• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Alex Jones

Sweeping aside the jokes and memes and looking at what he meant, it's just possible that he might be proven right.
Given that multiple governments worldwide are adopting a policy that will discourage farming, at some point food will become a more scarce commodity. This, coupled with the lack of strong policing, will bring about a Mad Max future.
The only question I can think of is... why? None of us voted for that.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Sweeping aside the jokes and memes and looking at what he meant, it's just possible that he might be proven right.
Given that multiple governments worldwide are adopting a policy that will discourage farming, at some point food will become a more scarce commodity. This, coupled with the lack of strong policing, will bring about a Mad Max future.
The only question I can think of is... why? None of us voted for that.
Click to expand...
There's an old saying, 'if voting worked, we wouldn't have the vote' or something very similar.
 
Mythopoeika said:
...The only question I can think of is... why? None of us voted for that.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn’t vote for a cartoonised crisis made up by grifters who wish to mask the fact that the one thing they genuinely really fear are their revenue streams being disrupted, who apparently cannot believe that anyone would have the audacity to suggest that they are responsible for their words and actions, who believe it is their God given right as individuals to make multimillions out of the anxieties of others by exaggerating and manipulating concerns and issues which are very often legitimate at core, but which they don't have the sand or nous to actually debate in any way which might be described as intelligent, and mask the fact by shouting sweatily at video cameras while claiming that anyone who doesn't swallow their shit whole is either a lizard or a paedophile.

And by the way, I doubt there's a single point since man fell out of the trees when 10 days without food would not entail the eradication of the human race.

And he should complain. A man who made a fortune selling supplements!
 
Last edited:
Mythopoeika said:
Sweeping aside the jokes and memes and looking at what he meant, it's just possible that he might be proven right.
Given that multiple governments worldwide are adopting a policy that will discourage farming, at some point food will become a more scarce commodity. This, coupled with the lack of strong policing, will bring about a Mad Max future.
The only question I can think of is... why? None of us voted for that.
Click to expand...

The US and probably other nations, possibly here are pursuing policies that discourage self-reliance (I believe it's even illegal to collect rainwater in some states, whether this is actually enforced I don't know) to empower and enrich large companies, the wealthy and themselves, good old-fashioned greed. There's the added bonus that an enfeebled and dependent populace is easier to control.

Douglas Rushkoff's experiences are worth reading. I don't think there is any planned "great reset" or any such thing, I think the wheels could fall off civilisation at any point, we live in an efficient rather than robust world that is horribly complex, complicated and interconnected. At some point, house prices are going to crash, property is already obscenely overvalued, when that happens, billions, possibly trillions of equity will be lost. Which may well cause panic and chaos, many of the wealthy have been planning getaways since at least the last economic crisis - billionaire, militarised bunkers in NZ, Southern Argentina, Hawaii etc

Human greed, stupidity, selfishness and inability to manage too much complexity for too long aren't sexy, scary subjects like a "satanic" elite plotting the demise of the general population.

What I've said doesn't even take into account climate change, environmental degradation, mass species die off or one off catastrophies like a Carrington event.
 
The thing about these characters and all pontificating public figures is if you imagine them talking in nothing but their underpants, their arguments and pontifications strangely hold less weight.
 
Analogue Boy said:
The thing about these characters and all pontificating public figures is if you imagine them talking in nothing but their underpants, their arguments and pontifications strangely hold less weight.
Click to expand...
And add Benny Hill music in the back ground.


Then shrink them down in size with high pitch voices.
 
Analogue Boy said:
The thing about these characters and all pontificating public figures is if you imagine them talking in nothing but their underpants, their arguments and pontifications strangely hold less weight.
Click to expand...

Placing the image of Alxex Jones in his underwear is in the minds of others is banned under the Geneva Convention.

Also, you really don't need to imagine him like that to discredit him...
 
New Alex Jones documentary

Out today in USA on HBO, UK date to be announced. He gets permission from the judge to film the Texas trial

The film-maker, Dan Reed, spent four years following two sets of parents who turned to the one place where most Americans still believe they might find truth – the courts. By the end of this fascinating and powerful documentary, the real Alex Jones is laid bare. A grifter who knows it’s all made up is left snivelling to the bereaved parents he has spent years torturing that he didn’t mean it, only to return to his monstrous ways when he is back behind the microphone.

“Alex is bright and cunning. He knows that what he’s saying is a tissue of lies. He has an onstage persona which conveys the intense belief in the lies that he tells. He’s making money. You can almost hear the cash register,”
Click to expand...
 

Alex Jones agrees to liquidate his assets to pay Sandy Hook families, in move that would end his ownership of Infowars​


https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/media/alex-jones-assets-sandy-hook/index.html

Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Thursday moved to liquidate his personal assets, agreeing to demands from the families of Sandy Hook victims whom he owes more than $1.5 billion in damages over his lies about the 2012 school massacre.

The seismic move paves the way for a future in which Jones no longer owns Infowars, the influential conspiracy empire he founded in the late 1990s. Over the years, Jones has not only used the media company to poison the public discourse with vile lies and conspiracy theories, but also to enrich himself to the tune of millions of dollars.

