Today, Dan and Jordan venture back into 2009 to follow Alex's path through history. On this installment, the gents stumble into a big change in Alex's rhetoric and try very hard to remember that sometimes coincidences can just be coincidences.
Holy shit, if we could go back in time, I would make a documentary called Rollerballers, and it's just about those people who dress up to see a movie in...
Anyway, if you would like to support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show.
He just talks to Mike Rivero about a bunch of bullshit, and then he interviews the lady whose son was the guy who got decapitated on the Greyhound bus.
So there's a little bit of that, but it's definitely not worth going into.
So we're just going to skip through that and jump in on the 8th, because I think the 8th is one of the most important days that we will have ever covered.
In terms of our entire podcast up till this point.
And before we explain why, here are a couple out of context drops from today's show.
But in the extra hour of the show, he explains that he wants to do overdrive because he's got too many calls backed up and he wants to talk to the people.
So the first call that he takes is a guy who's like, hey, Alex, this entire episode, you've been talking about this news article in the AP about how Obama is admitting that they're doing chemtrails.
That's so sad that a guy who looks up to Alex who's like, you're a great man.
You're doing great things.
I don't want to hurt you.
I love you.
And out of that love, I tell you that you are lying about this bullshit.
Change it.
That way, when you tell the truth, I can tell more of my friends, and they'll tell more of their friends, and they'll point it back, and they'll have hard evidence that you're right.
There are going to be parts of this episode that I can tell you what's going on.
And then there are going to be other parts where there's some conjecture and some speculation.
I want to give that warning ahead of time, and we will do our best to call out what is what.
But I don't want to mislead anybody who's listening to this as we go through it to think that we have a firm conclusion that we can come to or that we're directly saying X means X. We do mean X means X, but X means Y. We're not trying.
There's gut, there's circumstantial evidence, there's coincidence and all those things together, and we can discuss how those things lead us towards a conclusion, but we can't say with any certainty that this is the conclusion.
I want that caveat to be totally clear lest anyone get the wrong idea, because a lot of this stuff is pretty important to the stuff we cover, and at the same time...
We're going to jump in about 20 minutes into the April 8th, 2009 episode.
And the reason we're not going to listen to anything at the beginning is because it's just a continuation of Alex's random, not random, but very consistent, I don't want to be blamed for that Pittsburgh shooting.
He doesn't say what he's been holding back is revealing that Soros is a big bad guy, which...
Probably would cut off most of my criticisms at the past.
Because then it would be like, oh, that's the way you're presenting this.
I don't believe you, but at least you're making that apparently.
He's just injecting Soros into everything now.
And he's doing it in such a way that it really just feels...
It feels like a jarring shift, like in a completely different direction, because we've been spending months and months listening to his walk through 2009, and he never talks about Soros.
He has his own villains that he's super interested in talking about.
We just read what they said they were going to do, introduced in the U.N., attacks on all carbon to control everybody, and that they would implode the economy through derivatives to bring this in.
I've been saying that for 10 plus years because I was reading what George Soros was saying they were going to do.
I was reading what David Rockefeller said they were going to do.
So, if Alex is trying to say that he's been saying he's been reading Soros' writings and stuff like this for years, and that's what's led him to be able to know the things that he knows, I say, no, that's not at all the way you've presented things up to this point.
This is very not in line with his own version of his life.
to present introducing Soros into this world, which is, like, I would say if he got on air and was like, my researchers have been digging in and they found that Soros is behind X, Y, and Z. Then at least from a narrative standpoint, it makes sense.
And I think it is probably good to point this out that he's making a lot of wide-ranging statements in terms of like, oh, and I wanted to correct you just a tiny bit.
In that last clip, you were saying that he's been reading Soros' writings forever.
And that's not really implied by what he's saying.
He's saying he's been reading these documents for 10 years.
So it's a wide-ranging spectrum of things, whether it's this IMF documents and financial takeovers or any of the other things that he's already thrown around.
But beneath it, it does seem to be that the media matters part and they complain about Alex and he's trying to deflect criticism of himself.
So there is that as a sort of motivation.
But it still doesn't answer the question, why is this happening now?
