Today, Dan and Jordan discuss the March 13, 2009 episode of The Alex Jones Show, where they see hints of what is to come for Alex as the Tea Party rises, and hints of how he came to his distorted view of reality. Also, more importantly, Chuck Norris shows up on the show and provides Alex with an interview that is the definition of "sour grapes."
If you out there would like to support the show and what we do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that support the show button.
We try to, but I know I mentioned last week that this episode was kind of difficult for me because he brings up a number of things that led me down roads of research.
So I didn't want to take too many...
Too much content, lest we end up in a discussion about something and we end up with a six-hour episode on our hands.
So one day will suffice, because there's a lot of meat to get into, and then on top of that, there's something you need to know.
Chuck Norris told me he'd come on the show any time, and he'd been listening for many years.
First time I had him on late last year.
And I just hadn't thought to call him or email him since he was on with us.
And then I got blindsided with this big announcement that he might run for the president of Texas and that both parties are controlled by elite groups and the IRS is a fraud.
And when I heard Beck, Glenn Beck was involved, that's just one of the hosts that's involved.
You know, I don't have a very high view of Beck because he said Ron Paul supporters need to have the army used against him and are terrorists.
So we'll see if Chuck Norris is going to be on the show today.
I mean, they said yes, we'll come on, yes, is this time good, but they're so busy, who knows with two hours notice if that will happen, because obviously I can have him on next week.
Two days ago, we broke the news and published the full document with phone numbers to the Missouri State Police with a standard, it was just an update, Standard material that the fusion centers, the feds have set up to brainwash the police and military, are receiving at all the states.
And they're moving the military into the same buildings with the state police, local police, in every regional area, four to five county areas, and in all the big cities.
And then about 12 hours later the next morning, because we called that afternoon and they said that the captains and sergeants and lieutenants and colonels were out.
Calling the state police in Missouri.
We did call them that day.
We did talk to them yesterday morning, and we put out on air that phone numbers, additional phone numbers, and the names of the state police at the Office of Intelligence with the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the governor's office that put this out.
So, I mean, we gave them the names, and they wouldn't come on air.
We said, call them.
People have been calling them, and I see them on the boards.
Yeah, I talked to Captain Hull, and I talked to Captain Holtz, and we talked to him, and they confirmed they put this out.
So the disinfo operatives are all over the web posting this saying, I'm a liar, it's not real.
He's making that elementary logical fallacy that he makes about the idea that, just to drive it home again, the idea of this document saying that people who are in terrorist-leaning militias often are supporters of Ron Paul does not mean...
If you are a Ron Paul supporter, you are suspicious to me of being in one of these groups.
His narratives right now, like in 2009, involve a shadowy group of all-powerful, super-rich...
Individuals that are all working together, and their plan is, any day now, they're going to collapse the dollar so you can't buy food.
And when civil unrest breaks out, they have camps built everywhere to put people in forcefully.
Anybody who talks up, they're going to put them in the camps, and at that point, once they have mollified the population, they will release bioweapons to kill 80% of the population, at which point, I guess, the rest of the people who survive will be feudal serfs.
All the people, FEMA, all the federal emergency management agents come around, they take you to the camp and on your way in the door, one good one right in the nuts.
So, in the middle of this episode here, Alex is launching into an impromptu history lesson, which offers us a rare chance to gain context clues as to where he's getting his information from.
In this case, because he mentions the Milner group in that clip that we just played, there can be literally no doubt where he's getting his information from because there's only one source.
Part of this is because most scholars, many of them, don't believe that the Milner group conceived of as a formal body actually ever existed.
of like-minded friends who would meet and work together in the British establishment in the early 1900s.
All of the information about the Milner Group and the name itself comes from two books by Carol Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope.
In the books, Professor Quigley lays out what he's researched about these groups that operated behind the scenes, and he's concluded that groups like the Roundtable Group, the Society of the Elect, and the Association of Helpers were all, in fact, elements of the same group, which he's titled the Milner Group.