Prior to Thursday, Jones had resisted converting his personal bankruptcy into a Chapter 7 liquidation. But facing mounting legal pressure, he reversed course and caved to the demands of the Sandy Hook families, who have still not seen a penny from Jones since juries in Connecticut and Texas found him liable in 2022 for defamation and emotional distress. His lawyers said in a filing that there was “no reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization” and that continuing down the path would only result in additional expenses incurred by Jones.

The legal maneuver ultimately “means [Jones’] ownership in Free Speech Systems is going to get sold,” Avi Moshenberg, an attorney who represents some of the Sandy Hook families, told CNN on Thursday night, referencing the parent company of Infowars.

“Converting the case to Chapter 7 will hasten the end of these bankruptcies and facilitate the liquidation of Jones’s assets, which is the same reason we have moved to convert his company’s case to Chapter 7,” Chris Mattei, another attorney representing Sandy Hook families, told CNN.
 
I must say the line "Jones has not only used the media company to poison the public discourse with vile lies and conspiracy theories,, but also to enrich himself to the tune of millions of dollars." is not one I was expecting in a CNN article. Very emotive.
 
This is surprising.

I heard in a video elsewhere that there was an offer being discussed whereby his legal liabilities could be rolled into an agreement for his creditors to received 50% of his future profits (not revenue—profits).

It struck me that this was bizarre given that those he libelled would thus profit in proportion to the financial success of his future programming.

If I were Jones and that were offered, I would have signed in a heartbeat.

Was this erroneous reporting?
 
Yithian said:
This is surprising.

I heard in a video elsewhere that there was an offer being discussed whereby his legal liabilities could be rolled into an agreement for his creditors to received 50% of his future profits (not revenue—profits).

It struck me that this was bizarre given that those he libelled would thus profit in proportion to the financial success of his future programming.

If I were Jones and that were offered, I would have signed in a heartbeat.

Was this erroneous reporting?
Click to expand...

To me, such an offer would be highly unlikely.

Suddenly, it's become all about money.

Jones doesn't have enough money to honour his obligations, even if he did continue with his 'business'.
 
Yithian said:
This is surprising.

I heard in a video elsewhere that there was an offer being discussed whereby his legal liabilities could be rolled into an agreement for his creditors to received 50% of his future profits (not revenue—profits).

It struck me that this was bizarre given that those he libelled would thus profit in proportion to the financial success of his future programming.

If I were Jones and that were offered, I would have signed in a heartbeat.

Was this erroneous reporting?
Click to expand...
I'd want to see the source of that reporting, as to my knowledge the families have always been firm in their desire to see that Alex Jones can have no more audience or income than what he can get standing on a street corner.
 
kamalktk said:
I'd want to see the source of that reporting, as to my knowledge the families have always been firm in their desire to see that Alex Jones can have no more audience or income than what he can get standing on a street corner.
Click to expand...

It just occurred to me that I heard it here (video starts at the point in question):


I think I was still half-asleep and had to rewatch it to recall the detail.

This seems likely to be the source:

Sandy Hook families who won nearly $1.5 billion in legal judgments against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for calling the 2012 Connecticut school shooting a hoax have offered to settle that debt for only pennies on the dollar — at least $85 million over 10 years.

The offer was made in Jones’ personal bankruptcy case in Houston last week. In a legal filing, lawyers for the families said they believed the proposal was a viable way to help resolve the bankruptcy reorganization cases of both Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems.

But in the sharply worded document, the attorneys continued to accuse the Infowars host of failing to curb his personal spending and “extravagant lifestyle,” failing to preserve the value of his holdings, refusing to sell assets and failing to produce certain financial documents.

“Jones has failed in every way to serve as the fiduciary mandated by the Bankruptcy Code in exchange for the breathing spell he has enjoyed for almost a year. His time is up,” lawyers for the Sandy Hook families wrote.

The families’ lawyers offered Jones two options: either liquidate his estate and give the proceeds to creditors, or pay them at least $8.5 million a year for 10 years — plus 50% of any income over $9 million per year.

FULL ARTICLE:
https://apnews.com/article/alex-jon...ing-infowars-4d3323728cf2d5f8da36ae0d2fd3994a
 
Mythopoeika said:
...Suddenly, it's become all about money...
Click to expand...

No, not suddenly at all.

It was always about money - the money that Jones made from peddling lies about the innocent and the bereaved, the fact that he shouldn't have been making that money in that way, and the effort to redress the balance by redistributing that money to those who were the subject of the lies he used to make it.

He was sued. For defamation. It was always about the money*.

*Which should not be taken to imply any criticism of the plaintiffs, or questioning of their motives. They used the recourses available - and good on them.
 
Last edited:
Spookdaddy said:
No, not suddenly at all.

It was always about money - the money that Jones made from peddling lies about the innocent and the bereaved, the fact that he shouldn't have been making that money in that way, and the effort to redress the balance by redistributing that money to those who were the subject of the lies he used to make it.

