Discover more from Lev's Lens
Dissecting Alex Jones 🐸
The importance of distinguishing potential tyranny from Russian propaganda.
Last Thursday, bigtime Putin propagandist Vladimir Soloviev interviewed Alex Jones in what was a predictable interweaving of common sense American values with appeasement to the Russian invasion of Ukraine based on complete lies.
Soloviev wasted no time in complementing Jones for his fight against globalism. He positioned Russia as a strong ally in this cause, echoing a sentiment held by many naive Westerners who assume that Putin has Russia's best interests at heart. Together, Jones and Soloviev wheeled in the heavy decomposing corpse of pro-Russia talking points: That of an alleged “promise” of no NATO expansion despite no such promise ever being ratified, Putin kicking out the big bad oligarchs, and of course how Russian society is pro-family and pro-God unlike the decadent West.
In reality, Russian society is a cesspool of banditism, abortion, and drug addiction, all of which is sustained by an inherited culture of collective Stockholm Syndrome towards their current “master”. While some poorer and civilizationally backwards cultures in the West are comparable to the same sorry state most Russians find themselves in, we have inherited a philosophically based system of power-checking institutions and a far more intuitive sense of liberty so as to reject the same kind of top-down rule.
Yet, precisely because most of us aren’t like the mentally enslaved Putinist Russians, it is important not to blindly trust in whatever those within the mainstream institutions claim is good for us. But dissecting the frog of conspiracies so as to pull out information vital to preserving our liberty is an arduous task given the frog’s proclivity for consuming garbage fed by people like Solaviev. So what is the alternative?
Unless we think every decision those heading our institutions are making is to our benefit, it behooves us to have watchdogs (or watchfrogs) that bark (or croak) at the slightest indication of potential tyranny. What’s lost on “I feel it in my heart” people like Jones, however, is the prospect of worldwide chaos and tyranny stemming from Russia rather than our faulty but comparatively manageable institutions in the US. Such is not surprising given that agents like Soloviev claim to oppose this draconian government overreach despite knowing the truth, while buttering Jones up with compliments.
Being able to extract any valuable warnings of potential government overreach all the while resisting Russia’s sphere of influence is possible as long as we keep our sense of judgment from descending into the bog of partisanship on either side. While especially difficult in such a divided time as now, overcoming this difficulty may be the whole point in terms of personal and collective growth.
The Enemy of my Enemy
Such anti-partisan growth is unfortunately not likely for figures like Alex Jones. Within the world of his show Infowars, it would not make any sense to bring on someone who was Pro Ukraine let alone agree with them as you’d get nothing other than risking the loss of subscribers. So conveniently, the narratives featured on Jones’ show play well with each other so as to present a reality where Russia cannot possibly be the bad guy in the world of a conspiratorial web where everything is not what it looks like and because that distinction goes to the power hungry “Globalist Elites”.
It's harder for those invested in conspiracies to imagine scenarios where Russia is actually the bad guy precisely because of this dialectic, but such is the partisan life. To be clear, the end goal of going against such tribalism has nothing to do with taking an equal amount from each side but to avoid supporting stupid and dangerous ideas from a lack of information. This is not information that one’s political brothers in arms can provide either; they'd be on the same boat as you when it comes to what they know. So within this “Information War”, a very convenient opportunity comes up for the Russian government to exploit through sweet talking and influencing the (quite literal) loudspeakers of society like Jones.
But in the case of Russia, the enemy of Alex Jones’ enemy is most certainly not his friend. Russia’s criminal system would be something right out of Jones’ worst New World Order nightmare and Vladimir Soloviev would be the first to acknowledge this in secret.
Soloviev had been an anti authoritarian figure who expressly warned against Russia invading Ukraine, and especially standing up against the the acquisition of Crimea before Russia invaded it in 2014, yet seemingly switched sides overnight in support of Putin at that point in exchange for great wealth. But if an uncorrupted Soloviev from another dimension would have spoken with Jones instead, there would have been enough presented about the Dystopia that is modern day Russia to fill a 24 hour broadcast. Highlights that any Globalist would-be tyrant can take notes from include smartphone conscriptions tied to social credit, unmitigated abuse from criminal friends of the government towards civilians, and the creation of a censorious government controlled internet.