Absolutely.
unidentified
And the question becomes even more complicated when you see how far ranging these complaints that he has about Soros are.
The fact that Obama does have an attorney general that filed briefings before the Supreme Court for a total, complete ban of any firearms of any type, including single shot from the American people.
And that they've introduced all these bills, the most draconian in history.
That's real!
And you just can't sit over there saying it isn't real.
Let me tell you something.
You establishment George Soros finance people.
This is going to lead to war.
This is what I've been trying to stop.
I like the red lights working.
I like the power working.
I like being able to go home and eat a hot meal.
I don't have some romantic love of the coming conflict that's going to happen.
And so the establishment writers are going out trying to get the right-wing base under the control of Limbaugh and the left-wing base under the control of the Soros-controlled media empire.
Air America and the rest of it.
They are desperately trying to get their people back under their wings.
Same thing with Hannity and Glenn Beck and the rest of them.
And see, the left has woken up to this New World Order being real, so they're waking up and joining the people, and so the establishment's trying to keep their people on the reservation, on the plantation.
So in this next clip, one of the things that we've talked about a whole bunch, even already on this episode, is the idea that Alex has his own stable of guys that he likes to point the finger at.
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, what have you.
And in this next clip, I believe that what we see is Alex Jones initiating Soros into that group.
What's going to happen is Mexico collapses and even more illegal aliens run up here.
There's dead cops all over the place.
There's going to be dead military all over the place.
They're going to have them marching around trying to take people's guns in the middle of all this.
As Mexico collapses, the Attorney General already came out in press conferences and said we've got to restrict the Second Amendment because the guns are causing it in Mexico.
And you know they're going to say take the guns as there's rioting and breakdown of society.
And they're going to march the police right into hell?
March the military right into hell?
Because the American people aren't going to turn their guns in!
And when there's dead cops and military, every...
They're going to blame me for trying to stop the bankers raping us and starting this when it's in their own IMF and World Bank documents that they want to have a war between the police and military and the people.
It's George Soros and David Rockefeller and Brzezinski.
My position on how Alex has described Soros in the past up till this point has been, I would describe it basically as like a guy who is too frank in interviews, both about himself and about geopolitics, and Alex takes issue with that.
So times that he's come up have been like when Soros was talking about how the price of oil going down is going to be bad for Russia.
Right.
unidentified
It wasn't still agency that he was applying Soros in terms of these evil plans.
I'm having a very good crisis as Soros, as the hedge fund managers make billions off recession.
And George Soros went on to say, it is the culmination of my life's work and has been very stimulating.
That's a quote.
Now, that's who owns in finances.
These major sites attacking me, including Media Matters, publicly run by Soros.
And he's coming out with a vicious attack piece.
Doesn't matter if the original newspaper that got fed this stuff by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has had to admit, oh my gosh, Alex Jones had the white supremacist after him.
Actually, the cop killer didn't like Alex and disagree with Alex about nonviolence.
So what he's talking about here, he's pretending this is a press conference.
Alex has just read the headline.
This is a bad paraphrasing and quoting out of context of an interview George Soros did with The Australian in 2009.
If you read the interview, he does say that the period in late 2008, early 2009 was, quote, in a way the culminating point of my life's work, so to speak.
But he's not talking about causing the crisis or even about profit.
Just two questions prior in the interview, Soros had indicated that he doesn't spend too much of his time focusing on the minutiae of financial sectors, and at this point in his life, he's far more interested in focusing on policy.
The interviewer rebuts, quote, to which Soros replies, quote, When he's saying this is a culmination of his life's work, he's talking about all the writing he'd been doing and exploring how the theory of reflexivity that he's so into could be used to help fix the financial crisis.
This is absolutely 100% an instance of Alex not having read the interview or intentionally lying about it.
The quote about him having a great crisis is from the same interview.
And surprise, it's also taken out of context.
This was really more about how he had predicted the crash and bet accordingly.
Also, he warned people of what he saw coming.
He publicly predicted it.
It wasn't like he kept the information to himself and profited off it.
Also, he had a really funny line in that interview about how the mainstream financial experts had predicted three out of the last seven bubbles.
