In Travis County custody case, jury will search for real Alex Jones

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
In Travis County custody case, jury will search for real Alex Jones

At a recent pretrial hearing, attorney Randall Wilhite told state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that using his client Alex Jones’ on-air Infowars persona to evaluate Alex Jones as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in “Batman.”

“He’s playing a character,” Wilhite said of Jones. “He is a performance artist.”

But in emotional testimony at the hearing, Kelly Jones, who is seeking to gain sole or joint custody of her three children with Alex Jones, portrayed the volcanic public figure as the real Alex Jones.

“He’s not a stable person,” she said of the man with whom her 14-year-old son and 9- and 12-year-old daughters have lived since her 2015 divorce. “He says he wants to break Alec Baldwin’s neck. He wants J-Lo to get raped.

“I’m concerned that he is engaged in felonious behavior, threatening a member of Congress,” she said, referring to his recent comments about California Democrat Adam Schiff. “He broadcasts from home. The children are there, watching him broadcast.”
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
The take from Heat Street:

Don’t Expect Alex Jones’ Audience to Abandon Him—Even If His Radio Persona Turns Out to Be Just an Act

“He’s playing a character, he is a performance artist.”

That’s reportedly what Alex Jones’ attorney, Randall Wilhite, told the judge on behalf of his client, who is involved in a custody dispute with his ex-wife Kelly Jones over their three children. So Alex Jones is acting out an id to millions of fans and listeners every day, while scantily believing the things he is actually saying. 9/11 and Sandy Hook trutherism? Just kidding.

Wilhite stated, while defending his client in the pre-trial hearing, that judging Jones’ fitness as a parent based on his radio persona “would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in ‘Batman.”’

Keeping in mind all sorts of accusations fly during custody battles, none of which turn out good for either party, there is speculation this could be extremely damaging to Jones and the Infowars brand. After all, he’s the only game in town for what’s really happening in the deep state bowels of our reptilian overlords in government, who keep turning the frogs gay and controlling us with chem trails and fluoride.

But anyone who is seriously speculating that Jones’ audience will abandon him over this self admission, forced or not, hasn’t been paying attention the past two years. And they certainly don’t understand the fevered levels of devotion that Jones’ audience has for him. Heavy lies the tin-foil crown of the king who sits alone in his media kingdom. If anything, the prospect of losing Jones, without a suitable heir to carry forth, will only make his millions of followers dig in deeper.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
Alex Jones tells jury his marijuana has gotten too strong — and says George Soros is to blame

As reported by BuzzFeed’s Charlie Warzel, Jones was asked about his drug and alcohol use by attorney Bobby Newman, who is representing Jones’ ex-wife Kelly in the custody battle over the couple’s three children.

During his testimony, Jones claimed that he smoked marijuana once a year to “monitor its strength,” and he claimed that its gotten progressively stronger over the years — and he thinks that George Soros is somehow involved.
Elsewhere in his testimony, Jones told the jury that eating large bowls of chili had adverse affects on his ability to remember things, although he said that he made sure to not eat a large bowl of chili before appearing in court on Thursday.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
Alex Jones, Sandy Hook truther and conspiracy theory peddler, asks media to respect his privacy

...Jones got into hot water after claiming that one of the worst school shootings in the history of America, Sandy Hook, which caused the deaths of 28 children and adults, was "a giant hoax”...

Jones was forced to apologise last month for promoting a theory that a Washington pizzeria was involved in a child sex-abuse ring.

His apology came the day that a 28-year-old man pleaded guilty to charges related to an incident in December in which he took and let off a rifle to “investigate” the theory.
Sandy Hook truther Alex Jones asks for privacy in custody battle ‘for the sake of my children’

But in Texas, at a pretrial hearing this month, Jones’s attorney said Jones is “playing a character. He is a performance artist.” Another attorney described Jones’s work as “humor” and “sarcasm,” reported Uistin American-Statesman reporter Jonathan Tilove, who tweeted from the trial.

As The Post’s Callum Borcher reported: “These arguments — meant to help the Austin-based Jones win custody of his three children — amount to admissions that he does not really believe all the wacky stuff he says.”
 
