All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
01:29:25
The Tragedy And Hope Of The Shady Hook Trial And Alex Jones

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952 https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/ https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior https://twitter.com/JasonBermas PayPal [email protected] #BermasBrigade Show less

|

Time Text
Inside Job: Evidence and Research 00:15:25
Fantastic research, fantastic video by Jason Burmes.
I must say, this is the number one thing that I try to preach and teach when I do logic and teach the trivium is you have to have discernment.
You have to go on the evidence that's available at the time.
And to just take the evidence, like he said, that's you can just type into Google, especially back then at least, and still obtain it and see for yourself what then you can scrutinize.
You can try to criticize and scrutinize that evidence and try to bring evidence forward that says, hey, look, maybe it's not what we, how it's being presented to us.
But until then, we have to work with the evidence available to us.
And he did a brilliant job of breaking that down and showing how, you know, what was that?
35 minutes didn't take very long.
Well, and I thought that his example of deep research, like the people who just watched that video, you did deeper research than apparently a lot of other people with bigger platforms have done.
So that's why I invited Jason Burmese.
He's here in the room tonight.
How are you doing, Jason?
I'm doing well, man.
And that's the first time that I've watched that and almost completion, probably since around the time that I made it.
And I pretty much stand by everything I said, right?
Like, look, I don't like what happened to InfoWars.
I don't like what happened to Alex Jones.
I don't like a default.
But at the same time, you kind of have to own what you've put out there.
And you know, as well as I do, when Sandy Hook happened, the large push, the things that people were sending me constantly were these hack job videos claiming crisis actors, claiming they had pictures or videos of children or teachers or individuals that were in other events.
And I looked at these things and I said, no, that's not real.
And another big thing that was going around I briefly mentioned in that video was the Wayne Carver press conference, where, yeah, there were some really awkward moments there where if you took it out of context and you saw him laughing or whatever, you're like, how could you be doing this with kids?
If you sat through the hour and a half actual press conference and you saw his demeanor and how he seemed just totally blown away with what he had just witnessed, you could kind of understand where he was coming from.
And again, you know, I'm not brilliant, but I think it's important that you take a look at not just the mainstream narrative, but the available evidence from law enforcement, right?
It's not that.
You know, and it's not that law enforcement is great, but you had photographic evidence.
You had video evidence.
One of the things that I really highlight on the possibility of other shooters there is, well, the car doors were all left open.
You had actually guns in the back that were never taken out, number two, supposedly that they found.
And then you had these either black hooded sweatshirts or what could possibly be some types of a black cloak or clergy outfit, right?
And that's why I highlighted the Clive Carver thing.
To speak to how censored things are on Google, I just tried to find that.
And I literally had to, I had to type in in quotation marks, British clergyman describes agony.
And that's how I found it in quotation marks.
I typed in Sandy Hook, British clergy.
I did a dated search.
None of those things came up.
You have to literally find the title, put it into quotations, and then find that.
And how bizarre is it that they chased this van out to Danbury, Connecticut?
And somehow, some way, you not only had that local news report where apparently some of the first people that this reporter talked to were talking about clergy showing up before the incident.
And then clergy are the first people there.
Again, valid questions.
But for me, I saw the movement towards this as that happened, where they didn't want you to question any of these events.
And I think that the best way to do that was to give you a false lead and really degrade the lives of these kids.
If anybody's followed my work, you know, one of the big things that matters to me is children on like every level.
And it should because we're human beings and kids are important.
And unfortunately, the predator class, the people in charge, they don't give a fuck about kids.
They'll drone bomb a thousand Yemenese kids in a month that you'll never hear about along with their families and not blink.
So why don't you think it's possible that these people would do the same thing in the United States?
And, you know, this hurts everybody.
And the other thing is, it's not just Infowars and it wasn't just Alex Jones.
I want to make that very, very clear.
There were people that I thought were doing much more egregious things that had never looked at the source material.
And before you're going to have a strong opinion or act like you know exactly what was going on, you should at least review that source material.
Yeah, I agree.
So part of what you're describing is the absence of these clips in the public narrative because they've been censored and deplatformed.
A lot of the stuff that we try to like, there was that one clip.
Can anyone find it?
And someone finds it on a random outpost, but it used to just be on YouTube a couple keystrokes away.
So they've like abstracted that from the situation.
And then the other part is the source material, the importance of the source material.
Like I have the Sandy Hook final report by the state, the attorney general, I think, published it, right?
You were referring to that.
So I downloaded that information set.
You downloaded that information set.
Neither one of us has gone through every file in that information set.
What we could agree on on the con side is it's hard to show someone that footage and all that evidence and come up with the crime that occurred from there.
You can't really tell any because it's all been redacted, right?
On the pro side, it does show a whole bunch of continuity of events and things that happened that day in between those redactions, right?
So you can see the police response, but you can't see their protocol once they get on property.
They redact that, right?
You can see the outside of the school where the front window was broken and he allegedly shot his way into the school.
But the video security system of the school, I've never seen video of Lanza even pulling into the parking lot.
And usually they would have something just outside like a camera on the parking lot type thing at those times.
I had also heard, and I don't know this for a fact, but I had heard, and we could verify it.
Someone will look it up during the show right here.
Like a couple days before that school had just finished their renovation of a security system.
So I haven't heard that introduced in the past 10 years as a question to be followed up on, right?
Now, my point about Jones, because we'll talk about the trial in a minute, but he definitely had the resources to have an organization that has lawyers and FOIAs and things like Del Bigtree does, right?
He has that ICAN Foundation.
They do a lot of good legal work, pushback.
He could have had a group doing research and really being more effective and not so much shoot from the hip during in between the commercials, right?
So you know that.
I know that.
I went down there in 2013 with the intention of like saying, hey, you guys have a lot of potential, but you're disorganized and it's going to cost you at some point because like there, I could see how little research was being done before something went on.
The case I would give is when I was in the InfoWars boardroom, the Michael Hastings death had just happened and they were interviewing Joe Biggs that day when I was there in the studio.
So I was like, well, how much research?
Like, who's this guy?
And you know, what's his and then you find out he did.
He was embedded with Hastings over in Afghanistan.
There's a long history, right?
But I just saw that it was such a reactionary thing.
And I also knew back at that time that Jones didn't, he didn't have email.
Rob Dew and him text.
Like, that's his only outlet.
So he's not having a whole lot of time to do research and like check other sources to bounce ideas off of, right?
So these are other things that we do to like, hey, let's check this.
This seems really far out that they would hold an event 201 exercise.
It's just like this thing.
Let's check that before we go talk to other people, right?
So, from your perspective, what are some places like, you know, because there's a lot of other independent media outlets out there still trying to get the truth out.
What are some things that other outlets can do as a protocol to like make sure their facts are checked and they don't put themselves out in a libel situation like that?
Again, the first thing you want to do is you want to figure out how much raw video that you can get a hold of.
You want to spend time, as you know, I did, going through as much footage of news coverage of these events in the aftermath immediately after.
I mean, I think that's one of the strongest suits of the Loose Change series.
And again, there were mistakes in that series, but I think some of the strongest stuff were when you had eyewitnesses to explosions inside the building, firefighter testimony, the Barry Jennings testimony that we found that also coincided with what right-hand man of Giuliani Michael Hess said, that they had been blown up in building seven on the eighth floor and they had to make their way back to the 23rd floor.
There, we had two people saying the exact same thing and then being rescued.
And although Hess never talked to us, we were able to track down Barry Jennings, get an interview with him, and put that out into the public arena.
And that sure caused us some problems as well.
There was a lot of pushback on that.
You have to expect the pushback, but you have to do as much first-hand journalism as humanly possible.
Now, I'm largely a commentator.
You know this.
But the things that I like to comment most on are deep dives into documentation, aka declassified government files, or raw news footage, right?
I think those are two really, really important things.
And, you know, let me give you an example in 9-11 where I do think there was, in particular, one sketchy person.
I would never call him a crisis actor because, number one, the terminology wasn't there then, but I felt like the Harley man was something to look at.
And those who don't know what the Harley man footage is, you have this younger guy.
He looks like he's anywhere from his mid-20s to maybe mid-30s.
He has a lanier on, and he's being interviewed by the media.
And all of a sudden, he's telling them how the World Trade Centers came down one after another, obviously from the plane impact and the jet fuel.
When you had people like Van, man, I'm going to forget his name, but people who had worked on the building talking about secondary explosions, and that was the only way the building could have come down in that fashion on that day.
And it wasn't until days after that they went with the Harley man story that it took literally years for NIST to say, that's it, that's what happened.
You know, that's something that should be questioned.
Who was that guy?
What kind of lanyard did he have on?
Who did he work for?
We had none of that information.
That's a valid question.
And it's something I believe it made it into Loose Change Final Cut.
