The Last Bastille Blog Edition of the Alex Jones Facts Memes Collection

Due to some requests for JPG versions of the Alex Jones Facts memes I’ve been uploading, they are provided here is a downloadable ZIP file for your convenience. 



Welcome to the The Last Bastille Blog Edition of the Alex Jones Facts Meme Collection! Aside from this Read Me document, the folder included with this ZIP file entitled, “Alex Jones Facts Memes,” due to popular reader demand, is provided in JPG format for ease of use, to be linked and/or embedded into article comments, Facebook posts, YouTube videos, and whatever else you may desire.


[Download ZIP]

For a New Liberty

Libertarianism, by definition, is the holding of liberty as your highest political value. It espouses that human beings deserve an absence of restraint and servitude from anyone, or anything. Despite this very simple premise, it is willfully misunderstood time and again because most contemporary Americans are, in fact, scared to death of being totally and absolutely responsible for their actions would they have to live in actual freedom.



As can be expected from the book’s subtitle, an examination into what exactly constitutes principled libertarianism becomes warranted. The author introduces the philosophical concepts of nonaggression and self-ownership, defined by him as:


“The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else…[t]he right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being to ‘own’ his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference.”


Alternatively called the Non-Aggression Principle (or more accurately, the Non-Coercion Principle), this philosophical axiom forms the moral basis for the libertarian notion of laissez-faire (the live and let live) attitude. The entire way of life that shouts “HANDS OFF!!!” from the rooftops, is firmly rooted in this key idea. An appreciation for self-determination naturally follows, for without any sort of coercively imposed “plan,” the individual is at liberty to explore the marketplace of values, for without the liberty to be occasionally foolish, there can be no incentives from which to learn and to grow. Coupled with this thought, is the complete respect for private property, as it is fundamentally the product of an individual’s labor, not the sole prerogative of corporations, governments, or any other kind of despotic collective.

Rothbard asserts that the Non-Coercion Principle and the Self-Ownership Axiom form the foundation for philosophical libertarianism, which in turn can be used to judge the current situation we are all suffering under. He postulates that:


“These two axioms, the right of self-ownership and the right to ‘homestead,’ establish the complete set of principles of the libertarian system. The entire libertarian doctrine then becomes the spinning out and the application of all the implications of this central doctrine.”


So, what are the problems? According to Rothbard, they can be listed briefly as:

  • High taxes
  • Urban fiscal crisis
  • Vietnam and other foreign interventions
  • Crime in the streets
  • Traffic congestion
  • The military-industrial complex
  • Transportation
  • River pollution
  • Water shortages
  • Air pollution
  • Power shortages and blackouts
  • Telephone service
  • Postal service
  • Television
  • Welfare system
  • Urban housing
  • Union strikes and restrictions
  • Education
  • Inflation and stagflation
  • Watergate

Oh, I guess I should have mentioned earlier this book was written back in 1973, huh? Despite the dated nature of the problems he lists (such as the Vietnam War and Watergate), several of those problems still exist, and have considerably worsened, besides brand new ones added onto the list. Most of the rest of Rothbard’s manifesto is simple a bitch fest about military conscription, wiretapping, censorship, forced government indoctrination, the warfarewelfare state, the monopolization of roads, central banking, corporate subsidies, the monopolization of security and arbitration services, and the licensure of just about any damn human behavior that our enemy, the State, intrinsically despises.

What is a principled libertarian to do about such a house of horrors? Rothbard advises:


“On one point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed, for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism) is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people to the cause. Education, in turn, has two vital aspects: calling people’s attention to the existence of such a system, and converting people to the libertarian system…[l]ibertarians must, therefore, engage in hard thinking and scholarship, put forth theoretical and systematic books, articles, and journals, and engage in conferences and seminars.”


There you go…Rothbard’s “grand solution” is more proselytizing about the “good faith,” which of course would best be accomplished by the hijacked alternative media that is being strangled to death by the Carousel of Carnivores (to be fair, there was no Carousel or even much of an alternative media back in the 1970s, since there was no easily available Internet, but my point here is that Rothbard’s advice on this point would be counterproductive if performed today, which unfortunately seems to be the current situation). Unfortunately, everything else Rothbard suggests be done to solve those various single issue items are inherently reformist (in much the same way Henry Hazlitt suggested how to stop the welfare state), whether it be decriminalizing narcotics or reinstituting the gold standard. It takes all the power away from the individual to remedy his situation and gives it to the State, particularly that organ of it known officially as the US Congress.

