Thursday, July 16, 2009

Liberal journalist continues parroting debunked smear on Alex Jones


The debunked smear on Alex Jones that the Pittsburgh cop killer, Richard Poplawski, was an Alex Jones follower continues in a Newsweek column

by Larry Simons
July 16, 2009

On Tuesday night’s The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo did a segment on his show where he attacked liberal journalist Rick Perlstein, who wrote an article published in Newsweek on July 10 titled, “Beyond the Palin”. The article is about why conservative elites are nervous about middle and working class white conservatives. Billo was angry with Perlstein for including his name in a list of extremist right wing commentators who influence these working class conservatives…even to the point of violence.

I didn’t think much of the segment. I thought, “just O’ Reilly infuriated again with someone who tells the truth about his constant lies and spin”. Then last night, I browsed the left wing site Crooks and Liars and saw the O’ Reilly story posted by the left wing’s O’ Reilly counterpart, Dave Neiwert. Because of Neiwert’s article, I read the entire Perlstein column and I came to the conclusion that, for reasons different from O’ Reilly’s, Perlstein is a liar.

Perlstein said this:

“Now the violence is back. But this time, the line between the violent fringe and the on-air harvesters of righteous rage has been harder to find. This spring the alleged white-supremacist cop killer in Pittsburgh, Richard Poplawski, professed allegiance to conspiracist Alex Jones, whose theories Fox TV host Glenn Beck had recently been promoting.”

Here is a screenshot of Perlstein's column for verification incase he edits it later
(click to enlarge)


For those who are unaware, this past April 4, after three Pittsburgh cops were killed by Richard Poplawski, liberal sites like The Daily Kos, Media Matters and Raw Story immediately began smearing Alex Jones, saying that Poplawski frequented conspiracy websites and was a follower of Alex Jones, thus attempting to portray Jones as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. After a huge outcry of protest and demand that the sites issue retractions, several complied, including The Daily Kos and Raw Story.

I immediately sent this email to Rick Perlstein:

In your article, "Beyond the Palin" you stated an outrageous lie.

Poplawski did not devote allegiance to Alex Jones. In fact, he opposed Jones' views. Several blogs had written the same lie you did and have issued retractions because they found no proof of it. Care to issue your retraction? Also, you make it appear as if Glenn Beck had directly received his views from Alex Jones and then promoted them on the air. You can claim you didn't say that, but that is how you wanted it to come across to your readers.

Alex Jones is a 9-11 truth activist and has never once called for violence. On many, many occasions Glenn Beck has called 9-11 truth activists "terrorists" or "dangerous anarchists", so how can you claim that Glenn Beck "promoted" Jones' views? Just two weeks ago Beck nodded in agreement when ex-CIA veteran Michael Scheuer said the only thing that could save America is Bin Laden detonating a major device inside the United States. PrisonPlanet posted my article slamming Scheuer and Beck, so how can you claim Jones and Beck are ideologically joined at the hip?

I am not defending Glenn Beck. I happen to think Beck is a corporate controlled media shill and Jones' own websites like PrisonPlanet and Infowars have done dozens upon dozens of articles slamming Beck for his outrageous comments. I should know, I have written several of them. Just because someone like Alex Jones professes a belief or stance on something and another person professes the same view, does not mean they are a part of the same crowd.

Parts of your article were very dishonest. Let me illustrate what you did in your article with an analogy. You basically said that if there are two different anti-war people, and one of them blows up a building in protest and the other marches peacefully in protest, they are both in the same crowd and of the same mind. There's absolutely zero proof Jones and Beck are connected, but you chose to spin and be dishonest---and even lie. You have just parroted an already debunked smear. Here are links of the retractions issued by the sites that lied about Jones, as you did.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pittsburgh_shooter_was_fan_of_rightwing_0405.html (notice the apology at the bottom--they had mentioned Jones' name in the original)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/6/717115/-Poplawski-Linked-to-Stormfront-and-Glenn-Beck (notice the retraction by the highlighted word "UPDATE")

I strongly urge you to issue a retraction to save your journalistic integrity.

Larry Simons


Another area where Perlstein’s credibility is shot to hell is when he strongly attempts to make it a clear-cut case that lone wolf shooters only come of out hiding during Democratic administrations. He says:

“Another thing that makes some elite conservatives nervous in this recession is the sheer level of unhinged, even violent irrationality at the grassroots. In postwar America, a panicky, violence-prone underbrush has always been revealed in moments of liberal ascendancy.”

