Dylan, Jason, and Korey - Straw Men for Hire

Straw men are known not just for being easy targets to get beat up on, but also for not having any brains.
How else to describe those irrepressible Loose Change boys? Not only do they hock snake oil remedies and apocalypse-prep kits on the Genesis Communications Network with their silly radio show, but apparently they took it upon themselves to "debate" Rolling Stone's resident mockingbird Matt Taibbi. See the last question in this Q&A with Taibbi.
Honestly, if anyone still thinks the Loose Change boys are legit, I invite you to enlighten me as to how on earth you manage to do so!
Dylan, Jason, and Korey: Thanks again guys for doing such a GREAT job for the movement--if you're not appearing in a BBC hit piece with Uncle Fetzer and Alex Jones it seems you are busy providing guys like Matt Taibbi material for his truth suppression. To call you righteous visionaries wouldn't do you justice. No, really. Guess what? You chose poorly.
In any case, after months of chiding Taibbi in each and every column of his published on alternet.org about how he promised he would write a column addressing the physics claims of the 9/11 truth movement, it's nice to see that he has finally provided an explanation of sorts. He was simply waiting for the Loose Change boys' schedule to free up so that they would help him save some face. Again, kids, you are SUCH a credit to the movement and not at all the little disinfo shills you so convincingly pretend to be.
You’ve probably already been asked this too many times, but, are you planning to write the third installment of your 9/11 series? If not, why?
- Dallas Redig
Hi Dallas. I’ll eventually publish this written debate I had with the Loose Change guys via email. It was pretty funny stuff. At one point I asked them if they’d made even a single phone call before they ran that stuff about the hijackers still being alive. Their answer was that they had made some calls, but “couldn’t get through†to anyone. Then when I tried to point out that not getting through to anyone in your research is usually a good time not to publish your unverified material, they just ignored me and started babbling about how the original congressional report about 9/11 had 28 pages redacted, etc. etc. etc. It wasn’t really a debate, it was like one angry non sequitur after another. Eventually they dropped the debate in the middle – I haven’t heard from them in a while.
But I’ll get back to it eventually. I should say that the hardest thing for me in dealing with the Truthers is this feeling of being intimidated by how ridiculous they are. It would take a comic genius to really do them justice and the fear of falling short of that can be paralyzing. If you’ve ever seen the movie Eating Raoul there’s this scene where Paul Bland throws an electric bug-zapper into a hot tub full of swingers and they all just sort of fall naked and limp all at once. It’s hilarious. Somebody, and it may very well not be me, is going to write the electric bug-zapper of 9/11-debunker essays. But it’s going to have to be an inspired effort, not something you just toss off in one night. I really wish Mark Twain were alive for that reason. A Jim Fetzer’s Literary Offenses would potentially be one of the funniest things ever written in the English language.
the rest of the history...
Another notable instance of the Loose Change boys' useful idiocy is their participation in Left Gatekeeper Amy Goodman's Democracy Now program featuring a debate between Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas against Jim Meigs and another Popular Mechanics shill whose name I don't recall. The most memorable line in the disastrous debate was when an exasperated Bermas, after being told by one of the PM shills that he couldn't just call everyone he disagrees with a liar, said "I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm calling YOU a liar". Goodman could be seen to be having a good time, which makes sense given that one of her primary roles is preventing her left leaning fans that 9/11 truth is a distraction, a non-issue, and, well, a bit of a joke. The Loose Change boys' job is to make such accusations seem plausible by presenting a flawed and incomplete defense of the truth movement's claims.
The Loose Change boys are rather secretive about where their funding comes from, and since they have formed a corporation to promote themselves and their flawed film one may wonder just how much money they require to all be employed solely in the 9/11 truth biz (including a fourth employee, their "secretary") while, by their own admission, giving away thousands of copies of their dvd's including to obvious disinfo shills like Mark Dice, aka John Conner, who promotes apocalyptic end times christian propaganda on his website while simultaneously producing videos that, for example, feature girls in bikinis reading 9/11 truth related facts.
