A Reasoned Response to a Reader About Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller

I have no interest whatsoever in attacking a person, who can be good, bad, and indifferent. I am interested in dissecting arguments, ideologies, and worldviews.

jones“Oh, boy. They still take me seriously? I ain’t quitting then!”

…by Jonas E. Alexis


Reading some responses over the years made me realize that some people are unsophisticated in their thinking, despite the fact that they claim to be rational.

I wrote an article last year showing that people like Richard Dawkins are logically incoherent and propound statements that would stun a freshman in philosophy class. One individual responded by saying that “logic and reason prove nothing.”

I remembered thinking, “The Lord hath delivered him into my hands.” So, how did he go about proving that “logic and reason prove nothing”?

Well, he wrote a long paragraph pretentiously using “logic and reason” to prove that “logic and reason prove nothing”! I responded by saying:

“In order to say that ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ one obviously has to use logic and reason–an impressively and fantastically incoherent argument. In fact, if ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ why should we listen [to you] here? [Are you] telling us to ignore [your] point? If this is so, then [you] shall have [your] wish.”

What was even astonishing to me was that even after I pointed that logical fallacy out, that particular individual went along believing his nonsense anyway. And this is why I have been reluctant to respond to people who simply do not understand logic or cannot understand why this or that statement is logically fallacious and therefore worthless.

I am getting close to the conclusion that you cannot reason a person out of an idea which was not born on the basis of reason, particularly when that person cherishes that idea so much that he would almost die defending it.  Over the past three years or so, I have seen at least twenty people (including one of my dear friends) who have similar ideology.

A recent response to my Alex Jones article by a reader named Laynan Jan Wilson is no different. First, Wilson says that she is “a long time listener of Alex Jones” and deduces that I have propounded “distorted lies and innuendos” about Alex Jones and others. And then this:

“You have no shred of proof for your attacks on Alex, Paul, Robert, or Ms. Gellar…You have no documentifiable [sic] proofs to back your accusations and I find you particularly irritating in your self-righteous and ego-driven, arrogant tone.”

I simply could not hold my laughter here. I have written three articles which talk about Jones and all three of those articles are littered with footnotes and references. I have done so deliberately in nearly all my articles because I knew that people who are not scholars or are not familiar with the scholarly literature will come up with ridiculous ideas and make silly claims about what I write. I discovered this back in 2013.

The first article I wrote on Jones has 51 footnotes, the second one has 36, and the third one has 44. If you do the basic math, that’s 131 footnotes altogether.

Now I am being told that I have “no documentifiable proofs” to back my claim. So, listening to Jones for “a long time” means that the individual cannot think properly? Doesn’t Wilson’s response here makes it even more frightening to absorb virtually everything that Jones and others are saying? If I were Jones, I would run from people like Wilson as quickly as possible because they make him look really bad.

Wilson says that I have “slandered, insulted and denigrated, several men and one woman, whom you do not know.” Obviously Wilson does not know the difference between attacking an argument or an ideology and attacking a person (ad hominem).

I have no interest whatsoever in attacking a person. I am interested in dissecting arguments, ideologies, and worldviews. Second, I do not have to know those people. I only have to know what they are saying and the evidence they provide for what they are saying.

Wilson’s argument here—I am generous enough to call it an argument—is so primitive and sophomoric that one does not know where to begin. Do modern historians have to know people like Isaac Newton or Joseph Stalin or Mao or Abraham Lincoln to write a history book about them? If so, then we might as well close all historical investigation.

Moreover, Wilson has just done us a great favor because she has indirectly and unintentionally argued that much of the Holocaust establishment is a fraud. In other words, the people who are saying that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews of Europe did not even know Hitler. In fact, not a single document has been presented showing that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews of Europe. So, the Holocaust establishment needs to start reimbursing David Irving for putting him to jail.

I am also interested in taking an argument to its logical conclusions. Wilson needs to logically explain to us why Alex Jones and his protégé keep talking about “The Left” and “Globalists” and “Muslims” when they are not willing to talk about the people who are pushing the buttons.

If Jones is right, then we might as well shut down the police department and all and all other government agencies which seek to draw connections between crimes, ethnicity, and criminal activity. All three elements play a vital role in forensic investigation.

