Car Crash TV: Piers Morgan Versus Alex Jones

CNN’s ratings have been truly terrible in the last few years, so recently parent company Time Warner decided to make NBC reject Jeff Zucker the new head of the network, presumably to bring back the crowds. Whether or not it was Zucker who decided that the answer to the network’s boring programming was to invite Texas radio host Alex Jones onto Piers Morgan’s evening show I don’t know, but it certainly made for some compelling viewing. Who do you think came off worst?


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

93 Comments on "Car Crash TV: Piers Morgan Versus Alex Jones"

  1. I’d say the raving lunatic who can’t form a complete sentence probably came off worst, but that’s probably just because I’m a sane person who can form complete sentences.

    • So what facts and points did the sane person present? We all know the simple formula of talk shows, basic format. Mowed down before it started and owned the show, not my cuppa but, in retro spect it worked well. Murder suicide pills does need a bit of…re-branding? Facts on SSRI’s type drugs are extremely important! yrs ago i nearly jumped off a bridge, and never suicidal prior-Effexor.

  2. Codgitator | Jan 8, 2013 at 11:33 am |

    Piers was attempting to use examples that have historically insignificant probability as the basis for his whole argument and Jones wasn’t biting. So Despite how Jones came off, he used higher level reasoning to argue his position. Which could be properly summed up with the following quote(s):

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”- Benjamin Franklin

    “Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither” – Benjamin Franklin

    However it was really said I don’t know, all variants on the same idea.

    • Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm |

      I didn’t see any higher level reasoning or higher order thinking. Just gish galloping and non-sequiturs. Morgan’s use of facts (and they are facts, not just factoids) were his own biased brand twisted into logical fallacy: the population, demographics, culture, crime and history of UK and US are vastly different, as they are between Mexico, Germany or any other odious comparison. But rudely interrupting and responding to fallacies with more ranting fallacies does not a fact-checker make.

      • What fallacies do you believe Jones committed?

        • Alex starts off with some unproven assumptions that there is a secret, global government of unnamed individuals (I’ll guess that Bloomberg is one) with a plan to take the guns as Mao did.

          His comparison to India doesn’t make sense; he uses women petitioning a government that is lazy and ineffectual to make a comparison to countries that are all-powerfully overreaching and tyrannical. Comparing America to any other country is ridiculous, and Piers is wrong to do so. But Alex does the same (including UK) and expects it to be taken as gospel. We have WAY more guns than any other country, our populations are different, our culture, history, laws… Both sides could pick out some examples of a country’s crime and gun ownership rates and laws to support their own side… these comparisons are odious. In fact, Alex goes back and forth between India, UK and America to make his point, conceding that we do have more gun deaths per capita.

          Gun advocates love to point out that correlation does not equal causation when gun control advocates cite numbers, but are guilty of the same when claiming that “more guns equals less crime”; this is not a sufficiently proven conclusion from falling crime rates, which could have other contributing factors (or they could both be results of a larger set of factors). In fact, here Alex is trying to suppress other correlatives to make his own stronger or the only factor. It is not lucid to take the non-regulated outcomes of random occurrences as statistical evidence while ignoring so many unknowns.

          I’m not sure, but it seems that Alex is implying that tyrants raped the girl in India to death, but also tries to argue that governments “can’t take away the iron rods.” He’s right, of course, Stalin didn’t take away the iron rods. But this point is muddled, if a tyrant takes away the guns, then women can still get raped with iron rods. But women get raped with iron rods now. What does this have to do with guns and tyrants? India is not a dictatorship, and to my knowledge the gang rapists were not dictators.

          Additionally, appealing to historical examples can be informative, but is not in of itself a complete argument, as other historical decision makers had their own perspectives, motives and information that we cannot impose on figures today be default.

          Alex tells Piers to “come to America” (he is in America) and implies that “going shooting” helps someone “become an American” (not a prerequisite for citizenship)

          Alex then employs ‘guilt by association’ by asserting that Prozac and other drugs are sponsors of the show. This could actually be a serious criticism of the show’s objectivity or interests, but Alex doesn’t provide evidence or mechanisms for this, he just puts it out there instead of finishing his thought about the problem of prescription drugs to children (a point I would agree with, and he should have calmly made those points clearer instead of ranting). Alex ‘appeals to motive’ by saying that Piers Morgan trying to talk and get the conversation back is ‘evidence of the conspiracy.’ He extrapolates a lot of of loaded questions that presuppose notions that have not been proven or accepted, which I would posit is an example of his tendency to the ‘mind projection fallacy’, defining notions on his own terms, presupposing the world works the way his paranoid worldview sees it.