But he was better.
Because he'd predicted seven out of the last three, poking fun at the fact that he had wrongly predicted bubbles multiple times in the past.
The hilarious part about this shit is that in that interview, when he's asked about solutions, he literally advocates for greater restrictions and regulations on short selling, which is one of the instruments he used to make his money.
He's advocating for a solution that is opposed to his own self-interest.
There is nothing in this interview that is indicative of any way that he caused this crash.
Yeah.
unidentified
That he's enjoying the crash part of it outside of it being sort of, at least in some ways, evidence that the theory of reflexivity in the markets is something that people should take more seriously, which has been his life's.
In interviews I've read with him, he cops to like...
Yep, I made a mistake on that one, and one of the things that goes along with that reflexivity thing is the idea of, like, if you make a mistake, change what you do.
Don't be beholden to the plan that you put forth just because it was your plan.
My point is that I think that when you read actual interviews with George Soros, one of the things that you see most frequently is a humility about himself, a sense of humor about his own positions and his place in the world.
He doesn't, if you actually read his words and some of the books that he's written, he doesn't fit the picture that the right-wing media puts out of him.
It is kind of more advantageous to the right for him to be both forthright, self-aware, somewhat humble, and have a sense of humor about himself in that then he becomes such an easy target to attack.
To an extent, but it's interesting that most of the stuff where he's actually copped to, like, you know, I was wrong about that.
I read one interview where he was talking about how he tried to set up a foundation in some former Soviet bloc country, and they were pushing for reform in X direction, and he got pushback from the government.
And they had a conversation about it and he realized that he was going about things wrong and they adjusted the way that they were doing things because he wasn't taking into account local customs and the greater culture of that country.
In the time since Alex has been talking about George Soros, we constantly see him being used as a scapegoat whenever there's something happening in the world that runs counter to Russian interests.
For instance, in 2017, Macedonia was in a little bit of a political crisis.
This wasn't the whole story, obviously, but a piece of it was that Macedonia was in the process of being brought into the EU, which is bad news for Russia.
Because Macedonia is home to the very important Negotino...
Which is an important part of Russia's ability to transport gas to Europe.
Congressman Chris Smith and Mike Lee wrote letters to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about how open society was fermenting discord in Macedonia and attempting to give the left full control of their judiciary.
Much of this was based on information that was being put out by a group called Stop Operation Soros.
From an article in Politico, quote, the Macedonian politicians in an allied group known as Stop Operation Soros deny any direct Russian role in their efforts, but they acknowledge that Moscow has taken an interest.
One of the founders of Stop Operation Soros, Kvetkin Chilomanov, noticed a virtual argument.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Also in 2017, Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary...
Began targeting Soros and blaming him for what he described as an invasion of immigrants, which were precipitating a great replacement and shifting the demographics of the country.
It should be noted that Orbán is not a cool dude.
In a speech that he gave at the Balvenos Summer Free University and student camp in 2014, he literally said, quote, the new state that we are constructing in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state.
It does not reject the fundamental principles of liberalism, such as freedom, and I could list a few more, but it does not make this ideology the central element of state organization.
So, he's not into that sort of freedom stuff, which puts him diametrically opposed to George Soros, who paid to open the Central European University in Budapest and paid for scholarships for promising students to go to college, which, ironically, Viktor Orban was a recipient of in 1989.
The Aurora Center is a Jewish charity organization in Hungary, and they'd been aligned with Soros to some extent.
He had given them some funding.
And I'd like you to listen to this passage from an article in The Guardian and see if you hear anything you find familiar.
Quote, Last month,
a group of far-right activists defaced the outside of the building, spray painting Stop Operation Soros on the pavement and plastering photographs of his face with a red cross stuck through it on the doorway, which is undoubtedly a coincidence.
In 2018, Orbán's government passed a law called literally Stop Soros.
From a November 7, 2003 article in the BBC, quote, camouflage-clad men have forced staff to leave the Moscow offices of the Open Society Institute founded by U.S. billionaire George Soros.
At least 30 men stormed the offices and seized computers and documents in the raid, which began late on Thursday.