In The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, we learn that “often the victim or the gang members are of the same ethnic group.”[1] Another textbook tells us that when looking at terrorism it is important to look at nationality or ethnicity or religion.[2]

The authors move on to say that investigators should be aware of the culture and even the language of the individual or group under investigation.[3] They declare, “A number of the more notorious gangs are formed on the basis of ethnic or racial identity,” going further to provide evidence from Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize, and the United States.[4]

Another textbook declares that even when selecting an undercover investigator, it is important to put some weight on the investigator’s background, including ethnic origin.[5]

It would be foolish to say that these policies are based on prejudice and therefore irresponsible. Investigators must be careful in making generalizations with a limited number of facts.[6] Individuals must be treated for who they are: people who are part of the human race (something law enforcement recognizes[7]).

But criminal investigation has to start somewhere and has to include certain factors which may or may not lead to a cumulative case. This is called categorical suspicion in criminal law, a principle which

“refers to suspicion that falls on suspects because they fit into a broad category of people, such as being in a particular location, being members of a particular race or ethnicity, or fitting a profile.

“Categorical suspicion is never enough by itself to amount to reasonable suspicion. But taken together with individualized suspicion, it can be one of the building blocks in the whole picture of reasonable suspicion.”[8]

These factors allow an investigation to be pursued in a specific, logical way.[9]

Although the Department of Justice forbids the use of ethnicity in “making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions,” it does say that “officers may rely on race or ethnicity in a specific suspect description.”[10] If discarded, police would have a much harder time pursuing crimes.

On what grounds, then, should historians, scholars, and people of reason suspend this method when it comes to examining Jewish participation in subversive activity? Should we apply the method everywhere—even when examining so-called Muslim terrorism in the United States—but ignore it when it comes to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity? Is this a sound argument?

Moreover, is it rationally sound to quickly conclude that a person who does name names is by definition an anti-Semite or a bigot? There is a logical breakdown here that can hardly be ignored.

In his response to David Duke’s point that “Jewish Supremacists” are dragging much of the West into a hellish existence, Jones, at one point, said that “anti-Jew groups” and others “give god-like superpowers to whoever they believe runs everything.”

Alex Jones was just shooting himself in the toes here precisely because Jones said elsewhere that “the Arabs “own everything—they control the whole deal,” including Fox News! And doesn’t Jones give “god-like super powers” to the so-called “Left” as well? Why can’t Wilson see that Jones is making a fool of himself here?

Wilson says she finds me “very distasteful,” but she complains that I distaste people like Jones! If she cannot see that she is swimming in a swamp of contradictions, I cannot help her at all.

Then Wilson propounds the same thing that Alex Jones has been saying: “as to your claim that I.S.I.S. was created/is supported by Israel, is just plain ludicrous…it is Obama that has been supporting I.S.I.S. along with his friend, the megalomaniacal Magog from Turkey.”

I’ve cited the sources where it was reported that Israel and al-Qaeda and indeed ISIS are basically sleeping with each other, but Wilson took the easy route by saying that the statement is “ridiculous.” Great logic!

Then Wilson attempts to use the Bible to prove the claim that ‘Those that bless Israel will be blessed, and those that ‘curse her’ will be ‘cursed.’” I have discussed this at length in the first two volumes of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, so I will not repeat this here.

Lastly, Wilson declares: “I don’t know you, and I have never heard of you before…and therefore, you are suspect to me…”

Did this lady even reread her entire argument before she utters that perversion? Let us apply it to Jones and the people that she is actually defending: Jonas E. Alexis doesn’t know them well, and therefore they are suspect to him!

Then she accuses me of being an Obama supporter and then asserts: “You will not win.”

As the saying goes, there’s none so blind as those who will not see.

[1] Charles E. O’Hara and Gregory L. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, 7th ed. (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 2003), 491.

[2] James W. Osterburg and Richard H. Ward, Criminal Investigation, 6th ed.(New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender, 2010), 520.

[3] Ibid., 528.

[4] Ibid., 538.

[5] Michael J. Palmiotto, Criminal Investigation (Lanham: University Press of America, 2004), 113.

[6] Stephen Tong, Robin P. Bryant, and Miranda A. H. Horvath, Understanding Criminal Investigation (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 40.

[7] Gary W. Cordner and Kathryn E. Scarborough, Police Administration, 7th ed. (New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender, 2010), 19.