          Alex diverts from any questions or points with false analogies (or at least incomplete or inconsistent comparisons), and uses multiple, inconsistent arguments to defend his position, also known as ‘kettle logic.’ People dying of infections is not the subject of the debate,

          These other red herrings, some of them ad hominem attacks, do not supply additional information or evidence for his argument. Even potentially valid arguments are not connected or presented in any way as addressing the questions, resulting in what looks like irrelevant conclusions.

          Dismissing the numbers as being ‘Perry Mason tactics’ or ‘factoids’ (like… um, facts?) is not valid either. One has to either dispel the numbers (Morgan is, in fact, wrong in the numbers he cites), or accept them but argue why they are not germane or causative. Alex does sort of do the latter, but only after his special pleading that ‘factoids’ somehow don’t apply in a debate (Alex provides plenty of his own ‘factoids’).

          His overall tactic is not evidence-based, using what is called ‘shotgun argumentation’, ‘gish-gallop’ or ‘proof by verbiosity’ to drown out his opponent rather than address him. This tactic does not equate to truth.

          It is not demonstrably true that hoards of people are burning down UK cities every day.

          I was glad to see Alex question Piers’ journalistic integrity over the hacking scandal (so few do), but it was not relevant to the situation, it was pulled out as a cheap ad hominem attack, and it once again does not affect any questions of the gun debate. It isn’t even relevant to Piers’ thoughts on gun control; it is possible that he could be a horribly unethical reporter, but also happen to be right about guns.

          It is a false dilemma to assume that because someone does not agree with your position, he must want to take *all* the guns. In fact, it is a straw man argument to imply that Piers Morgan is an advocate for a totalitarian dictatorship or wants to take all of the guns away (this could also be a form of slippery slope argument, depending on how much agency he is granting Piers in the conspiracy, he calls him a ‘hatchet man’ so I’ll assume he thinks he is pretty complicit).

          Alex distracts from the discussion by falsely presupposing vague and negative motives and consequences to the very specific proposals Piers made.

          His entire rant (and possibly his philosophy) is an appeal to emotion: fear, paranoia, and in this particular case, ridicule of Piers. By ascribing every motive or complex problem to the New World Order, Alex is committing the ‘fallacy of the single clause.’ By threatening to fight him, he is committing ‘argumentum ad baculum.’

          Alex missed an opportunity to respond to Piers’ examples with VT Tech, where the weapons were handguns. Or other killers who have used knives. He could have asked Piers what the percentage was for use of ‘assault weapons’ in mass killings (these numbers are not readily available, to my knowledge), and pointed out that we just don’t know. He could have mentioned that each individual case is anecdotal, and thus not necessarily the basis for policy.

          I feel it necessary to add that I don’t agree with Piers Morgan either. On any given day, he is full of fallacies (including the few words he got in here). But Alex is full of logical and rhetorical tricks, most often used to fool himself.

  3. Jones came across as a lunatic, regrettably. Morgan came across as a whiny, pathetic pussy yet again. He refused to respond to Jones comments on anti-psycs, historical evidence of false flag terrorism, 9/11 evidence as well as statistical evidence from the FBI. One of the producers at CNN broke down in tears and had to leave the set after the 2nd statement. They were shocked Jones would not stick to the script. I wish he would have made his points in a more intelligible way but hopefully this gives gun grabbers a good idea of who they would be up against in a gun confiscation scheme.

    • Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:32 pm |

      I don’t know if he ‘refused to respond’ so much as struggled to get a word in edgewise. He did seem visibly annoyed, but that had probably less to do with any script than with the ad hominem attacks and mockery.

  4. Alex goes into an emotional rampage again while Piers stays cool. Ive been listening to Alex’s show for 10 yrs and his verbal bullying like this is why people I try to turn onto him shun him. Fear and anger is the most empowering weapon the elite has over the people and you are being that weapon! With Alex’s surge in popularity it seems hes becoming over the top and Im beginning to see why people are saying he may be working for “Them”. Alex, if the information and data you have is correct and you are not overdramatizing, it will speak for itself. Sadly, you present yourself more of a daytime talk show guest and that is a disservice to the message you are trying to present. If you would have presented yourself more like you do on Coast to Coast I think you would have come off better.

    • IokSotot | Jan 8, 2013 at 1:18 pm |

      You’re right Jim.
      Alex, I support what you say 100% but the demographics you haven’t reached reached yet are programmed to shut down and disregard the substance of the message when you shout debating opponents down like you did here. It would have been better to let Morganshill open his mouth a few times. It’s pandering to the to skittishness the sheeple, sure. But you want to wake them up don’t you?

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm |

      I agree that AJ is his own worst enemy because of his manner, which is why I stopped watching him, but I thought he was brilliant in this case.