But when you have people, first of all, I can't imagine losing a child.
Now, I'm not a father, but as you know, I was heavily involved in my niece's life.
You know, my girlfriend right now has an eight-year-old daughter.
I'd be devastated.
I'd be devastated.
I don't even know how I would act.
You know, it's one of those things that would be just so impactful that I don't think you can contemplate it unless it happens to you.
So I also think that we have to be extremely careful when you're dealing with children as casualties.
Right.
And I saw just so much stuff come off the cuff.
And let me say this: you know, I talked about it, I think, in my broadcast a couple of days ago when you contacted me, but a lot of the stuff that I was getting from just friends I went to high school with, right?
Because it was being so heavily put out there was the crisis actor stuff.
And I would have to go to my friends who, you know, don't watch me all the time, certainly don't have my viewpoints, are much more mainline.
And they're sending me the crisis actor stuff and asking me if people died at Sandy Hook.
And I'm like, listen, man, there are some real disturbing things and some real questions there.
I guarantee you they fucking killed those kids.
There was never a question to me.
There was never, even the Robbie Parker footage, the father footage, which obviously is very bizarre, not how you would expect somebody who just lost a child to act, did not convince me one iota that somehow none of these children were killed, right?
And then, you know, Shepard Ambellis, to his credit, he's the head of IntelliHub.com and who I did shade the motion picture with.
He did a lot of really good research into Sandy Hook.
You know, there were some odd things about who the car was registered to.
You know, at first, law enforcement officers and some of the media were talking about Lance's brother, not Adam, but his older brother.
You know, there were questions there.
I thought that even Shepard got too caught up in some of these anomalies and broke out his jump to conclusions, Matt.
And the bottom line is you can't just jump to conclusions on these things.
And that's why even 9-11 as a quote-unquote inside job, right?
I don't believe that.
I believe it's an international intelligence operation.
And that's why I made Fabled Enemies.
You know, I showed you and laid out for many people the Pakistani ISI involvement, the Mossad involvement, the Saudi Arabian funding, and then the continuity of government and war games that day, along with the warnings and the subsequent cover-up of the 9-11 Commission.
Now, I never point the fingers, this is the group, but those are all valid questions that point to that type of operation.
And now the term inside job, you know, just last night I watched this.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it yet, but there's a Netflix series out there called Inside Job.
And it is an animated series.
And it opens with what you would assume is a crazy person outside of the White House talking about every conspiracy, including lizard people that you can imagine.
Okay.
And then the whole thing is predicated on every conspiracy theory is real.
The deep state is real.
This guy and his daughter were actually involved in these underground bunkers.
We're talking lizard people, owls, chemtrails.
I've never seen so much conspiracy theory, mythos, and folklore fit into any piece of entertainment more than the first episode of quote-unquote Inside Job.
Inside Job Conspiracies 00:03:06
Have you seen that?
I think he says a lot that it's even more than the Pentaverick.
Because I really thought the Pentavert, they took like every conspiracy theory and put it into like a word salad and just dumped it in.
And that was the script.
And every couple of minutes, they would say something that would like pique the interest of the audience.
But yeah, man, it's definitely, that's definitely a trend.
So I want to rewind to the point of crisis actor.
When you mentioned that, I thought, when did that come on the scene that that was a thing?
And I think it was Boston bombing.
Did it happen before Sandy Hook, if I remember correctly?
You're 100% right.
And I never bought that either.
You know, that was, and that was another thing that really made me take a step back and say, hey, wait a minute, why are they saying this?
Because although there were drills that day of explosions going off, and again, these were mainstream accounts that were out in the public arena.
I said, no way.
You know, look at these Zarnoff brothers.
I had to go back, but, you know, there's video of the Zarnoff brothers in a shootout.
And it sounds like they're saying, we didn't do it.
We didn't do it.
The video of the individual that they put into the car buck naked on the night of the manhunt.
And somehow his face is like kind of blurred out, even the clearest of footage, which I always found really bizarre.
They claimed that that was not Tamerlin Zarnoff.
And in fact, years later, they claimed it was an Asian man.
Now, look, I'm not trying to get into any ethnicity.
From the man's body alone and his hair, he didn't look Asian to me.
That man was eventually, supposedly identified.
Again, you'd have to go look it up, but I think it was like two, three years after the event.
When people were trying to say to me, and I watched all those videos, right, that people who had lost their legs really were amputees before they got there.
I never found any credible evidence of that.
And we're talking again about the Boston bombing.
And then you get into really the details of this, which I think were plenty.
You find out that, for instance, Tamerlan Zarnoff was known to the FBI, that he was a golden gloves boxer, okay?
That they had their radar on him, and that one of his friends kept getting visited by the FBI and followed by the FBI to the point there was even a police report where that individual had been pulled over and he said, I'm being followed by the FBI right now.
The law enforcement officer didn't believe him.
And then he did believe him because they were right there.
And the individual I'm talking about ended up being shot in the head in his apartment while he was being interrogated by the FBI.
And they made the claim that he went for some kind of a knife to attack them when he was killed.
Now, maybe that happened.
Maybe it didn't.
But the question is, why were they there in the first place?
Yeah, I think with the Tsarnaevs, what I remember, first off, it happened after Sandy Hook because it was 2013.
Voices Marginalized? 00:15:21
Okay.
I just looked up a couple references.
And it was their trips to Europe with the FBI knowledge and questioning before kind of after situation.
And then their Uncle Ruslan.
That was the guy I was looking up.
Let's go to Uncle Ruslan here.
Boston Marathon bombings.
There was the Sarnaeevs, and then there was Ruslan, who was apparently a CIA asset.
Did you read any of the articles on this guy back in the day?
I did.
Now it's probably scrubbed.
I had a Google link as my reference.
Isn't that the craziest thing that, you know, this tool that they sold us on as Don't Be Evil and the Information Super Highway and everything is going to be available to us?
It is now the great tool of censorship.
They unabashedly took down the don't be evil.
And then you get into Google, and I know that you've talked about this, but they're funded through the CIA's NQTEL, which is their investment arm.
So we, the taxpayers, paid for that.
They partnered with NASA in, I believe it was 2000, it might have been as early as like 2008, but maybe 2011 or so.
But by 2019, they had declared quantum supremacy.
And if anybody understands what quantum computing is really all about, it's not just quantum computing, it's artificial intelligence.
They are a Trojan horse civilian system.
They are beyond any type of monopoly we've ever seen in our lifetimes.
And I always point this out.
I always people like to talk about a technocracy coming in.
You know, to me, I get it because you're talking bureaucracy and technology.
It's a technopoly because Google is the number one search engine in the world, the number two search engine in the world, they also happen to own.
That's YouTube.
It also happens to be the number one video platform in the world.
We want to talk operating systems.
There's no operating system on more devices than one: Chrome, Android.
They have it, man.
I mean, they, and you know, I don't even call it Chinese-style censorship that we're going through anymore because it's just censorship.
These people were outed in 2018, and the then CEO of their parent company, Alphabet, Eric Schmidt, was put on the spot about Dragonfly, right?
And Dragonfly was that censored version of the internet that they had created for China and kept away from the public.
When he was asked about it, he's just like, Well, I don't really know much about it anymore.
Why don't you go ask Sergey Brin?
As if Eric Schmidt, Bilderberg steering member, right, didn't know what this was all about.
And that's why it's a global model.
You know, a lot of people want to talk China, China, China, CCP.
I'm telling you, people, right now, we're already in it.
You know, Google, for instance, one of the things I take aim at Matt Gates about, right?
A lot of people know that I'll be speaking, for instance, at the Reawaken America tour next week.
That's why I'm in Virginia now.
I'll be in New York there.
And there's a lot of right-wingers and Christian conservatives and kind of traditional values folks that buy into this paradigm.
And I think to myself, wait a minute, you know, Gates is complaining that employees walked out of Google because they were building drone software and they didn't want to be involved in killing a bunch of people.
What, you don't think those drones will eventually come here?
Like, how naive are we?
This is a global corporation that has proven it's not our friend.
So why are they suddenly our friend when they're working for the Defense Department?
You know, and that's the stuff that leaks out because so many people have to work on it.
Can you imagine the stuff that they're working on in a Manhattan project style of compartmentalization, which is the post-World War II model, as you know, Richard?
Well, I cannot agree with, I mean, I cannot disagree with anything you just said.
But now, let me pose this question.
When Google had the crybaby meeting the week after Trump won, and they said, we're never going to let this happen again, that's not just like a U.S. company.
That's a global behemoth with a serious agenda.
And if they don't want Trump to get to be president again, like that worked once, can it work again with an Alex Jones on the scene?
And is there a political agenda that might be driving the January 6th and all the Sandy Hook cases?
Because not that he didn't do anything wrong and didn't defame certain individuals.