#9
It is convenient for his defenders to excuse his style whilst avoiding any mention of the content.
Which content?

This thread and the attacks on him are about his style, not content.

I don't read or listen to Infowars anymore, but Alex Jones is one of the best American journalists of his generation. The content of his work is indispensable. Not to mention all the great independent journalists he's inspired.

However, his radio show is shit. I get sick of his hyperbolic nonsense. And he's not a real libertarian, but that's something else.
 
#10
Last edited:
#13
I've listened to him off and on over the years and he's said many times before that people ask him if he's for real or if this is all an act. And his response is that he and his crew are doing their best to provide real journalism that offers the truth. They get things wrong on occasion... they're human, but by and large their content is their sincere effort at pure truth, not an act, and they have broken many very important stories there.

In regards to the angry rants, or the "style" of his performance, he has said over and over that "about 90%" of that is real, but he also deliberately lets himself go farther than he would in real life ...he takes off his filter for his audience because he is the symbol of popular anger at the miscarriage of justice and anger at the destruction of America. And if other people see someone getting angry about these things, it is a reminder that it is okay to get angry, and maybe it will shake people out of the trance that the NPR voice has settled them down into.

 
#14
I've listened to him off and on over the years and he's said many times before that people ask him if he's for real or if this is all an act. And his response is that he and his crew are doing their best to provide real journalism that offers the truth. They get things wrong on occasion... they're human, but by and large their content is their sincere effort at pure truth, not an act, and they have broken many very important stories there.
His testimony as evidence?

Link to the many very important stories they've broken over the years? You mean stories like 9/11 being an inside job and SH being a government-staged fake?

In regards to the angry rants, or the "style" of his performance, he has said over and over that "about 90%" of that is real, but he also deliberately lets himself go farther than he would in real life ...he takes off his filter for his audience because he is the symbol of popular anger at the miscarriage of justice and anger at the destruction of America. And if other people see someone getting angry about these things, it is a reminder that it is okay to get angry, and maybe it will shake people out of the trance that the NPR voice has settled them down into.
So he's a messiah of sorts? There's no good old fashioned greed at work here, just humanitarian efforts to bring the truth, an angry brand at that, to the people?
 
#18
I don't think this necessarily a logical fallacy?

Even the example they give could be answered without assuming guilt.
I think all of the "logical fallacies" have a legitimate role to play in an argument depending on the context. It seems nearly impossible to not use them. But you're right, I don't think it is on the official list anyway (if there is such a thing as an official list).
 
Last edited:
#19
Just to be clear, those were not actually loaded questions from my perspective, because they're loaded with common sense facts, such as 9/11 being an inside job. If you don't know that, there are only two possiblities, both of which make you a dumb:

A. You haven't looked into the issue, thus drawing a conclusion based on nothing = you're dumb.
B. You have looked into the issue and think that things such as a steel-frame building collapsing at free-fall speed (ie. no support resistance), symmetrically from the impossible faliure of one support column, is perfectly normal = you're dumb.

There are so many unanswered questions surrounding SH that to accept the story at face value makes you dumb.

There are many powerful not-so-good special interests relying on you remaining dumb. So try not to be so dumb if that's possible.
 
Last edited:
#20
If you don't know that, there are only two possiblities, both of which make you a dumb:

A. You haven't looked into the issue, thus drawing a conclusion based on nothing = you're dumb.
B. You have looked into the issue and think that things such as a steel-frame building collapsing at free-fall speed (ie. no support resistance), symmetrically from the impossible faliure of one support column, is perfectly normal = you're dumb.
Baloney. Double baloney.

I can't look into the issue and I'd wager you aren't qualified to look into it either. I'm not trained as a structural engineer or other relevant technical background. If I were, I would not have access to the evidence to do a thorough investigation. Finally, the sheer notion that a CT of this magnitude could be pulled off requires an innumerable number of moving parts.

So, while maybe (and I can't emphasize my lack of conviction in using the term 'maybe') you're right, I am not dumb for not a) looking into the supposed "issue" nor b) failing to understand the unbelievable complex nature of this structural event. It does make someone asserting such a position shockingly arrogant. I'll grant you that.
 
Top