This latter attempt at technocratic totalitarianism has been collaborated on with the Chinese government which at this point might as well be Russia’s defacto colonizer. So it's ironic that Jones praises Russia given his absolute hatred for Xi Jinping and Communist China which he claims owns the West instead.
To play Devil’s Advocate, one should dedicate a good amount of time towards uncovering the alleged political ties certain US politicians have to China. However, even without diving that deep, there have always been cases of government overreach that try inching towards the models of such authoritarian states.
That being said, no government (and especially a big government like that of the US) is perfect, so it's crucial to distinguish such criticism from the knee-jerk contrarianism seen against anything the current US government endorses.
Neo-pronouns and Power Creep
If we are to compare the technological power creep with its opposite, it would be Jones' own upbringing as described in Alex Lee Moyer’s eye opening documentary “Alex’s War”. Growing up amidst the raw grit and honor-centric ethos of Dallas, Texas, it's conceivable that this environment shaped Jones's burly narrative style in the media. Later, the transition of the Jones family to the vibrant, libertarian culture of Austin may illuminate the unorthodox creativity hidden beneath his rugged Texan facade.
While today’s helicopter parents would faint at the prospect of their kids exposed to the same levels of danger that the budding Jones found himself in, most seem to have less problems with the social media panopticon regulating what these kids are allowed to express. It goes back to the question of safety VS liberty where the illusion of the former can be used to justify removal of the latter, especially when motivated by appeals to emotion.
Such is the case with pronouns and “neo-pronouns” like Zir which some have adopted to denote a different gender identity. Despite having been the punchlines of many jokes to the point of staleness, misgendering through using non-preferred pronouns has in part warranted the US Department of Education to launch a probe into conservative activist Chris Rufo. This occurred after Florida Governor Ron Desantis hired Rufo to take over the State school “New College of Florida” in order to get rid of its DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies in his “War on Wokeness”. And to be clear, there were other complaints beyond misgendering including Rufo allegedly calling New College students “mentally ill” as well as the act of disbanding of DEI education in the college itself.
But the larger question has to do with whether respect for another person’s self described identity and the promotion of such identities to children through our tax funded institutions should be mandated by the federal government? In the case of dissent from states like Florida, we can see an attempted clampdown by appeals to Washington. While this recent Rufo case is unrelated to Jones personally, the weaponization of language has been an often recurring theme both within Infowars and as the backbone of what made George Orwell’s 1984 so disturbing.
Of course, such instances pale in comparison to Russian pensioners being sent to seven years of prison for criticizing the invasion, or a teenager arrested for social media posts which “discredit the Russian army and justify terrorism”. Probably one of the saddest examples is that of human rights activist Sergei Mokhnatkin who died age 66 after getting his back broken by prison staff in his frigid penal colony which might as well be a Gulag. This was the last in a succession of political arrests which all started when he tried to help a female anti-government protester being beaten by two policemen.
Bigotry as the Great Filter
And we can only hope that our great institutions and separation of powers can save us from the same level of totalitarianism, which is otherwise very much possible in the US when those in positions of responsibility do nothing for fear of being branded transphobes, bigots, and the like.
In the case of Variety’s review of the aforementioned “Alex’s War” documentary, it was safer to speak in abstractions about the problems Alex points to:
“Who doesn’t feel at times, in this society, overly controlled — by technology, by the corporatization that rules the technology, by the government that works hand in glove with the corporations, by not one but two political parties that seem increasingly out-of-touch with the needs of average people?”
Not present are specific accusations against organized groups, fanatical ideologies, or certain powerful individuals as these carry political baggage. At the same time, associating such accusations with bigotry of the worst kind has been a convenient way to avoid addressing proposals that any sane freedom loving person would reject if found to be true.
One example of this within the article is when the author mentions the John Birch Society, a far right wing advocacy group that a young Alex Jones heard about through family connections as being a “club of anti-Communist, anti-Semitic late-’50s cranks”.
Writings from the society’s founder Robert W. Welch Jr. dispute the latter part of this claim:
"All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live."