But on the other hand, there's a political hierarchy that goes, you know, and the people who are in that hierarchy, you're right.
They don't give a damn about kids.
Madeline Albright, you know, Hillary Clinton, those people who led foreign affairs that murdered children in the name of 9-11, in the name of the war on terror, all these sort of things, right?
They're the ones who are driving a lot of the political activity.
And if you were to look at people involved in those types of cases, there's a lot of political persuasion going on above the law and the evidence and the admissibility of topics, right?
So let me ask you: how much of that Alex Jones trial did you catch?
I caught a fair amount of it.
I certainly didn't spend the seven or eight hours a day that it was being streamed.
Props to Nathan Stoltman of Lift the Veil.
He's on Rockfin.
He streamed a lot of it.
I was every once in a while going into that.
And then Dan Abrams, who has actually been pretty good for a mainstream media person, he started Law and Crime.
And Dan Abrams was putting up 90-minute segments of the deposition that I would catch here and there.
I look at it this way.
I don't like the default, obviously.
I think that's an extremely dangerous precedent.
I always thought that on some level, Jones would lose this case, right?
And I thought that he would pay out a subsequent amount of money.
I think that the 50 million is obviously cartoon level and meant to scare people.
But if we're going to take it to the level of we need to ban Alex Jones, and it's something that happened, right?
You talked about Google, but within a week's time, Twitter, Google, and Facebook all got rid of him.
And I would argue that with Twitter, it was probably after Jones went to DC and got within reach of Jack Dorsey and called him out.
And that was kind of the final straw for Dorsey to go along with it, right?
Yeah, you remember that.
It was within 24 hours.
It was August.
It was like August 24th.
He pissed off.
He did the one thing during the day.
And I was like, I wonder what they'll do.
And it's like Apple and PayPal.
Like, they all just like, they gave him the highest in tandem.
They did all those things to Alex Jones.
But whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump, they did it to a sitting president shortly after.
They set the precedent with Jones.
And then when the subject of the election being questioned could no longer be questioned, and they had that COVID precedent now where medical misinformation got you kicked off of YouTube and all these other platforms.
All of a sudden, the sitting president, whether you agreed with him or not, was off all these platforms.
That's crazy.
No one carried, none of the mainstream media carried Trump's address about the election.
This has never happened ever.
Whether you liked Nixon or you didn't like Nixon, they covered what Nixon had to say during Watergate, right?
There's never been that.
And if they can do it to the president, who in large part, let's be honest, is a figurehead.
If you watch my interview, for instance, with Kevin Roos of the New York Times, forced him into that interview because I refuse to do these mainstream media interviews unless you let me tape the interview so you can't take me out of context.
And then you either come face the music after you do your hit piece on me or I just release the raw thing.
And they never want me to release the raw thing, by the way, because the raw thing is like two and a half hours of them not looking great.
They'd rather, you know, try to play intellectual tennis with me for 30 minutes and just play dumb.
But when I talked to him about Joe Biden, I said to him, does Joe Biden run the country?
Pretty simple question, right?
He's like, well, what do you mean?
You know, and he wanted to make it into one of these like cue and nonsense things where, you know, there was that whole crowd that was saying that Trump was really running things or that Biden was an actor and all these other things.
I go, no, What I'm talking about is, you know, you have Trump and he was pretty presidential, made some decisions.
But let's be honest, you got people like Pompeo in there, Barr, Mattis, Bolton.
These are the movers and shakers that are actually instituting policy, right, on behalf of others behind the scenes.
They're the ones that are on behalf of the financiers, the people that pay for the presidential campaign and they get represented in the cabinet a lot of times throughout the presidency.
He's paying off those debts from the fundraising campaigns.
That's a conflict of interest because we, the American people, aren't being represented in that process.
And even if it goes best, he has little or she has little power in reality because there's a deep state that always exists that not elected to office.
Our non-elected rulers, the military-industrial media conglomerate class of corporations, does now it does have top-down influence.
And it's childish to think that Biden's the originator of any of these policies.
Rather, he's the best Muppet that they could get in there.
There's just like a rubber stamp.
Even being a figurehead, the fact that they made an unprecedented choice, the media, or not just the media, but technology corporations, Google, Amazon, whatever.
In this case, it was Google, made the universal choice to just de-platform him.
Right.
I mean, that's crazy to think, take a figurehead and deplatform.
That shows sort of like, I think, Jason, to your point, just the gravity of like the sort of like the milieu or the zeitgeist in which like we're existing.
And because people seem like you just juxtapose, like, we're kind of, how are we kind of okay with that?
Like, if you really think about it on that level, like we kind of just went along with that.
I'm not, there was plenty of outrage in the echo chamber of the same sort of cybernetic systems we're doing this feedback game with, right?
And yet I wonder how people would react, like to your point with Nixon, like 50 years ago, if they were to like what type of temperament, what type of like disposition, you know, a lot of people were more in the middle and they would have immediately recognized that censorship was a bad thing.
It wasn't even a question, even after 9-11, right?
There might have been people calling for me to be strung up and hung, right?
There was, who was it, Reagan's son, who had a show who was calling for Mark Dice, I believe it was, to be shot and executed, right?
Because of his viewpoints on 9-11.
And in large part, I saw people come back and say, well, that's too much.
You know what I mean?
Or, you know, I might think what you're saying is disgusting.
You have the right to say that.
And now, more and more, even the supposed good guys like Elon Musk, who I think is a total and complete front for the military industrial complex, has contracts with DARPA, SpaceX, and NASA on the transhumanist bandwagon, the sustainability bandwagon, the CO2 bandwagon.
Tesla is the first electric car company that was successful because of all the subsidies and the push.
Meanwhile, it's far from the first electric car company.
Even when he talks about taking over Twitter, he says, yeah, you've got all the right in the world to say whatever you want.
You know, you can go into Times Square and say what you want, but we don't have to amplify that.
And I'm like, well, we're not really talking about amplifying.
All I want is the same algorithm that everybody gets.
And that's code word for them saying, not amplify, but suppress that information.
You know, when I was working for We Are Change, one of the really interesting things, I believe it came out in the Zach Voorhees Google dump.
Okay.
And I could be wrong about the source, but there was an internal discussion about WikiLeaks, I believe, and whether or not We Are Change could be sourced, even though their video was the source material.
They didn't want to promote We Are Change.
They didn't want them on their website of WikiLeaks, but there was somebody out there was like, well, they're the source video for this.
And we're talking about this on the site.
Do we just censor them outright?
And they did.
You know, I used to have a Wikipedia page along with Loose Change.
I wasn't just a footnote.
You know, I actually got my own page.
That's never happened again.
I'd like to think that I've done a lot since Loose Change and Loose Change Final Cut.
I've made three, what I think are very important documentary films.
I've done quite a bit of content.
Have just about 3,000 YouTube videos up since 2007.
I covered January 6th at the Capitol on DC.
And yet I'm never going to be allowed to be on that platform, even if they smear me.
I would have to do something that somehow gets into the mainstream consciousness.
And what I think they've done, and it's not just me, you know what I mean, by any means.
It's people that question things with discernment, without a lot of the hyperbole, right?
And with the evidence in front of you saying, hey, make your own decision.
They don't want to amplify those people at all.
I'll never get a blue check mark on Twitter unless somehow I'm able to Alex Stein the world.
And as much as I love Alex Stein, that's just not my flavor, right?
And I think Alex does great work.
Maybe I will find a way to penetrate that, but it's obvious to me that voices like mine, voices like yours, are marginalized not by one algorithm, but many algorithms and collusion between big tech and the military-industrial complex, which are really one and the same.
So I totally agree.
I just want to throw something like a wrench in there because we try to apply discernment, like we try to reason from evidence and try to not, you know, draw conclusions, but not, you know, not work within a space of sort of healthy skepticism when we, with any complex situation.
And I sometimes wonder in this space of like what I noticed, especially like COVID and a lot of these bigger narratives that have happened, people get very polarized.
So like, okay, let's say someone jumps, has that wake-up moment, red pill moment.
Then all of a sudden they jump to, they get called in those catch webs, they jump to these narratives that are very hyperbolic, the extreme, the outliers, the very extreme cases, and they sort of start like having to work their way back from that.
And I saw that so much again with COVID, especially when I run town halls for the community, we get a lot of these different theories and conversations around it.
And I'm like, well, did we ever, first of all, define our terms and start like going with evidence?
Red Pill Moments and Wake-Ups 00:13:11
Because there's a lot of very complex accusations being made on both sides, on the mainstream side and the alternative media side.
And I've had to sort of like deconstruct even a lot of alternative.
I mean, I'm talking very extreme in regards to aspects of LabLeague or virus, no virus, all these various questions and just got, you know, it's, I just show the complexity of trying to break this down.
You know, it's sort of Dunning Kruger a little bit in regards to like the more we break it down, the more we realize we don't really know and we should be a little bit more careful about the conclusions we want to immediately draw.
But I know people that feel comfortable have to put things in the simple category.
So if you feel like everything's being lied to you, you jump to the most extreme other conclusion.
I don't know.
It was a very no, you know, it's interesting because Glenn Greenwald, who just screened Alex's war, and I don't know if you guys caught the interview that he conducted with Alex Moore, who did the film, and Alex Jones, said that very thing.
He said, you know, I'm on this spectrum now where I find myself immediately gravitating towards their lying because they lie so much.
And I have to pull myself back and kind of make sure what I'm putting out there is real because, you know, they are liars and they've been caught lying.
But at the same time, I don't want to get caught up in this madness where I just believe everything.
And, you know, I'll go to a video.
Or the lies or the lies, real quick, sorry to cut you off, but or the lies are more sophisticated, where it's like, it's a situation where they'll tell lots of truth, but then just leave some things out.
So we have to then like work within a limited data set.
Again, from which like they talk about confirmation bias, not jumping to conclusions.
Those are so, so important.
It's InfoWars without going through the Sandy Hook official report.
That's the confirmation bias, right?
And again, he's got a large voice, and Alex has gotten enough things right where, as someone hears him say that, and then they're not going to do their own research, right?
Which is something that I preach.
And going back to this New York Times Kevin Roost thing, yeah, he acted like Biden was running the country.
And then he also, you know, the big thing is they don't want you to do your own research.
If you go to The Daily, which is their podcast, and he asked me if, you know, the do your own research is our legacy.
And I saw, I damn well hope so.
I damn well hope so.
I hope it's do your own research, ask your own questions, and have your own discernment.
One thing he kept going back to again and again is saying to me, Are there any questions that shouldn't be asked?
And I looked at him and I said, Do you think there are any questions that shouldn't be asked?
Because I sure don't.
I go, I want to know who people are.
If there are people out there that are truly racists, that want to kill a specific ethnicity or think that a specific group based in their genetics are ruling the world or bad or need to be eliminated.
I want to know who those people are.
I don't want them hiding.
I don't want them veiled.
I want the most disturbing, disgusting questions confronted with reality and answers.
There are no questions that we shouldn't be allowed to ask.
And to Tony's point about people kind of falling down these rabbit holes and then beginning to believe everything.
Isn't that really the genesis of the takeover of the QA nonsense movement?
Where all of a sudden there were these super secret squirrels behind the scene that had the inside info, and we had all these indictments and people were going down.
And in a lot of it, it was based in the research that, hey, wait a minute, a lot of these people within the predator class are into the occult.
Hey, wait a minute.
We do have these instances with the Finders and the Franklin scandal and Epstein, where you have high-level human trafficking.
And much more of that has come out.
You look at what's going on with Nygaard right now.
You look what just happened with Jean-Luc Brunel, where he committed suicide in a cell.
And you seem to see these Claude Hadid would be another one that was reported on in the 80s.
These networks absolutely existed.
But if you put them in the framework of blood-drinking, adrenochrome, crazy, occultic pedophiles without the evidence, you lose people.
Or you have somebody like Isaac Cappy, who I did a story on today.
I want to talk about that because I think it's important.
You know, I interviewed Cappy pretty shortly after his video went viral, where he made a slew of allegations against prominent people in Hollywood of being pedophiles.
Okay.
Now, I knew that Cappy was inside Hollywood.
I had seen that he was on some reality shows and he had some friends.
I talked to him behind the scenes before I had him on my show.
But when I had him on my show, I wanted to know what he knew firsthand and what he was taking from internet folklore or rumors.
Okay.
And one of the things that I focused on was what he said was an eyewitness account of him being with Seth Green and his wife.
And he alleges at dinner they started talking about quote-unquote chicken, which, again, if you look at even the FBI and law enforcement, chicken is code worked for young boys.
There are certain symbologies out there, according to their own documentation.
WikiLeaks put that document out in the forefront via Twitter as the emails came out and told people to look for signs of child trafficking.
Wikileaks has an impeccable record.
So obviously, there was some evidence there, right?
But Cappy bought into everything.
And he ended up falling down this rabbit hole that I think cost him his life.
He got involved with the wrong crowd, with some real fucking scumbags, okay, that just wanted to play a game.
They think it's funny.
They think it's hilarious.
They want attention.
They're sociopaths, if not psychopaths.
And why do I bring him up today?
Because one of the things that Cappy would talk about to me, and I believe he may have even talked about it on the air.
I haven't re-watched that entire hour-long interview I did with him, but he talked about these poker nights at Dane Cook's house and how he would go there.
Well, lo and behold, today, there's a story out of the Daily Mail where Dane Cook, who's 50, has just proposed to his 23-year-old girlfriend.
She said yes.
But there was an individual on social media that started going through his Instagram and being like, oh, here's a 14-year-old girl.
Here's a 15-year-old girl.
Here's a 16-year-old girl.
Here are some pictures of them at the poker parties.
Who's at the poker party?
Isaac Cappy, Seth Green, Seth Green's wife, in several pictures.
And then there was another picture of Dane Cook, one individual I don't know, Isaac Cappy, and Bella Thorne.
For those not familiar with Bella Thorne, the Disney child actress, she openly came out a couple years ago in her book and it was focused on nowhere, not even the interview where she says it.
Not one headline really in the mainstream media.
There should have been story after story after story: who abused you.
She said that she was being abused from the time she was six years old to the time she was 14 years old, and everybody around her knew it and did nothing.
Now, the picture that she's in with Cappy, she's 18, but he was around these people.
There's no doubt about that.
And I always thought his first-hand accounts were pretty credible.
And that's what led him down this very derogatory path of promoting hoaxes.
One of the last conversations I had with him before his tragic suicide, and believe me, I believe it was a suicide.
I know there are some people who think that he was killed.
I think he was driven into that.
Was that he believed that John McCain had actually been taken to Guantanamo Bay?
Again, the QA nonsense promoting Guantanamo Bay is a good thing.
Remember, Robert Mueller was all going to save us.
He was secretly working for Trump too.
And that John McCain had been tried at Getmo and he didn't die of brain cancer.
They executed him there.
And that's how far gone people can get.
And that's why I want to let people know: look, truth is already stranger than fiction.
There are some things out there that you find out.
I mean, you find out, and it's mainline history.
Just read the Franklin Conroe.
Oh my God.
We've had Ryan on a couple times now.
Yeah, we've been showing that a lot on the show.
It does some fantastic work, by the way.
But it's harrowing because for people who are just coming into this information, they're not aware of some of these networks that have existed spanning decades.
And that's the real thing.
It's not everyone everywhere.
It's just usually people in power.
Look at Jimmy Saville, right?
People in power, the royal family, exclusive access to all those kids, you know, and things like that that were going on.
Ted Well in 20 years, covered up by BBC.
Yeah.
I mean, Ted Heath, you know, that was what I know there's the meme going around of Alex Jones being asked about the high-level pedophile networks within our own government by the prosecution.
Yeah, like Epstein and the Clintons.
And, you know, it's like, oh, but you look at that.
And Epstein is trilateral commission.
He is CFR.
His lawyer said that what?
He started the Clinton initiative.
He's the guy.
You have Clinton riding around on Epstein's plane 20 plus times, but one of the people that he's riding along that plane with, especially on that Africa trip, is Kevin Spacey.
Kevin Spacey, another friend of Clinton for 20 plus years, also in the network with Weinstein.
You know, in that interview with Cappy, one of the articles that I feature, believe me, I never thought Weinstein was going down the way he was.
And it just proves, by the way, that they will burn some high-level people, just like they'll burn Epstein, just like they burn Maxwell to stop.
I thought the same thing.
Yes.
Yes, I never thought.
Listen, I remember I was in DC.
I was just getting into DC in a drive.
I think it might have been, I think it was in December, the rally that happened before the stop the steal stuff on January 6th, right?
I think that that was the precursor.
And I'm in my car and I'm hearing that they gave him 20 plus years and I was screaming, I couldn't believe it.
You know, he, although you have the instances of obviously disgusting rape behavior, Kate Beckinsale talked about how when she was 17, he tried to do the same thing to her.
You had an underage model, I believe, who was 16, saying that she basically gave him a naked lap dance at that point.
Those are real, I believe, and they're not something that is focused on by the mainstream media.
They don't want to dig deep.
Okay.
They want surface-level stuff that they can feed you a narrative.
And this isn't new.
Fake news isn't new.
You know, the mainstream media has never been great.
You can go all the way back to Maxwell's father and the work Seymour Hirsch did exposing him, a media mogul who's also an intelligence asset.
Obviously, with the Mossad, maybe British intelligence, maybe U.S. intelligence as well.
The BBC is now claiming Russian intelligence.
He's some kind of quadruple agent.
But Hirsch put that out there while Maxwell was still alive.
Maxwell sued him.
All the headlines: Hirsch falls for hoax.
Hirsch hoaxed over all these claims.
Well, three years later, a year and a half after Robert Maxwell's no longer with us, they find his dead naked body in the water after being on the Lady Ghelane, his boat.
There's a short little blurb, short little blurb with a headline you can barely recognize.
Author correct, paid such and such sum of money.
Like he won his court case.
And talk about a real journalist.
Hirsch may be the last mainstream hardcore journalist we have.
And what's the last story he tried to do?
He tried to do a story on Seth Rich, and the only reason we know it is because of recorded phone calls.
And no one would fucking touch it.
No one touched it.
Seth Rich was killed early in like 4 a.m. in the morning outside his apartment, allegedly by muggers, right?
Is that who I'm thinking of?
No, yeah.
I mean, apparently he was alive when he got to the hospital.
You know, that's another really weird thing: that he supposedly was still alive when he got to the hospital.
It didn't make it out alive.
But if you listen to those recordings from Hirsch, Hirsch lays out that Trump isn't wrong and he believes this whole thing is a Brennan operation.
And when I say this whole thing, I'm talking about the Russian collusion and the Russian hack of the information.
Nation States Collusion 00:03:11
Look, just like William Benny said, and I know that you've done some great work with Benny over there.
He knows, and we know this stuff was downloaded via a USB.
There is a difference between taking something and grabbing it from a network or copying the files over.
There is metadata that will prove that.
And that was never entered into evidence, right?
Look, I'm never going to get everything right.
Nobody is.
We're all human beings.
But what we can get right is that we have the ability and really the duty to question the mainstream media, especially when it involves issues that impact all of us.
Not just on the small stuff, but on the really, really big stuff.
Because that's what's setting the policy.
That's what's pushing things forward.
And you better believe that it's not an accident that this repackaged new world order, great reset agenda, the next phase is the great narrative because they love selling you on stories.
Ask Yuval Noah Harari.
Yeah, the Great Narrative Conference.
That was last November for the World Economic Forum, right?
Yes, correct.
And they put about, that's the new book.
I mean, he put out a book with it.
Yeah.
I mean, that's what they're calling it.
That was a Dubai conference, too.
I'm pretty sure.
Yeah.
Wasn't it?
No, and that's the thing.
It's global, right?
That's what other people just can't see.
They think we're in this war with nation states.
And to me, that's largely a facade.
Although nation states still have their place, at the end of the day, there are heads of these nation states and players within that are all colluding with one another.
And maybe, you know, there are some people out there that'll think, oh, well, Russia's totally anti-new world order.
No, they want their own new world order outside of NATO commanding them to do things.
You know, agenda 2030.
You know, they're in the United Nations agendas.
They might not be in like the World Economic Forum lower version, but they're in for 2030 with China.
Yep, absolutely.
And you have to remember, like, they went through the same measures with COVID lockdowns and vaccinations.
And like, it's, it's whether they agree or disagree on certain geo complex geopolitical issues when it comes to territory and it comes to whatever's going on in regards.
And then we could talk about that.
But at the end of the day, they still, you know, they still exhibit the same sort of control over their population and lack of ability for people to find or have legitimate inquiry about the state of their government, especially what's going on with media consolidation, both in the Ukraine and in Russia.
So you can't get in on it.
We have no real idea of exactly what the hell is going on regardless of what true, you know, both are so heavily controlled now by the state.
I mean, most Ukrainian media companies now have been gobbled up by the government.
So when I speak to a lot of these right-wingers, I always say to them, well, let's stop for a second because you already know, a lot of you, that Fox News isn't your friend, you know, and props to Clay Clark, you know, because Clay Clark's one of the few people out there that calls this out, calls out Sean Hannity, calls out Elon Musk.
But I always point to Karl Rove.
Argument Over Supplements 00:13:19
I mean, Karl Rove stated, we create reality.
Okay.
They create reality.
And what is Karl Rove?
He's a Fox News contributor.
They've got him on just about every single show, at least a couple times a week.
Mike Pompeo is a Fox News contributor.
This is a man that went on a boat in, I believe it was 2019, Bilderberg.
It might have been 2020.
Actually, it was 2020, Bilderberg, to give the keynote speech on foreign policy in Iran in a castle.
You think that guy's your friend?
The guy who was the head of the CIA who's on tape laughing about, we lied, we cheated, we stole.
We had entire courses on it.
And he then goes, it just reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.
What?
It's glorious that our entire country is predicated on lying, stealing.
And I mean, wow, it blows my mind that more people don't question these things.
I'm not perfect.
You're not perfect.
We all lie, right?
We all get things wrong.
We all do bad things.
But when you have the Secretary of State who was the ex-head of the CIA saying that openly, not being challenged and joking about it, and then you get a fact check, by the way, on that.
If you ever look that up, the fact check is, oh, well, it came from RT.
No, RT was the only one that would publish it.
If there was anybody else there, if anybody else had any balls, it should have been everywhere.
It should have been a top story, but it wasn't.
Ask yourself why, and you look for answers.
You go back to the CIA Mockingbird program.
You go back to MKUltra.
You go back to Daddy Bush.
And I mean, right now, we have a guy that shot the president of the United States, John Hinckley, out touring with music.
I mean, you'd want to talk about an insurrection.
You want to talk about an assassin.
He tried.
And then you find out that his family was close with the Bush family.
And you find out Neil Bush was supposed to have dinner with Hinckley's brother the night after Reagan was shot.
And also, which is really interesting in that clip.
I follow Hinkley, by the way.
I would love to get him on my program.
I don't know if that's ever going to be possible.
I would imagine he's probably still pretty heavily medicated.
And I would imagine when he did it, he was probably very heavily medicated.
He was taking phone calls at a payphone down the road, but he was staying in a hotel.
Now, ask yourself the question: if you're staying in a hotel, why aren't you using the hotel phone if there's absolutely nothing nefarious going on there?
What could you possibly be doing on these payphones?
Who were you talking to?
Again, I'm not saying I know the answer to that, but I'm saying it's a valid question.
And it's an even more valid one now that he's a completely free man, although he's been largely free for almost a decade.
I do want to say that.
Yeah, when you're talking about this guy who shot an American president, I thought you were talking about H.W. Bush for a second because, you know, wire cross.
All right.
So I want to pick up real quick on the Alex Jones trial.
The argument of the plaintiff's side is that Alex Jones lied about Sandy Hook so he could make money from his supplements.
And I never really got that argument or bought that argument.
And you used to work there.
Do you think he makes up news to sell supplements?
And if so, how's that work?
No.
See, that's the whole thing.
Look, I think that there were some valid things that they could have brought up, but the idea that he was creating narratives to sell more goods is an absurd one, in my opinion.
I've always said with Alex with all his faults, and look, you guys have seen, you know, I challenged Alex on Assange right before COVID-1984 when we had our little reunion on video.
We kind of went at each other.
Listen, Alex respects people that are honest and don't bend the knee, you know, and we butted heads a lot when I was there at Infowars.
I mean, if you watch it, Rob Dew says that's exactly how they were like in the hallways a lot of the time because there were things that we disagreed on.
But at the end of the day, I had the man's respect, right?
And I think that's important.
I think that the defamation case is really dangerous, number one, because he never named anybody.
And this now sets a new precedent.
But really, the closing arguments of these people talking about taking away his microphone and megaphone and making sure that he doesn't have his own platform now or ever again is extremely dangerous.
I thought that this was about, you know, paying out damages to those that had PTSD and were hurt by what Alex said.
That should be the only case.
I don't believe that's the Jones grift, right?
At the same time, the guy's a capitalist.
You know, I'm sure that he talks about his products in the absolute most positive way he could, right?
In order to sell them as anybody would.
But I was never now, I'm there way before the supplements.
I was never privy to we're gonna say this to try to increase sales of anything, of anything that was never a thing there.
Um, and Jones, you know, did a lot of stunts back then.
He did, well, I was there, he did the I dressed up as a joker face, right?
I was in the office and I honestly didn't really want to be a part of that.
Uh, I'm not in any of the videos because I didn't love it, right?
I knew that it was the hip new thing because the Obama joker image had gone kind of viral.
And Jones, being a smart guy, he's definitely intelligent, said, All right, let's play off of that.
It wasn't to sell people on anything, it was to bring people into InfoWars.
It was to get them to watch the Obama deception.
And then after that, they did Fall the Republic, two really important films.
So, in that respect, I think that's a great thing.
I remember one of the stunts he did that really didn't take off, which I actually really enjoyed, is we had one of like the first generation iPads in the office.
And at the time, as you know, you know, an iPhone or an iPad was like the biggest thing anybody could have, huge social status symbol.
I think that they were like between four and six hundred dollars.
And he did this video where he tortured the iPad, where he had like this drill and he was drilling it, and he was pointing that out.
I thought it was great social commentary, but sometimes great social commentary doesn't go as viral as what you know is in the mainstream, right?
So, listen, Jones has had some hit or miss things.
Jones has definitely had some entertainment moments that were meant to be entertainment moments.
You know, they often talk about how Jones says he's a performance artist and an actor.
Well, sometimes he is, but I think that those times are extremely obvious.
I've had burritos with the man, I've had steak with the man, and I got to tell you, he's the same guy at the steakhouse as he is in the office and on air.
And that's just reality.
I think anyone who honestly watches it, though, gets that sense.
Like, honestly, like, I've watched it for him for so many years.
I've seen him change, uh, go through different phases, report on different things.
Um, and at the same time, like, that's the sort of sense I just get from Alex.
I sense more just a healthy form of chaos around that organization where there's a lot of news coming in, a lot of production going on.
Like, yes, they're going to try to sell their supplements, but to try to specifically target stories to sell because they're of such interest that it drives so much traffic to their website to then sell supplements.
That's a tough argument better during the period period than during a Sandy Hook period.
So, the plaintiffs, again, barking up the wrong tree.
So, performance artist, he is part performance artist, but not when he's reading an article printed in BBC and not when he's commenting on the article printed in BBC.
Didn't they make the same argument for Tucker as well?
Yes, this is part reading journalism, part commentary.
That's why it's called talk radio.
And then, to get people to come listen, you got to get their attention and hold their interest.
So, that's basic marketing 101.
They deny him all that.
They started out the trial by saying, Mr. Jones has a very unusual model.
Most news organizations have advertisers and sponsors, right?
Mr. Jones has his own products that he sells during his which is worse.
Jones at least knows what those products are.
He white labels them so he knows they're top quality.
Those people pitching the ads in the sponsorship, they don't know dick about Raytheon making Tomahawk missiles and all this other stuff, right?
They're just saying whatever.
It's a bunch of circumstantial ad hominems.
It's a bunch of well, let's talk about instance where Jones did have people on to sell things, and maybe it was precluded as talk radio.
For instance, when he did have sponsors, because he didn't, when I was there, that's all there was.
He wasn't really selling any products, you know.
Water filters were a big one.
Midas Gold was a big one.
I remember that one.
I have a Berkey.
I never did Midas Gold.
Yeah, but if you look at the gold stuff, he used to have Bob Chapman on, you know, and that was part of a deal.
Like, obviously, you know, a lot of people do that.
Is that immoral?
I don't really think so because the guy owned gold and silver and really did believe in hard assets and, you know, constantly talked about fiat currency, had Ron Paul and others on to talk about the Federal Reserve long before everybody else.
It fit his brand, right?
And I think that that's a positive thing when you can find a cohesive, symbiotic relationship that helps everybody, in my opinion.
I never saw anything nefarious about that.
You know, Jones is very, very good at forcing situations.
Let me give you an example.
Okay.
Probably my favorite part in all of Alex's war.
Okay.
Have you seen the movie?
Has either of you seen it?
Yes, it was excellent.
I have not seen it yet.
But you can, yeah, just go.
And it gives good context over a 25-year period to the thing that everyone's seeing in the news like right away.
Yeah.
So I thought that was good timing.
Well, one of my favorite things, if not my favorite thing in the entire picture, is obviously Alex got on the Trump bandwagon, right?
After Trump did his show, that triggered something in him.
You can kind of see it.
And he went all in on Trump.
You know, there were times, especially when the incident happened in Afghanistan that he called it presidential.
I didn't like that.
I didn't like what happened to Solomania, any of those things.
But he goes up to General Michael Flynn in the film and he shakes his hand quick and he looks at, he's got just like a couple seconds and he goes, really appreciate you.
I know you're too scared to come on the show.
And you see the look on Flynn's face and he's like, well, no, you know, and within 48 hours of that, he had a sit-down interview with Michael Flynn for the very first time.
Now, whether Flynn was too scared to come on the show or not before that, he hadn't come on the show.
He had never mentioned Alex Jones before.
And I really do believe it was that little incident that pushed it that much more forward.
So he was able to do that and make it happen.
I don't think that's a negative thing, right?
I want, for instance, I've recently met Michael Flynn.
You know, I haven't shook his hand or sat down and talked with him, but he's been at a couple events.
One of them was a private event at Clay Clark's where I got to hear him talk about the New World Order for the very first time and say some things that kind of surprised me that I wasn't sure he was going to say.
And then recently when I was in Myrtle Beach and I gave my presentation about Elon Musk, space warfare, DARPA, et cetera.
And, you know, from what Clay tells me, he's said it several times.
He was extremely impressed with my presentation.
My girlfriend recently interviewed Michael Flynn.
She does great work for the Gateway Pundit.
And you can watch part of that interview.
She put him on the spot about 9-11.
Not many people are going to do that, you know?
And let's be honest, Gateway Pundit is very much a conservative-esque outlet.
They're asking tough questions.
We're trying to reach more and more people.
If you don't have people like Alex to push forward, no matter what the great narrative or the great reset agenda is, you're not going to get any truth.
Now, if you're going to get some sensationalism with that or some things wrong, so be it.
We have a mainstream media industrial complex that is purposely, constantly lying to us, not to empower humanity for this great purpose, but to enslave humanity for this new world order agenda.
Misleading Claims and Discovery Abuse 00:03:40
And that's real.
Well, I think we're seeing that unfold.
In the closing arguments, the plaintiff side basically let the mask slip and they're like, we want total annihilation of Alex Jones forever and to set a precedent so no one ever asks questions like this again.
And then they brought in in the punitive phase, the economic, the forensic economist who estimated in a very tried to follow the math and I'm math oriented and it didn't add up for me what he was doing.
But he came up with Alex has a net worth of $270 million and that, you know, they said he has shell companies and he's taken $60 million out and just putting it in his pocket.
And I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
That operation, if you're bringing in 70 million, it's costing at least 50 million to run it with the bandwidth of banned.video and satellite uplinks and everyone's salaries and overhead.
All these sort of things cost money.
Product in the warehouse costs money and the economist had to say it's not really a shell company.
It does hold real product, it does have real employees and he they, they didn't defend it on Alex's side, so I don't know what if they weren't allowed to to offer evidence.
But at no point was anything other than gross numbers uh, discussed.
So it built a very disingenuous picture of his economics and got the hopes up of that family to get those lawyers.
Like the lawyers got their hopes up, they said, we can take 150 million dollars, let's go.
And they're like, okay, we want justice.
And they're like we want 150 million dollars.
And the parents are like we want justice.
Well, the parents are getting some justice in the form of payment, compensatory damages, punitive damages.
But the attorneys themselves seem to be in it.
As you know, they're personal injury lawyers.
They're looking for a big payday and a spotlight so they can make a name for themselves.
They represented his case in the most disingenuous like.
They had a good bit of discovery.
Not all of it, but enough to know what they were saying in that court was not accurate.
They're as bad as he is.
If they're going to say he hyperbolizes, so they so do they.
No, I agree.
And you know, one of the things you didn't mention, how about taxes?
Like, if you're pulling in, it doesn't matter what kind of company you are or whether you're a C CORP or an LLC or any of those things.
If you're pulling 50 million dollars, I I would say, no matter how you do it, a gross, you're paying out 10 20, maybe even up to 30 million of that out to taxes.
I never saw that brought up.
And if you want to go into um, the dishonesty of the lawyers, I I would point to you know this, this big gotcha moment with the phone.
You know they sat there and they acted like they had 12 years of Uh, Jones's phone data.
They said they had everything every, text messages, etc.
And, by the way, I can't imagine what my text messages look like a decade plus ago.
I I, who knows what i've said right, but if you go back 12 years um, I may be in some of those.
I left in 2010 in May, but me and Jones, you know, we kept up and talked for at least like six months, a year after that, pretty frequently, you know, not all the time, but it was there.
And I'm like, all right, well, they have all this.
They haven't presented any of it in evidence.
It's pretty easy to do keyword searches once you have text files, as you know, Richard.
They could have come up with something in a night.
They didn't present any of those.
And then within 24 hours, even though they presented it in court to say 12 years, it came out it was only two years' worth of data.
So, how is it that they made such a mistake to claim that somehow they got 12 years of data when they got two years of data and then put him on the stand to try to get that shocked reaction out of him, which I don't believe that they got.
You know what I mean?
Rand's Critique of Data Claims 00:02:46
He just kind of, well, you know, then we gave it to you, right?
Yeah, like he was saying, we did, we gave you everything we could again.
And what was the big story that came out of that?
It wasn't, you know, it was January 6th.
Well, exactly.
Somebody called back, you know, and he's like, hey, you know, Your Honor, keep the stream going this morning because there's FBI and law enforcement looking at this now because of this text, right?
But like I said, somehow that's evidence.
And it was Roger Stone, right?
And it's not like I'm the biggest fan of Roger Stone either.
You know, I'm not.
I got to meet Roger in person in Myrtle Beach at the meet and greet before the event.
I talked to him for a very short period of time.
But, you know, we had a pretty candid conversation over Trump in 2024.
And basically, I made the point.
I said, well, Roger, you know, you and I both believe that this guy won in 2020.
No, no questions asked.
He was the president of the United States at the time, and they got him out.
I go, if he's the president and he won and he couldn't do anything about it, how are we changing this in 2024, right?
And or even the midterms in 2022?
He really didn't have a great answer for me.
And he would say, well, I don't think there's anybody else that could run.
And I mentioned Rand Paul.
I said, look, even Rand Paul has his problems, but I would say, you know, at this point, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, maybe Mike Lee, you know, they're about the best we have out there that are questioning any of the narrative.
And Roger looked at me and he said, Rand's no good on TV.
And I'm like, what?
Rand's no good.
I think Rand, in a lot of ways, was better than Trump on TV.
And you go back to, say, the debates in 2016.
There was only one person on the stage that I felt made more sense than Trump and was given much less time, obviously.
And it was Rand Paul.
And what did Trump do?
He played the Trump game, right?
You got little Rand and Little Marco and all these things.
And instead of embracing the fact that Rand Paul was the most genuine guy up there with the best policies and bring them into his cabinet, you know, he didn't come around on him until Paul was supporting some of the policies that Trump did.
And look, I was glad he got us out of the Paris Climate Accords.
I think that his speech at Davos in 2020 is probably one of the most frank and honest speeches out there where he challenged their climate change destruction narrative as a bunch of people who wanted more power and more control over everybody.
And that was real.
But when it came down to it, he surrounded himself with the swamp.
And Michael Flynn, who may have been the most genuine guy within his administration, he didn't go to bat for.
Norad Tapes Controversy 00:15:04
And don't forget, this is a man that ran on love the WikiLeaks.
Can't get enough of the WikiLeaks.
Have you seen the WikiLeaks?
His ego was too taken aback when he sent Dana Rohrbacher out there to talk to Assange.
And Assange refused to give up his source, who many believe was Seth Rich.
And instead of pardoning him or stopping any of this, he went along with it.
He rode the Rick Grinnell train, right?
Who apparently Grinnell, according to Cassandra Fairbanks, who had inside knowledge because she had, she was taping conversations with Grinnell's assistant, saying that both Don and Don Jr. were shown pictures of men, women, and children who were supposedly killed because of the information Assange put out.
Yet we have court documents and mainstream media accounts that, of course, that's false and totally made up, and that Assange never cost anybody their lives by putting out this information.
So instead of an Assange pardon, we got a Kodak Black pardon.
Hey, Kodak's back in jail because he ain't a great guy.
Okay?
Like that, that's the kind of thing that's cartoon level with me, right?
He can mention Epstein on the run-up and the Clinton involvement with Epstein, but everybody came at me because I dared to say that Epstein and Trump had a relationship when they clearly did, and it was documented.
And it was long before in the 1980s in the real estate market.
It was, he was all over the place.
It wasn't like just one-off, like, hey, we dismissed him.
It wasn't just like he was a country club member.
Correct.
Well, because he was big into real estate, Epstein, early on in the 80s and stuff.
Let's take it even further than the 80s.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because you could take it way further than the 80s.
I don't know whether this story is true, but it's very possible.
There's a mainstream story out there that it was Epstein who put together a party of 20-plus women who were auditioning for Trump Wife 3, and Melania was among them.
So again, I don't know whether Epstein did that or that actually occurred.
I know it was reported in the mainstream, and I know that a lot of these people that are trafficked in these organizations, they start out as young girls and teenagers, but many of them, what?
They're in the modeling game.
They become, you know, prostitutes later in life when they're legal.
You know, that was early on.
I think he was getting a lot of that client or a lot of merchandise from Eastern Europe.
Wasn't it Trump naked pictures of Melania to like the New York Post or something like that?
Wasn't like, didn't he?
So for those that don't know, Melania did a lot of like Skinamax-esque work over, I believe, in Europe, and we're in those type of magazines and films.
I'll just say this because I want to be really careful.
Webster Tarpley, whose work is very good.
I think Synthetic Terror about 9-11 is excellent.
He's a Fulbright scholar.
Yeah.
He investigated the death of Aldo Moro, who was allegedly assassinated by Steve Pacenics.
But he did this.
He put out some work about Melania.
They sued him into the ground and won.
So, you know, that's pretty much why you haven't heard much from Tarpley is because Trump, you know, and that's why, you know, I look at Trump or I look at Tarpley's Twitter feed and now it's just so left and even like pro-Biden at times.
I think that was it, you know, for him.
And I think Tarpley's done some great work.
He's a real fun guy to hang out with.
Oh, he has some fantastic histories.
Like some of his essays and a lot of the work he's done.
That's just, yeah, you kind of have to.
He also has a sort of ideological sort of lens through which he views the world.
He was always talking about the next New Deal.
We need a new deal.
I love Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But that was a genuine guy.
I don't think that anybody was pulling his strings.
When I would, you know, there was one point where Tarpley was really suspicious of me because I was the loose change guy.
And, you know, a lot of people didn't love the Pentagon stuff.
Hey, I, you know, I didn't love the Pentagon stuff.
I was one of three people and Dylan was the driving force in that.
And if you look at what happened with the Pentagon and Loose Change Final Cut, it's very different than what was presented in Loose Change Second Edition.
He had the opportunity to do a lot of first-hand research and a lot of first-hand interviews of people like Bob Pugh, who had that initial footage before the collapse of the front end of the building, April Gallup, I believe the Shanky brothers.
I mean, we went to DC and did the best we could.
We talked to a lot of people, got them on film.
Some we could put out, some we weren't allowed to.
But Tarpley came around.
I'll never forget it.
Kind of gave me a dirty look when I did it.
But I forget, it was probably around 2006, and the NORAD tapes had just been released.
Vanity Fair had done their article about it saying there was no there there.
There was nothing suspicious about the NORAD tapes.
And then the next episode was the one where we had the cover story and we had the highlight of loose change and all that.
Highlight 11 is still flying around according to the NORAD tapes.
That was part of it, right?
Well, in the NORAD tapes, you could clearly tell that the drills were going on.
And one of the main things the debunkers would say is that the drills stopped immediately when the attacks began to actually happen.
Because when the first plane hits the World Trade Center, somebody goes, wait a minute, is this real world or exercise?
No, this is real world.
And they're freaking out.
But the fact of the matter is, through those tapes, I was able to find out that a lot of these drills were happening from Cheyenne Mountain, the underground base, and they did not stop.
In other words, the blips, which were extra hijackings that they were tracking all over the place, didn't end until 20 minutes after the incident in Shanksville.
That's a fact.
And still, really, no mainstream publication has ever talked about that.
But I had the raw footage.
I had the raw data, and I thought Webster Tarpley might want the raw data.
So I walked over to Tarpley and I had a burned disc, and I said, hey, Webster, these are the full NORAD tapes.
I'd love for you to go through them and take a look at them.
And it was something there, I think, that clicked where he kind of brushed me off.
But then when he looked at them and he was like, oh, wow, this guy's giving him that.
And then I got to spend some time with him in 2012 at Bilderberg when we were shooting for Shade the Motion Picture.
Again, props to Shepard Ambellis for making that happen.
I would have never been able to make that movie without him.
And, you know, you get a feel for a person.
Now, that doesn't mean you know everything about them or that you're going to get it all right.
But I think he's a genuine guy with a genuine perspective.
And I think it's unfortunate what happened to him that he was sued into the crown by Trump.
You know, almost, I wouldn't say it was a precursor to the Alex Jones case because obviously Sandy Hook is a different scenario, but it shows that if there is enough power and money behind an agenda, you can take somebody out.
And I think that Tarpley's voice has not only been marginalized, but almost gone completely.
And it's stultified completely.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just, yeah.
Well, compared to his earlier work.
It was a process for Jones because it was like 2012, Sandy Hook, 2013, Boston Marathon bombing.
2015, October was Pizza Festival, Gate type thing.
And then they also claimed that Texas Pizza Place, and that's where they got hung out to dry with one of those characters that's also involved apparently in January 6th, according to those allegations.
So there was like a slippery slope being created.
And they had less and less factual and actual.
