I don't know if any of you happened to watch Alex Jones on Piers Morgan, but IMHO, it was embarrassing. I think he did great up until 2:15, when he turned the heat up after Morgan responded to one of his claims. Granted Jones had decent points and statistics, his entire demeanor screamed "hand-selected to make gun rights defenders look crazy" and guess what...I'm certain that after this national exposure, this guy Alex Jones has almost single handedly tarnished the Liberty Movement in at least some small way.
Even Jesse Ventura can talk over people without appearing to be a lunatic. This guy, frankly, was like a baboon, and he refused to answer one of Morgan's questions, throwing every red herring he could until he finally contested to not knowing the answer. He was doing his radio shtick on t.v., and it appears that the Left got exactly what it sought out: a man that believes in gun rights while simultaneously appearing to be out of control, hence "perceived justification for eliminating gun rights because these people are nuts!" or something to that effect.
I've heard a fair amount of Jones' radio show, and while I think he goes way off the deep end on a lot of issues, I don't have a problem with that or him in general; I think he's probably a nice guy and his heart's certainly in the right place. I just think he should have been a lot more civil and intelligible. He really could have brought up significant issues to the public eye. Instead he left looking like a fool, and unfortunately this is the perspective people have of Libertarians, so it seems, especially with this kind of national exposure.
What did you think?
Definately agree. I recently posted this in the low-content thread...I think it seals the deal:
Correction: he left looking like a bad-ass baboon!
Marko: Correction: he left looking like a bad-ass baboon!
I must admit, Marko, that after 10 minutes into it, I turned it off. I'll watch the ending. Perhaps I acted prematurely.
Ok I watched the last couple of minutes I missed. He did a fake British accent and looked even more like a fool than I'd previously seen. That's my take anyway. Yes, he made a good point at the end: if he doesn't like America he should leave and go home where the guns are banned. But jeez, the in-between...my God he looked like a raging fool!
Sadly, this is probably the only exposure people will have had to the Liberty Movement beyond Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Can you imagine anybody else in the Liberty Movement behaving like this guy? None I can think of would ever have acted like that. Why not have Walter Block on? He'd effectively challenge Morgan on everything and make very valid points. Instead, Morgan invites Jones on, and Jones goes. Then Morgan follows one of Jones' red herrings on the WTC, sealing the envelope on making him look like a fool because the vast majority of the public maintain that anybody doubting the WTC event is a loon. People equate this to the Liberty Movement and, imo, it strongly derails it.
I will never listen to this guy Jones again (not that I made a habit of doing it before). Morgan's a fool, but at least he's an eloquent one.
That's precisely the point, isn't it? Primetime bobble-heads would never invite a person like Walter Block on who could effectively and intelligently challenge the tyrannical proposition of gun control. So instead, they invite Billy Mays' crazed cousin on, and create the illusion to those who have not taken the "red pill" that this is the way that all libertarians/libertarian conservatives are, or anyone who advocates gun rights for that matter. It's just them making sure that there is an obvious clear-cut line between the intelligence of the gun control advocates (broadcasted by the mainstream media as being high) and the intelligence of the gun rights advocates. And I don't need to tell you that it has been organized to where freedom-lovers have been portrayed as idiots because of a handful of individuals "speaking out" for the movement.
SkepticalMetal: I don't need to tell you that it has been organized to where freedom-lovers have been portrayed as idiots because of a handful of individuals "speaking out" for the movement.
I don't need to tell you that it has been organized to where freedom-lovers have been portrayed as idiots because of a handful of individuals "speaking out" for the movement.
I could almost bet that Morgan had paid Jones to act like that. Hmm....
If you think people are swayed by better arguments, you haven't been arguing enough.
I've come to the conclusion that political convictions follow aesthetic preferences. Alex Jones, with his brute, loud-voiced paranoia, services a substantial minority subset of the conservative population whose only likely reactions to politics are anger or lethargic despair.
Getting this clientele riled up comes with some risk at the fringes (think McVeigh), but it's the only way for a population otherized by academia, the media and big city politics to be heard. AJ is the perfect representative for this purpose.
That's precisely the point, isn't it? Primetime bobble-heads would never invite a person like Walter Block on who could effectively and intelligently challenge the tyrannical proposition of gun control.
Aha! So what you are really saying is it is not a question of whether there will be an interview with Block or an interview with Jones, but instead it is a question whether there will be an interview with Jones, or else with no one at all. In other words, you are pointing out the fact that Jones is doing us a service because this way at least this message gets *some* exposure in regime media rather than none at all. Thank you for your great points SkepticalMetal, you have really convinced me AJ is a net benefit to the cause and a good fellow traveler to have.