But the assessment from Historian Matthew Dallek shows a greyer picture in his book “Birchers” presenting the society as what “propelled today's extremist takeover of the American right”. He writes of many racists and antisemites who were card-carrying members and sometimes leaders themselves. Despite this, the Birchers did try to expel some overtly antisemitic and racist members as well as made attempts to recruit non-whites. Yet the organization was so far to the right that we can expect enough fellow travelers would disagree with Mr. Welch’s anti bigotry statement. Examples of their extremist stance was an opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, The Equal Rights Amendment, views on abortion, and other such ultra right views.
Yet the greatest shame of all was that the Birchers’ assessments of communist subversion in the US by the Soviet Union had many elements of truth which the aforementioned associations with far right bigotry helped otherwise potentially sympathetic people to ignore. Soviet subversives were indeed manipulating African Americans with anti-American ideas, as black leftist radical Angela Davis was a frequent guest of honor within the USSR. Not to mention the communist presence within FDR’s cabinet or that most of the “cool kids” intelligentsia during the 30s and 40s were ardent Stalinists.
Regarding the Variety article yet again, there’s an apparent absence by the author of any negative associations towards Communism, preferring the previously mentioned “corporatization” as chief boogeyman without the least bit of criticism for an ideology under which untold millions have perished and which is viewed quite favorably in many Western universities unlike its rightfully derided bosom buddy ideology of Nazism.
The power creep into such an ideology has been one of the most frequent warnings that Jones had given (mixed in with Nazi totalitarian features to boot). And in regards to the John Birch Society, what struck Jones was the mentioning of “the one-world government, the cashless society, the plan to break up the family.”
Marxist gender theory speaks about breaking up the family and we’ve witnessed government creep that empowers such results. Such is the case of a recent bill passed by the The California State Assembly which would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s belief that they are transgender. Those parents not down with the program now have less power to stop those who can potentially brainwash their children into adopting something cherished by the dominant progressive ideology within the state. Beyond gender theory, the bigger message of such a victory is that government institutions are to be the arbiters of a child’s upbringing in contrast with the family.
As for the “Cashless Society”, the potential for danger with a lack of anonymity and an easier way to introduce Social Credit are the primary red flags. Sadly, these are left unaddressed by the former Governor of the central bank of Sweden in his assessment of the risks and benefits such a system would bring. As expected, China is ahead of the curve on going cashless and we can only guess at how much liberty their people will enjoy once the transition is complete.
The jury is still out on this “one world government”, but the tendency for such control of what you are allowed to think and what you are allowed to buy has been the trademark of every Communist dictatorship. That the author of this Variety article on Jones didn’t give a second thought to such matters is mildly disappointing, but what is more disappointing is that Jones cannot see Putin as being of the same KGB lineage that gave birth to the horrors of a dystopia he wants to avoid at all costs.
Another piece of the puzzle that prevents reasonable people from taking much of these warnings seriously has to do with attributing all such matters to being a coordinated conspiracy as this is a much more romantic view and good for keeping the audience coming back. A less romantic but more important way of looking at these things and being taken seriously has to do with ignoring the motives and concentrating on the end results.
If politicians and think tanks advocate for policies that result in anonymity and freedom of expression to be taken away, it should not matter in the least that it came as a result of well intentioned uncoordinated individuals. What matters is the kind of society we are left with when all is said and done.
Unfortunately, as with any organization that attracts both bigots and liberty lovers alike, it is to be expected that talking about international finance and world government gets linked up with antisemitism (and astonishingly, with supporting Putin’s Russia) that the only prospect of victory is installing an authoritarian dictator to remove our current institutions. In such cases, the over and under educated idiots on the right present just as much of a problem as those on the left.
When it comes to Alex Jones and Infowars, there appears to be the same “I’ll take what I can get” disposition in terms of the audience, much like the previously mentioned case of the John Birch Society. Jones himself has consistently preached an anti racist, anti Nazi civic unity, and professed as such through physical demonstrations by having loudspeaker protests against the KKK and building associations in the minds of his viewers with globalist elites and Nazi Eugenicists. Given John D. Rockefeller's support for the dreaded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, this is not far off in some cases.