[8] Joel Samaha, Criminal Procedure (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008), 105.

[9] Cordner and Scarborough, Police Administration, 218.

[10] John N. Ferdico, Henry F. Fradella, and Christopher D. Totten, Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice, 10th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009), 427.

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Related Posts:

All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within this post are the full responsibility of the author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on January 4, 2016, With 5655 Reads Filed under Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

16 Responses to "A Reasoned Response to a Reader About Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller"

  1. Voratapoles  January 5, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Jonas. You have so much more patience than me. When I encounter the combination of irrationality & arrogance, I head for the hills. You come at such people with logic and reason – not to mention a laundry list of footnotes and references which doesn’t change or alter a single stupid belief in their empty heads. They’re so stupid, they don’t have the faintest idea that they’re even a little bit stupid. They are the very last to know how stupid they are. What’s more is the fact that you are no match for their intelligence. Really. Even when they don’t know a thing, they seem to know more than you. Add arrogance to the mix and your intelligence even becomes the subject of snooty laughter and jokes (since they know soooo much more than you). Don’t take it personal. They know more than Chomsky, Nietzsche, Einstein, Tesla, Newton and all the other brilliant minds of the past and present. How do I know? Because they know everything … that’s how I know. You really think an essay such as this would produce the slightest dent in their thick heads? Can you not recognize from a mile away that whenever these dumbasses open their mouths, something patently dumb is sure to drop? LOL. You just keep writing your great thought-provoking essays and I will continue becoming all the smarter every time I read you.

  2. Dan  January 4, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    It’s funny how the exclusionary rule mentioned in the article extends even to sociological studies of some self-identified groups, but not to MSM-execrated others, such as Christians and Muslims. The endlessly ballyhooed exclusionary rules’ application to Muslims merits a fig leaf award in view of the establishment’s manufactured hatred of Muslims in the MSM, which vitiates that rule by prejudicing every jury in America to subconsciously, as studies have shown, weigh the probabilities of evidence accordingly. Officially speaking, there are only two permissible reference classes for investigating unspeakable acts of terror, which of course are those evil Muslims and white American males.

  3. Ramirez  January 4, 2016 at 8:04 am

    I wonder if Jones has ever questioned the ludicrous sums of money donated to Israel, who of course are an occupying force, what is it, something like 60 million dollars or perhaps even 600 million ? Anyway, be nice if he was at least put on the spot by one of his callers on this issue( I assume he still does take calls?).
    I urge anyone who can, should put him on the spot on these issues.

    • Gordon Duff, Senior Editor  January 4, 2016 at 10:39 am

      last year, Jones had Paul Josef Watson write a lengthy investigation piece on VT which is now a paid google posting under “Prison Planet Corporate Intelligence Services.”
      Look it up.
      It claims VT is owned and run by a Panamanian drug cartel.
      Oh god, if only I were making this up….

    • Ramirez  January 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      Good grief….?Bullshit on stilts !

      Still, as they say, you only get flack when above the target.

  4. Ramirez  January 4, 2016 at 7:31 am

    In a way it is good that crap like Infowars exists, as it at least shows that the Mossad mob are concerned enough to run a disinfo alternative news site. We are neve going to get that many people on the right page, the amount of people who still think ISIS is purely an radical Islamic terrorist is pretty astonishing and who knows, just because some folks listen to Jones ranting and raving they may well look elsewhere, or follow what some of his guests say(They are not all paid up shills). So, it is better than nothing, they are maybe 30% awake to the situation, which is better than some ! But yes, it is pretty shocking how they are swallowing the omg, dangerous Muslims b.s….

  5. Snoop Dough  January 4, 2016 at 7:26 am

    That verse is a ref, to Christ, charismatic christian’s use that verse to bow before Jews instead of their God!

  6. potai  January 4, 2016 at 6:42 am

    Felt the same frustration you describe. Mark Twain: “Never argue with an idiot. First they will bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.”
    Seems it happened to Twain too.