The group, the Milner Group, is named after Alfred Milner, who's alleged to have started the group with Cecil Rhodes in 1891.
The story presented in Quigley's work is an interesting one, but from what I can tell, it's something that lacks backing support from a lot of other scholarship.
Quigley himself offers this statement in his introduction to the Anglo-American establishment.
Quote, naturally it's not possible for an outsider to write about a secret group without falling into errors.
There are undoubtedly errors in what follows.
I feel also that there are a few misstatements of facts, except in one most difficult matter.
He does say there are few misstatements of facts, so he's trying to say there are only a couple.
Except in one most difficult matter.
The difficulty arises from the problem of knowing just who is and who is not a member of the group.
Since membership may not be a formal matter but based rather on frequent social association and since the frequency of such association varies from time to time and from person to person, it's not always easy to say who's in the group and who is not.
I got the broad strokes of it, and some major players who were definitely behind the scenes and in front of the scenes deeply involved in British foreign policy, colonialism in the early 1900s, 100%.
But then a lot of the conclusions that can be jumped to are based on assumptions of who is or is not an associate of these groups, or if these groups are even, in essence, a unified front.
Or if there's just like, oh, this one group is, they do X, this other group does Y, but sometimes their goals align a little bit, and it may appear that they're working together, when in fact they are discrete separate groups.
There's a difficulty about this, but for most of, I haven't read all of this book, because it's long, but I've read a bunch of it, and from what I can tell, it reads...
Like a scholarly book.
And it doesn't seem like he's making too many leaps from what I've read.
Which is little more than an attempt to distort Quigley's text to assert things he never said.
Quigley has said of Skousen's book, quote, Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors.
He claims that I've written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group.
Well, and one of the big pieces of Carol Quigley's worldview is he's...
Describing these groups and that they had the influence that they had at the time that they had it, but that influence had largely deteriorated by the 1940s.
And Carol Quigley, his work, when it's being used by Skousen, he says that no.
They never stopped, and they didn't just have some influence, they had all of the influence.
And so in order to make that make sense, W. Cleon Skousen in The Naked Capitalist argues that Carol Quigley is a part of these groups, and this partial revelation is hiding the real truth, which is what Cleon Skousen would put into the world, and what Alex Jones pretends is what is in Quigley's book, when it's not.
So Quigley's Tragedy and Hope only had a printing of about 8,000 copies, mostly because it's a dense as shit 1,300 page book that no publisher would expect to move copies of.
Enter W. Cleon Skousen, who selectively quoted about 30 pages worth of random snippets, added in about 90 extra pages of anti-communist propaganda and conjecture, and now you have a book with market appeal.
He claimed a year after printing that he'd sold over 55,000 copies, and he was being distributed through the Liberty Lobby.
If you don't recall, the Liberty Lobby was the anti-Semitic outlet founded by outright segregationist, Holocaust denier, and likely Nazi admirer, Willis Carto.
Cardo helped found the Populist Party, who fielded David Duke as their presidential nominee in 1988.
Through the Liberty Lobby, Cardo published the Spotlight, which was literally created specifically for the purpose of, quote, mobilizing the public opinion against Jews.
He sought to use his publication to fan the flames of anti-government groups and nativists in order that they come together against their real enemy, in quotes.
So you start to see a little bit of a picture here.
In essence, Alex Jones has molded his life around the absolute misrepresentation of Carol Quigley's work, which was published to demonize communists and bankers, in quotes, and it was published, produced, and promoted by Holocaust deniers who made their life's work demonizing Jews.
But also from that part of the Anglo-American establishment, I mean, it goes into great detail about like...
How, you know, there's obviously treaty issues with Britain and France, like having to back France up, but France has Eastern European allies that Britain doesn't care about.
So trying to find some sort of a balance of a way that you could not have all-out world war would be preferable.