Okay, but what about what Rothbard didn’t say? Well, for someone who was referred to as “Mr. Libertarian” during his lifetime, he was an awfully vocal champion for the validity of popular electoral voting. As a major figure within the Libertarian Party (LP), Rothbard openly advocated the strategy of “gradually withering away the State” (much like how the old-school classical socialists wanted to do); this would seem to contradict Henry Thoreau’s sentiment that, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

In an interview with the New Banner Institute on February 25th of 1972, Rothbard demonized anyone who criticized voting, and he used Lysander Spooner’s position on defensive voting to justify the morality of suffrage (out of respect for Spooner, and considering that not only do I hold that voting does not work in a utilitarian sense but that it is also immoral, I will save examination into Spoon’s position for when I review No Treason); Rothbard also reveals in that same interview that:


“I really don’t care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support? Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say ‘I don’t want to sanction the state’ and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they’ll elect? So, I see no reason why we shouldn’t endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don’t agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn’t vote: he is also saying that we shouldn’t endorse anybody. I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us.”


Ah, there you have it! After slogging through this 400 page manifesto and its reformist proposals, all that Mr. Libertarian can offer me and you (besides his need for more libertarian propaganda) is voting! How absolutely pathetic, his attempt to make me and you psychologically identify with the State, as if you and I were suffering from a kind of schizophrenic Stockholm syndrome. This is how American political dissidents are to secure their Liberty, by begging the State to “please be nicer to us?” This from the man who wrote Anatomy of the State, which improved upon Albert Nock’s Our Enemy, the State in its ability to precisely describe the parasitical and genocidal nature of statism itself? As per the apropos title of an article by Wendy McElroy, Anarchists Who Vote Are Like Atheists Who Pray, I can only hope that the next “Mr. Libertarian” would be a competent strategist and pragmatic tactician for the cause of liberty, instead of a blowhard theorist whose post-mortem popularity is only sustained by his written literature and deluded fan base.

Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto provides a decent analysis of political problems, as approached from a libertarian perspective (the chapter on education was a whole lot shorter and much more accurate than Dumbing Us Down, especially considering Rothbard was more consistent than John Gatto in that nothing less that a total separation of school and state is going to solve the problem of forced government indoctrination, as opposed to Gatto who wanted to play it both ways). Unfortunately, Rothbard’s manifesto is more on par with The Left, the Right, and the State in terms of its utility for securing our Liberties. Might I suggest The Probability Broach as a better alternative that at least provides you with an entertaining “whodunit” story set against the backdrop of an anarcho-capitalist utopia which exists in an alternate timeline?

The Copyright Scandal

Betrayal is all too common within the Carousel of Carnivores. The gatekeepers of the formerly alternative (really, Internet) media are more than happy to throw fellow travelers or even their own adherents under the bus whenever it suits their special interests. Unlike Mark Dice who sold out to Alex Jones (by singing his praises and deleting his videos documenting Mr. Jones’ malfeasance), sometimes the good guys actually do win.



Former congresscritter Ron Paul tried to sue the pants off some of his grassroots supporters, particularly those who run an admittedly fan run website called; however, you would think that Dr. Paul, as an avowed constitutionalist, would file in a state or (more likely than not) federal court. But no, he decided to lodge a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is considered a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). What a minute…wasn’t Dr. Paul fundamentally opposed to the very existence of the UN itself, as embodied in the common phrase, “Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US?” If so, why did he lodge a copyright suit against his own supporters with an adjudicating entity he rhetorically claims is his mortal enemy (besides the Federal Reserve)?

An “administrative panel decision” was reached by a three member board (composed of Christopher Gibson, Jeffrey Samuels, and Frederick Abbot) in the WIPO case of The Honorable Ron Paul v. Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / JNR Corp, case #D2013-0278. The background of this matter is that a bunch of Ron Paul supporters started a website in May of 2008 with the domain name,, in order to support Dr. Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns (please keep in mind that as I provide direct quotes from the WIPO’s own administrative panel decision, the “Complaintant” is Ron Paul, and the “Respondent” are his grassroots, perhaps former, supporters). Some of the findings of the WIPO panel are quite enlightening, such as the fact that the:


