Blacklisted News’ Doug Owen Predicted Exact Outcome Of The Alex Jones-Piers Morgan’s CNN Showdown
January 8, 2013 in World News
| WTF News |
— WTFRLY.COM (@WTFRLY) January 8, 2013
The internet, especially Twitter, is filled with comments today about CNN’s Guns In America debate with Piers Morgan and Alex Jones. The situation is far too important to allow the same incomplete articles to populate the web.
Many articles and individual comments say that Alex Jones basically shouted over Piers Morgan incoherently the whole time while Morgan was calm and asked rational questions. This was hardly the case. Though Jones was shouting, at many points to the detriment of his factual argument, it was in response to the few silly talking points Morgan puts forth.
Pay close attention to the following as Piers Morgan and Alex Jones illustrate the essence of the infowar, a tone-deaf shouting match filled with ignored questions and utter confusion, leaving the viewer even more confused. He has even described the psychological tactic on his show, the organized chaos leaves people completely disinterested.
Here is the much anticipated interview with Alex Jones and Piers Morgan on CNN, courtesy of Conservative1001BG
Piers Morgan is used to the style of tawdry tabloid journalism that grabs attention at the expense of intelligent substance. That skillset works out well in the CNN fold where he is expected to give unsuspecting liberals a dose of friendly talking points that are light on the facts, while scoring points with barely relevant questions that don’t actually add up to a linear argument.
Alex Jones came on last night as the face of the “real” 2nd Amendment patriots, aside from his usual international banner of liberty for all humanity. Was anyone paying attention while he shot every liberty lover and truth seeker in the back with his crazy rant?
Before the live event, Doug Owen made a prediction oh his show about the showdown.
Now here’s a prediction and I hope it doesn’t happen. Somehow Mr. Jones and all the “infowarriors” are able to usurp the Second Amendment debate” and becomes the archetype, the face now that the NRA is completely and irrelevant.
It’s really not just Owen, but many in alternative media, and those who frequent alternative news sites could piece it together. CNN laid a big trap and Jones walked right into it, guns blazing in a full blown rant from the beginning.
Owen also said Piers Morgan is the face of the of the gun control fever. It was perfectly set up as a primetime event, almost too perfectly which Owen noted was conveniently while most were watching the BCS National Championship.
What really happened last night is the information war sped up, just like the coming military action in Syria. What happened is the debate has gone mainstream now and painted an anti-intellectual target on the back of anyone who is:
1. a reader of Infowars
2. Knows that the official US government account of the September 11th attacks is wholly false.
3. Understands the any level of the global financial ponzi scheme
4. or holds any views not approved for conversation on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, or live national news
Owen also framed the rest of the debate as it related to the 2nd Amendment, noting that the public perception of it would be heightened.
And the question is, are you compelling.
If you’re not compelling people on the other side of the debate…
If you’re not compelling the million, maybe 500,000 viewers Piers Morgan might have tonight…
you know what, you’re right, you’re right, I’m going to buy myself a Glock… today
If you’re not doing that, you might actually be doing more harm. you might actually be downplaying the debate, making it a mess. Getting more people on the side of Piers Morgan.
Exactly what he said would happen, happened.
The video below starts with saying Alex Jones went from “zero to Freakazoid” right from the beginning.
Smart people know the actual numbers and gun facts related to gun control to understand that an increase in other violent crimes is certain and that in America, the math on just doesn’t work. For example, the rifles the media wants you to believe are so dangerous and kill all the time, more people were killed by hammers and clubs or people’s bare hands (FBI Stats).
What people really don’t understand is that there will be a serious problem with forcible confiscation or buyback of weapons. The estimate on the number of guns in America runs from 200-300 million guns depending on where you look. For the sake of examples, estimate that approximately 50-100 million are in private homes. What rate would people turn guns in at? 50% or higher? I personally think it would be lower as many would resort to hiding guns.
Patchwork gun laws create victims as many law abiding citizens put their guns down while the criminals do not. Critics say if the nation had uniform or similar laws, the Chicago problem would not exist, where there is virtual ban on guns and last year, at least 446 kids were shot. That’s almost 2 Sandy Hook tragedies a month. Without confiscation, bans create an amorphous black market and lead to a society like Chicago on a large scale. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in America and as this picture went around on Facebook notes, #1 in gang violence.
With that said, what would happen to all those guns? Would people suddenly turn them in? If not, how do you confiscate them?
In a gun confiscation scenario, as time draws on, guns will become the new drugs in a hyper black market. These guns wouldn’t disappear of course, maybe some would hide or bury guns for extended emergency, but what happens to the majority of guns? Just by virtue of supply and demand, they become more valuable and those with the means to control the supply would flock to do so. That supply would be controlled with guns also. This is the sort of situation in Mexico where there is a total gun ban and gun crime runs rampant with the law-abiding public becoming victims as a whole.