He mentions minutemen militia preparing for a Russian takeover in the Kennedy years, the Posse Comitatus in the Carter years and 6 anti-abortion murders and Oklahoma City during Clinton. Yeah, Perlstein is right. It only happens during the reign of Democrats. John Hinckley trying to assassinate President Reagan and permanently disabling James Brady in 1981, John Lee Malvo and John Allan Muhammad killing 10 people in the Beltway sniper attacks in 2002 and Naveed Afzal Haq killing one and wounding 5 at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in 2006 officially do not count since they happened during Republican administrations.

Of course, me saying ‘they don’t count’ was just as absurd as Perlstein’s above quote. My point (buried in thick sarcasm), quite clearly, is that there is always a lone nutball out there, and they are so nutty that they don’t even care what political party resides in the White House.

Perlstein then says:

“And when Kansas doctor George Tiller was murdered in church, Fox star Bill O'Reilly was forced to devote airtime to defending himself against a charge many observers found self-evident: that O'Reilly's claim that "Tiller the baby killer" was getting away with "Nazi stuff" helped contribute to an atmosphere in which Tiller's alleged assassin believed he was doing something heroic.”

But Perlstein would have you believe that Tiller’s assassin, Scott Roeder, was waiting for Barack Obama to be elected President so he could “reveal himself in a moment of liberal ascendancy”, despite the fact that O' Reilly had been vilifying Tiller on radio and TV for FIVE years prior to the murder. I know. Absurd. As absurd as the false left/right paradigm to begin with. This phony paradigm was further exposed by yours truly after the holocaust museum shooting in June when the left (the ones who label themselves "left") called the shooter, James Von Brunn, a "right wing extremist" when in fact he hated Bush, Sr., Bush, Jr., John McCain and FOX News.

In Dave Neiwert’s article at Crooks and Liars, after posting a huge chunk of Perlstein’s column within his story (which included the lie about Alex Jones), Neiwert said this:

“The difference between "propaganda" and "journalism" is that (ideally, at least) the latter is built on a robust consideration of the facts at hand -- and Perlstein's piece clearly is that. Indeed, his piece brings up a lot of inconvenient facts that O' Reilly conveniently omits.”

Clearly is fact, huh? Only O’ Reilly omits facts? This is clearly a case of the blind and the more blind leading the blind!

Posted on PrisonPlanet here

15 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, you claim Perlstein is a liar, because(as you claim):

"Poplawski did not devote allegiance to Alex Jones. In fact, he opposed Jones' views. "
----------

Please explain how Poplawski "opposed Jones' views"?

And what is the nature of Poplawski's opposition to Jones' views? Is it the sort of opposition characterised as, say, the difference between a socialist and a capitalist, or the sort of difference characterised by, say, different wings of the nazi party? Those are quite different sorts of "opposition", right?

So.......please *document* and explain these differences, please?

otherwise, you'd best apologise for calling Perlstein a liar?

Real Truth Online said...

Poplawski only left a total of 3 comments on Infowars and he agreed with comments posted on Infowars that opposed Jones' views---which, in essence, means that he ALSO opposed Jones' views. Plus, you make it sound as if Poplawski loaded his guns and walked into a police station and opened fire. His MOTHER called the cops over a domestic dispute that involved Poplawski's dog pissing on the floor.

The shooting of the cops did not involve any political motivation and sure as hell did not involve anything he read on any website. If Alex Jones is to blame because Poplawski left 3 comments on Infowars in support of other commets that OPPOSED Jones' views-----then you can blame every website that anyone gets on before they commit some heinous act. If I look at a porn site and then go out and rape a woman----who's fault is it? Mine or the porn sites? If I leave a comment on a message board on my local newspapers' website and then I go out and blow up something-----are you going to blame the newspaper, just because I left comments on the site before I committed my crime?

I have a better question for YOU: What thing or things did Alex Jones say to Poplawski that prompted him to kill the 3 cops?? Hmmmmm???

the_last_name_left said...

L: "Poplawski only left a total of 3 comments on Infowars......"
---------
That we *know* of. That proves he was a visitor.

L: "Pop. agreed with comments posted on Infowars that opposed Jones' views---which, in essence, means that he ALSO opposed Jones' views."
-------
But what was *the content* of the comments? Do you even know, or are you assuming?

