Jonathan Krohn is a Hoax

This is not quite related to my usual theme, although I have been known to dabble in politics from time to time (and I guess the science of gender is inherently political).

Some of you may be following the “Wunderkind” story of Jonathan Krohn, alleged conservative “prodigy.” Huff Post has the story here. You can also find the Air America interview here. Lastly, to top it all off, the Mike Gallagher radio interview. Want Jonathan Krohn’s website? Here it is. If you don’t feel like clicking on links today, just watch the main video in question right here, on Science and Math Defeated, through the wonders of the Internet.

I am the first to call hoax. You can see multiple other videos on Youtube. My basic reason are as follows:

1) His views, influences, and biography are all stereotypical. He’s homeschooled, he “got into politics” through being anti-Democrat during the Clinton era and listening to talk radio. On top of all this he was homeschooled.

2) His words are virtually empty. He claims conservativism is founded upon “four principles” which are an ad hoc collection of contermporary American issues. Nothing to do with, for example, Edmund Burke.

3) In one interview he is asked who is favorite philosopher is and he says Ronald Reagan.

4) His book is virtually impossible to find or purchase online except through his website.

5) The explanatory hypothesis of him being a child actor parodying the conservative movement has much explanatory force. It explains his high level of articulation and poor level of substance. Plus, his repetition of his most inane talking points no matter what question he is asked. Most importantly, he is a child actor!

We’ll see if I turn out to be right on this. I think I will, because I turn out to be right on everything!

Others whose hoax existence makes it possible that this is a hoax: Daxflame, Martin Eisenstadt, Andy Kaufman, Joaquin Phoenix, Ann Coulter.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Jonathan Krohn is a Hoax

  1. Yep. You’re now offcially a poe, and not a nutter.

    Is Krohn a hoax? Maybe. I’ve never heard of him before just now, so it’s a moot point to me.

    But you tipped your hat about yourself too much on this post. Let’s look at your five points an see how they might be applicable to this very blog.

    1) His views, influences, and biography are all stereotypical (for a crank). He’s a “perpetual student,” but won’t say at which institutions because “some people look down their noses upon certain institutions, or kinds of institutions.” His influences include such bizarrely at-odds figures as Richard Dawkins and Bill Dembski, Noam Chomsky and Lyndon LaRouche (honestly, it would only take adding Ayn Rand to that list to make it explode in a blazing conflagration of “HUH?”)

    2) His words are virtually empty. He claims to have defeated science and math, then makes a collection of strawman attacks that aren’t even internally consistent or hold up to even basic reason.

    3) In one post, he praised the scientific integrity of Keivn Trudeau.

    4) I got nuthin’.

    5) The explanatory hypothesis of him being a troll parodying a nutjob crank and conspiricist has much explanatory force. It explains his high level of articulation and poor level of substance. Plus, his repetition of his most inane talking points no matter what question he is asked. Most importantly, he is a troll!

  2. So let me get this straight. By proving that someone else is a fraud, I thereby prove myself to be a fraud. Interesting. I just can’t win with some of you people. Nevertheless I’ll parse some of your convoluted logic.

    1) Saying something true, like that people like Dawkins look down on Community Colleges for example, is not “stereotypical” of “cranks.” What are you talking about? Do you have any examples? Also, I think I’ve made a mistake by grouping all those influences together. OBVIOUSLY I don’t mean, for example, that I simultaneously respect Dembski’s and Dawkins’s views on ID, say. Or Chomsky’s and LaRouce’s views on anarchism. No, I respect them for different reasons, and there are many ways in which I DON’T respect things about those influences. On Ayn Rand, I just hate her, no matter what the WSJ says.

    2) This one just begs the question against me, and in any case your 2 doesn’t fit with my 2 just because “ad hoc” and “straw man” are both fallacies. You should have written, “I got nuthin'” for this one, too.

    3) This would be analogous if I had said Trudeau was an astronomer. And once again, you people are very “either or,” giving me false choices. Of COURSE Kevin Trudeau is wrong about many things, even sensationalist at times. But his research is very extensive and what is impressive is that he works 100% outside of the gated community of the scientific establishment.

    4) True.

    5) I don’t repeat my “most inane talking points,” partly because I don’t have talking points, and partly because I don’t repeat myself in the fashion you suggest. My subjects are very diverse, albeit limited to my knowledge base and education. I don’t know what you could possibly be referring to by calling me a troll. YOU’RE a troll for coming here and throwing mud.

  3. Okay, now I’m back in the other camp again… I honestly, seriously thought you were tipping your hat with a wink and nudge in that post. From your response, perhaps that was not the case (still nto sure!). My comment was written with tongue firmly in cheek and, because I honestly thought (and still kind of think) that you’re playing a character, and that the “actor” if you will would appreciate the joke.

    Now, I did call you a troll in 5. I had originally written “troll,” but meant to replace it with the word “poe” which more accurately described what I thought (and still think) you may be doing here. I changed it earlier in the post, but neglected to make that change elsewhere. So, I apologize for calling you a troll. That’s not an appropriate word for you writing on your own blog.

    (That said, you have posted some awfully trolly comments on my own blog in the past.)

    … But I just can’t get over the Kevin Trudeau thing! As you say, he is wrong about a GREAT many things… The guy is a charlatan and a fraud… And, I honestly don’t feel that’s an ad hominem attack: he is a fraud. He’s been convicted of credit card fraud, pled guilty to larceny, sued by his own company for misrepresentation, fined or cited by the FTC, SEC and numerous other bodies for making false claims countless times.

