SPLC Punk
On February 1st, the SPLC published the first of a five part series on Alex Jones’ texts. Because that is today, I have not read the following 4 parts, but unfortunately, those 4 parts became valueless at best after reading the first.
The intro to the series, something of a mission statement - a waste of time - features a delightful “What Hatewatch Learned From The Texts” header that sums things up in a nutshell/requires three more paragraphs. Hatewatch learned very little. The first paragraph beneath explains that Hatewatch learned where the texts came from. They also learned that some of the texts were made on a different app. It ends with this:
“There are also indications from the texts that Jones deleted certain text conversations from his phone. While the texts do not represent every message Jones sent or received in this time period, they nonetheless provide an unparalleled view into Jones' inner world.”
They learned that combing through damn near every single text anyone has ever sent provides an unparalleled view into their inner world.
To recap, texts came from his phone, but not all of them, and having all of his texts reveals everything about his life. That’s quite a Barnum statement. Alex Jones’ texts are different, of course. They are different due to Alex’s infamy, his abhorrent career, and his monstrous treatment of others.
And yet the texts are also very much the same. The texts are those of a giant piece-of-shit that we all know or have come into contact with in some way. They are a person’s texts. They are both.
So what did Hatewatch learn from the texts?
How to be more like Alex Jones.
—--------------------------------------------------------------------
The piece finally begins with Alex discussing Sandy Hook with his dad, David. David, it is said, is “involved with the business of infowars”, he also “demonstrates a willingness to connect with the radical right movement of which his son plays such an integral part”
(Wait, that can’t actually be in there, right? That’s awful. “Of which his son plays such an integral part”, ugh, if you were going to do less than nothing, you would at least take out “such” seeing as how it’s a waste of a word, and not just that, it ruins the rhythm. If you wanted to do nothing, or as you might say, improve the sentence, then you would put a period after “radical right”. If you wanted to write a good sentence, you would say, David Jones, who gave Alex the money to start Infowars, who bought ad space to subsidize it, a former, if not current, member of the John Birch Society, and also, for funsies, shares the name David Jones with one David Bowie. Now that’s a fucking sentence right there.)
This is followed by excerpts of a text conversation between the two wherein Alex Jones, after having lost several millions of dollars on his way to losing literally more than a billion, expresses despair. As one might imagine. The author of the piece put “hole emoji” in brackets. Delightful.
This is followed by “David Jones did not respond to his son in the thread”. A thing that does not matter slightly, because it means absolutely nothing. Is it supposed to imply that David never replied? To put the image into one’s mind? You know how many fucking text threads a different set of people in my family are on? So god damn many. So did the author write something that can easily be rendered meaningless unless, perhaps, you were emotionally manipulated into shutting down your critical thinking skills?
Familiar.
In the following Jackson Pollack word painting, Josh Owens is quoted as saying something or whatever, then someone else says Alex is a narcissist or whatever and then he says something that is meaningful: “Most of the people there are traumatized”. The owner of a company is traumatizing its employees, that is a real, fucked up thing.
Now that we’ve established something real the author obviously digs in… no, never mind, that part is skipped over for, oh, oh no, sigh Infidelity and Surveillance: Part 1.
(How dare you part one me in a five part series with at least seven or eight different Part ____ subheaders. Learn how to fucking write, Christ.)
Infidelity and Surveillance Part 1 earns its name, however, as the author easily spends more words on this section than everything else up to this point. I’m not going to quote it, as I am not rewriting Titus Andronicus.
To condense: “Alex has a blackwater mercenary bodyguard that he sent to spy on his wife a few times. Experts say tracking your wife can be a sign of abuse. We won’t say it outright, but it sure seems like Alex abuses his wife, right? Alex is also having an affair, we will say that because we read the word “sucky” so now you have to. Alex is also fighting with his wife sometimes. Also, Alex registered a domain name while he was fighting with his wife and/or cheating on his wife.”
I have saved you one thousand two hundred and thirty one words.
And so, one thousand two hundred and thirty one words later, we get part two of the two part Infidelity and Surveillance part of part one of a five part series of articles on parts of Alex’s texts.
To condense: “Alex is cheating on his wife and spying on his wife. The person he’s cheating with (we won’t say their name because we’re classy as fuck) also shares right wing propaganda with the right wing propagandist. Also, his security team thinks he’s a big baby.” That is a much more reasonable five hundred and eighty five words saved.
For reference, Infidelity and Surveillance Parts I and II are two thousand odd words telling you, uh, gossip?
The next solo part of part one, is ominously titled “Pornography”. In it, we learn that Alex Jones, a professed conservative christian, actually watches porn, some of which is gasp kinky.
The section closes with this:
The texts Hatewatch reviewed further reinforce the likelihood that the Infowars host demonstrates different views on sexuality in his personal life than he professes on his notoriously bigoted show. In addition to viewing pornographic material involving group sex, his wife sends Jones a picture of a Black man’s erection in the texts. There are no women in the photo. Jones and his wife also exchange messages expressing favorable views about bisexuality. On Feb. 1, 2020, Erika Wulff Jones texts her husband, “you be bi.”
What the fuck dude? Why exactly are you sharing this? And I mean exactly. Is it to point out Alex Jones is a hypocrite? I think we got it from literally any and every other single thing that idiot has ever done, grape job.
Is it to point out he doesn’t believe what he says about the LGBTQ community? Why do you think it does that? Humans are fucked up, half the shit that scares us makes us cum, too. Are you talking shit about his hypocrisy? Write the words Big Black Cock, cowards. Or does no one at the SPLC watch pornography?
No. It’s none of those things. It’s to get clicks by insinuating that Alex Jones has fucked a dude or wants to fuck a dude. That’s it.
Who’s exploitative?
Somehow, in defiance of the very laws of physics that keep us stuck to the ground, the author is the bad guy in an article he wrote about Alex Jones.
Let me sum up the next three thousand five hundred and thirty four words for you: Alex Jones is an alcoholic in a fucked up relationship.
Yea. Yea he is, man.
So what have we learned? We’ve learned that the very first thing the SPLC wanted to do out of its five part series on one of the single most destructive forces that’s ever hit our culture was… grab attention by insinuating Alex Jones might fuck a dude.
Why is this not just bad, but harmful to, uh, watching hate? There’s a lot of interesting information in those texts sure to come out, and I have no doubt they were examined rigorously, but why would anyone give a shit about what you say from here on out?
You monged gossip first. Ultimately, everything you write after gossip is just more gossip.