“Respondent has put significant investments of labor, time and money into the site associated with the Domain Name. Nonetheless, Respondent offered the Domain Name to Complainant for almost USD 600,000 less than the prior owner’s offer. In a classic bait-and-switch, after Complainant’s associates asked Respondent to offer to sell the Domain Name, the Complaintant construes the offer as evidence of bad faith. Respondent has made repeated good faith efforts to facilitate or negotiate an agreement to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. No contrary evidence suggests that Respondent has attempted to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged mark in a domain name.” [emphasis added]


Think about that for a moment, the WIPO panel just admitted that Dr. Paul was being disingenuous while still negotiating for some out-of-court settlement. Further details continue:


“In May 2011, Respondent exercised its option to purchase the Domain Name from WKF. Nearly two years later and five years after Respondent began operating the Domain Name, Complainant stated in a radio interview on January 9, 2013, ‘Unfortunately, I didn’t have, so I’m going to have to have’ Soon after, several supporters and agents of Complainant emailed Respondent to urge some sort of sale or transfer of the Domain Name. Between January 9 and 12, 2013, several of Complainant’s associates asked Respondent to make an offer to sell. Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name, plus a mailing list of 170,000 names, to Complainant for USD 250,000. Alternatively, Respondent offered to give Complainant another domain name, <>, for free. Complainant’s only counteroffer was this proceeding, in which he depicts Respondent’s solicited, genuine offer as evidence of bad faith.”


I would love to find who interviewed Dr. Paul on Janurary 9th of 2013, so I can listen to that interview, just to see if anything else pertinent was mentioned. Regardless of whether you think the folks were scummy about selling the domain to Dr. Paul, the point of contention for me here is Dr. Paul’s own behavior against his own supporters (hence the term, Ron Paul Refugees). The WIPO case continues with:


“Complainant asserts the ‘domain name is being leased to a third party who is in competition with Complainants.’ Respondent and Complainant are not competitors; Complainant supplies no evidence that he sells anything but books, while Respondent’s store offers accessories and apparel. All evidence suggests that Respondent acquired the Domain Name primarily to aid, not disrupt, Complainant’s campaign and causes. Complainant’s misperception that he is competing with Respondent is not evidence of bad faith.” [emphasis added]


Ah, isn’t that interesting? Now, I wonder, would the conspiracists at this point accuse the WIPO of balkanizing Ron Paul with his own electoral base? If that were true, then why did the WIPO find the folks as aiding, not disrupting, Dr. Paul’s crusade? I have no doubt the Carousel would invent any phony conspiracy to prop up the aging doctor, probably insinuating that the folks weren’t really Ron Paul supporters at all, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The panel found that:


“Redirecting traffic to an unendorsed site does not show bad faith. In fact, the evidence indicates that Complainant did endorse Respondent’s website. At least twice, Complanant’s confederates sent Respondent accolades for his contribution to the campaign. UDRP panels generally consider this as strong evidence against a finding of bad faith. The evidence against bad faith is especially strong when Complainant acquiesced in Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for five years.” [emphasis added]


Wow, so even Dr. Paul’s own staff people recognized the positive contributions that the folks have made. Then why lodge a complaint with the WIPO in the first place? Did the not-so-good doctor experience senility and confuse the folks as being subversives to his own phony libertarian constitutionalism? My favorite passage of the entire decision was when:


“Complainant concluded his argument saying, ‘[I]t would be difficult to imagine a more compelling example of cybersquatting as that represented by Respondent’s conduct here.’ However, Respondent is not a cybersquatter, but a spurned supporter. In this UDRP proceeding, Ron Paul has acted much like the people he routinely condemns in political speeches and interviews. He launched an unprovoked, unilateral action against his supporters instead of engaging in diplomacy and free-market negotiations. He availed himself of WIPO, a United Nations agency, after condemning, opposing, and working against the international body throughout his career. He misappropriated and misrepresented Respondent’s confidential letter, instead of respecting the sanctity of private communications and encouraging voluntary interaction between individuals. The Panel should reject Complainant’s misuse of the Policy.” [emphasis added]


In other words, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. Well, duh; what else do you expect from someone who confidence tricked whole batches of dissidents into donating for his presidential campaign (which might as well be his own personal kiddie fund)? Additionally, if an UN organization cares more about personal privacy than you do, you are probably no advocate of Liberty:


“As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue.” [emphasis added]


A UN organization actually respecting the US Constitution, much more so than an alleged “constitutionalist” with a sensationalized fan base who still believe in voting? Banish the thought!