The state was claiming that it was about open society not paying their rent, but that doesn't explain why the camouflaged men took what was described as, quote, two lorry loads of documents after their raid.
He'd spent tons of money establishing educational programs, setting up journalist training initiatives, and founding internet cafes where normal people could have access to and communicate with the outside world.
He was arrested and jailed on trumped-up charges, ultimately doing about 10 years in jail before international outcry led to Putin pardoning him in 2014, after which point he wisely headed out to the UK.
Soros was one of the people speaking up about this case, and in retaliation, Putin raided his offices and made it impossible for him to operate within the country.
In that time period, Soros was very clear about his opposition to Putin's government, writing an op-ed for CNN in 2009 that said, The new order in Moscow that has emerged out of the chaos of the 1990s is very far from an open society.
It's an authoritarian regime that preserves an outward appearance of democracy, but derives its power from its control of Russia's national resources.
It uses those resources to maintain itself in power, to personally enrich the rulers, and exercise influence over its neighborhood, both in Europe and the former Soviet sphere.
But the ideal of an open society is difficult to suppress, and I have not given up hope.
In the period following the 2003 raid, Putin continued to express his hostility towards Soros and his democratic initiatives, blaming him for many of the things that the rest of the world views as Putin's own aggression, be it the Georgian War in 2008 or the annex of Crimea.
Soros.
unidentified
Interestingly, on February 23rd, 2009, which is...
George Soros wrote an article for the European Council on Foreign Relations that was very overt in its message about Putin's Russia.
Here are some choice passages.
Quote, Europe cannot afford to not resist Russia's geopolitical aggression, and it needs to be unified to have any chance of success.
Europe needs to pursue a two-pronged strategy.
On the one hand, it must protect itself against the geopolitical threat posed by a newly assertive and adventurous Russia.
On the other, it must seek to replace the rule of force with the rule of law, and geopolitics with the pursuit of democracy, open society, and international cooperation.
Strengthening and supporting the former Soviet republics would serve both prongs of a unified EU policy towards Russia.
In the op-ed, Soros advocates for the strategy of establishing a, quote, unified energy policy with a Europe-wide regulatory authority, which has precedence over national regulators.
Which is...
Reflecting the reality of what Raja had done previous to this.
There's a long line of this that predates Putin's rise to power, again on New Year's Eve 1999, but it doesn't predate him being in the KGB.
He was a foreign intelligence officer for the KGB from 1975 to 1991, reaching the rank of lieutenant colonel.
You may notice that the date of him leaving the KGB is right around when the Soviet Union fell, at which point he decided to get into politics, eventually finding himself a fast-rising star in the Yeltsin administration.
In 1992, Istvan Kurska was a radical nationalist member of the Hungarian National Assembly.
Though Hungary wasn't a part of the USSR, it was a country that was militarily dominated by the Soviet Union until the Iron Curtain fell.
In the 50s, Zirka gained a public image as a democratic hero, having been arrested at the 1956 attempted revolution against Soviet occupation.
He put on the appearance of being a democratic crusader, critical of the Hungarian regime and power, but it was later revealed in the 90s that through the entire time, he was employed as an informant for the Hungarian secret police.
We have this example of a fucking dude who was presenting himself as a democratizing force, but he was actually a snitch for the people he was pretending himself to be against.
So you got that.
Okay, that's one good example.
Jan Slata was a hyper-nationalist extreme member of the National Council in then Czechoslovakia.
He was a real shithead, saying things like the following about people from Hungary.
Quote, These robbers, murderers, and those who erect these ugly turuls, these Hungarian parrots.
He called the ethnic Hungarian minority in the country a, quote, tumor on the body of the Slovak nation and vowed to, quote, get into our tanks and level Budapest if they attempt to teach us the Lord's Prayer in Hungarian ever again.
He called Joseph Tissot, quote, one of the greatest sons of the Slovak nation.
Fun fact, Joseph Tissot was the president of the Slovak Republic back when it was a client state of Nazi Germany.
By August 1942, Tissot had aided in deporting most of the Jews who lived in the Slovak Republic and was fully aware that they were going to their deaths.