    And yet you say his “research is very extensive.” What research? Doing a Google search for “natural remedies” and compiling the results into a book is not research, not in any useful sense of the term. What evidence did Trudeau produce that his “Natural Cures” cure herpes or cancer. You realize that when cancer goes without being treated properly, people die, right? And yet Trudeau publishes cures for cancer in his book for which there is no — NO — evidence of any efficacy whatsoever. NONE. That’s some nice “extensive research.”

    Look, I realize your earlier comment about Trudeau was made in passing. But you continue to defend him, and the fact of the matter is that there is no better poster child than Trudeau for the need for empiricism, strict standards of evidecnce and replicability when it comes to scientific claims. That’s what the “scientific establishment” is all about!

    At least we can agree that Ayn Rand is horrible. There’s hope for the world yet.

  4. I actually like the take that the kid’s a fraud, but only because it points out the fraudulence of ‘conservative intellectuals.’

    Ad hoc principles, empty bluster and shallow talking points happen to be the meat and potatoes of the great ‘thinkers’ on the right. That’s why this kid will be famous for years, it’s nothing that a sharp thirteen year old couldn’t master. And isn’t that basically the reality of ersatz teens like Hannity or Limbaugh, with his ‘Barack the Magic Negro’? I think the kid is real, and he’s gonna be rich.

  5. Pingback: GOP’s Obama-To-Be? « Cinie’s World

  6. if he is a fraud, and this is a hoax, he has been carrying it off for longer than most hoaxes…which is pretty good.

    and i heard him on thom hartmann, and the kid really went off when challenged…so he sounds sincere to me

    hey, if it gets him future gigs, more power to him

  7. I would like to see your definintion of a “hoax.”

    I fail to see why empty words, stereotypical background, an unnatural adoration of Reagan & book that isn’t selling well define “hoax.”

    And I looked him up at imdb. Nothing. What acting jobs has he had? If none, why is he even called an actor except to dismiss him?

  8. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about the hoax. I am a theater director (The Holly Theater, Dahlonega, GA) and have worked with Jonathan before. His intellect is amazing and he’s always been one to talk politics… and his ideas truly come from himself and not his parents or anyone else. He’s also performed in Atlanta- I saw him there in Peter Pan last year- I think it was the Atlanta Light Opera? Anyway, I always knew he’d be famous one day. We’ve all saved our playbills just in case : ) Agree or disagree with him, he is most definitely not a faux.

  9. This kid needs to be banned just like the rest of the GOP!!!! This is total proof that the GOP is a bunch of nazis, first they recurit a woman like Sarah Palin who replicates Eva Braun and now they have this kid who is like the Hitler Youth! This kid sounds like one robots from I,Robot! He doesn’t even know what he is saying, just repeats what his head has been filled with. Only Repubs do this stuff! Dems and libs would never do this to a kid! It isn’t cute or funny…or interesting, it is sickening and worrisome. Conservatives should have their kids taken away from them! The Right is the biggest threat to freedom and liberation in this world, the Right is the REAL enemy. Not terroist or Muslims or gays or women’s rights…THE GOP! What really gets munder my skin about conservatives is that the ONLY reason you all have the right to say the hateful and bigoted things you do whenever and wherever you want, and the ONLY reason you can put a thirteen year old kid in a suit and make him do your duty work for votes is because of liberals! It is because of liberals that there is free speech and freedom of expression! It is the liberals that protect your rights to say whatever you want! Conservatives always go on about “thank a vet” crap NO! If you like your freedom thank a LIBERAL!

  10. Shelly – have you ever watched an interview with him? It is one thing to say he has memorized a script saying things that are meaningless to him. It is another to watch him reply to questions.

    It always amazes me when I hear people rant hatefully & blindly at someone for there supposed hate & blind mindset.

  11. Dear Stevie,

    Good for you. I don’t do that either. If you take the time to read, you’ll see that I first prove he is a hoax, and then ask for proof that he is not. The burden of proof is on the person who believes positive statements anyway. Strictly speaking I wouldn’t have to prove he was a hoax, since I’m not the one asserting anything – he is, as are people who think he’s real.

    NS

  12. You have red flags that he might be a hoax. Good reason to say “Gee, I wonder. . . ”

    It will be interesting to see what becomes of him 10 years from now.

  13. I suspect your jealousy blinds you to the fact he is a kid and thereby his philosophy is novel and perhaps at times shallow- but you have to attack his sincerity, and your “Red Flags” (thank you, sign of integrity to cite your reasoning) reveal very specious analysis.

    Thank you though.

    PS: I just removed myself this last election from the conservative party. Am “No Party” because of the considerable BS on BOTH!!!!!!! sides.

    Doesnt change this kid is getting treated like a rapist for having a strong and consistent and rather intrigueing viewpoint.

  14. doesn’t matter weather hes a hoax or not. He’s freaking scary. You never know with kids like him. He needs a good mentor. with a bad mentor and his speech skills he can be a pretty terrible person as he gets older.

  15. Pingback: Too Much Good Stuff « Cinie's World

  16. Pingback: Mission Accomplished: Jonathan Krohn is no longer a hoax « Science and Math Defeated

Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s