They seem to enjoy hobnobbing with celebrities like Charlie Sheen, are very tight with Alex Jones, another borderline right wing "christian" doomsayer, and were for some time in talks with billionaire Mark Cuban to distribute their film, which Cuban called "propaganda lurking in the shadows" that needed to be exposed. All of these developments, including the ever-delayed release of their "Final Cut" of Loose Change (they seem to be biding their time to properly fine tune the disinfo to fit in witht he rapidly evolving truth movement) are breathlessly reported in sycophantic ways by Alex Jones and their adoring cult-following, with criticism of their seeming inability to express the case for 9/11 truth in an intelligent way shouted down as jealous "player-hating" by lesser figures in the movement.
Please
let's discuss the pros and cons of Alex Jones and Loose Change as objectively as possible before "calling anyone a liar", shall we? I find this vendetta to be very divisive, and not knowing whether division is appropriate or not, I'd rather measure twice -- because we can only cut once.
So -- what's the case against them? I'll play defense counsel -- or advocatus diaboli, if you so prefer. Let's see how warranted all this animosity is.
_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere
this isn't a court of law
it's the court of public opinion. and in my opinion, knowing what I know about the history and development of the movement, the case against AJ and LC begins with an examination of the information they present and their general behavior.
Alex Jones turns a lot of people off with his abrasive and cocky attitude. I have never (and I know I'm not alone) recommended that anyone seeking the truth about 9/11 seek out Alex Jones' site or videos. He is a businessman first and foremost in my opinion, regardless of how many of his fans place him on a pedestal. He routinely reports incorrect information and frequently jumps to conclusions that are then not born out by the facts, after which he rarely seems to issue retractions. He serves, willingly or not, to lump 9/11 with a host of other more dubious claims in particular about the so-called New World Order cult and its satanic rituals. Simply put, he comes across as a buffoon. There is an aura of fishiness about him--for one, he claims to have predicted 9/11 before it happened and for this released a video that he claims he made before 9/11. However this video seems to have surfaced relatively recently which makes me wonder if it wasn't concocted after the fact. Finally, he seems overly keen to downplay Israeli agency, preferring to portray Israel as the tool of American hegemons. This is true with 9/11 as well as with his views on the JFK assassination and the USS Liberty.
The Loose Change kids pretty much speak for themselves--in other words, when they speak, anyone who has researched 9/11 thoroughly (as I feel I have) realizes that they don't actually know that much about the subject. they also seem extraordinarily ignorant about history generally, for example saying during the debate with Popular Mechanics on Democracy Now that they thought Cheney had been defense secretary under Reagan. They invariably perform very poorly in debates and are nonetheless (or in my view for that reason) promoted in the mainstream media as representative of the broader truth movement. Their film, they have admitted, contained flaws and errors which they explained they consciously left in so as to "spark debate". Sure. They respond to all criticism defensively and all too often invoke the "jealousy defense" noting that those who criticize them are jealous of their success. We are expected to believe that these kids, who seem to have led particularly unremarkable lives until getting into the 9/11 truth movement (Dylan was rejected from a small film school twice, and none of them seem to have attended college), are in fact remarkably sage and prescient individuals with fairly impressive skills. Other than their movie, though, which could have been made by someone else for all we know, they have no work--written or otherwise that indicates any kind of excellence.
From my observation of the truth movement from its early days, I have noticed several patterns, into which AJ and the Loose Change boys fit quite well. There is the tendency, for one, for early entrants into the truth movement to "go off the rails" at some point--in other words luring people in in order to gain credibility with relatively interesting work or revelations only to proceed to discredit themselves later so as to ridicule and demoralize anyone who believes in them. Looking at Hufschmid and Fetzer we can see that this process is timed differently in each case--this ostensible diversity serves to mask the actual uniformity, and people assume that all these people could not be working to thwart the movement. Since most people have until now been unaware of any real serious issues with the official story, it makes sense that the shills would, in the beginning, outnumber the honest folk. This means that the earlier a person's entry into the movement as a well-known figure, the more likely they are to be dishonest.
Another pattern is that of peer pressure and appeals to authority. Oh, you haven't made a popular documentary? How dare you criticize Loose Change then? Oh, YOU don't have a radio show that reaches thousands, or produced a film like Terrorstorm? How dare you criticize Alex Jones. In both cases these appeals are made to deflect well-earned criticism and produce a club-like atmosphere. Oh, you've MET the Loose Change guys? Wow! You were at ground zero with them and Alex Jones? Cooool. So Hollywood, so Madison Ave., so... suspiciously fake!
