This dissertation uses discourse analysis and cultural ethnography to better understand the discursive forms, symbols, and modes of identity differentiation constructed on a controversial talk show. My research site, InfoWars, with Alex Jones, comes strategically as an entrance point into larger cultural landscapes within the public sphere in the areas of consumerism, conspiracism, and politics. It is a case study evocative of a taboo form of discourse. InfoWars is a conservative talk show that is thematically and discursively structured by narratives far afield from traditional news media or even conservative talk radio in those of conspiracism. Both the integrative strands and cultural fissures created in this public give it its character, and these elements shed light on the conceptual notions used to describe it in terms of conspiracism and its accompanying ideological components. The introduction of this dissertation outlines major theoretical concerns and previous research into conspiracy theories, political talk radio, normative and descriptive theories of the public sphere, beginning with Habermas. It also provides the methodological background for this work. In the introduction, I present my foundational view of this research, following James Carey and others, which conceptualizes media texts through a cultural communication prism. Communication, in this dissertation, is not transactional; its specifics are not central to the structures it creates. Clearly stated, a specific conspiracy is not my interest because it is the functional and societal element of all conspiracies or ‘conspiracism’ on this site that I aim to explain. Communication creates structures for identities, feelings, and communities, and by studying different communicative elements, I investigate one specific subculture or political group and the logic of its organization. Chapter Two uses discourse analysis to study the call-ins to InfoWars. This analysis resulted in two major themes: the first is categorical, and the second is political, which adds to our knowledge of conspiracism as a cultural form. First, this analysis of the call-ins reveals qualitatively taxonomic categories of the discursive forms that make conspiracism ontologically stable as a cultural discourse: (a) the incredible conjecture and (b) the nefarious other. These elements are defined in this chapter and shown empirically and co-constructed by the host and the callers. Second, these discursive elements, which build conspiracism, result in a communally shared, differentiated political identity, which supports a claim to counterpublic status for the conservative audience. This identity and the counterpublic are not otherwise available to them as the “outsider” stigmatized status of conspiracism provides the audience of InfoWars with their major political orientation. Next, Chapter Three adds to our understanding of the makeup of the show’s audience, its ‘public,’ by constructing an ‘ideal reader’ or rather an ideal consumer. This construct is evoked in the discourse and types of products the show advertises. The chapter analyzes the show’s commercials, focusing on its dietary supplements because of their ubiquity and the ‘prepper’ (i.e., doomsday prepper or survivalist) products. These products are most revealing of ideological content. The analysis suggests that the ideal consumer appealed to in this discourse is a self-sufficient, hyper-masculine figure who values heteronormative roles and strength. Additionally, this ideal of masculinity is preparing himself to meet the challenges of malevolent action by the nefarious other. Fear of the nefarious other is a constant theme of the show, and it is used to sell products. However, this ideal masculine figure is in an apparent contradiction as the products target an older man in decline, one who retreats from perceived threats, and not an “InfoWarrior”, as suggested in the first chapter. Chapter Four discusses the deplatforming of Alex Jones and InfoWars from mainstream social media in 2018. This Chapter analyzes how this removal was framed in liberal and conservative media outlets—including The New York Times, Mother Jones, The Wall Street Journal, and The National Review. It finds both predictable and surprising elements that speak to how a subcultural public becomes policed by larger entities and how the bounds of this debate took shape. Liberal outlets framed the deplatforming as a necessary response to misinformation and harmful speech. Conservative outlets both distanced themselves from Jones on the one hand and then used him as evidence of censorship and bias against conservative voices on the other. Jones’s deplatforming exemplified how conspiracism functions in the larger, mainstream public sphere; Jones’s removal paradoxically served all parties in the controversy, further solidifying InfoWars as a site of counterpublic identity and resistance, and legitimating mainstream news sources' discursive authority in contrast to InfoWars. Finally, my concluding chapter synthesizes the findings of each chapter to show that InfoWars is a commercialized form of stigmatized discourse in the public sphere. This discourse replaces class politics that this subculture might access if not for the cultural tendency it is otherwise invested in. In this conclusion, I also discuss how the removal of Jones can resemble a purification ritual of the removal of filth to maintain the cleanliness of the public sphere. I also argue that conspiracism serves as a solidarity mechanism for this community, and therefore, fighting its specifics is a losing cause. Thus, this site relates to class politics but avoids them, and a normative goal should be a more genuine proletarian public sphere. Such a goal might address the material conditions of everyday working life for many Americans and reduce their need to resort to conspiracies. Finally, further studies into conspiracism should be grounded in their cultural forms and resist the temptation to further stigmatize them, as this is counterproductive.