But this holding on to classical liberal principles which Jones himself talks about being inspired to uphold through the examples of a creative and liberty loving Austin is at risk of being a historical throwback when the lines of tribal division reinforce the worst qualities on both sides.
Such is the example of far right catboy loving antisemite Nick Fuentes joining up with Jones during Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign and afterwards with Kanye West’s steady descent into “Net and Yoohoo” land.
Despite the differing views. Much like the seduction of money & power worked for Solovyev, perhaps being able to influence the zoomer market through connecting with Fuentes was on Jones’s mind in an alliance of the deplatformed.
This should not mean, however, that Jones does not bear responsibility for his associations. It's easy to make excuses for associating with people you’d keep a distance from in better times when the media squeezes all of you into the same straw man, but such are matches made in hell. Jones had realized as much himself and was quick to denounce Ye’s antisemitism as well as Fuentes’s “hitler fetish”, describing this temporary association as being “sucked into a giant publicity stunt”. But the problem goes beyond any one association and circles back to why Russian propagandists like Soloviev have an outsized influence on Jones and many other fringe dissidents.
Much like a dictator would be controlled in a large part by the will of the masses, another factor that should not be discounted is how much “taking what you can get” turns into “giving the people what they want” when the views start rolling in. Unlike a younger Jones reading Zimbegeu Brzezinski, most of his (or anyone’s) viewers don’t have the time or attention to look up primary sources and compare what he says to contrary opinions. At this point it becomes too convenient to be influenced by those who reinforce what your audience wants to hear and you are stuck in a self referential loop of ignorance.
This is not dissimilar from the situation Vladimir Putin finds himself in today, where all the propaganda was made for satisfying him first and foremost. Adding to this Putin’s inner circle of brown-nosers and there is very little chance of contradictory information slipping by.
Beyond Jones and Putin, such is the case with Elon Musk and Donald Trump as well. When your biases can be reinforced by bad actors while you’d ignore or intentionally distance yourself from anyone who disagrees with said biases (or fire in the case of Trump), this becomes a dangerous situation on a geopolitical scale. For example, most recently Musk admitted to withholding Starlink access that would have helped Ukraine destroy the ships which later ended up firing on them. Why should he not appreciate those who praise him for “preventing Nuclear War” and ignore those castigating him for not helping fight the invader?
Escaping the Dialectic
Much like a World Economic Forum acolyte will face no social repercussions for advising us to “live in the pod and eat the bugs” in the name of Climate Justice, dissidents against our current system like Jones will get no flack for swallowing Kremlin talking points.
Fueled by their mutual antagonism, those within the system cling to its every word that much more and associate any dissent from the social ideologies promoted by this system as a personal affront. At the same time, those against the system have fewer lifelines to reason having been excluded from polite society. Most of those belonging to neither camp are too concerned for their reputation to speak out against both, as they would not want to be seen as antagonistic to their social group.
Alex Jones himself provides an answer to this conundrum in what was one of the most popular episodes of the Joe Rogan Experience ever made: Episode #911. Speaking with Rogan and Eddie Brave, Jones gets very metaphysical when speaking about higher and lower dimensions, predictive Artificial Intelligence, and free will.
While there is probably a lot for physicists, metaphysicians, and AI programmers alike to tear apart in his “Big Enchilada” explanation of reality, the underlying message of human transcendence through inner change is a recurring call to action throughout our history.
The Emphasis on life being a “human test about building us up” is especially important for people to break the false impression of life as short and meaningless, to be lived only for pleasure and power. But an important part of this building up that is yet to be emphasized has to do with transcending the dialectical tribalism that dooms us to being influenced for someone else’s power gain or wanting to get power for ourselves. By rising above the popular currents, we can better see which leads to destruction and which to salvation. Doing so won’t make us popular like Alex Jones or fit in with the wine sipping Davos crowd, but such things are transient when compared to what Jones himself emphasized as a higher purpose to life.
To do otherwise when we’re aware of the serious deceptions within our political circles is to sell our soul for temporary partisan success. If this really is a human test, then we get an F by being hypocrites or choosing to remain ignorant, followed by detention or getting left back. On the other hand, if we take the time to hear out opposing sides and understand the ramifications of whatever we support, graduating to a higher level may not be that far off.