      Stupid Americans think British accents make people sound smarter. AJ capitilized on this by mimicking him (to an hilarious end, imo). Also, he takes his opportunities when he gets a national audience time to throw out as much info as possible for people because other components of his platform rarely get any mention on MSM.

      In contrast to your statement, when AJ was on daytime television (The View), he did not go off to the same degree, though he did use the opportunity to promote his platform.

      • What I meant by daytime talk show is the likes of Springer, Maury and such where its more emotional arguing and name calling. When he started mocking he started hurting himself. IMO.

        • Kevin Leonard | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:04 pm |

          Ah. Well, I can see how you might make that comparison, though I disagree with it.

          But you are right that on Piers’ own show, mocking him probably wasn’t the best way to get a point across.

      • I would have argued your point, thinking he should not have been so..well you know. I later realized a good move, why play the same old, same old. The format layed down is to limit information and control you guest, that ship sunk fast! ha

    • Piers talking points are nothing but lies designed to dupe simpletons. Forgive me I didn’t fact check the below attachment, the math is incorrect, I’m seeing more and more examples of this type of disinfo sailing around the web and in my early/morning/late night stupor I didn’t check the figures. Here is a proper refutation of the illogical nature of piers argument.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm |

      “seems hes becoming over the top”

      better late then never

    • I have been listening to Alex for about that long as well, but I have decided that he must be working for “them” and I will tell you why. If you look up “Alex Jones provocateur” YouTube you will find a video of Catherine Bleisch from Missouri. She is in Austin in the video I believe and has organized a protest. Suddenly Alex shows up… Well, watch the video it speaks volumes.

      Also, let’s look at other, similar characters.

      Aaron Russo was friends with a Rockefeller until what he heard turned him off and eventually led him to release America Freedom to Fascism about the tax code with no authorizing legislation. Aaron died suddenly from cancer. Jack Ruby died that way too, right after he talked to a Supreme about telling what he knew. Now we know a killing can easily be made to appear as sudden death by cancer just as sometimes it can be made to look like a heart attack, if you know what you are doing. Bill Hicks, died suddenly of cancer as well.

      Then there is the case of William Cooper and his being gunned downed by County Law Officers on his front yard. Of course this side say this, and that side says that, and it is true that he expected to be killed, but for the purposes of our discussion he is dead all the same.

      Alex on the other hand is doing well, his radio broadcasts are never interfered with – though his website has gone down a couple times, he has said – his advertising money has never been better, and it looks like he is even steadily gaining weight. However, he will not discuss religion at all and the oil companies only when an oil rig in this country blows up. If you take his advice and look up the stories he reports you will find leading headlines, spin, and Olympic long jump conclusions jumped to. Wanna see what it is supposed to look like? Try the investigations or books of Greg Palast. If he cannot prove it, he does not say it. Or try the activism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who went to jail for a time for obstructing the mining trucks in Appalachia. Or try the last thread started by the Site Owner at No spin just the facts. This is what we need, not some ranting, maniacal, fear mongering, Spin Doctor.

      At best Alex is an entertainer in the same way Jesse Ventura is an entertainer, except Jesse has never made any qualms about it and I have a lot of respect for him because of that fact. At worst Alex is a pressure relief valve working for those he is allegedly exposing. Think about it… if you know what is coming, especially those who are paying attention, then the shock, and therefore the reaction is diminished – less people lock and load. In the Seventies they infiltrated both right and left wing Activists/Radicals, depending on your viewpoint.

      Why wouldn’t they continue such a successful disarming tactic with such a positive track record? We saw through Glen Beck when he was applying Vick’s Vaporub to his eyes before he went on camera to cry, and most of us will have no trouble believing that Glen is a tool of the media. Then why wouldn’t it be just as possibly that AJ is a different tool owned by the same mechanic? Especially after we consider the film with Catherine Bleisch who’s very inspiration was Alex Jones. When we add the fact that Glen has, in the past, actually started covering some of the same stories that Alex had been working for a while, simply because the story had become too well known for Glen to ignore, we start to see the possibility that they are both part of the very same Spin Machine.

      Alex Jones, Glen Beck, David Ickes Bill O’Rielly, Sean Hannity = Entertainers

      My problem is their representing themselves as anything else. The Catholics have Mortal and Venial sins, but the Kabala teaches that honesty has no quantity. A small wrong is the same as a large one, it is the intention that must be pure. The Buddhists teach a similar thing. I Cannot side with the Catholics on this one.

      • Personally I have a hard time watching him, not my type of personality. But, the truths/facts in your post would not be known to myself if not for “the big guy” I found others with same basic info and cool heads-Corbett Report, for instance.
        So even if he turned entertainer, he draws them in for a quick overview of where, whats, hows. Numbers no longer handfull, but a stong following AND how many drop off keeping up same lines and/or things to think about & keep tabs on-going back in time, majority of all his stuff, rantings of a madman, are now commonplace headlines. or, just are.