  7. Wanderer  January 4, 2016 at 5:48 am

    It is the fanboy syndrome. It is ego. That may sound simplistic, but if you think about it, the ego is what blinds one from logic and reason to begin with because it cannot ever be wrong. The ego is not concerned with facts, reason and logic. It is only concerned with being right… even when it is indeed wrong. Again, this may sound simplistic, but quite often the truth is very simple. And the challenge that many seem unwilling to undertake, is to transcend the ego and view any given situation, person etc, in a detached, objective state of mind. They seem unable, or rather, unwilling, to view the world through anything other than their own egoic filters. We just have to be right.

  8. paul becke  January 4, 2016 at 5:34 am

    I know we have to generalize in order to make sense of the world, but I very much regret that the extremely powerful and wicked arch-villains of Jewry give the rest of the Jewish people such a bad name. That they preponderate in the sphere of worldly villainy is really the other side of the coin, whereby they win a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes ; many in medicine, which, of course, we tend to appreciate when we ourselves or our family are affected by serious illness, and in any case, very much more as we get older and more decrepit, (before finally ‘dropping off the twig’, like a little caterpillar, who’s finally done his dash).

    However, in my experience, though I’ve been gypped a few times by a Jewish businessman, I have found the vast majority to be really nice people to know. Often there is timbre about their voice which bespeaks a good heart – really just the opposite to a flat, harsh voice. I worked as a caddy and in the bar of a Jewish golf club in the UK (where Tony Jacklin later worked as the pro), and not only did I never have occasion to think ill of a member, but I never heard a bad word about any of them from the other caddy’s. True, it was said that one old boy simulated the impermeability of a kipper, but if he had tarantulas in his pockets, there was another who was very generous with his tips.

  9. frog  January 4, 2016 at 4:41 am

    As I have said time and time again, quite a long time ago ,Jones said, “I have looked into it, and Israel couldn’t have done it” ( regarding 911).

    Just another zionist clown.

    • Wanderer  January 4, 2016 at 6:35 am

      Anybody who would step outside the ego and view him impartially, would be forced to admit there are probably only two answers possible in regard to his statement that Israel wasn’t involved. The first answer is highly unlikely given that he claims to have “looked into it”. But for the sake of argument and to practice what I preach, I must include it or invalidate my own words.
      1. He is blinded by his own ego and refuses to admit Israel was a player in 911.
      2. He is flat out lying and is indeed an Illuminati puppet.

      It is my own personal belief that he is flat out lying and is a shill. But, I have to at least entertain the thought that he simply refuses to admit the truth. There is too much over whelming evidence indicting Israel and to ignore that places you in one of those two categories. You are either lying to yourself because you don’t want to believe it, or you are lying because you’re in on it. I think most people supporting Jones fall into that first category. But IMO, Jones falls into the second category and is flat out lying not because of cognitive dissonance, but because he is an agent,

    • Ramirez  January 4, 2016 at 7:40 am

      Wow he actually uttered the ‘I’ word ?

      Progress !

  10. Martin Maloney  January 4, 2016 at 4:37 am

    So, listening to Jones for “a long time” means that the individual cannot think properly?

    Either that, or people who cannot think properly listen to Jones!

    Or perhaps listening to Jones for “a long time” destroys one’s ability to think properly.

    Now that I’ve had my fun…

    Jones is a demagogue, who uses emotion, rather than logic, to promote his “product.” That’s why using logic to attempt to reach a fan of Jones is an exercise in futility.

    Jones sells the sizzle; you attack the steak.

  11. davor  January 4, 2016 at 4:25 am

    Great stuff. One of the most illogical statements ever made in recent history was by George Bush Jr. in the aftermath of 9/11. He went out to blame taliban forces and Saddam regime for downing the WTC and promising retaliation and then in the very next sentence, following his first premise he put Syria, Iran and North Korea into main posing threat for terrorism as Axis of evil. Huh? Even that the world would believe his first premise blaming Saddam and talibans there is no logical or affectionate way of believing the other premise. I’m sure that that very day following that statement USA lost more allies worldwide than ever, even more than after bombing countries, weddings, hospitals, innocents. Because of making profoundly illogical statements. Of course those more concerned with logic went further and realized that the only thing that connects the foreign policy of Syria, Iran and North Korea is them not internationally recognizing Israel. And they are not even trilateral in any daily political decisions to be actually forming axis. To be illogical, is to be not taken seriously or bottom line, not trusted.

    • Worker Bee  January 4, 2016 at 9:30 pm

      The Axis of Evil™ according to Bush the Lesser’s speech writers was Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network