As I asked originally - were the disagreements deep and fundamental ones, or were they those of an internecine type - like two Nazis from different wings of Nazi party, for example?

Until you can prove that they were meaningful disagreements, then you cannot claim they were.

L: "I have a better question for YOU: What thing or things did Alex Jones say to Poplawski that prompted him to kill the 3 cops?? Hmmmmm???"
---------------------

Well, the constant suggestion and repetition of things like "the govt is illegitimate"......"they're gonna take your guns away"......."911 was an inside job"....."a cabal has taken over the govt in a coup" etc etc etc.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

It is up to *you* to support *your* claim that perlstein is a liar - to do that you need to substantiate *your claim* that Paplowski disagreed with Alex Jones' views. That requires you proving there were deep and fundamental ideological and political ethical differences between Jones and Poplawski.

You have so far totally failed to do so.

Real Truth Online said...

LOL---by agreeing with my comment that he only left 3 comments by saying "that we 'know' of"----you are making Perlstein's argument, as well as yours, more impossible to prove. If I KNOW of 3 comments and was using that as my defense of Alex Jones----how is agreeing with me by saying "that we 'know' of" a defense for Perlstein? How does he KNOW there was MORE than 3 comments in order for him to make the claim he does?? Hmmmm???

The ADL issued a comment in one of their stories that said Poplawski, since he was an anti-simite, was disappointed that Alex Jones's site didnt focus enough on the roles Jews played in all these conspiracies. So, yes, that would be classified as "opposed". By the way, if Perlstein is making the claim that "Richard Poplawski, professed allegiance to conspiracist Alex Jones, whose theories Fox TV host Glenn Beck had recently been promoting"--then HE has to PROVE that in his article. I think the fact that in my story I gave links to websites that have issued retractions of their original stories that made the same claims, I have proven there were lies told about Jones being responsible.

Wheres the evidence that "Poplawski PROFESSED ALLEGIENCE to Alex Jones"?? If he has no PROOF of this, that in and of itself makes him a liar---even WITHOUT me calling him a liar!

Your whole "content" argument is just your attempt at smokescreening this and playing word games. Perlstein has to PROVE Poplawski PROFESSED ALLEGIENCE to Jones in order to print what he said--and you fucking KNOW it--that's why you are attempting to divert the issue to whatever the "content" was. If Perlstein is telling the truth, why doesnt he provide clear evidence that there was a Poplawski/Jones connection OUTSIDE of just a guy posting comments on a website? Are you suggesting that EVERY website is responsible for the actions of their posters? So, are you saying that if you went out and killed someone, Id be responsible since you posted comments on my site?

Here's the funniest thing you said. Here's your "proof":

"Well, the constant suggestion and repetition of things like "the govt is illegitimate"......"they're gonna take your guns away"......."911 was an inside job"....."a cabal has taken over the govt in a coup" etc etc etc."

THIS is your 'proof'??? LOL. Alex Jones is the ONLY one saying the government is illegitimate on blogs? Well, since the Declaration of Independence says that 'government derives their just powers from the consent of the governed' and that if government ever becomes corrupt then it is our DUTY to throw off the old government---then I guess that makes our founding fathers responsible for the deaths of the Pittsburgh cops as well.

I can provide you solid PROOF that this administration is working on taking away guns. Do you really want me to sizzle your ass with the proof? Be careful what you ask for. Saying 9-11 was an inside job made Poplawski shoot the cops? So, his MOTHER calls the cops for a domestic dispute and when the cops get there, Pop. shoots them because 9-11 was an inside job? Why did that require the cops coming to the house? Why didnt he go to the police station an shoot them?? I say 9-11 was an inside job too---am I to blame for the cops' deaths too? Jesse Ventura says 9-11 was an inside job--is Ventura responsible? Youre a COMPLETE moron! The burden of proof is not on ME to prove Poplawski was not motivated by Alex Jones, it is on Perlstein since HE made the claim that there was a connection!

So, if I wrote a story that said the Titanic sunk in 1905 and not 1912---I dont have to PROVE it was in 1905?? Instead my READERS have to prove it wasnt 1905?? That OFFICIALLY makes you a jackass!

By the way, the very first thing that has to be PROVEN in this whole deal is that the shooting was politically motivated---so far, NO ONE has proven that.