Excellent point. AJ will leave 80% of the population bamboozeled with him and worse. However, 80% of the population are not ready to become libertarian at this stage anyway. It is a fact he has an audience of his own and a large one at that, because it turns out he is very good at reaching a certain demographic, which it so happens is far more receptive to the libertarian message than the median person out there.
Honestly, I can't tell if you are being serious. That is clearly not what SkepticalMetal was saying...
Oh the ice-cold, expressiveless demeanor of internet message board text...
Put simply, Marko...wat?
Not yet you mean. They were the logical conclusions of his thinking. It was only a matter of time when he would arrive at them.
I don't think so.
I think he is hilarious.
And who associates him with a liberty movement? He's more the conspiracy theory movement, a long with coast to coast am.
John Ess: I think he is hilarious. And who associates him with a liberty movement? He's more the conspiracy theory movement, a long with coast to coast am.
Unfortunately many outsiders/neophytes to liberty likely do.
It's pretty obvious:
Piers Morgan brought on Larry Pratt who was cool and collected. Piers resorted to name-calling and made a fool of himself. Now he's thinking "Shit, what can I do to restore my credibility...... !!! I'll bring on Alex Jones!" Que AJ, the screaming bowling ball. Piers looks calm, collected, sophisticated, english. Gun nuts look retarded. Two birds with one stone.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I'm serious when I say that a libertarian anarcho-capitalist cable channel should be created. Like our own "Current TV" type thing. Internet is good, but anarcho-capitalism should expand.
a) It's certain to my mind that Alex Jones does not operate solo... he's part of something else, serving an agenda
b) It's also certain to my mind that this debate was meant to be "staged" but I think that Morgan is genuinely taken by surprise and displeased with Jones's behavior
c) I don't think Jones is as simple as managed dissent, at least not managed by the same people that manage Morgan (the CFR). His information is too pointed, relevant and largely accessible to be managed dissent. I think he's actually part of some kind of anti-CFR opposition, a genuine opposition.
d) His antics on Piers Morgan were calculated to generate listeners to his show. They were going to take the last word and make him out to be a kook no matter what he said or did or how he acted, so I think he had already "run the numbers" and decided it was best to simply take a passionate stance and let people tune in out of curiosity or whatever.
e) Morgan and Dershowitz both said it was "important" to expose Alex Jones and those like him in the post-interview. But if this interview is going to help them win the gun control debate, how come they're having so many difficulties getting traction? They blame the NRA for buying lobbyists but that's laughable since that PoliSci 101... lobbying and influencing is supposed to be the whole purpose of "democratic" government.
Dershowitz explains the problem as clearly as it can be explained: gun control should be the Establishment's #1 agenda item and it hasn't been. Even with Sandy Hook, they're not going to get gun-control.
I've predicted the outbreak of major war before the end of 2013. This could be the catalyst for a real gun seize but this would only be Phase 1. What they're trying to do right now is require "private-party sale background checks" so they can track an extremely large percentage of the guns out there. This will then enable Phase 2, which will be a follow-up gun grab based on some massacre or attempted armed attack on the President or whatever.
Clayton -
Major war between who?
Getting awfully cliquey in here. Ahh... Highschool.
Alex hasn't applied himself to you. Maybe you should do a better job of dissociating from people you disagree with if you're going to collectivize and adhere yourself to the actions of others.
It's like those monkeys at pizza parlors and sports bars screaming at the tv and at the end of the game, it's "we lost". No, you didn't play the game. You sat there on your ass getting fatter. You don't get to take credit, positive or negative, for what someone else did. You want to stoop to that level, go right ahead.
So much for all that leaderless nonsense.
Um...who are you talking to here?
Come people, liberty is for the people. People for liberty come in varying shades. How many of you silver-tongued, cucumber-cool liberty-minded individuals have managed to get a word in on mainstream tv? Oh he's a disgrace, oh what an embarrassment... come on you pussies, put your balls on the line and stick your necks out for once.... this is not a dress rehearsal.... this is IT!!! U.S.A is the last stand... man, I'm not even American and I can see that. Give them your guns and you capitulate to the fear the MSM has driven you into. This is not the hour for faint-hearted 'coolness'.