We're going to run the fake communist revolution in Russia, so the people think it's going to be a worker's paradise.
We'll kill the royal cousins there, take over, so we can run all that.
But then that'll be a big threat with the engine of Russia.
So in the great game, as they call it...
Of balkanization, divide and conquer, will then play a fascist or right-wing movement off against Russia using the old empire.
Because if we don't, the socialists and communists will take over Germany and our own revolution will get too big for us and we don't want all of Europe, Western Europe, falling.
We just want Eastern Europe to have an extermination program.
And once again, this is another book that heavily cribbed from and misrepresented Carol Quigley's work.
Quigley didn't care much for none dare call it conspiracy either, saying, quote, they thought Dr. Carol Quigley proved everything.
For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect, that Lord Milner, the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and heavy in the roundtable group, helped finance the Bolsheviks.
I've been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that.
So the idea that Alex is suggesting about they created this Bolshevik thing in Russia and fascist thing in Germany is what was reflected in that bit that I read you from his book, The Anglo-American Establishment.
Just that they had hoped to come up with some balance of power with Germany in the middle of Europe and Russia over to the east and hope everything worked out.
That does not mean that they created a Bolshevik revolution or they created Hitler.
Alex is taking this from these bastardized sources of the original material.
So, in a March 23rd, 1975 article in the Washington Post, quote, As copies began to spread across the country of None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Quigley began to grasp what the selective, unauthorized quotation from his work could mean.
The approach to history taken by the authors of None Dare Call It Conspiracy offended Quigley's scholastic sensibilities.
But what you can do is just make wild, unsubstantiated claims with a couple of sentences and then just say, that's probably what it said, and then move on and people will eat that shit up!
The other real tragedy for Quigley, too, was that his original book had 8,000 copies because it was, again, a 1,300-page scholarly book that no one expected to sell.
Then, you've got fucking Cleon Skousen coming out, selling 55,000 of it in a year, making all that money, or the Liberty Lobby making a bunch of that money, because it's unauthorized quotation of his work.
Then, by the same token, you now have Gary Allen coming out with None Dare Call It Conspiracy, but you have that.
He sold millions of copies of that, and none of that money is going to Quigley.
And then Hitler, they turn against Hitler, he flips out, he starts saying, my God, they promised me this, I wasn't going to attack England, we were supposed to link up after I'd taken Europe, and then knock out Stalin, and then we were going to carry out eugenics and exterminate the majority of the non-white population.
That was the Hitler plan, if you didn't know, how they were going to put fluoride in the water to first pacify people, use them as slave labor, buy off their leaders, how the ops were going to work everywhere.
No, this is about a city council meeting in Tulsa, and Henderson is Jack Henderson, the Tulsa city councilor.
And what the issue here is not about private gardens, it's about community gardens.
And actually, this article is less about the marijuana issue.
He does say, here's a quote from him, how do we know what people are going to be growing?
Vegetables?
Maybe.
Or maybe something else.
Is there going to be someone that inspects what's growing?
In a community garden, I kind of understand.
I don't think it matters that much, but that's just one point that he brings up.
The main concern is the idea of like, alright, we start these community gardens on what land are we using, how is it zoned, and then what if it falls into disrepair?
Whose responsibility is that if it just becomes overgrown?
Is that the city's responsibility?
Are we going to have to budget for that?
Or is it a private place that now you have a community garden here and then the homeowner or the property owner is then responsible for the overgrowth of the gardens?
There are tons of community gardens around Chicago.
Is anybody confused by them?
Everybody just kind of has a weird pop-up political system that grows around those, where you have to talk to somebody, but you don't know who for a while, and then you meet a couple of people in the know, and then you find out who's running things, and you ask for a plot, and the person who's running things, self-appointed, because they just showed up first.
It's probably a bag lady at the end of And it's also Erykah Badu.
I'm not sure, but also in this article it says that they would support the amendment and if unforeseen problems arise, the council can go back and make changes if they want.