You could "go on and on"?? But yet you didnt----I wonder why. lol

Real Truth Online said...

I went to your ridiculous site. All it is is an endless barrage of unsubstantiated claims, accusations and zero facts. They are just OPINION pieces--no links, no sources, no documented evidence, no video footage---nothing but just what you THINK.

Its also one of the worst sites Ive seen---fits well with the content--lol.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: "The ADL issued a comment in one of their stories that said Poplawski, since he was an anti-simite, was disappointed that Alex Jones's site didnt focus enough on the roles Jews played in all these conspiracies. So, yes, that would be classified as "opposed"."
------------

Opposing Alex's views would take real opposition - not a simple wish to see Jews more clearly and viciously targeted.

So we do not have opposition - merely frustration that Alex doesn't go "far enough" ie he doesn't target jews "enough" nor viciously "enough".

The criticism of Alex Jones is that he functions as the acceptable face of the far-right: it's Stormfront Lite.

So it is no surprise to find an extremist like Poplawski frustrated at AJ about a lack of anti-semitism : many in the far-right complain about Alex for the exact same reason, whilst nevertheless agreeing with the essence and import of what AJ says.

Just as poplawski clearly did.

So that is *not* a fundamental disagreement - which is what you wish to suggest it was. (and thereby, of course, seek to distance Alex Jones and Prionplanet from far-right extremists, such as poplawski. Why do that anyway, when it's obvious there are wide, varied and deep connections?)


Larry: "Wheres the evidence that "Poplawski PROFESSED ALLEGIENCE to Alex Jones"?? If he has no PROOF of this, that in and of itself makes him a liar---even WITHOUT me calling him a liar!"

Well, indeed - we could do with Perlstein providing some evidence for his claim.

But, nevertheless, perlstein's claim is closer to the truth than your claim that Poplawski "opposed" Alex's views, because clearly Poplawski did not oppose Alex's views: they share the same views, only Poplawski wanted Alex to be more anti-semitic.

The point is whether Alex is encouraging people to hold views which can move over into violence, gun-crime, anti-authority paranoia, anti-semitism, etc etc.

It is inescapably true that Poplawski held remarkably similar views as those which Alex Jones iterates day after day........it's obvious they *are* the same views, despite your spurious claims about Poplawski opposing Alex Jones' views. They are clearly very similar - and it's no surprise to have found poplawski having posted at Prisonplanet and Stormfront either.

But did Poplawski "profess allegiance" to Alex Jones? I don't know? Do you *know* he didn't? Does perlstein *know* he did?

Doesn't matter to me......the point is that Poplawski and Alex Jones share a worldview and political perspectives. Ideologically, and politically, they are KIN. You cannot dispute that FACT, regardless whether Poplawski professed allegiance to AJ or not.

Presumably you cannot know he definitely never said such a thing, whereas perlstein *might* know that he did. Does it matter? I don't think so. The important point is that Perlstein's article is still essentially correct and apposite because it draws the definite connections between poplawski and Alex Jones' beliefs which were very similar. near identical, in fact.

Does that make Alex Jones responsible? Hmmm. Hardly exonerates him........

Regardless - the point is, Poplawski did *not* oppose Alex Jones' views.

Real Truth Online said...

I simply will not spend anymore time on you if you continue to smokescreen my comments and divert and ignore. You ignored MOST of my above post. I will end this debate by asking 3 questions: failure to answer even one of them or all 3 will result in me not wasting one more minute of my time on you, because you're obviously a troll.

1) Give me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE POPLAWSKI'S shootings were POLITICALLY MOTIVATED---also give me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that his shootings DIRECTLY resulted from influence from Alex Jones. If you cannot (as you indicated above "Perlsteins comments were 'closer to the truth' than my claim"...TRANSLATION: NOT THE TRUTH) then Perlstein is a LIAR
---------------------------------
2) If I went to YOUR site and began believing your views and I went out and committed some horrible crime------would YOU be responsible? Or would it be ONLY MY fault??
------------------------------
3)..and most importantly..Give me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that ANYTHING Alex Jones says about government, guns, Washington, etc....is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unless the things Alex Jones says on the air are UNCONSTITUTIONAL----then I dont care what he says--because if he stays within the perimeters of the Constitution, everything he says will be legal.
--------------------------------

Now, when you respond (if you do)--- I want you to list things that Alex Jones says that are not according to the Constitution. I will predict right now what your response will be: Either you will deflect, dodge and ignore my questions, you wont be able to think of ONE unconstitutional thing Jones says or you wont answer me at all. Now, unless you answer my questions I will not respond and you wil most likely be deleted----now go sit outside of Big Ben and think about that and get back with me

James Redford said...

