It's a subject that has a lot of relevance in the world today, so I don't begrudge the concept, but I think that this particular documentary looks a little shady. Looks like they're trying to present it as some kind of, you know, open-minded exploration of the subject, but it's actually a thinly veiled piece of fringe extreme right-wing Orthodox theology.

She isn't interested in seeing these subjects as they are, and there's some sort of purity to it, and the most obvious tell is that she interviews Owen Schroyer, Rob Dew, and Mike Hansen in the documentary. They don't provide a glimpse into Alex as he really is. Interviewing them doesn't just show Alex as he is and lets the audience decide for themselves. They're included because they're sycophantic voices that'll echo the self-aggrandizing narrative that Alex is telling about himself, which is the story that Moyer wants to tell. Including interviews with people who glorify Alex is counter to her pretend ethos and kind of makes a joke of her insistence of not interviewing critical voices in the name of some pretense of journalistic purity.

This documentary is allowing Alex to present himself this way unquestioned because it doesn't work for their purposes to treat him like an extreme right-wing ideologue from early on in life. It's far more attractive to present him as someone who's kind of in the middle and liked all sorts of political ideas, but he was driven towards the right by the extreme fanatics on the left who are no longer free speech. They don't like health food. Above the left-right paradigm. This is a decision that Moyer is making because she wants to make her subject more attractive to a non-exclusively extreme right-wing audience. It's deception by omission and allowing Alex to present things unchallenged.

You see here another editorial choice that I think is really glaring, and that is the swelling music accompanying Alex's decision to get into covering conspiracy theories in the New World Order. You can hear the feeling that's intended to be parlayed there. The clouds are parting, and Alex sees his path. That's not something that's being conveyed by Alex's words. It's being stressed by the musical choices and directorial decisions that Moyer is making because that's how she wants the audience to see Alex.

So Mike is in this film because he's a voice that can say that Alex is not only great now, he's always been great, and I would know because I was there. Including this voice and not other voices of people who were there and are now critical of Alex is an editorial choice on Moyer's part. She doesn't speak to other people who were there when they went to the grove, like John Ronson or Alex's ex-wife, who didn't go into the grove with them but was along for the trip. The selection of voices that are allowed in this film is curated to create a particular image of Alex, and people who are actually critical of him and know him would threaten that image so they don't exist.

So weird how this documentary doesn't even mention the existence of Bill Cooper. It's nuts that they're just kind of pretending that Alex didn't completely idolize him and pretending that he wasn't a giant figure in the anti-government conspiracy world. Like, Bill was already the conspiracy Dan Rather. Yep. Alex is a big deal. That's fair enough, but it's a little much to pretend that he was this much of a trailblazer. Recognizing that Bill Cooper existed hurts the ability to create the image that this film wants to paint. And that is that Alex entirely went his own way and created this whole thing out of his desire to tell truth in Alex's war.

This whole section of the film is a really long greatest hits of Alex's career that's meant to paint him as a true renegade, going against popular opinion to tell the truth about these tragic events. It covers things like OKC, Waco, and 9-11, but it's just surface-level shit, like Alex saying this thing is a false flag. And then Alex in the present day will say, boy, that sure was a false flag. It's meaningless and doesn't talk at all about the details of stuff, like how Alex thought the EU did 9-11. Then we have Bohemian Grove in there, but you don't really have any mention of Ronson going on C-SPAN and discussing how Alex admitted to him that he was lying to his audience about everything. And even worse, this documentary just ignores so much of Alex's career that doesn't fit its mold. Like, what about Y2K? Or even larger, what about the Boston bombing? That was a giant part of his career, and he got it completely wrong. That was an event where he managed to send Dan Badanti to disrupt a press conference that the authorities were holding to inform the public about the situation while the bombers were still unknown and on the loose. The public was living in fear, and Badandi was just yelling Infowars.com at the police who were trying to calm the public. You can make an argument that his coverage of the Boston bombing is in like the top five points of his career that bear mentioning. And its omission here is glaring. And the reason is because it doesn't fit. Yeah. You don't really get to hero to play that for a hero. Yeah. The selection of what to cover and what not to cover is an editorial choice that Moyer is making because these things are the building blocks of Alex's mythology, whereas things like him being an idiot and gleefully exploiting a terrorized city isn't necessarily good optics. Sandy Hook will come up because it has to, but it's presented as more or less the exception that proves the rule and even more poorly presented, and we'll get to that later.

So there's just like the appearance of them badgering him. And like it's, it creates the appearance of like Alex is a victim in this whole thing. There's no recognition of the fact that it is these parents who are suing him. There's no recognition of what they've gone through. It is an entirely one-sided presentation of his Sandy Hook legal troubles, which again are presented as only the result of people trying to find something to be mad at him about because he supports Trump.

The point is, this team sucks, and whatever angle they have on the subject of Alex is going to be deeply biased. One of the producers is a disgraced former member of the LA art movie scene, and the other two are people whose resumes are just Trump propaganda and anti-communist short subjects. I'll still watch it, but it's absurd to pretend that this is anything other than something meant to glamorize and rehabilitate Alex's public image, which is why he's promoting it.

Without sounding too conceited, the fact that I'm not in this documentary is a red flag that this isn't a documentary. It's a puff piece about Alex.

Would you be surprised to find out that is not in this at all? No, wait, no. So he doesn't have any conversation with anyone who disagrees with him? Nope. There's a unified front here. That seems less like a documentary and more like a propaganda film. You bet.