Both AJ and LC boys now make their living off of the turth movement. This means they are professional truthers, which flies in the face of most truthers' identification with a grassroots movement of citizens. AJ and LC seem always to be promoting something for sale, whetehr it be the latest version of their films, or the crap advertised on their radio shows.
In summary, Alex Jones and Loose Change are suspicious because their quality does not correspond to their popularity. They make perfect targets in various ways for those who wish to discredit the 9/11 truth movement or at least discourage regular folks from looking into it or wanting to be associated with it, and they take advantage of any opportunity given them by the mainstream media (and there have been many) to put themselves in front of big audiences, giving the impression that they are somehow worthy of all that attention, when we know that when the mainstream media promotes people it is because they consider them useful, not dangerous.
Over to you, Bruce!
Alright
AJ is a sensationalist -- there's no denying that -- however, it's undetermined whether that is out of malice. Especially considering for how long he's been tending to conspiracy stuff -- quite some of it legitimate, I believe -- isn't it possible that he's just become more and more alarmist in order to garner people's attention? Because otherwise, they just wouldn't listen?
I think so.
Also -- and I'm sure we disagree here -- I wouldn't brush off occultism right off the bat. While I don't believe in supernatural entities, I do believe cultism can have miraculous effects on a group's coherence -- which is where I'm sure we agree, once again ;) So, I think it's well worth considering that cultism might serve a practical purpose within the elite's ranks. For example, lying naked in coffins with other people will most definitely foster a certain kind of conspiratorial fraternity, wouldn't you agree? That doesn't mean Satan or Molech or whatever is real and pulling any strings, just like G*d isn't...
However, I'll readily concede that in regards to Zionism et al, AJ is remarkably silent, which is indeed suspect!
That in shill-circles, the LC crew are the prime candidates for debate makes them about as guilty as the limp Gnu is for being preyed upon by vultures, if you ask me. Sure, they should delegate to other, more competent people, but then, they'd not only have to swallow their pride, but some shill would have to take on the big guns -- considering how many offers for debates of higher caliber have been ignored, I won't be holding my breath! Anyway, it's not their fault that no one wants to debate, for example, DRG. Don't let your frustration turn into hate.
You're right about the crappy ads and constant self-advertising -- it's a nuisance, but to me, it also suggests these guys aren't on the MIC's payroll or anything. Or maybe it's just made to appear this way? I don't know, and neither do I know whether they're dishonest -- just willing to grant the benefit of doubt.
_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere
the difference between you and me
is that I'm much more cynical, and probably also more often crabby than you are. :)
people put WAY too much
people put WAY too much stock into what AJ says and does. that includes people who support what he does and people who think hes a loudmouth "zionist gatekeeper" etc. his near silence on all things Israel is indeed suspect but it doesnt negate the good that hes done in my opinion. many people seem to have an ax to grind with AJ and lets be honest, he isnt very hard to ridicule.
well, to each their own
If you want to go out in public and suggest to people with little to no awareness of the issues surrounding 9/11 that they look into Alex Jones' work that's your prerogative. But if you actually want to do some good you would suggest they read David Griffin's books.
To me, AJ makes the most sense as a leader of the controlled movement. People who disagree with that sometimes protest a little too much, especially when they do so while claiming that AJ just isn't that important. If he's not that important, then why is it that any time I raise the issue of his being a shill I have to hear the same defense over and over?
people on both sides protest
people on both sides protest too much. including you. paranoid much? leader of the controlled movement? you really put that much stock in him huh? i appreciate what Jones does, though i disagree with him often, but i just dont think he has the power that anti-AJ people seem to think he has. he ISNT that important but people like you sure as hell make it seem like he is with your constant bashing/baiting. keep calling him a shill(thats not over-used or anything, maybe you should call him "disinfo" too?) and i bet you'll keep on hearing the same defense. and like RT, your not being very specific about WHO is controlling Jones. and for the record, i push DRG's work on people much more than i push Jones'.
it depends what you mean by
it depends what you mean by "legit". of COURSE the fucking coward Taibbi isnt going to debate a Griffin or Ryan etc. but he will debate a couple of fairly naive 24 year olds. can you blame the naive 24 year olds for accepting the challenge? i dont. of course i would rather have somebody like Griffin or Tarpley debate him but there is a reason that didnt happen, and its not because the Loose Change guys are not "legit", its because Matt Taibbi is a dishonest coward.