The case concludes that:


“On the whole, the Panel views Respondent’s website as a legitimate fan site that does not seek to take unfair advantage of Complainant. The Panel thus determines that Respondent has, in the present circumstances, established that it is engaged in legitimate noncommercial or fair use of Complainant’s personal name in the Domain Name. While there is evidence that Respondent may have earned income on sale of apparel and accessories promoting Ron Paul, the Panel does not believe this is sufficient commercial activity to change the balance of interests already addressed. For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.”


Oorah! That means that the people won, but the fun doesn’t end there. Another complaint was filed by Ron Paul with the WIPO at about the same time, entitled The Honorable Ron Paul v. DN Capital, Inc., Martha Roberts, case #D2013-0371. Much of it seems to me to be nearly exact to the earlier one, alother there is one unique time that bears examination:

“Respondent requests, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Complainant was offered the Domain Name for no charge, with no strings attached, as shown in a letter annexed to its Complaint. Instead of accepting graciously, Complainant brought this proceeding in bad faith. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is appropriate to redress this abuse of the administrative proceeding.”


Now, keep in mind that this case has to deal with (even though it simply reroutes you to, but I found this “administrative panel decision” (headed by the exact same three individuals adjudicating the earlier case) regarding the issue of reverse domain name hijacking too good to pass up, for the simple reason of what they found:


“Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name <> to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances.”


Oh, snap! That means the Almighty Ron Paul was found guilty by an UN organization he voluntarily lodged a complaint with as being malicious against the contending party. In other words, not only did the WIPO reject his complaint (considering it as frivolous, or at least, without basis), but they found him committing malfeasance against his own supporters! I betcha that damn congresscritter didn’t expect that one, did he?

So, what does this all mean? I think it is indicative of the Carousel itself; that given just such an self-serving opportunity, they will attempt to eat their own and not think twice about it. That is the legacy of the “Ron Paul Revolution” – backstab your own followers using whatever means possible, no matter how hypocritical or cruel (and this was the guy who was touted as being full of integrity and consistency, if you remember the campaign rhetoric). Ron Paul caused the internal balkanization here, not his supporters, and even a goddamn UN meat-puppet found that to be the case. Next thing you know, Rand Paul will be asking the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to (pretty please) rule on the viability of the gold standard (the so-called “freedom [or liberty] movement,” what a crock of shit it is; if things like this are the best that they can do, I am not impressed).

It is exactly because of unexpected fall-out like this that I earnestly urge everyone, especially dissidents, to completely avoid voting, because if you continue to do so, you will (more likely than not) experience that “Linda Smith moment” where you suddenly and horridly realize that all that time and effort you poured into an electoral campaign expecting the possibility of a win to eventually “set you free” will do anything but that; if anything, it will only feed the beast you intend to destroy. My goal here is to lower your opportunity costs by documenting the malfeasance of these carnivores that now inhabit the alternative media, so you can explore your real options for securing your Liberty elsewhere.

Public Speaking Merit Badge

The following are from the Boy Scouts of America‘s Public Speaking merit badge requirements.



  1. Give a three- to five-minute introduction of yourself to an audience such as your troop, class at school, or some other group.
  2. Prepare a three- to five-minute talk on a topic of your choice that incorporates body language and visual aids.
  3. Give an impromptu talk of at least two minutes either as part of a group discussion or before your counselor. Use a subject selected by your counselor that is interesting to you but that is not known to you in advance and for which you do not have time to prepare.
  4. Select a topic of interest to your audience. Collect and organize information about the topic and prepare an outline. Write an eight- to 10-minute speech, practice it, then deliver it in a conversational way.
  5. Show you know parliamentary procedure by leading a discussion or meeting according to accepted rules of order, or by answering questions on the rules of order.

A Revelation of the Method

If you haven’t yet readWhen Patriot Rockstars Go Bad,” and Conspiratainment,” please do so before continuing. This article is, more or less, the concluding installment to my series about the feud between Mark Dice and Alex Jones.



A term that has been used by conspiracists (which they attribute to Freemasonry) is what they call the revelation of the method. This method is described thusly:


“It is risky to reveal to the people what has been done to them by the gangster class that lords it over them. Patently, in the wake of the revelation, the risk is one of reprisal, retribution and rage by the people. But where there is little or none of that, then the Cryptocracy has tripled its hold on the minds and hearts of Americans…[t]his non-reaction tends to demonstrate that the people of the US accept, at the subliminal level of their consciousness, that their own leaders are mass murderers of their fellow citizens, and mostly what they do in return is shake it off and head to the mall.”