      • Personally I have a hard time watching him, not my type of personality. But, the truths/facts in your post would not be known to myself if not for “the big guy” I found others with same basic info and cool heads-Corbett Report, for instance.
        So even if he turned entertainer, he draws them in for a quick overview of where, whats, hows. Numbers no longer handfull, but a stong following AND how many drop off keeping up same lines and/or things to think about & keep tabs on-going back in time, majority of all his stuff, rantings of a madman, are now commonplace headlines. or, just are.

        • Ittabena | Feb 7, 2013 at 3:57 am |

          All true, but if you are going to purport yourself to be a friend of the people you then have an obligation to tell the truth. Spinning it is just not acceptable.

          Also you should watch;

          And know that the woman he is confronting is Catherine Bleish who Alex actually inspired to become an activist.

          Now during the 70’s the Feds infiltrated all the major activist organizations. It worked out pretty well for them. Should we expect that they would not continue a successful tactic? If we reasonably make the assumption that they have worked on this technique to improve it’s effectiveness in the last forty years, it would not be too hard to imagine that they may have struck on the idea that it would be better to install a false leader, who indeed does not lead, but merely peddles fear and apprehension.

          Similarly by warning those who are actually paying attention of what is actually coming, the shock, when the event does occur, will be significantly less. Less chance of a mass lock and load, even though the faux leader is ranting as virulently as he can and stopping just short of saying lock and load.

          Alex does not seem to be suffering for revealing all of this in fact he has a pretty nice life going on. In fact he is steadily gaining wait. you never hear him talk about getting on your phone to your Congressman even though Congressman use a standard formula of counting every phone call as representative of 1300 dissatisfied voters. This could be a handy formula to use as a tool and for someone who is looking out for the best interest of the country, this seems like it would be a pretty hard tool to pass up.

          Similarly, try getting on the comments of a story and discuss intelligently the Councils of Nicaea and the following Ecumenical Councils – usually easy because sooner or later a fundamentalist shows up and ascribes whatever it is to the devil and starts issuing bus passes to hell for all non-believers – and I’ll bet your comment gets cut rather quickly. By the next day it won’t be there. Why? Well Alex does not want to alienate a large part of his audience. Nevermind the truth in this case, revenue rules on this topic.

          Maybe Alex is none of these things. Maybe he is just a guy with anger issues and shitty stage presence trying to help us all. But to me something is fishy.

  5. Someone on the inside of CNN wants to bring more attention to the fact that Americans who cherish their liberties are becoming increasingly more unreasonable, even within ‘civilized’ discussions. It’s either to discredit or mobilize. What do you think?

  6. Poor Piers…he probably thought he was just inviting a lively debator. LOL!!! Silly bugger was too British and too polite to pull a Hannity or an O’ Reilly and scream “SHUT THE F*CK UP AND WAIT YOUR TURN YOU SAD FAT F*CK!” Piers obviously hasn’t studied right wing debate technique…the winner is the one screams the loudest while proclaiming themselves as the victim.

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 8, 2013 at 1:33 pm |

      Like Piers has never played that game… even Larry King criticized Piers for interrupting his guests too much.

      I think he knew exactly who he was inviting on the show and made a pompous and bogus attempt to appear more civilized in contrast to AJ’s predictable behaviour.

      • Agreed. Piers whored himself for the ratings. Alex whored himself for getting out the word. *disclaimer: I am not saying what Jones said is the truth*

        • Well what part exactly do you find untruthful? I find it interesting that so many people will attack Alex but either won’t or cant’ manage to refute what he is saying.

          • I believe he may believe it to be the truth. I honestly do not know the facts. I do not wish to refute Alex Jones. I experience his performance in this video as hilarious.

      • Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm |

        Both of them left this “debate” feeling superior to the other, but in different ways.

    • Well I think he knew he had zero chance of winning a debate so he used the same sad games and logical fallacies that all MSM talking head pundits present, as per their handlers demands.

      • Did you actually watch the interview? I mean that not sarcastically,
        but seriously. Jones delivers a few classic tropes between descents into
        froth and madness…displays a weak knowledge of history and quotes
        some erroneous data cherry picked for his point. The worst of his BS has
        already been listed above by others who watched closely and didn’t
        ignore the glaring errors because of partisanship. It was a train wreck
        of an interview.

        I support the right to own
        firearms…but I’d rather not have help from Alex Jones…who frankly
        lived up to every bad stereotype of ill informed, bombastic moody loners
        who collect weapons caches to feel ’empowered’. Shit…the man doesn’t
        know what the Union Jack is…he was so lost in hyperbole and trying to
        steamroll Morgan that he made himself a complete ass on national
        TV…and he wasn’t ‘duped into it’…thats pretty much the only way
        Jones has ever acted.

