- Marty Shackter: Marty is the owner of one of Alex's primary sponsors, Cal-Ben Soaps. Once a month or so, as part of his sponsorship contract, Alex has to let Marty come on the show and talk about how no other soap is really soap. Then, every time he's on, in order to make his ad revenue, Alex Jones has to set up Marty to tell a dirty limerick on air that has nothing to do with anything, and often is not even technically a limerick. I love this so much, as it demonstrates clearly how desperate Alex was for money in 2009. He was accepting ad money from a cult, and he let an old man tell dirty poems on air. Here is the "limerick" from this episode:
- Barry Cooper: Barry Cooper is a retired police officer. He alleges that he used to plant drugs on people to set them up for convictions, but after getting high and exploring hallucinogens, he realized that there was a better way in life. It's a good story, but I don't believe any of it, except that he probably was a cop. Barry has for many years hosted a website where he gives people advice about how to cheat a drug test, which (assuming his advice is accurate) is pretty cool. Since his 2009 appearance on Alex's show, he's begun offering Ibogaine and Ayahuasca "retreats" in Mexico, with promises of a quick fix for addiction (not to mention all the mental illnesses that magically get cured). The science is pretty unclear currently, but it looks like these intervention methods are really only effective for cessation, not for keeping people sober. Patients who do not enter therapy or join a recovery group after the Ibogaine interrupts their process of addiction show relapse rates as high as 90%, according to some experts. These retreats are possibly helpful to start a life-long process of recovery, but Barry is not selling them that way, which leads me to believe he's a con-man, fleecing vulnerable addicts who are desperate for a way out. The fact that prices "start" at just under $5,000 for the retreat, and that price doesn't include travel, hotel, or food doesn't help. Bottom line, this is not a man I want to trust with my vulnerable mental health issues. I feel that point is well illustrated by this clip from his appearance, where he explains that he would replace sex ed in schools with a class that teaches girls to be "less jealous," which turns out to just be a way for Barry to vent about his ex-wife:
This episode is a Tale Of Two Cities. On the one side, you have the two completely insane guest appearances mentioned above, and on the other, you have Alex spending about 80 minutes "deconstructing" Obama's inauguration speech from the day prior. He could have "deconstructed" it yesterday, but if you'll recall, he was too busy leaving his own show to be interviewed on Russia Today.
There are a few other notable moments to discuss that don't fall into one of those baskets, the most interesting being Alex again insisting that "Congress is under martial law," but on this episode, he expands on that a little more:
In the breakdown of yesterday's episode, I explained the manipulation Alex is using about the varying definitions of "martial law," and how that doesn't mean what he is pretending it means when the term is used in relation to Congress. It just means that they are moving to waive the three day waiting period that's usually required between proposing a bill and voting on it. It has nothing to do with the "InfoWars definition" of martial law, which is less about impatience and more about a police state.
To support his narrative about Congress, Alex brings in the "War Powers Act," which is profoundly weird. It's so completely unrelated to the things he's talking about that I sincerely am starting to question whether or not he is just speaking completely randomly, like some kind of paranoid, militia themed MadLibs (possible name for such a product: Super Mad At Libs).
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973, and was largely a response to the shit-show that was the Vietnam War. 58,000+ Americans were killed and over 300,000 wounded, 200,000-400,000 South Vietnamese dead, in a war that was ultimately pointless. War was never declared in Vietnam, nor in Korea, nor later in the Persian Gulf; these were just called "military actions," or some other euphemism to get around the fact that according to the Constitution, the President can't just declare a war, but instead has to go to Congress, which has the ultimate authority to go to war.
The War Powers Resolution was an attempt to make sure something like the Vietnam War never happened again, and that cooler heads would prevail to keep the US from engaging in wars they have no business in. It was a failed attempt, but that is clearly the spirit of the Resolution, as it seeks to lay out a time-table wherein the President's power to introduce US troops into hostilities would be checked by having to report to Congress within 48 hours, and then repeatedly afterwards to justify the continued troop presence.
This system has been abused by many Presidents and many Congresses, but on it's face, this Resolution was an attempt to solve a very serious problem. It failed, but that should be considered a corruption and human failing, not a sign that the Resolution is meant to make more war.
The bigger point, though is that the War Powers Resolution literally has nothing to do with the "martial law rule" in the House, nor does it have anything to do with the federal bailout of the banks that is the root of the Congressional martial law narrative that Alex is talking about in the first place.
