generate an audience by doing dirty tricks to shut down competitors who are more popular than you. You will end up losing what paltry audience you have left. CNN will either turn into a company like Media Matters that relies on charity to keep the doors open, or it will fold. For now, I'm betting on it folding.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Still, it boils down to what kind of world do you want to live in? One were people are free to say what they think, or one where ideas in public speech are controlled by gatekeepers? Especially around election times?

The companies are private, when Alex Jones signed up for these services he signed agreements that the content he posts is within their rules.  From memory, Alex Jones either heard about Youtube banning him or it was that he received warnings from Youtube---the point is, Jones knew they were looking to remove his channel because he was not within their rules, yet he continued posting.  This isn't the government censoring free speech, it is Youtube looking after their brand, standards, shareholders, etc.  I'd bet they contacted lawyers before banning Jones to make sure they are well within their rights.  This is a business removing someone for not following their rules.

[anthony]

14 Aug 201813,000 Breitbart

"Chris Cuomo announced Monday night that CNN will not condemn but instead justify political violence against anyone it defines as “bigots” — which, according to the network’s editorial tone over the past two years, signals open season on all Trump supporters for violent activists like Antifa and the Black Bloc.

To legitimize political violence, Cuomo said, “All punches are not equal morally… Drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimized hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.”"

----

'Incitement to violence' is a tricky legal area for the government to patrol, but I think here's a case of a media "platform", called CNN, treading very close. "..will not condemn but instead justify political violence against anyone it defines ..." 

The upshot will be that decent, thinking Left-Democrats (there must be many) are going to desert the channel in droves. Nicer to watch CNN go under, than be banned/censored.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

The companies are private...

Korben,

With all due respect, bullshit.

Private on paper only.

Crony corporatism (especially government plus private ownership or collusion through front groups) is not what Ayn Rand meant by private property. 

Any company that can be and is weaponized by the government is not private except in the doublespeak you are using.

So spare me the master of the obvious rationalizations.

These crappy elitist smokescreen games are going to tumble during President Trump's tenure.

Michael

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

This is a business removing someone for not following their rules.

Which rules?

My understanding (and please correct me with some cites if I'm wrong) is that there are no specific rules that have been identified as having been broken in the banning and other punishments, but rather a mob of people (and perhaps bots?) signaled their coordinated or coincidental displeasure. Torches and pitchforks were tallied, and the undefined magic numbers were reached to equal a verdict of "hate" crimes. Pretty much post hoc or ex post facto, or quae semper.

J

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Chris Cuomo announced Monday night that CNN will not condemn but instead justify political violence against anyone it defines as “bigots” — which, according to the network’s editorial tone over the past two years, signals open season on all Trump supporters for violent activists like Antifa and the Black Bloc.

To legitimize political violence, Cuomo said, “All punches are not equal morally… Drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimized hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.”"

Tony,

According to some people, CNN is a private corporation that is exercising it's private property rights. 

I guess crony corporatism (especially government plus private ownership or collusion through front groups) is a proper form of capitalism to them.

Anyway, does advocating violence with impunity look like a proper activity for a private corporation? Where does Chris Cuomo get the balls to openly advocate violence if he is not protected by government insiders?

Cuomo once said that CNN's audience members were not permitted to look at Podesta's emails on WikiLeaks like he was. He was mocked at the time, but I don't recall him ever taking that back.

He actually said that, too, and I'm not taking it out of context. He meant it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

My understanding (and please correct me with some cites if I'm wrong) is that there are no specific rules that have been identified as having been broken in the banning and other punishments, but rather a mob of people (and perhaps bots?) signaled their coordinated or coincidental displeasure. Torches and pitchforks were tallied, and the undefined magic numbers were reached to equal a verdict of "hate" crimes. Pretty much post hoc or ex post facto, or quae semper.

Jonathan,

And, of course, the people waging a DDOS attack on the Infowars site are merely exercising their private property rights as owners of hacking bots. So Alex knew better when he set up a news site. He knew this could happen, so it's his fault.

 

For some people, if they don't like someone, gang-up attacks on that person are apparently all good and rational and principled.

But when the same thing happens to them (as it always ends up happening if this crap is not cut short--and they never think it will happen to them), suddenly they frame principles differently and even get sanctimonious about it. Suddenly they are victims yelling about the unfairness of it all...

I've seen this too many times to count.

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

14 Aug 201813,000 Breitbart

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/08/14/cnn-chris-cuomo-antifa-violence-right/

[KorbenDallas]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Which rules?

My understanding (and please correct me with some cites if I'm wrong) is that there are no specific rules that have been identified as having been broken in the banning and other punishments, but rather a mob of people (and perhaps bots?) signaled their coordinated or coincidental displeasure. Torches and pitchforks were tallied, and the undefined magic numbers were reached to equal a verdict of "hate" crimes. Pretty much post hoc or ex post facto, or quae semper.

J

 

Facebook, Twitter, etc. have all released statements of which rules were violated.  You can look them up with a Google search

[william.scherk]

The index page at Infowars.com is working fine at the moment.  I have been listening to a (I think recorded) "live" War Room broadcast on Periscope.