And it was more like 4chan and these other things that were like not reputable sources that you would want to trust without verifying on your own.
And that's the thing, you know, and I got to go soon, but let me just close it with this.
Message boards have their place, but I find that the best investigative journalism that is done by people on message boards are not saying, I have this source, or these are secret documents, or here's the list of the indictments, but actual, verifiable news footage, documents, and first-hand accounts, right?
The stuff that real researchers look at.
And, you know, I remember I was back in the days of the web fairy guys.
I was before let'sroll911.org or, you know, 9-11.
I think it was 9-11truth.com.
And 9-11blogger.com did some great work there.
And I looked at just about everything you can imagine.
There were only certain things that I gravitated towards because the evidence was there.
And I want more and more people to do that and just kind of take a step back.
But at the same time, they have to realize even if those people aren't doing that, they should not be silenced.
It is key to have free speech and free expression, even by those that get it 100% wrong.
Oh, 100%.
Because what's left after that?
Except for that.
Punishment for healing, not destruction.
Right.
All right, Jason, before you go, I wanted to.
I brought an artifact.
I went through some pains to find this the other day.
And let's see if I do this one.
This is from newspapers.com.
And I have the URL here.
I can maybe see, focus it in, focus it in.
All right.
Let's go back full screen.
Newspapers.com has an archive of this article from the Hartford Current.
It's published online April 24th, 2014.
And the print copy that was on the front page is April 25th, 2014.
There are different days between the online and the print copy.
This copy says FBI releases heavily blacked out records.
Now, this is again, this is two years after the event.
This is after the Sandy Hook official report from the state is out.
The FBI has released 175 pages of heavily blacked out documents from the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre Investigation.
Of the 175 pages released in response to a Hartford Current Freedom of Information Act request, 64 pages were completely redacted, and most of the other pages were heavily redacted, right?
So the Hartford Current was trying to get to the bottom of some questions.
They filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI.
They're trying to put the end of these conspiracy theories, right?
What they got back is, if I zoom in here a little more, the pages are all blacked out.
I mean, technically, they're whited out, right?
One of the pages of FBI documents released Thursday are heavily redacted.
So that's the example.
Now, why would they put this on the front page of the newspaper?
Because it was the first headline on the top of the page on the front page.
I think it's because they think they're supposed to get answers and they're not getting answers.
And they're saying, hey, it appears that our request is met with the middle finger.
We're not really getting the answers.
Now, why is there so much federally whited out information?
I can appreciate you got to keep the victims' private information and all this sort of stuff away from the public.
Okay.
But the Hartford Current editor or journalist, Dave Altamari, seems to feel like this is not standard practice.
Like this is newsworthy.
Not that this happens all the time like this, right?
So have you ever seen this article before?
And would this lend credence to questioning these events without going to say you have to make jumps to conclusions?
No, I hadn't seen that article, but of course it does.
And just like you said, why would all of that stuff be blacked out?
And I would say this to people, go to the finders documents, which, by the way, there's still a lot of redactions within the finders documents, but we were able to get more information than even when the Franklin cover-up and then the Franklin scandal were written that led great journalists like Derek Brose to find more and more things over the years.
I don't know that we're ever going to get the real story.
I thought that there was actual questions.
For instance, you played the video of me talking about some of the stuff involving Lanza's mother.
Initially, the reports were that Lanza's mother was working at the school and then all of a sudden she wasn't.
And then you look at those pictures and she's got like thank you letters from the school.
And you're thinking to yourself, well, then what's going on?
And one of the other things that I point towards is, you know, adults died, teachers died, but one of the cars of the teachers is shot up where other cars aren't.
Was somebody targeted?
If people were targeted, then why isn't that a feature or a focus of any of this stuff?
So I think there were valid questions.
I think there is very much the possibility that Lanza did not act alone.
And I think that if those concerns are real, these people will do everything in their power to not let the public know that.
You only need to look at Uvalde now and the amount of information that has come to come out there on just a basic stand down, right?
And how much lying was done in the initial news reporting there to now say, hey, shouldn't I question Sandy Hook a little more?
Shouldn't I go back to Columbine as well?
One of the real big anomalies of Columbine that people aren't aware of, not only are a lot of those documents still heavily redacted and classified, but some of the things that weren't was that they found these large explosive devices that I believe were hundreds of pounds in the basement of the schools and never giving an explanation how two kids were able to put those there and why they didn't go off.
So look, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but when you have these large-scale events, oftentimes the surface level information that we are given is either just part of the story or not part of the story and just part of the narrative that they want to push you towards.
Yeah, I think, you know, when these things were picking up over the past couple of years, these school shootings, I thought back to what's the first point in American culture where I remember that.
And I remember the movie, The Basketball Diaries, where Leonardo DiCaprio goes in and shoots a whole classroom of kids in that movie.
And then the other one was the Pearl Jam song, Jeremy, about the school shootings, right?
And those things brought into American culture then get amplified when you see like 200 different stations telling you the same thing and copycat effect to a certain degree.
And then there's also people who feel alienated.
Like just to give some what about mental health?
What about I know Jason's got to go, but yeah, yeah.
I wanted to say that I watched some of the Parkland trial while the Jones trial was going on.
Nicholas Cruz: The Rolling Stone Case 00:02:36
So Nicholas Cruz was a student who premeditatively plotted out how to kill 17 of his classmates.
He made videos about it.
There's internet trail where he says, what's the best weapon for a school shooting?
And the internet search result, as read in court, Rolling Stone has an article.
AR-15 is the best one for the school shooting, right?
So is Rolling Stone getting shut down like Infowars?
Because they told Nicholas Cruz, as testified to, we had the clip, we can play it later after you leave.
But these types of things, like there's a very well-defined pattern that that kid had problems.
First off, he's like on the spectrum, according to the court, right?
There's testimony to that effect.
So, he's maybe not fully capacitated thinking, but there was a long line of him planning to murder, brutally murder, to be the biggest school shooter ever, all these things, right?
Is that evidence there for Lanza?
We don't know because he self-terminated, possibly due to mass murder, suicide pills on the scene because the cops were still talking about the shooters active.
He's still shooting.
They were outside still, according to those radio calls.
So, it could have been an evaldi-like situation, except he self-terminated and they didn't have to go in, right?
He probably still had more armaments, more ammunition, and there were more victims in that school to be had.
So, who knows what happened to him at that point, right?
A lot more to be learned and asked about such.
Just to throw it out there before I go, if anybody could find it, it's tough to find.
Um, I did it for We Are Change, but I did a mini doc called Code Red about Parkland because there were some really valid questions.
Now, some of those questions have been answered.
For instance, what were the school security doing?
We found out more and more of that afterwards.
But I think I asked some really valid questions there as well.
Never ever saying kids didn't die or that Nicholas Cruz wasn't involved.
In fact, the evidence shows that Nicholas Cruz was there before the shooting, that he was there the morning of that.
And it's at the same time that they're running this code red drill, which was an active shooter drill.
There was a lot of bizarre things about that case as well.
I would say the links to Lanza and Cruz, it seems like they both were heavily medicated and had disassociative personality disorders.
You know, again, if people think they're getting the whole story on a slew of things, and I just end it with this: I tell them to go check out Chaos, the book about Charles Manson, where you have a journalist that fell down a rabbit hole for almost 20 years saying, Wow, this whole Manson thing isn't really adding up.
And why is he being protected?
MK Ultra Revelations 00:01:37
And how did he get out of Mexico after he had been convicted of these crimes when nobody was getting out of Mexico after they were being convicted of these crimes?
And I mean, if you want the cliff notes, watch his four hours on Rogan, which is totally interesting.
But now you take a look back at that incident and that time period of, say, MK Ultra, where they weren't just dosing people with LSD, they were running brothels coast to coast in California and New York, and they were blackmailing people among dosing them with drugs.
I mean, and what was Roman Bransky known for?
I'm sorry, what is Rosemary's Baby, the Sharon Tate movie?
What is that?
Like, just look at the context of those things.
You're right.
People need to look at that more than their Netflix.
All right, gentlemen.
I want to thank you guys.
You're killing it.
You do like the most long-form show on the planet, Richard Andrew Grove.
Tony, thanks for having me.
And hopefully, Jason, it's just real quick, fanboy.
Just so much appreciate your work and what you've done throughout all these years.
You're instrumental in my sort of awakening process over 10 years ago.
So, kudos to what you started for the famous or infamous, however, you want to look at it.
Luce Change and Fable Enemies, A New Order to Find.
Like some of these ones that people sometimes get lost.
Invisible Empire.
Checo's Invisible Empire.
Check out some of the later ones too.
Everyone knows Luce Change.
I'm all my friends, but they don't know about your later work.
Love your talk in Batavia, New York.
I will.
And thank you guys so much.
We'll see you guys on the flip side.
Export Selection