        I’m not sure if you saw any of his
        following broadcast after that interview, but Jones managed to imply
        (for the hundredth time) that he’d tweaked the noses of the mighty and
        was only alive because he had witnesses handy to keep him from being
        murdered. He IS the archetypal schizo loner on the edge of losing it
        completely with a body count of innocent strangers as the price tag for
        his lunacy.

        Championing the reduction of government so that the
        power vacuum can be filled up by unchecked corporate power is not
        patriotism, or even sanity…it’s sucking the master’s d*ck. I know that
        doesn’t sound polite, but there’s not much else to call it. Freedom in a
        republic does not emerge from an empowered and entrenched few with
        great wealth and even greater influence unchecked by anyone or anything.
        The back handed result of the Jones school of thought is a weakening of
        citizen’s power over their nation…the very opposite of what he so
        loudly calls for at every opportunity.

        That having been said…I
        neither support the concept of total gun bans, nor the equally ludicrous
        idea of arming teachers and staff. We refuse to prioritize education
        for decades (except by passing unfunded mandates for tests,and doling
        out loot to privatization/religious schemes) and now suddenly the NRA
        wants funding of armed guards in every hall. Idiocy.

        I do support
        a return to assault weapon restrictions. I don’t need a CCW or an Uzi. I
        can walk a street in a questionable neighborhood unarmed without
        pissing my pants from fright…which is more than I can say for the
        emasculated herds of terrified losers flaming the conversation with
        their proclaimed need for military grade firepower in every home. We can
        close loopholes in registration and sales oversight and achieve FAR
        more effective removal of weapons from criminal hands than by banning
        handguns outright. Third party person to person or straw man sales are
        the big weak points in our current system. Let’s face it…the NRA only
        pushes for the status quo because its been a mouthpiece for sales
        lobbies for almost 40 years…not for responsible gun ownership. Lax
        sales oversight IS the leading method for criminals to acquire
        weapons…coming in ahead of even theft and robbery of weapons from the
        homes of others.The means are there to reduce access for criminals,
        without telling a citizen that they can’t buy a weapon. We have the
        ability to make these adjustments…and the NRA prevents them…because
        that reduces sales. It wasn’t so long ago that the NRA was forced to
        backed down on promoting the sale of teflon tipped bullets…which were
        being fired at police. Even then, in a clear cut case where crooks were
        the primary customer and cops were getting wounded…it took the
        complaints of traditional NRA allies to make a difference. This is how
        far removed from ethical standards the NRA really is.

        and Furious (however much its touted as an evil Obama scheme) was a
        Bush era leftover that was focused on tracking gun sales from the
        American SW (where straw man sales allowed gangs to buy guns here
        through a legal third party and then haul them home to Mexico…and the
        feds could do nothing but watch) instead of moving to stop
        them…because the Bush admin was concerned with not violating state’s
        rights regarding gun sales laws (mostly so as not to offend prickly
        conservative voters and the NRA). No one cheers that fact now. They
        tried to leave gun sales unchecked…and just track the weapons
        instead…to let the authorities in Mexico deal with it. Personally…I’d have gone another route and banned straw man sales altogether,
        but you’d think gun fans would have cheered the F&F program for not
        combating gun sales. In truth…the real problem is that the program
        collected accurate data on how many guns were being ‘legally’ purchased
        by gangs…and the NRA doesn’t like that kind of measurable data being
        collected. The difference between pre-F&F and post F&F…is that
        for the first time ever…we know where the guns came from…and where
        they wound up. That’s all. Mexican cartels would still be armed either
        way…and killing people either way, but we now have a window into where
        the weapons go, how fast, to whom, etc etc.

        What Jones has done is make the moderates among gun owners invisible and unheard.
        We’ve been reduced to being the allies of a clown. I’d actually suspect
        that he was a psy op for the eventual successful removal of gun
        rights…if I imagined he was clever enough to be capable of that level
        of duplicity. We can’t talk about reasonable limits or preventative
        restriction of access from people with criminal records or severe mental
        illness…because the conversation has been reduced to all or
        nothing…total ban vs. guns in every coat pocket. I do blame the media
        for playing that game…and Alex Jones is part of that media, part and

  7. BrianApocalypse | Jan 8, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

    This is Jones’ best rant since the one about the machine-elves working in cahoots with the Pentagon to build the Large Hadron Collider as an invasion portal into our universe!

    He does far more to harm his cause than any anti-gun advocate ever could, and his vaguely racist undertones just compound the matter further. For Christ’s sake stop with the ridiculous “red coat” jibes, this isn’t the fricking 18th century!