But it is this article that he's reporting on.
He's not reporting on the reality of it.
It is really just about the city code enforcement and whether or not it would require tax dollars.
To clean up places that fall into being abandoned, basically.
And then also the idea of if it's a private place and it's the person's responsibility, how are we going to make them clean it up?
It would be a blight.
It would turn into a trash yard, basically.
So, look, this isn't some sort of fascist crackdown on people growing food.
I would only believe this in any way if it was about, like, look out for people who wear grills or something like that, and it was some sort of a racism thing.
That's the only way I believe this is even close to real.
What do you think of the state police federally written document that basically says that anybody that supports the Second Amendment buys gold, believes in the North American Union...
This is one of those things that's really essential to understand, is that Alex Jones has his narratives, but he uses them specifically in different ways with different people.
So, like, Bob Chapman exists on this show only to talk about the dollar collapsing and selling Ted Anderson's gold.
He's a credible source, in heavy quotes, about that sort of thing in order to force people into a mindset where they're like, fuck, I should get gold.
So, when Alex wants to bring up the MIAC report, which is his big narrative that he's on now, in order to make it amenable to what he knows he's going to have to get to, which is selling gold, he has to bring in, if you buy gold, you're a terrorist now.
We're joined for the next 20 minutes or maybe longer, he's a very busy man, by someone who needs no introduction, Chuck Norris.
He was kind enough to come on late last year, and I hadn't bugged him to come back on until I heard this big announcement that he's going to be making a big announcement today in a national simulcast on the radio and on the web.
And I wanted to get him on about that and a host of issues.
Talk of him being running for president of Texas or president of the U.S. So Alex is really excited.
But I also wonder, I have nothing to base this on, and I don't think it's wrong or weird at all to do martial arts, but I wonder if there's something in the nature of That discipline that's very positive, the ability to get that control over yourself.
I wonder if there's an element of it in martial arts that is so predicated on subservience to the sensei or the master of the dojo.
That was unnecessary.
But I wonder if there's something in there that leads towards a mindset that is very malleable to authoritarianism.
I mean, I think it's more likely that you're getting people who are inclined to violence and an authoritarian government gives them free reign to exercise violence whenever they want to.
Today, Glenn Beck has started a thing called We Surround Them, which means the nine principles that we, America, should live by.
America is good.
I believe in God, and he is the center of my life.
I must always be a much more honest person than I was yesterday.
You know, things of that sort there.
And then the 12 values of honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, so forth and so on.
And so really what Glenn Beck is trying to say today is that the people have got to go back to the values that we had for many, many years and we're drifting off of that.
Anyway, because Alex is so pissed off that Chuck Norris is on his show promoting Glenn Beck, as he goes out to break, Alex accidentally calls Chuck Norris Glenn Beck.
If it wasn't constitutional before, then it can never be constitutional again.
Remember how that was written into the Constitution?
There definitely wasn't some sort of like...
Okay, maybe we need some amendments to this Constitution.
Maybe it's not perfect.
So, what if we wrote in an actual series of instructions for how to add things to the Constitution, upon which those series of instructions are followed and succeeded?
It will be part of the Constitution.
No, Dan!
Always unconstitutional, anything that wasn't in the Constitution.
Well, when Chuck Norris, star of Walker, Texas Ranger, is on this show, and he's telling us that we're going to lose our Constitution if Glenn Beck, his crusade that Alex is apparently doing the same thing as, which really infuriates Alex, if that doesn't work out, we're going to lose our Constitution.
It doesn't make me feel better when he says this about the Constitution.
But it's just weird to hear somebody who you assume isn't a total monster saying, well...
The Constitution's really only for religious and moral people.
So if he's saying that, then that means that everyone must be religious if we're going to have this, or the Constitution doesn't apply to not religious people, like a-religious folks.