He was sued. For defamation. It was always about the money*.

*Which should not be taken to imply any criticism of the plaintiffs, or questioning of their motives. They used the recourses available - and good on them.
Click to expand...
I thought they were just trying to shut him down. The money side of things I thought was incidental.
But if the plaintiffs do want him to carry on so they can get their compo money, then yes, it must have all been about the money.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I thought they were just trying to shut him down. The money side of things I thought was incidental...
Click to expand...

In practical legal terms I'm pretty sure that the only recourse available to the plaintiffs was to go for the money. And, personally - given what they've been put through - I have no problem at all with them actively pursuing actual real world financial redress. Some might see a conflict between the moral and the financial aspects, but I definitely do not - a thing can be more than one thing at the same time without one aspect cancelling out the other.

It may also be that it will be harder for Jones to hide money while he's actually making it than it is for the courts to pursue his assets when they've already had a chance to be obfuscated.

Personally I actually think there's something poetic about Jones having to spend the rest of his life working while knowing that the bulk of every dollar his fat sweaty mouth earns him is going to go to the people he defamed - while at the same time constantly having to manoeuvre himself away from situations where the same thing might happen again.

If Dante was writing his Divine Comedy today, this might describe something like the level of hell he would assign to people who use the internet to propagate such evil. It would be pretty well populated section of the Inferno, I reckon.

That said, I'm still not sure the plaintiffs will see much of the money they have a legal right to.
 
Spookdaddy said:
In practical legal terms I'm pretty sure that the only recourse available to the plaintiffs was to go for the money. And, personally - given what they've been put through - I have no problem at all with them actively pursuing actual real world financial redress. Some might see a conflict between the moral and the financial aspects, but I definitely do not - a thing can be more than one thing at the same time without one aspect cancelling out the other.

It may also be that it will be harder for Jones to hide money while he's actually making it than it is for the courts to pursue his assets when they've already had a chance to be obfuscated.

Personally I actually think there's something poetic about Jones having to spend the rest of his life working while knowing that the bulk of every dollar his fat sweaty mouth earns him is going to go to the people he defamed - while at the same time constantly having to manoeuvre himself away from situations where the same thing might happen again.

If Dante was writing his Divine Comedy today, this might describe something like the level of hell he would assign to people who use the internet to propagate such evil. It would be pretty well populated section of the Inferno, I reckon.

That said, I'm still not sure the plaintiffs will see much of the money they have a legal right to.
Click to expand...
In the UK it is a criminal offence to hide assets when bankrupt and people have been jailed for this. Is it not about time this character was put away for a long period? May not be the same elsewhere though.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I thought they were just trying to shut him down. The money side of things I thought was incidental.
But if the plaintiffs do want him to carry on so they can get their compo money, then yes, it must have all been about the money.
Click to expand...
$1 500 000 000 is an incredible sum of money to win in a liable case.

I can't stand Alex Jones one bit and it was right that he lost the case. I can't help but think that this is also about acting as a deterrent for anyone wanting to question what happened or took place with any other situation.
 
The Sandy Hook parents had to endure 10 years of suspicion/abuse/death threats etc after having their children murdered, as a direct result of Jones’ malicious invented paranoid blathering whilst he was raking in vast amounts of money. I don’t have any sympathy for him.

Nothing wrong with questioning things but Jones went way beyond.
 
PeteS said:
In the UK it is a criminal offence to hide assets when bankrupt and people have been jailed for this. Is it not about time this character was put away for a long period? May not be the same elsewhere though.
Click to expand...
No, it's the same in the US. I'm not sure if it's illegal per se, but bankruptcy judges are not exactly fans of people hiding money from them.
 
hunck said:
The Sandy Hook parents had to endure 10 years of suspicion/abuse/death threats etc after having their children murdered, as a direct result of Jones’ malicious invented paranoid blathering whilst he was raking in vast amounts of money. I don’t have any sympathy for him.

Nothing wrong with questioning things but Jones went way beyond.
Click to expand...
I have no sympathy for him either and I couldn't care less about him being made penniless. It's the vast amount of damages I'm questioning. $1 500 000 000 is a ridiculous sum of money.
 
Heckler said:
Oddly it took me a few seconds as well before I realised the thread wasn't about the Welsh pre-pubescent mop headed soprano.
Click to expand...
My first association was this Alex Jones! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(Welsh_presenter)

1717874949306.png
 
kesavaross said:
I have no sympathy for him either and I couldn't care less about him being made penniless. It's the vast amount of damages I'm questioning. $1 500 000 000 is a ridiculous sum of money.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I think this is a starting point to be haggled over by lawyers on appeal etc.
 
kesavaross said:
I have no sympathy for him either and I couldn't care less about him being made penniless. It's the vast amount of damages I'm questioning. $1 500 000 000 is a ridiculous sum of money.
Click to expand...
Not arguing with you, but how can you put a price on, not only the pain of losing a child, but being accused of lying about it for a decade? There is no money enough to cover that :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top