In February 2012, an investigation published online alleged that radio host and media figure Alex Jones had operational connections to Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.), a private intelligence firm headquartered in Austin, Texas. The allegations sparked a series of responses, counter-allegations, and events that raised questions about the relationships between alternative media, private intelligence firms, and government agencies.
The Geographic and Timeline Coincidences
The initial investigation pointed to several circumstantial connections between Jones and Stratfor. Both Jones and Stratfor began their operations in Austin, Texas, in 1996. Stratfor was founded that year by George Friedman, while Jones launched his media career in 1996 with a public-access television program before being hired at KJFK radio in Austin.
Austin itself housed a concentration of political operatives and strategists, including Republican strategist Karl Rove, adding to the city’s significance as a hub for political intelligence operations. The co-location of a major alternative media operation and a private intelligence firm in the same mid-sized city, founded in the same year, became a central element of the allegations.
Structural Parallels Between Infowars and Stratfor
Critics noted that the operational structures of Jones’ media empire and Stratfor bore notable similarities. Stratfor described itself as providing “unique insights into political, economic, and military developments” through situation reports, daily analysis, quarterly forecasts, multimedia content, and intelligence guidance, all available through premium subscriptions with some content free to the public.
Jones’ Infowars operation followed a parallel structure: breaking news coverage through nationwide reporting, daily analysis via his radio program, forecasting through guests like trends researcher Gerald Celente, multimedia content across multiple platforms, and a premium membership tier alongside free public content. Both operations maintained iPhone applications, published books, and produced video content.
Jones regularly hosted and quoted former and current intelligence officials, including figures from the Department of Defense, the NSA, the CIA, and Army Intelligence. This access to intelligence community sources was flagged as unusual for someone positioned as an anti-establishment figure.
The WikiLeaks Email and the Straw Man Debate
On February 27, 2012, approximately two weeks after the initial allegations were published, WikiLeaks released a Stratfor email that mentioned Jones in a dismissive context. The email stated that the government should release photographs “to shout down the lunatics like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.”
Critics of Jones argued that the email’s timing was suspicious, given that the Stratfor hack had occurred in December 2011 but this particular email was released just as the Jones-Stratfor allegations were gaining traction online. They contended that the email created a straw man argument, redirecting the conversation from substantive connections between Jones and Stratfor to the simpler narrative that Stratfor had merely called Jones a “lunatic.”
Jones and his associates used the email to argue that Stratfor clearly viewed him as an adversary, which they presented as evidence against any working relationship. The debate over the email’s significance effectively split public opinion and muddied the waters surrounding the original allegations.
The Speaking Tour Cancellation
The sequence of events surrounding a planned Jones speaking tour attracted scrutiny. On February 2, 2012, Jones announced a nationwide speaking tour. On February 12, the Stratfor-connection article was published. On February 15, just three days later, Jones abruptly canceled the tour, citing the imminent economic collapse as his reason.
Former Infowars employee Jason Bermas offered an alternative explanation, claiming technical difficulties during remote broadcasts were the real reason for the cancellation. Critics noted the contradiction between these two explanations and questioned why Jones would cancel a tour he had enthusiastically promoted just days earlier.
The Response Campaign
Following the allegations, a coordinated response pattern emerged across multiple platforms. Jones and Infowars began publishing numerous stories with “Stratfor” in their headlines, covering the WikiLeaks email releases. Critics argued this was a calculated strategy to flood search results so that people searching for information about a Jones-Stratfor connection would instead find Jones’ own coverage of Stratfor-related news.
Between February 27 and late March 2012, Infowars published at least a dozen stories with “Stratfor” or “Stratfor emails” in their headlines, covering topics from Iran’s nuclear program to Osama bin Laden’s burial. This volume of Stratfor-related content was unprecedented for the site.
In video responses, Jones acknowledged having contacted Stratfor’s founder “like 20 times over the years” requesting interviews, while simultaneously dismissing the firm as incompetent, staffed by “crusty guys picking their nose.” This acknowledgment of repeated contact with Stratfor, even in the context of interview requests, confirmed at minimum a pattern of engagement between the two Austin-based operations.
The Death of Andrew Breitbart
The timeline became more complex with the death of conservative media figure Andrew Breitbart on March 1, 2012. Breitbart reportedly died of heart failure in the early morning hours, just as the Jones-Stratfor story was gaining peak viral attention online.
A story attributed to Larry Sinclair claimed Breitbart had been preparing to release damaging video footage of Barack Obama with alleged connections to radical politics. This story was published on March 1, the same day Breitbart died, and was subsequently promoted heavily by Infowars and Prison Planet. When the anticipated video was eventually released, it turned out to be previously published footage from 2008 rather than new revelations.
Some researchers alleged that Breitbart’s death and the surrounding media frenzy served as an effective distraction from the Jones-Stratfor allegations, redirecting alternative media attention toward a high-profile conspiracy involving Obama. Others dismissed this as coincidence.
Attacks on the Original Researcher
The author of the original investigation reported receiving coordinated attacks from multiple sources. A new blog appeared on March 4, 2012, apparently created specifically to discredit him. A former Army Intelligence officer who regularly appeared on Jones’ program published a separate attack piece. Both focused on personal attacks against the researcher rather than addressing the substantive evidence presented in the original article.
This pattern, attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, was cited by supporters of the original investigation as further evidence of a coordinated response. Defenders of Jones argued that the attacks were simply a natural response to baseless accusations.
The 9/11 Prediction Connection
Both Stratfor and Jones had notable activity around the September 11, 2001, attacks. Stratfor made its breaking news analysis freely available to the public and published predictions about likely actions by both al-Qaeda and the Bush administration. Jones claimed to have predicted the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.
The question of how both a private intelligence firm and an independent radio host in the same city could have advance insight into the same events added another layer to the circumstantial case being assembled by investigators.
Evaluating the Evidence
The case connecting Jones to Stratfor rests primarily on circumstantial evidence: geographic co-location, simultaneous founding dates, structural parallels in operations, Jones’ acknowledged contacts with Stratfor, and a series of suspicious timing coincidences surrounding the response to the allegations. No direct documentary evidence, such as contracts, payments, or explicit communications establishing an operational relationship, has been publicly produced.
However, the intensity and coordination of the response to the allegations, involving multiple media figures, new websites created specifically for counter-messaging, and an unprecedented volume of Stratfor-related content from Infowars, struck many observers as disproportionate to what would be expected if the allegations were simply baseless.
The broader question raised by the investigation transcends Jones specifically: to what extent do private intelligence firms cultivate relationships with media figures, particularly in the alternative media space, to gather information on their audiences and influence the direction of public discourse? Whether or not the specific Jones-Stratfor allegations are accurate, the question itself points to a structural vulnerability in any media ecosystem where the line between journalism, intelligence gathering, and influence operations is not clearly demarcated.