When the Vatican criticized the deportation, Tissot, himself a Catholic priest before becoming president, replied, quote, There is no foreign intervention which should stop us on the road to the liberation of Slovakia from Jewry.
In 1995, when Slaughter was trying to pass completely cool legislation designed to curtail freedom of speech and press in the Czech Republic, he accused...
He accused opposition of being part of a plan by George Soros to destabilize the country and foment a parliamentary coup d 'etat.
We could spend all day learning about the various authoritarian Nazi sympathizers and extreme right-wing xenophobes who have used Soros as their scapegoat for the last few decades.
But these two are some nice examples, and I think they demonstrate my point.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the painting of Soros as a boogeyman who's trying to take over the country has always been used by people who do not want democratic ideals in their countries.
Soros has spent millions and millions of dollars trying to support the implementation of liberal democracies in countries formerly under the rule of the Soviet Union because that is where he's from and because he knows how important those democratic ideals are.
Traditional Republican foreign policy, the same party that is now under the sway of these anti-Soros narratives, you see it pop up even in Fox News, you see it pop up, the president...
The mainstream GOP is very close to this anti-Soros narrative now.
You see it all over the place.
But traditional Republican foreign policy is 100% in line with what Soros did in the aftermath of the Soviet Union.
The GOP is historically Russophobic and generally is on the side of opening up countries to liberal democracy, which inevitably leads to an open market for the country and all that other shit that they fucking love.
But because Soros is also in favor of liberal ideals like Russia, Now, I think that is giving the GOP foreign policy a very positive spin, which it does not have.
It is their ideal in those countries because there's already authoritarian rule and they're not playing ball.
So they would just like to...
So if they were...
So if Russia was a great democracy and they weren't playing ball, then they would try and install a military dictatorship to play ball in the same way that when South American countries did it, they tried to...
So I think that what we've seen so far here is a little bit of a deconstruction about how historically so much of the criticism of Soros that falls into line with the sort of things that Alex is putting forth has been the work of European authoritarians early on.
And then as Putin has risen to power, he has consistently used Soros as a scapegoat for color revolutions.
Any time that he's sort of threatened, it's a Soros thing.
And in 2009, that was the prevailing place that anti-Soros criticism was coming from.
unidentified
But these are fundamental shifts we're seeing take place in a relatively short period of time for Al.
But the only way we can tell if there's possibly something behind this The only way to tell is that we need to analyze some of the context and see what was going on in the world in April 2009 to see if there's any clues that might tell us about why Alex might begin this all of a sudden.
Was Diamond Gusset Jeans bought out by a Russian company and then they bumped up their advertising on Alex's show on the GCN network, got a meeting with Ted Anderson, said, here's what we're going to do.
We'll buy all your gold.
But let you run the place and have a complete ownership stake in it.
Actually, negotiations fell through for that because the Russians were trying to get Diamond Gusset to replace their theme song with the Tetris theme song.
So, relations between Russia and the United States were particularly frosty in the mid-to-late 2008 time span and into early 2009.
There was that matter of Bush's plans to install anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, things that Russia made very certain to make known that they saw as an act of aggression.
Their ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Cherkin, said that the move would result in Russia re-evaluating its strategic posture and possibly to...
Thank you.
Russia backed the separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia during the five-day war in August 2008 between the state of Georgia and what the rest of the world viewed as Russian-occupying forces in the two breakaway regions.
Then, of course, on January 7, 2009, Russia shut off all the gas flowing through Ukraine and precipitated a severe crisis of much of Europe not having gas that they needed for heating during the depths of winter.
As we saw when we listened to that episode, counter to almost unanimous, There are a lot of flare-ups, and people were rightly concerned about what that would pretend for the relations between the two major powers in geopolitics.
On April 2, 2009, the G20 summit occurred in London, which marked the beginning of increased efforts to repair the strained relations between the U.S. and Russia, with talks between Obama and then-president of Russia, Medvedev.
Earlier in March, Hillary Clinton had famously posed with Sergei Lavrov holding a prop reset button, intending to send the message that the two countries were putting the past behind them and moving forward.