So Jones perhaps had his ratings in mind? It just seems odd to me that Piers Morgan would have a little-known radio host on a national broadcast. I'm sure it was tactical on his part, sheer idiocy on behalf of Jones...unless he's just concerned with having more viewers. Of course peope are going to watch a zany circus act; people love that stuff. The part that pisses me off is they're trying to make it look like he's one of the legitimate voices for freedom, and "this is why it's dangerous to have guns." End of story, basically.
jimaustri123: Come people, liberty is for the people. People for liberty come in varying shades. How many of you silver-tongued, cucumber-cool liberty-minded individuals have managed to get a word in on mainstream tv? Oh he's a disgrace, oh what an embarrassment... come on you pussies, put your balls on the line and stick your necks out for once.... this is not a dress rehearsal.... this is IT!!! U.S.A is the last stand... man, I'm not even American and I can see that. Give them your guns and you capitulate to the fear the MSM has driven you into. This is not the hour for faint-hearted 'coolness'.
I don't care that he has national exposure; and your loaded scenario precludes the possibility that none of us have had an opportunity to get on national t.v. My criticism is geared towards how he acted like a raving madman instead of answering Morgan's question and then proceeding with more facts, statistics and reason, albeit passionate. Nothing's wrong with passion as long as it's guided somehow. This is a debate, mind you; not a pushup contest.
Embarrassing, yes. A shame. He did everything Piers could hope for and more.
@ jimaustri123
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're basically saying that I should be ashamed of myself for criticising Jones for what he did based on the fact that "I've never gone out and done something combative in the name of liberty." Under this logic, I couldn't say a particular movie sucks because I haven't made any films myself yet. There's no denying what the OP said - Alex Jones acted like a baboon, and it certainly creates a bad image for the libertarian cause.
Anyone remember Howard Dean's scream? Far more tame than Alex Jones, but that was the end of Howard Dean. If Alex Jones is a liberty supporter, then he royally fucked up.
Haha, the Dean scream never gets old...
Well, one thing is clear. AJ planned to freak out there. Watch the first part. Piers only got out 2 "uhms" until 2:20 and that's when AJ drives the volume to 10.
I think AJ was even a little surprised to have this less resistence.
I don't know what to think of this...
Whatever AJ has definitely a powerful voice. It is bit like those Gandalf moments when he wants to get every little bit of attention and raises his voice and adds some drama.
You guys, if you haven't already, need to watch that video I posted, or at least at skip to 5:15 and just watch the part where Alex is on.
thetabularasa:his entire demeanor screamed "hand-selected to make gun rights defenders look crazy" and guess what...I'm certain that after this national exposure, this guy Alex Jones has almost single handedly tarnished the Liberty Movement in at least some small way.
I disagree...perhaps his demeanor did scream that, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to try and assess the net effect in terms of "Liberty Movement". For one thing, Jones isn't exactly a poster child for "The Liberty Movement". He may preach the sermons, but he's not exactly seen as much of a leader of the "'mainstream' Liberty Movement", if you'll accept the oxymoron. Just because he's friendly and sympathetic toward Ron Paul doesn't mean rank and file Ron Paul supporters identify with him...and I would be willing to argue that those are the people who pretty much embody "The Liberty Movement" as far as outsiders are concerned. Sure they try as they can to find self-proclaimed racists and other obvious "bad guys" who support Paul, and then attempt to paint the entire canvass as racist loons — but I don't think the majority of people necessarily associate Jones with "Tea Party" or "Liberty Movement".
In addition, I'm not so sure he hurt anything on net, even if you take "Liberty Movement" associations out anyway. In other words, many people already have knowledge of (and likely, opinions of) Jones. So seeing him get all heated probably doesn't change much for a lot of people...his followers still back him, and people who think he's a nut conspiracy theorist still think he's a nut. And I actually believe those two groups actually encompass a lot of people. For the rest of the population who don't know Jones and might actually see any of that CNN episode, I can't be sure there wouldn't be at least an equal number of people who find their way into those two camps. By that I mean, I'm sure there will be people who have never heard of Jones and see that segment and decide he's a nut. But there will also be people who will hear things they've never heard before...and something will resonate with them. Even if Jones' demeanor doesn't endear them, they'll go look up a few things for themselves. And that's how it starts. That's essentially the story you hear from nearly every Mises-quoting, Ron Paul-supporting, libertarian (who hasn't already identified that way for over a decade.)
thetabularasa:Even Jesse Ventura can talk over people without appearing to be a lunatic. This guy, frankly, was like a baboon, and he refused to answer one of Morgan's questions, throwing every red herring he could until he finally contested to not knowing the answer.
I disagree that he was throwing red herrings. If anything I would say it was Morgan and his cherry picked statistics questions that were meant to distract from the real issue at hand. Jones' point is obviously that (a) bearing arms is a right, (b) the 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, (c) in general, more guns = less crime. And he had the overall stats to back it up. What Morgan did was cherry pick specific instances (which are fresh in the public's mind) and attempt to make an unspoken argument and lead ignorant viewers to believe many different things that simply aren't true.