Hi, Larry Simons. The_last_name_left has a blog entitled the_last_blog_left: Exposing how Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com serves to promote fascism, white nationalism, neo-nazism etc. On this blog of his he even has a post entitled "'911 Troof' - compromised by fascism" (June 25, 2009 http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/06/911-troof-compromised-by-fascism.html ).

The_last_name_left's stock in trade is logical fallacies and false slander.

The man is also illiterate when it comes to economics. For example, in his blog post "education - capitalism - humanism" (June 25, 2009 http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/06/education-capitalism-humanism.html ), he equates capitalism with "The laws of the jungle."

Yet as economist Prof. Murray N. Rothbard pointed out:

""
The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the “survival of the fittest” to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The “fit” in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The “fit” on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

...

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful “struggle” of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence.
""

From Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970), Chapter 10: "Back to the Jungle?" http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18b.asp .

As you point out, Mr. Simons, if someone is making a claim which would be slander if untrue, then logically the onus is on them to provide evidence for it, which of course Rick Perlstein doesn't do.

As you further point out, it's logically absurd to hold a communication venue responsible for someone's criminal actions simply because they posted something to it. According to the_last_name_left's logic, if someone had ever written a letter to the editor of a newspaper and then commits a criminal act, the newspaper is responsible for them committing the criminal act.

The worldview which the_last_name_left advocates is brutally fascist to the core: wherein one is guilty by association; where no such things as logic or evidence need apply; wherein one is falsely accused if it is found advantageous to do so. The_last_name_left certainly has a hellish vision for the world, and if he ever wanted to find a genuine fascist, all he has to do is look in the mirror.

Real Truth Online said...

Yeah, I went to his blog. After I got done laughing I noticed he has no links, sources, researched facts---nothing. Just all unsubstantiated opinions based on nothing but just what he THINKS. Your post was dead on and if Alex Jones is responsible for actions of others simply based on CONSTITUTIONAL views, then freedom of speech would be dead. I guess thats what that asshole wants...to kill free speech. Oh no! I said the word "kill"---if asshole boy kills someone tonight, I guess I'M responsible! lol

Thanks for the support

the_last_name_left said...

It's very simple - Poplawski did *not* oppose Alex Jones' views. Indeed, they have a lot in common - as did Von Brunn.

And the issue of whether Perlstein is "a liar" or not depends on whether he knows if Poplawski did or did not "pledge allegiance" to Alex Jones.

You called Perlstein a liar - you back it up? Quite how you can substantiate that someone never said a particular thing is something I fail to see. How do you intend to prove Poplawski never said it?

On the other hand, maybe Perlstein can prove Poplawski did 'pledge allegiance' to Jones. That's up to him.

Either way, you have failed to prove either that Perlstein's a liar, or that Poplawski "opposed" Alex Jones' views in any substantial way.

Real Truth Online said...

Youre a fucking TROLL, and Im done with your ignoring, deflecting and dodging ass. Thats what people who are WRONG do, just repeat themselves. That way, they type words and create the illusion that they "responded" while at the same time its not a response.

You didnt answer ANY of my 3 questions---which tells me you HAVE no answer for them, because answering ANY of the 3 would incriminate you and expose your fraudulent ass. Im done with you. Any further posts from you will be deleted (per my disclaimer a the top), troll.

It's fun winning the argument----even if by default.

Anonymous said...

again you own anther person larry, this last name left guy has made himself look like a complete jackass. another fraud exsposed. great post. keep up the good work. another story on prison planet. this guy reminds of jizzz eerrr jas and andy the fraud olstroy.

Anonymous said...

I think you lost that argument, tbh, larry.

the_last_name_left said...

You never did explain how Poplawski "opposed" Alex Jones' views.

your claim - but no evidence. LOL

Anonymous said...

Hello !.
You may , perhaps curious to know how one can make real money .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you need
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!

I`m happy and lucky, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a proper partner who uses your funds in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://udyguberu.digitalzones.com/erozugu.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life