It's very clear what Alex is trying to make his audience think here, which is where I have to abandon my "he's just saying random words" theory. Here is a little construction of how he wants his audience to understand what he's saying:
- They are desperate to pass this bank bailout bill, because it is how they will fund the New World Order, and will allow them to be able to afford to oppress everyone
- They can't get the bailout bill through Congress unless they use force to do it, so they have put Congress under martial law
- "Martial law" is a state of emergency, which is listed in the War Powers Act as a reason for the President to be able to call in the military as his jack-booted thugs: "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
- Therefore, in order to force through their bank bailout bill, the "Globalists" are positioning a situation where Obama can call in the military to kill all the patriots (or just fill in the blank conclusion with whatever paranoid fantasy scenario you like best).
This may not be exactly what he's going for, but I assure you, it is something close to this, and it's all bullshit. He's misreading every primary source, he's lying about what "Congressional martial law" means, and he's making insane logical leaps that are completely unsupported by fact or solid inference. I apologize that this has gotten so long already, but it is crucially important to understand that this is the level of thinking that is behind almost all of the things that Alex Jones says. Generally speaking, nothing he says means anything.
Speaking of saying things and meaning nothing, the entirety of Alex's "deconstruction" of Obama's inauguration speech is completely skippable. It is a classically Alex Jonesian performance, where he does the same thing he does every time he is forced to analyze something where he can't just lie about the primary source: he just hinges on single words or phrases and launches into petty, vague critiques about them, so as to chop up the speech into such a disjointed thing that no little piece can be taken in the context Obama meant it in. Here is but one example of that technique:
Here, Alex just hears Obama mention a "new age," so he cuts off the clip and goes off about it being "New World Order Talk:"
For the side that acts like they're all about free speech and can't stand "language policing," the Alex Joneses of the world sure are triggered by a lot of innocuous terms.
In this clip, you can see Alex taking Obama being a generally gracious human and thanking Bush for his service into somehow being proof that...the collapse is coming?
One has to wonder what Alex would have preferred Obama do in that situation. Should he have just ignored that the former President was there? Should he have spit on the Bush family? There is no action that Obama could have taken in this situation that Alex would have not turned into some indication that he's been right all along, Obama is an evil front-man, and the shit is about to hit the fan.
This is kind of all that this half of the episode is. It's completely surface-level engagement with Obama's actual speech, mixed with insanely desperate attempts to combine words and phrases Obama used with some other scary idea that Alex likes to talk about. There's not much else to say about it.
Oh, except that it gets a little racist:
First point, Alex again brings up the "Globalist overlords" and mentions people like the Rockefellers, but never mentions George Soros. It's almost as if he hasn't been told to demonize Soros yet. Weird.
Second, how dare Alex be mad that Barack Obama would give a recognition that black people have had a horrible time historically in our country? Also, how is it not a unifying idea to recognize and empathize, on a deeply human level, that this country was built on deeply racist foundations? It is no slight against any white person to recognize that the entire system was created intentionally in such a way as to exclude non-whites and women from being able to have any capital power, and thus any real control over their lives. Recognizing the common stain that is on all of us due to the evils of the past is not a matter of division, it is deeply unifying.
I would definitely say it's at least more unifying than getting on a radio show and trying argue that the Civil War was about tariffs and that "most blackface was done reverently," two real arguments put forth by Alex Jones' show in the past
But beyond all of that, I would again ask Alex, what could Obama have said that you would have been happy with? You seem to be mad that he is in any way recognizing the black experience in America, because you think that is "dividing," so I am guessing that it would be best for him to just pretend that the black experience doesn't exist. Or, maybe it would just be best if he pretended the black experience was exactly the same as the white experience. Maybe it would be best if he just continued the long tradition of viewing the white male viewpoint as the default and the only one that really mattered?
This, ultimately, is at the core of why Alex Jones' "deconstruction" of Obama's inauguration does not work: there is nothing that Obama could say that would illicit a positive reaction out of Alex. No matter the input Obama gave Alex in the speech, it was going to be processed, and the output was going to be packaged as proof that Obama is a New World Order puppet and trying to destroy America.
It's ultimately just an uninspired and lazy piece of propaganda, made all the more embarrassing and amateurish by the fact that 10 minutes after he finishes his "in-depth analysis" of Obama's lies, he has his soap company sponsor as a guest on the show to ramble about soap and tell dirty limericks. What a complete mess this show is.