In other words, it is an counter-intuitive reaction to a horrid admission of guilt. Analogously, it could be described like:


“It is as if a bank robber were to stand in the town square and declare, ‘I robbed your bank.’ He then provides the citizens of the town with the phone number of the sheriff’s office and makes himself available for arrest. Rather than call the sheriff, the people are shocked, awed, confused and deranged by the audacity of the robber. The next day dawns and finds the bank robber now an official at the bank. The people recall something peculiar and vaguely sinister about him. An eccentric schoolteacher, along with the village idiot and the town drunk proclaim the new bank official to be the crook who robbed the bank. The citizens aren’t sure and the bank robber himself flatly declares that it was a dark-skinned foreigner with a large mustache who robbed the bank. The robber makes no reference whatsoever to his previous day’s confession and takes up his official duties at the bank with aplomb. Gradually, as the citizens patronize the bank as usual, and the robber continues as an official of the bank and warns the citizens that if they do not support him the bank will be robbed again, the citizens of the town become slightly deranged, exhibiting characteristics of paralytic apathy, amnesia and abulia and suffering from ‘mysterious terrors.’”


Normally, this allegedly Masonic term is used by conspiracists to describe an attribute of the Establishment (such as predictive programming, the Hegelian dialectic, or the left-right paradigm), but I would like to instead use it here to describe a “look behind the curtain” (as it were) of the Carousel of Carnivores.

No doubt many of you were already aware of the “beef” between Mark Dice and Alex Jones (AJ), but I would bet that what many of you don’t know is that it has been resolved. How did this happen, and what are the implications of it? We should first examine some of Mr. Dice’s statements about AJ back when he was still exposing and ridiculing his former role model.

Adam Kokesh interviewed Mr. Dice about AJ back on October 8th of 2012. During that interview, Dice introduced his feud with AJ thusly:


“Alex Jones is a cult of personality, one of the biggest figures in the supposed Truth Movement (the 9/11 conspiracy genre), and he has a lot of fans, a lot of followers. I used to be one of them, and in my opinion, over the last year, year and a half, I just started seeing him in a different light. I started seeing him really sensationalize things that I knew weren’t true. I started seeing him stop selling DVDs, and start selling vitamins (what I call a Kool-Aid drink), his Tangy Tangerine which contains mercury and arsenic right there on the nutrition label, and I was so shocked man, and so, I started seeing him, in my opinion, I believe, become more sensationalistic, hyping up BS that wasn’t true to get web hits to the site, to just continue this conspiracy shock-jock radio show that he does, and as a media analyst, I confirm and debunk certain things, and analyze and study how media affects our culture, our beliefs, our perceptions… I would be doing them [the audience] a disservice if I did not hold Alex Jones to the same scrutiny as I hold to others.”


Essentially, what Dice was detailing here was little more than a regurgitation of the video description for “Alex Jones: Make a Million Dollars a Year Selling My Vitamins” (which has since been deleted, but only available now thanks to its being mirrored, interestingly enough). In an attempt to explain why AJ seems to have changed so much for the worse, Dice said:


“I think, didn’t Nietzsche said ‘If you stare into the abyss too long, you become the abyss?’ And so I think it is a combination of business practices, sensationalistic radio shock-jock, and, in my opinion, a little bit of, quite a bit of, insanity. Literal paranoid insanity from staring into the abyss too long.”


He seems to be arguing that AJ went nuts because he was “inside the enemy’s mind” too long, but is that a cop out? Dice also offers this other explanation:


“I have a bachelor’s degree in communication, I’ve studied mass media for years in college, and I remember a case called, an instance, something called mean world syndrome, that is a phenomenon or perception issue that occurs when somebody watches too much negative news. It literally warps your worldview because it bombards your mind…even your ‘local’ news, you turn it on and its the top story – a child drowned in a pool, some neighbor raped somebody, there’s been a shooting (da, da, da, da), and that’s why I don’t think I could be a reporter for any mainstream channel, like I wanted to be in college, until I realized what a deceptive, disgusting, propaganda mechanism it is. Yes, there is plenty of terrible things out there in the world, but because of this age of communication, we can see things and know about things that actually literally don’t affect us; it’s terrible, it’s tragic (such as a two-year-old runs out into the street and gets hit by a car, there’s a rapist down on Pacific Beach breaking in and raping; it’s terrible), but it’s not my community, it’s not my friends, there are people in that area that are dealing with that to solve that, to stop that. I think Alex Jones came down with mean world syndrome.”