I especially love his nominal comparison of gun murders between two countries with a population ratio of 5 to 1. (i.e. he literally tried to say "35 in the UK, and you have 11,400 in the US!" As if that gives an accurate picture of anything to an ignorant CNN viewing audience. The difference is literally less than 4 thousandths of one percent when you account for population. That's what the UK has accomplished with its almost total gun ban. A gun murder rate that is 4 thousandths of one percent better than the US. All the meanwhile, as Jones pointed out, their violent crime rate (and I believe other crimes as well) are through the roof.)
Ultimately while I'm sure Jones turned some neutral people off, he quite likely turned a lot of people on, whether through making a lightbulb illuminate, or even just creating enough of a spark to start someone on a journey of investigation.
thetabularasa:Why not have Walter Block on? He'd effectively challenge Morgan on everything and make very valid points. Instead, Morgan invites Jones on, and Jones goes. Then Morgan follows one of Jones' red herrings on the WTC
As nice as it might have been to see Block on TV, I'm afraid even he would have given Morgan and his creepy/dispicable ideas too much respect and plausibility. I have to admit it was refreshing to finally get to see someone take it to that statist's face in a big way.
Clayton:His antics on Piers Morgan were calculated to generate listeners to his show. They were going to take the last word and make him out to be a kook no matter what he said or did or how he acted, so I think he had already "run the numbers" and decided it was best to simply take a passionate stance and let people tune in out of curiosity or whatever.
Bingo.
Clayton:Morgan and Dershowitz both said it was "important" to expose Alex Jones and those like him in the post-interview. But if this interview is going to help them win the gun control debate, how come they're having so many difficulties getting traction?
More importantly, why did they cut it short?
thetabularasa:I could almost bet that Morgan had paid Jones to act like that. Hmm....
If you honestly think Alex Jones would take money from someone like Piers Morgan as an acceptance of a bribe to get Jones to lash out at him on the air, you're a bigger conspiracy theorist than Jones and all his cohorts combined.
thetabularasa:It just seems odd to me that Piers Morgan would have a little-known radio host on a national broadcast.
Not quite "little known", but I get your point. And it is addressed in Jargon's comment:
Jargon:It's pretty obvious: Piers Morgan brought on Larry Pratt who was cool and collected. Piers resorted to name-calling and made a fool of himself. Now he's thinking "Shit, what can I do to restore my credibility...... !!! I'll bring on Alex Jones!" Que AJ, the screaming bowling ball. Piers looks calm, collected, sophisticated, english. Gun nuts look retarded. Two birds with one stone.
I'd be willing to bet that at least part of the purpose in having Jones on was to help put out the flames from this (or at least distract from it by trying to have someone else start a bigger fire)...
Piers Morgan Reduced to Name Calling in Gun Control Debate
Piers Morgan vs. Larry Pratt on Guns
thetabularasa:Morgan's a fool, but at least he's an eloquent one.
I suppose it doesn't matter what you say, as long as it's in a snooty British accent, it's "eloquent".
Here's what I think (and speaking of eloquence...):
thetabularasa:sheer idiocy on behalf of Jones
Yeah, just like it was sheer idiocy for Ron Paul to go on all the hostile shows he did.
thetabularasa:...unless he's just concerned with having more viewers.
You might be getting it.
"a little-known radio host"
Bahaha, with millions of listeners and a website with a top 500 page rank in the US.
Here's what kind of ratings Morgan gets, and they brag about them: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tuesday-ratings-piers-morgan-beat-all-other-cnn-shows-in-both-demo-and-total-viewers/
"In total viewership, his 556k viewers"
Get a clue.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-03-01/feature2.php
"The Alex Jones Show is syndicated by more than sixty stations and heard weekly by 2 million listeners. Jones’s two main Web sites, Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.tv, draw 4 million unique users, more than Rush Limbaugh’s site."
// I don't care that he has national exposure; and your loaded scenario precludes the possibility that none of us have had an opportunity to get on national t.v. My criticism is geared towards how he acted like a raving madman instead of answering Morgan's question and then proceeding with more facts, statistics and reason, albeit passionate. Nothing's wrong with passion as long as it's guided somehow. This is a debate, mind you; not a pushup contest. //
Can't fault what you say. There is a responsibility that comes with a knowledge of the truth. It requires strength of more than just one kind i.e. brass balls, to make a real difference. But I think we are at the point where we have to look to each other for strength where we don't have it. What should Jones have done with the invite?
// Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're basically saying that I should be ashamed of myself for criticising Jones for what he did based on the fact that "I've never gone out and done something combative in the name of liberty." Under this logic, I couldn't say a particular movie sucks because I haven't made any films myself yet. There's no denying what the OP said - Alex Jones acted like a baboon, and it certainly creates a bad image for the libertarian cause. //
Okay, criticise but try to maintain some perspective. There will come a time where you will have to fight. There are the kind of people in this world which make it inevitable. I don't like it any more than you, but some people will try to push you into capitulating... they are simply not up for a rational debate. They know you or I could take them down in a debate - they wouldn't be that foolish.
Piers Morgan is beyond rational debate. That is clear. It is his show - he is the boss. Perhaps Jones - under-gunned in the debating department - should have refused. We can all improve in some way - if we were to wait until we are perfect before we engage, we'd be overrun in a flash.
I just think we would do well to cut the bull-crap and back someone who is clearly on our side. \dont' be afraid to take sides. Don't worry about tippy-toeing around those who are on the fence. Let your allegiance be known. People will respect you if they have a reaction to authoritarianism - which most people do. Sometimes it may take a while for them to decide but if you come back having obviously learned from your mistakes, I believe people will notice. The same people who are using AJ's rant as an excuse not to listen are ranting about terrorists abroad. I meant nothing personal but some perspective, please.
jimaustri123:What should Jones have done with the invite?
I'll chime in on this one because the answer is part of my point: Given the alternatives, I can't say I would have liked to see him do anything different, really. (Maybe say a couple of different things at different times, call out Morgan on his idiotic nominal murder statistic comparison, etc.), but overall, as I said it was refreshing to me. Maybe I've just heard so much nonsense from that British asswipe that I'd personally be ready to go off like that, so it was nice to see it happen. Plus it was nice to watch a Piers Morgan segment for once and not have to listen to Piers Morgan. And finally, as I said, it was gratifying to see the facts, the anger, the resentment, and the resistance all shoved in that elitist's chubby face.
But even aside from the personal enjoyment I got out of it, I honestly don't see how Jones could have gotten more out of it. It's not like he gets invited on MSM every week. You gotta take advantage of these opportunities when you get em, and I'm sure Jones got more buzz and more traffic from the appearance the way he did it, than if he did it as, say, a Walter Block.
And ultimately that's really what it's about. You're not going to change anyone's mind from a single appearance on a talk show (particularly one in which you're a guest, and the host (whose name is the show's title) hold's essentially the polar opposite view.) You're lucky if you even get a fair presentation of your own position by the time the footage actually goes to air.
The best you can hope for is to get some new people to tune in to your show, or read your book. And you can pretty much guarantee Jones accomplished that, and more than likely, in a much bigger way than if he was Mr. Doormat, or even Mr. Schmooze or Mr. Manners. These days especially, with so much access to so much information and entertainment, the most sensational things get the most attention. (There's only so much time anyone has in their day.)
And not only are direct viewers of the program getting a segment that stands out, the segment itself is now news outside the program. The appearance is getting coverage particularly because of its outlandish nature...and therefore Jones is getting even more attention and an even wider reach than just the CNN audience (which is already outside of his normal demo).
It's not about presenting yourself in such a way that the particular audience of each particular show you appear on will accept you, or even find you "nice" and "respectable"...all that matters is if they are intrigued enough to check you out in your own element....whether that's your radio show, your films, your website, or whatever (which is another plus for Jones...as he has all of the above). And again, it doesn't even matter what the nature of the intrigue is....Remember, Howard Stern haters were listening to him nearly twice as much as his fans. All that matters is that they're tuned in. Before long, they're considering notions and viewing things from a perspective they never even knew existed before. Much like described at the end of the story relayed here.
Undergunned?? Jones left Morgan literally speechless for almost the entire first segment. After the Morgan's interview where he tells Larry Pratt "you're an incredibly stupid man, aren't you" Jones knew exactly what he was getting into and decided to give Morgan a double-dose of his own medicine. I'm not saying that I think this has "furthered the cause" or anything... but Jones is a businessman and calculated he might as well take some of CNN's viewers and have them tune into the Alex Jones show.
I hope you and JJ are right, because usually anger backfires in debates like these.
John James:I especially love his nominal comparison of gun murders between two countries with a population ratio of 5 to 1. (i.e. he literally tried to say "35 in the UK, and you have 11,400 in the US!" As if that gives an accurate picture of anything to an ignorant CNN viewing audience. The difference is literally less than 4 thousandths of one percent when you account for population. That's what the UK has accomplished with its almost total gun ban. A gun murder rate that is 4 thousandths of one percent better than the US.
The numbers he gave bothered me as well for those reasons, but how did you get that difference? What's the math?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH