The New York Times just published an article written by former InfoWars contributor Josh Owens.
For the uninitiated, InfoWars are probably best known for spreading debunked conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting. Theorizing about conspiracy, on the one hand, is the cornerstone of critical-thinking. You may have noticed, it’s what lawyers are engaged in during half their cases. That said, the “official” narrative of a government with such a long history of lies and deceit should absolutely be challenged for every statement they make, so long as you don’t start spreading those lies yourself. Those who push dangerous narratives which don’t align with available evidence rightfully should be treated with extreme skepticism. Alex Jones is the perfect example.
The article itself is a confessional, portraying Jones as a blowhard and a drunk, which by all accounts he is. The thing which is troublesome about the article is that The New York times are using Owens and his experiences at InfoWars to paint YouTubers with a broad brush as conspiracy nuts— and The New York times as some kind of moral arbiter of truth. It doesn’t come right out and say it, but they invited Owens to write the column so they could take a swipe at independent journalism published on YouTube.
Let us not forget The New York Times and their lies about weapons of mass destruction, or the myth propagated that Hillary Clinton was electable, or that Donald Trump’s bloviations and empty podiums were more important than Sanders’ speeches attended by thousands. And how could we forget the lies of omission, which are omitted every day? The US’s extraterritorial reach in the Julian Assange case— it’s probably not worth much coverage— according to the Times.
I vaguely know Josh Owens because in May of 2016, at a rally in Lawrenceville New Jersey, he asked to interview me regarding who I thought would win the 2016 election. I initially said, “no, you’re InfoWars, you’ll take me out of context.” Then I said to him, “on second thought, if I did, will you show the whole video in context?”
He said, “yes,” to which I responded, “okay, I’ll do it, but I’m going to film you filming me to prove that InfoWars takes interviews out of context.”
Sure enough, when I watched the video later, they cut me off right after I said Trump would win. I still wholeheartedly stand by my statements, but Owens cut out my explanation as to why I thought this was a very bad thing. It wasn’t as bad as CNN has done to me— but getting into that would be getting into the broader discussion of manufacturing consent… And I would post the video, but my Youtube has wrongfully been terminated for “hate speech.”
I still keep in touch with one of the other field reporters, who I just finished texting with regarding the article. I’ll call him Bob. Bob, (like Owens), is also young and conflicted, and I’ve been very clear with him from day one that Alex Jones is full of shit. He’s expressed regret that Trump won, saying, “he promised peace, and he hasn’t made good on that.”
I don’t want to disclose too many of Bob’s secrets, but according to him, Owens was an enthusiastic participant in his work at InfoWars, getting excited to take down the Muslims in the Detroit story, and many other pieces he contributed to.
You may be asking yourself, why do I keep in contact with these people? Simple. Bob and all the other frenmeies I have made on the campaign trail instinctually understand that there is something wildly fraudulent about the “official” narrative which is pumped out by the corporate media/government propaganda symbiot. Bob’s conclusions are worrisome, but without the conversations that we have had, the entirety of this little InfoWars media cabal might legitimately think we’re all lizard people. That I got him to admit that InfoWars’ support of Trump was a mistake isn’t nothing. It’s not an avalanche, but it isn’t nothing. I do not believe the narrative that “none of these people can be reasoned with.”
Regardless of Owens’ motives, the fact that he wrote this article is proof that there is hope for all people, even if the corporate new/ government propaganda symbiot swallows us all and drowns us in the lake of fire. Moreover, a free and democratic society mustn’t make limitations on speech, so long as it does not incite violence. YouTubers as a whole, are not working to incite violence— but this article by the Times, (in my opinion ), most certainly is an attempt to marginalize their free speech. It is certainly their “right” to do so. But as corporate media and government continue to merge, think critically about articles like Owens’ piece in the Times, and what is it the Times is attempting to achieve.
Rod Webber 