So, there you have it – Mark Dice has “diagnosed” Alex Jones with mean world syndrome! All kidding aside, I do think that mean world syndrome might be one of the better unsung justifications for completely avoiding the news cycle, if there ever was one.

What was also unsettling about his interview is that Kokesh compared Dice’s disillusionment with AJ as being like what he had with Ron Paul, Inc. Suffice it so say, that other interview Kokesh did with Penny Freeman was quite eye-opening with regard to the fraud that is known as Ron Paul. Not only that, but Kokesh mentions elsewhere in his interview with Dice that AJ once asked him if he had any “blood stories” to tell him that occurred during his time of service while he was in the US Marine Corps.

One intriguing case study that Mark Dice brought up was the very strange case of JT Ready. Kokesh then referred to a vlog that Dice did on this story, the most important of which was Dice’s opening statement:


“Here is just one of many shameful examples why Alex Jones [of] cannot and should not be trusted as a reliable source of news. In this case, because they defended a psychopathic white supremacist murderer who killed an entire family, and then committed suicide, but then they decided to publish an article and make it look like a conspiracy [by] defending the psychopathic murderer. Oh, you don’t believe me? Here is the article title, ‘The Post Mortem Demonization of Border Guard J.T. Ready.’ And in case they scrub this article, which I’m shocked they haven’t pulled this article from the Web, here are some screenshots of the article as well, just in case they decide to delete it and shove it down the memory hole after they hear about this video.”


What is sadly ironic about this is that he ended up flushing his own vlog down the proverbial memory hole faster than the InfoWars article was pulled off the Internet (especially considering it’s still up as I write this). Not only that, but I also noticed that Dice scrubbed his own YouTube channel video archive of all the videos that either sarcastically ridiculed AJ, or seriously debunked his nonsense. I remember when he had at least two playlists dedicated to AJ, which have since been deleted. The only reason any of them survived is because of the age old YouTube practice of mirroring other user’s videos, in order to get around the soft censorship that YouTube has been caught doing in the past. Then again, why complain about soft censorship if vloggers are going to practice self-censorship anyway?

Kokesh concludes the interview by asking Mark Dice what the moral of the story here is, the lesson to be learned, as it were. Dice thinks that AJ’s operation got so huge that he needed to dramatically increase his income by pushing multilevel marketing schemes, because he took on financial commitments he couldn’t keep easily, particularly with regard to the increased office space. He thinks AJ spent beyond his means, which is especially foolish during (what is now known as) the Great Recession. Ultimately, Dice advises Kokesh’s audience to never place too much faith in any one source.

Now you may be asking at this point why I claimed earlier that the feud has been resolved. You must keep in mind that Mark Dice repeatedly claimed during the Kokesh interview that he thought AJ was not controlled opposition, but simply a useful idiot who made some bad business decisions that ultimately lead to his jumping the shark moment, which Dice considers to be when AJ began selling the Tangy Tangerine “Kool-Aid” drink mix powder, which is also laced with assorted heavy metals. Where this finally leads us is to Mark Dice’s Facebook page, where on April 12th of 2013, he writes the following:


“I have buried the hatchet with Alex Jones from Infowars. That does not mean that Infowars is a sacred cow or that I won’t critically analyze any stories they put out when I feel it’s needed (I am a media analyst after all), but consider the hatchet buried for the sake of coming together to fight the New World Order and save as many people as possible from falling into the Illuminati abyss.

“Despite my very harsh criticism of Alex in the past, he has taken the high road and today acknowledged that I do good work and gave me a shout out on his radio show for my ‘Repeal the 2nd Amendment‘ video. Looking back, I’m sure my criticism actually helped Infowars up their game and be a bit more careful about some of their stories they put out and double check their info and analysis.

“For those who don’t know, we had a little falling out a few years ago due to a misunderstanding that I then took a little too far cuz I’m a bit crazy sometimes (so is Alex for that matter) but anyway, now onto more important things and setting side personal differences for [the] sake of unifying The Resistance to fight the Illuminati and their planned destruction of our freedoms, economy, health, and peace of mind.”