And I said, if that was true, I would go to Washington, to Congress, I'd line up all the members of Congress, and I'd have Ron Paul, who I believe is the most honest member of Congress, and I'd say, Ron, point out...
I would say that one of the points against Ron Paul as being the most honest person in the Senate or whatever is that he says, I didn't write that newsletter with my name on it written in the first person.
This is an information revolution that's happening, but I have the government documents, I have the secret state police reports that the feds give them, where they say Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, libertarians, people with these stickers are dangerous, they're bad, they want to kill...
And it's called the modern militia movement, but then it demonizes mainline libertarians and everybody and says, watch out for them, they're dangerous.
I mean...
It seems like people in the federal government right now realize the threat to them is people that are talking like you, Chuck Norris.
Yeah, and the other thing that is really, really funny is that I didn't...
I've never looked into this because I just assumed it was bullshit.
But Alex has another training thing, manual, that he touts as proof that the government is trying to crack down and they hate these patriots and all that.
And it was sent to, not him, but I believe...
I don't exactly know the Genesis story of this, like where it came from.
But it came from, I know, from...
Someone in Arizona law enforcement.
I believe it was this guy named Jack McLamb who's coming up later on the show, but I can't prove it.
You get a small group of guys together who are ideologically consistent with each other, and they learn how to use weapons and practice certain tactics necessary to...
Neutralize the enemy.
And you know they're never going to want to use those skills that they've learned.
And in it it says, political motivation is usually Marxist-Leninist philosophy.
Now, I am not an idiot.
So I read that, and I say, you know what?
There probably are some left-wing groups that have Marxist-Leninist philosophy.
In no way do I look at that and say, if you are into Marx, you are into Lenin, then that means you're a left-wing terrorist.
But that would be how I would have to read it if I was playing the same stupid games Alex is.
So anyway, the bigger picture that I wanted to bring in is that left-wing terrorism is included in there, as well as animal rights, eco-terrorism, which are usually left-leaning people for the most part.
There's a small part about right-wing extremism.
He ignores all the rest of this in order to be like, they're trying to demonize the patriots.
I could play the same game and be like, they're trying to demonize people who care about animals' rights.
Do you understand?
The feds are cracking down on anybody who cares about animals.
It would have just as much validity using this argument.
Using this document.
Alex is fucking stupid is what I'm trying to get at.
I get 200, 300 a day, and that's nothing to what you get from our police and soldiers and other people.
It's fantastic how more and more are waking up all the time.
And I've been praying every night that God would give us a second chance and forgive our national sins for throwing him out of this nation and allow us to go forward.
Well, Jack McLamb tries to read all of them, and Alex keeps going, great, great, great, love it.
And then they go to commercial, and Alex is like, I want you to read those all again, but I'm going to editorialize, so after each one, we'll talk about it.
Yeah, I suppose sooner or later you're going to have to run into the problem of, if all of the guys that I like are telling the truth, that means Hitler can't be a bad guy.
Alex, one of his biggest intelligence sources, in very heavy quotes...
About the Bilderberg group was Jim Tucker, who wrote for the Spotlight, which was the publication put out by the Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto, specifically in order to turn public opinion against Jews.
Alex has this great grand worldview about World War II revisionism that goes on to this day in the CFR and all this shit that's based on a misuse of Carol Quigley's work by W. Cleon Skousen that was published and promoted.
By the Liberty Lobby that was put together by Willis Carto, who wanted to demonize Jews.
And all of that ends up being mixed into a big booyah base that ends up, you know, it's alphabet soup that ends up saying Hitler was pretty cool on top.
That's basically what it ends up being.
And if that is your worldview, and has been since you were too young to understand what you were reading, and you have a family that is probably a little bit crazy and John Birchie, then that's going to be like...
Alex has never had the crisis of political identity.
He's had this stupid worldview since he was 12. He's like someone who's walked around and never had to question actually what he believes, because he decided that when he was 10, reading these dumb books, and instead of being challenged by the experiences that he has in the world, he gets defensive about them and yells at people in order to be like, no, I'm going to vociferously defend my opinion as opposed to...