    He loves the 2nd amendment, but only supports the 1st when it suits him (say something I don’t agree with? I want you deported!). I think it’s only a matter of time before some gun-related tragedy occurs from a gun-crazed paranoid inspired by Jones’ nonsense. He and the culture he inspires could potentially end up being the catalyst to bring about the very things they fear.

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm |

      “We did it to bring attention to the fact…” – AJ

      He wasn’t serious. It was an attention-getting scheme, and it was an astounding success.

    • Personally, I’ll always consider his Justin “Biebler” rant to be the cream of the crop.

  8. It’s true: Alex will come off as nuts, and for all his value, sort of is. But am I the only one who doesn’t give a damn? I have the same issues with Jones as many here, but personally I’m happy to have him there, raving madly, shaking the walls of the far too comfortable with no quarter asked and none given. I don’t expect him to convince or charm anyone who has not looked into the issues he raises on his or her own, I like him as he is: the guy who is loud enough to wake up a lot of people and get them started, and damn the torpedoes. It’s like The Sex Pistols have arrived and people now get what punk rock is, but we’re still waiting for Joe Strummer and the boys to come in and push things farther, to show us what is now there only in potential–what punk rock can BECOME….. Don’t know if that’s clear. Opinions? Ideas?

    • Fucking right. He said a lot of shit on that short interview that I believe many Americans want to say, and in a very entertaining way. Fuck decency, fuck civility–THIS IS ABOUT TYRANNY!!!

      That’s why I said it seems that someone inside CNN planted him there. Why would you bring the #1 ‘conspiracy nut job’ on network television for a 10 minute interview (face off) with the guy he is petitioning to have deported, then hope he plans to stick to a script? lol! The CNN people knew what would happen. It was a plant, but I don’t know why.

      • Bingo. Let him shake that shit up. I marvel that people complain so much about Icke and Jones because they’re over the top. So what? I like them that way, and I don’t have to believe in inter-dimensional Reptilians to do so, or buy everything (on certain days, even half) of what Jones says to appreciate him and all the good he does. These guys are the rock stars of conspiracy theory and alternative research–let’s let them be rock stars, with all the excess that that implies! For the reasoned, sedate stuff, we have the Peter Dale Scotts, the David Ray Griffins, the Nafeez Ahmeds and so on. We don’t ask them to rant more or talk about off-world topics, do we? Meanwhile, go on David, give me something even weirder! Rave, Alex, rave! It’s all so much better than the numbed up, dumbed down infotainment that is being used to program us into robotic oblivion. Let the Weird run wild!

        As to CNN, yeah, good point, it’s prety strange no matter how you cut it. Can’t say I get it, either.

      • CNN let him on because, in this environment of independent news, they are starved for ratings… and they knew that Alex Jones would bring ratings in a debate.

        • Yeah, but the ratings argument seems a little too easy to me. It doesn’t answer any questions. Yes, every dick, bob and harry wants ratings when they have a viewership, but for what purpose? Is it just for the quick buck from the advertisers, or is something else involved here. I mean, they could have brought on Jon Stewart or Angelina Jolie or some other idiot for ratings on any other show on CNN. Why pit Morgan against his off-air sworn ideological enemy who’s trying to deport him? It pushes me to think that this was a provocative attempt by someone inside CNN to give the mainstream a fleeting glimpse at the ‘extremist’ element of America. Was it a half-hearted attempt to discredit, or was it someone on the inside that is trying to leak something through the ideological dam of the mass media?

      • citizen_watch | Jan 9, 2013 at 1:10 am |

        For me it seems simple enough. Those wanting to blow a hole in the 2nd ammendent want to protray those on the opposite side of the debate as nut jobs. They knew Alex would take the bait and he did full force. For those of us who read/watch alternative news, Alex can make sense (more for some than others) but for the majority of the population who are secluded to mainstream news only and won’t even consider the alternative, he will appear to be a raving lunatic. Expect to see more of the same as we go along. What’s that line in movie Platoon while they’re cleaning the shitters, “Politics, man, fucking politics”.

      • Not a plant, damage control and counting on most of the sheep to be distracted with football. Thankfully the internet is keeping this in the public eye. Anyway to get people to actually think about what is happening and wake up from their trances is forgivable. Building 7, I mean really, if people think they can sleep on 9/11 like this they are fooling themselves and dangerously ignorant of what the powers that shouldn’t be have in store.

    • Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm |

      Maybe. But ‘coming off as nuts’ or simply *loud* will only win over so many hearts and minds on th edges of ‘mainstream America’, and not the most rational ones. Putting out so many random theories at once is bound to turn people off more than not. Someone who may have been piqued because of a gun control conspiracy might have been turned off ten seconds later by a 9/11 truther reference, or anti-vaxxer scare, or who knows what else. Alex Jones hits upon some decent points, but he drowns them in his flood of “truth”, a truth that seems to change relative to his own uninhibited serotonin levels.