So, that’s how this works, huh? As long as “we” all “come together” to supposedly “fight the New World Order,” then integrity be damned, right? It doesn’t matter that virtually nothing has been accomplished in “fighting” such a nefarious foe over the past 15 years, since “infowarriors” are nothing more than costume players; to paraphrase Paul (of the NWOisBunk channel), conspiracists view the New World Order as if it is the Legion of Doom and themselves as the Justice League (in other words, they view tyrants as if they were supervillians and themselves as if they were superheroes, which is nothing more than a fantasy). Naturally, Dice also posted on August 9th a link to an InfoWars story about his latest phony petition video. Of course, that’s considered all well and good by the Carnivores, provided they get back on The Alex Jones Show…isn’t that right, Mark Dice?

Jon Ronson shot a documentary series about American conspiracists, entitled The Secret Rulers of the World. The second episode, entitled David Icke, the Lizards, and the Jews, which originally aired on May 6th of 2001, contained this little revealing gem during Ronson’s interview with AJ:


Alex Jones: You just get tired of the real meat and potatoes, the real issues, so he’s gone for all of the ridiculous Hollywood stuff of ‘David Icke and the blood-drinking lizard people.’ So what does David Icke do? He talks about the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, these global elitists, these power structures; all real, all true, all demonstrated by bills and executive orders and Prime Ministers, Premiers, and Presidents. All real, meat and potatoes, something you can bite into, something that is easily demonstrable, and then you got David Icke at the end of all this, he says, ‘By the way, they’re blood-drinking lizards… Al Gore needs blood to drink, so does Prince Philip.’ I mean, it’s asinine, and it’s being picked up by people; and so it discredits all the reality that people are talking about. That’s the problem with David Icke: he’s got a good line to a point, and then he discredits it all. It’s like a turd in the punchbowl; that’s his job. You’ve got this nice big thing, this nice fruit punch, nice ice cubes floating around in it, and then he takes a big dump right in the middle of it, and no one is going to drink out of that punchbowl.

Jon Ronson: But is he in league with them to do that?

Alex Jones: I think he knows what he has to do in a controlled world to get away with what he is doing and being given attention. He’s either a smart, opportunist conman, or he is completely insane, or he is working for them directly, but I kinda think he’s just a conman who understands how things work and is just a real opportunist.”


Ronson has since said he warned AJ not to promote the idea that the Bohemian Grove’s mock human child sacrifices, which is a central part of the Grove’s Cremation of Care ceremony, because he would be playing with fire. According to Ronson, AJ replied that while he knew that Bohemian Grove was nothing more serious than a silly frat party, he wouldn’t tell that to his listeners. If Ronson is telling the truth, then this would mean that AJ has been corrupt since at least 2001, if not even earlier when he started broadcasting back in 1996 (what else do you expect from a guy who wrote an article in 2003 denouncing The Matrix trilogy, but uses the imagery and idioms from that film series constantly?).

There is an even deeper implication about AJ’s comments against David Icke (which I have no doubt may very well be the only time he actually told the truth about much of anything, despite the fact that David Icke later became a regular guest on The Alex Jones Show and a fellow comrade, as evidenced by their dual speaking engagement at the rallies held outside the latest Bilderburg Group meeting at the Grove Hotel in Watford, Britain). AJ’s statements could be easily made applicable against himself, as well as every other Patriot Rockstar, as being just conmen who understand how things work and are just real opportunists.

Unfortunately, considering Mark Dice’s grievous flip-flop as an attempt to get back into AJ’s good graces (coupled with the self-censorship of his videos detailing AJ’s malfeasance), I hate to say that now Dice has willfully chosen to join the ranks of the Carousel of Carnivores. It was one thing for me to tolerate his bigotry against queer marriage or his Christian fundamentalism, but flip-flopping about AJ was the last straw for me. Integrity and consistency have to mean something, even when it requires me to tolerate things I don’t like.

The Carousel is a good ol’ boys club that Mark Dice has chosen to kowtow to, plain and simple. If that is the case, then what does it remind you of? Isn’t that what comprises the Establishment itself? As George Carlin put it, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it!”

Quote of the Week – Statism in Space

“I know you. I was like you once, but then I opened my eyes. Open your eyes, Captain; why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis?! We’ve never harmed you, and we are constantly harassed and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands, and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we’ve left the Federation, and that’s the one thing you can’t accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation; hell, you even want the Cardassians to join! You’re only sending them replicators because one day, they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways, you’re even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You’re more insidious; you assimilate people, and they don’t even know it.”

Michael Eddington

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (“For the Cause”)