What happens if you introduce incentive such as gun buyback into the equation? People would die in greater numbers over the valuable commodities that guns would become. Look at non-lethal items that are stolen often like Apple iPhones, iPads and Air Jordan sneakers. There are numerous headlines every week with people getting targeted for those popular gadgets, especially because they sell quickly. People in many urban areas get robbed for their sneakers, again because they are in-demand, short supply products. The price tag on Apple products around $300 and up, and Air Jordans no lower than $100 a pair for most should illustrate the value, including the easy turnover rate. So compare that to guns, in this limited fashion, if money or other valued goods are offered for those guns, wouldn’t there be blowback with people dying over guns similar to the drug wars?
They could be bought back, forcibly, like New York Governor Mario Cuomo says.
Maybe you don’t have to confiscate them.
A gamechanger would be for the first gun owner shot for not turning over his guns will spur two things, many guns to be turned in later that night and also committed individuals to take a more anti-government stance. This would lead to a literal new civil war in America, whether a regional crisis or widespread. That’s where all the fancy police state law comes in handy, literally being able to black bag Americans indefinitely.
This is the natural progression of the national gun control debate, which no one at all has any credible suggestions that satisfy a large number of parties that could actually be peacefully implemented.
What kind of gun control do people want? There are many opinions on this, most of them bad, uninformed or made of talking points from the media that everyone loves to hate.
The worst talking points start with the term “assault rifle” which has been misused so much, in many cases, it includes semi-automatic weapons and other non-qualifying weapons.
Skip the posturing and Washington BS. What form will gun control take?
Just look at the plans put forward by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is a hypocrite in her own right.
She wants to implement plans for gun registration and confiscation plans Senator Dianne Feinstein has made ready for debate.
She was worried enough about her safety to get a concealed carry permit after her life was threatened. At one point, she kept armed guards, but now claims she has given up that concealed carry permit.
Most firearm murders, of that approximate 11,400, are gang related, how many would you guess had legally purchased or registered weapons?
There is a large outcry of people clamoring for something to be done about guns, but the operative part of most plans would call for someone to confront these gun owners. What does that look like?
What’s your plan for disarming them? Another law? That’s laughable. The only way to go and get those guns is to cordon off an area and squeeze it until they surrender or the area is small enough to kill them. Who’s going to go on those raids or missions? You Piers Morgan?
The same goes for the “heartland of America” and southern US gun owners. This is another case of official sounding people getting people to do the bidding for their own enslavement.
So really, who’s going to do what and when? With that said, when it gets violent and drawn out, the questions of how long a campaign, how many lives lost, and how much property damaged will America put up with?
As Alex Jones says, we’re a violent culture, but I think America would be soft on this one when there is blood in the streets. What about the first drone strike. This is a game of chess involving millions (billions?) of lives and as sad as Newtown is, these 20 little angels were a tragic loss but it is time for a full debate on how this can work and no more rhetoric. Education is the beginning.
You can read more here about who wants American guns and why, and who wants to turn it into a show.
Specifically, the US military policing American streets would be a show for the world, or if it goes full on civil war, international coalition troops are just as eager.
It’s a safe bet to say that most of the voices clamoring for gun control, enjoy the luxury of a relatively safe environment where their personal safety is hardly a concern as someone else usually guards their life and generally far enough out of sight to make the person forget.
Owen also predicted that Jones’ performance would lump all conspiracies together and attach them to Alex Jones full meltdown special.
It happened with the September 11th attacks when Piers Morgan asked out of nowhere about whether he believed the Bush administration was responsible. Alex Jones did mention that it was individuals within the military-industrial complex, but he didn’t rationally offer up enough evidence, instead resorting to one of his really bad jokes. The “opportunity of a lifetime” live on CNN and couldn’t do better than that on 9/11? (Read more on 9/11)
This is why some people think he is a disinformation agent, search on the internet for neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and you will notice he is good at hynpotizing you with it. Maybe he does it on purpose, maybe not. I listen to Alex Jones a lot, mainly to filter the information because he bloviates and exaggerates, but he’s not always wrong. In fact, many times he’s right, with official facts or documents to prove it, but it’s really about what percentage of the info is right and in what context he uses it.
One would think that Alex Jones would have read the article on 7 ways to better write for liberty.
Alternative media does not have the luxury of being factually wrong or simply appearing crazy.
An important note from the video above.
At the end when he asked him, are you finished, [Jones] said “Yes” and that pretty much sums it up
Do not let this moron be the face of the movement.
So is it a psy-op or did Jones just fly off the handle by accident?
I can’t call it and don’t care, because it doesn’t affect our content. CNN and Piers Morgan got what they wanted, ratings and for a crazy outburst to brand the anti-gun movement with. Alex Jones hit #1 on Twitter trends. So maybe they both got what they wanted and fractured the debate more. Decide for yourself, but remember that there is an element of truth in much of what he says, at any given time, maybe it’s 15%, maybe it’s 100%, but use your own brain and don’t take the logic of Piers Morgan, Alex Jones, or me for that matter. Human perception is about analyzing the same evidence and reaching a conclusion, but television and specifically the “news” has become increasingly opinionated, with fewer facts. At least on this site, you’ll get a lot of opinion with enough facts to see what’s really happening.
— WTFRLY.COM (@WTFRLY) January 8, 2013