      • Who cares how he comes off when he is speaking the truth? Why must we pretend that the pc charade is worth two shits? We have been under an oppressive tyrannical government even before 9/11 but still many Americans are clueless and hypnotized. Honestly it’s time we stop kidding ourselves focusing on trivalities like how people appear to the masses, let’s make sure the masses know what is going on.

        • I’m sorry, but if you think Alex Jones’ theatrics are going to “wake people up” or “de-hypnotize” them, you’re only fooling yourself. How he comes off is crucial to winning minds. To mainstream America and in the court of public opinion, Alex Jones lost. The fact that everyone on Infowars is celebrating this as a victory goes to show how self-confirming their biases are.

  9. That British accent Jones did at the end had me in stitches. Bloody brilliant!

  10. citizen_watch | Jan 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm |

    It’s an emotional issue for many but if you want to make points in a debate/interview on national TV, score with cold facts while keeping your composure. Play it like you’re trying a case in court, as surely you are in a court of opinion. Boring or not, composure during debate is a sign of maturity and respect for those involved and for those listening. Lack of it will only bite you in the ass. As for Piers, a foreigner working in America, telling U.S. citizens how terrible their gun laws are, well, here’s a ticket Morgie, go back to the swamp you call home and kiss the royal feet of your highness. I know you want to.

  11. I’ve grown weary of so-called polite discourse in venues stacked in favor of the establishment. Seems to me that Alex knew the score and understood he would not be given a fair shake regardless of how polite he might have been. So he read the situation correctly and decided to use that limited time for a big long-term impression instead of a favorable short-term spin.

    • He certainly created a stir and got people talking about things.

    • Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:36 pm |

      But isn’t it possible that such an impression does him more harm than good? One can be firm and persistent and not a pushover, but still control the volume, be reasonable and not interrupt (so much), and explain why Piers Morgan’s arguments are facile, instead of ignoring them and distracting the debate with ‘dancing chimpanzees’, non-relevant points and juvenile mockery.

      • Well, I thought it was more cathartic than anything. There’s more at stake than civility and winning arguments on the terms of the establishment for some people.

        • But if you don’t play to win on the establishment’s terms, you might as well pick up the guns and torches now, because it’s not as though they’re going to let you change their terms legally.

          • Oh, I see. So their order or no order? Lol!

            That’s really an obsequious mentality that panders to authority without actually admitting it. Marx referred to that as false consciousness.

          • I agree. It’s time we stop pretending that these assholes give a shit about any of us. Jones was right to expose Piers. Let’s hear about the drugs related to killing, oh wait, can’t do that as it would offend the sponsors. Enough of the PC bullshit.

          • For the record, I wasn’t saying he should have been PC, or that he shouldn’t have mentioned Morgan’s unethical journalism practices, or the other statistics and related information to guns and shootings. But he could have been persistent, even loud and pushy, and still stayed on topic to make salient points. By reaching all over the place to string together points about 9/11 truth, sharks, the CIA… He comes off as a paranoid raving lunatic.

            Piers Morgan knew how Alex Jones would look. He got EXACTLY what he wanted (just maybe more than he bargained for).

          • I don’t think so. You can work both within and outside the system to affect change. But unless there is a full-blown revolution, then one has to acknowledge the reality of the establishment, even if we don’t respect or agree with its legitimacy. I suppose one could also just ignore it, but that wouldn’t really make change. Civil disobedience, direct action, speech, petition, protest, grassroots politics can all be utilized legally and orderly. I don’t want to have to be in an unruly mob in order to show everyone that my way is right and just.

            Also, civility and reasonable debate should not be conflated as establishment-only virtues. I don’t want to tear down a system and replace it with one bereft of civility and reasonable debate. That would not be a step forward.

          • I’ll see your acknowledgement of the Establishment and raise you a Revolution by Retreat, Evasion and Neglect.

          • The figurative guns and torches have increased, that is what counts. Open eyes and not tv babies.

      • I think this article puts the entire experience in an appropriate context. Remember DHS purchased over 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition recently. Ignoring the context this provides could prove deadly for American’s waking up to the reality of The Federal Reserve, Continuity of Government, 9/11, WACO, OKC etc. Are you aware that these are all examples of False Flag attacks? If you would like resources I would be happy to provide them for further study.

  12. Alex Jones and the rest of the circus – including his sidekick Luke Rudkowski (who uses Disinfo to schill his lunacy videos like a $2 whore) and Luke’s girlfriend, Disinfo’s own Abbey Martin – does more damage to the future of firearms ownership than Piers Morgan could ever hope.