Consider the possibility maybe I'm wrong on this one.
I just wish that we lived in a world where if you started digging into your philosophy and you eventually hit defend Hitler as your bedrock, you would stop there and be like, oh, if I'm defending Hitler, maybe I should dig myself out of this hole.
But with these guys, there's just no bottom.
There's just no bottom.
They just keep digging into, yeah, I'll defend Hitler.
Interestingly, on that promiscuity note, he wrote a book in 2000 called A Long Way to Go for a Date, and I will read to you the blurb of the book from Amazon.
Quote, In the Philippines, Henry Macau, 48, discovered a tropical paradise where women are still traditional and the husband is the head of the household.
A Long Way to Go for a Date is Macau's candid and ironic account of his courtship and marriage to a young Filipina.
Yep.
Nothing like an uplifting story of a near 50-year-old man flying to Southeast Asia to marry an 18-year-old.
So the reviews on his book are pretty fun, but there's one that I liked a bit that I want to read to you.
Quote, I also recommend reading this book to anyone who finds themselves sympathetic to Macau's views on his website.
It's the perfect antidote because it's painfully obvious now that the problem Macau has with the world is actually Macau.
I understand people are lonely, I do, but this was a foray into the socially unacceptable.
There's nothing wrong with an intercultural marriage or indeed traditional roles, but the combination of poverty, a 30-year age gap, and a three-week courtship is a bridge too far.
Anyway, Macau, in addition to being a creep, believes that the Illuminati is behind feminism, homosexuality, and killing JFK, Lincoln, and James Garfield because they were getting that itch to print real money and overthrow the Illuminati's control of the money.
He also believes that it was the Jews that were to blame for the Holocaust, and he's Jack McClam's favorite Jew.
A lot of the argument MacLamb tries to lay out in this Holocaust-denying video of his is based on the misuse of a headline from a 1941 publication, quote, I was Hitler's boss.
Written anonymously at the time, but we now know it was written by Captain Carl Mayer.
Jack presents this as proof that there was someone, as he's sure to point out, that Mayer is Jewish, who was pulling Hitler's strings in the Holocaust.
The problem is that Mayer was only Hitler's immediate supervisor between 1919 and 1920 when Hitler was a general staff officer.
This is a good year before he would become Fuhrer of the Nazi Party and 13 years before he would become Chancellor of Germany.
Fun fact, in 1933 when Nazis came to power, Mayer fled to France where he worked with anti-Nazi efforts.
In 1941 he was hunted down by the Gestapo and thrown into Buchenwald concentration camp where he was murdered.
Interestingly, if you do read the article, I Was Hitler's Boss, you see some striking parallels with a situation that's evolving 77 years later.
...
they were indebted to Jewish banks.
Even intellectuals were jealous because Jews held lucrative positions in the arts and sciences and professions.
The Nazi salesmen offered anything and everything to make the people war-minded.
Their sales talk was, Germany is a have-not country.
Other nations have all the wealth.
Germany must fight them successfully and so be entitled to that wealth.
The patriotic slogan, everything for Germany, was nothing more than salesmanship.
No one cared in the least what would happen to the rest of Germany, so long as the result would be a restoration of the good old days.
The further argument laid out in the piece is that Hitler was kind of a moody idiot, and that back when Mayer was his supervisor, he found him to be a bit incompetent.
This doesn't prove in any way that there was a Jewish cabal pulling his strings, and in fact, the article ends with Mayer laying out exactly what he's talking about.
He's arguing that Hermann Göring is the real brains of the operation, and that Hitler was the charismatic frontman, salesman that they needed, which is a far leap from Jack McLamb's argument.
And, I mean, I don't know what else to say other than we have an account, 1941, this guy very clearly explaining how the Nazis ended up solidifying a lot of their control.