    If private firearms ownership advocates want to play hardball, they’d prop up a gun control advocate to make the network TV rounds wearing a clown suit and reciting slam poetry. Until they put as big of an albatross around gun control advocates necks as they have around their own with Alex Jones, the gun control crowd has an easy path to victory.

    • So I think people like Luke and Abbey do great work challenging people in positions of power like bankers, politicians, lobbyists… I appreciate muckraking, I relish citizen journalism, and I am proud to have some form of watchdog. I don’t even mind a minor amount of editorializing, we’re all human and it’s going to happen.

      The problem is that they all (but most especially Alex) include tenuous conspiracy strands with weak evidence, which has the overall effect of weakening their argument. They are occasionally right and on-point because they are going after the rich and powerful’s crimes, but not everything is evidence of conspiracy and crime, and not everything is connected via shadowy figures. A lot of it is just douchey assholes in power, the way it always has been.

  13. Breshvic | Jan 8, 2013 at 4:41 pm |

    I mean, Piers Morgan has, presumably, a work visa specifically for the purpose of stating his political opinions on a national stage. It’s his First Amendment right, and he’s welcome to use it for as long as he is legally in this country. I don’t entirely agree with him, I think the bans he proposes go too far, but I don’t think he is part of some ‘globalizing world order’.

    I do think Morgan and his producers specifically brought Jones on because they know how discrediting his raving brand of lunacy is in the eyes of viewers. Alex Jones made Piers’ case for him with this appearance. In fact, I think Morgan looked so shaken near the end because he got more of that lunacy than he bargained for. Shaken, that is, not by truth but by abuse.

  14. Jones, I love and hate him….unfortunate…Piers is right. I understand the NWO tag, I also understand that not everyone that casts out something the NWO org. does is immediately a NWO-agent…….., but does Jones or anyone of you understand this?

    • Jones sees everyone and everything as proof of his conspiracy because his in an entrenched worldview. He happens to come across actual conspiracies and crimes, but that does not mean that they are all connected by the same insidious shadowy players. But his world is based on motivated reasoning.

  15. DeepCough | Jan 8, 2013 at 6:17 pm |

    The same people who are afraid of the government taking away their guns are the same people who supported the War on Terror, which gave government all those guns that the same people now are scared shitless of.

  16. Apathesis | Jan 8, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

    Piers is trying to play lawyer: Answer only the question and don’t provide any context. Yeah, rifles are used in some of these mass shootings, but over six thousand people were killed by handguns in 2011, while rifles only killed 348 people. The shooter at VT used pistols to deprive 38 people of life.

  17. TennesseeCyberian | Jan 8, 2013 at 6:46 pm |

    It doesn’t matter whose side I take on gun control–I absolutely hate it when people act as though louder volume is some indication of the more compelling argument.

    Jones sort of resembles a late-in-life Bill Hicks without the sense of humor.

    Except for the British accent, of course. That was hilarious.

  18. tony knouf | Jan 8, 2013 at 11:52 pm |

    Whatever he did, crazy or not worked. I guarantee he got at least a few people to look into, eh, something about 1.6 billion bullets, drones, and Building 7…that never would have even heard about it had Alex not been so pissed. He packed ALOT into that 7 minutes for a reason. Love him or hate him, you’ve gotta admit he’s got balls.

  19. I encourage Disinfonauts to dive more deeply into Alex Jones. You’ll find that he has a great deal to say against women, against gays, against minorities, against hippies, against Persons with Piercings, etc. The comparisons to Rush Limbaugh are apt: rude, mean, bigoted:

    … the CIA bankrolled Ms. Magazine as part of the same agenda of breaking up traditional family models.

    …the Homosexual Manifesto…

    …some slander against poor people:

    …and the usual pictures of Obama with a Hitler moustache, and other forms of batshit insanity.

    • Kevin Leonard | Jan 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm |

      Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

      • well, if the baby is a psychotic monster, why not?

        • Kevin Leonard | Jan 10, 2013 at 11:29 am |

          At least it is clear when AJ is gong off on a psychotic episode.
          It is much less clear when our, ahem, “leaders” are acting on their psychopathic nature.
          Despite all of his faults, AJ does shine a high-beam in the dark recesses of our government, which simply does not happen in MSM.

  20. Bruteloop | Jan 10, 2013 at 5:58 am |

    We all came off worst. That these two get airtime at all is a sorry comment on the state of the media.

  21. Max Keiser
    If the reason you own guns – is to respond to tyranny – you would have acted by now.

  22. Alex. Alex. Alex. Alex. Alex… Alex.
    Alex. Alex.

  23. Danganbeg | Jan 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

    Never heard of this bloke Jones, but he is an idiot.

Comments are closed.