There are good reasons to think that this was possibly an effort that was being made to live in a more of a balanced world and put the Cold War mentality behind us and let it die.
But that was only a public perception.
In reality, the relationship between the two countries was not getting better.
Part of this is due to the fact that though he was technically prime minister at the time and Medvedev was president, everyone knew that Vladimir Putin had never really stepped down from power and was really running things.
He'd be president from the start of 2000 until May 2008, at which point he immediately became prime minister, serving that position until May 2012 when he once again became president.
The Russian Constitution doesn't allow for more than two consecutive terms for presidents, so Putin and Medvedev are engaged in what's known as a tandemocracy, where the two of them trade positions when the term limits kick in.
When Putin became president again in 2012, Dan, when he was elected president with 97% of the vote, it was very democratic.
It was close to 70%, but I get what you're saying.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
When Russian citizens protest this clear corruption that the state is doing, the idea that these two men are just trading positions in order to retain a stranglehold on power...
When people protest this, the state points to their protest as clear signs of things like color revolutions being carried out by internationalists like George Soros.
It's almost like the rhetoric that a far-right authoritarian dictatorship like Russia uses in order to demonize reasonable, rational protesters has become de rigueur for far-right nationalist politicians in the United States who just so happen to go under the same banner.
And even then, even had Russia, as far as a, as far as like a, hey, let's prove it goes, even had Russia told Alex directly.
They would have done it through four different shell companies, eight different people, and a video chat, I guess.
Apparently, according to Alex's history.
Here is my question with this.
Watching the extent to which right-wing propaganda has utterly dominated Russia for...
And then to see it metastasize the way that it has worldwide.
And to see the way that, you know, like, it's always going to be the fact-checkers are going to be on the defensive and they're never going to win.
In the same way that the rushing hacking.
Like, you can have a great defense cybersecurity system, but it's never going to defeat the people who are spending all of their time on the offensive.
I like that you prefaced this by, like, this is going to be a speculative question, and then, no, there's a concrete answer.
No, I really don't think there is.
I think you can have little wins here and there, and I think it's important to deconstruct this stuff and try and understand it.
And there's a win for us and our listeners to an extent, you know, like, having a more robust understanding of where a lot of these ideas come from and what's really behind them, where there's truth, where there's not.
But no, I mean, in the grand scheme of things, I think that...
One of the things that is great, great, wrong word, that's so effective about propaganda is it targets people where they live.
It targets them in their weak spots.
That's a huge part of how the entire marketing is a version of propaganda.
And all of that discipline that's grown up from the early days of advertising and disinformation, all of those things tied together, it's become so effective.
Practice it.
Understand that in order to get a bad message across, or maybe a message that you're not inclined to believe, whether it's the Jews are evil or you need these shoes, you kind of have to give a secondary message that you attach to the other message in order to sort of Trojan horse it into people.
So then do you realize that the conclusion to draw from that then is not we should be battling evil right-wing propaganda with reason and facts and logic and should instead create our evil left-wing propaganda.
If you go buy a DVD duplicator, and you go buy a thousand, sell all the junk, the jet ski you don't use, whatever out of the garage, and you sit in there every day burning hundreds of copies and putting them on cars and giving them to people, you know what's going to happen if you do that in your sector?
First of all, he's asking people to sell their jet skis in order to buy a DVD burner or whatever when he owns multiple boats that he's not selling in order to...
Hey, why don't you just give them out for free, Alex?
I want every policy wonk to buy three million fucking thumb drives, download every episode of our podcast onto those thumb drives, and just throw them off the overpass at a fucking...
On 94, I want every car to be hit with a thumb drive with all the knowledge right on it.
It could be, although, a little bit more like the way I treat Chinese food, wherein if I've made a big decision, I need to work it out through my comfort food.
So, in this interview, in this appearance that Stuart Rhodes does, he's trying to promote the first...
Real public meeting of the Oath Keepers that they're putting out.
And what they're going to do is they're going to meet at Lexington and Concord, and they're going to have a big ceremony where all these police and military people reaffirm their oath to protect the United States from enemies foreign and domestic.
And I think that what Alex's vision was, was that this is a way to reclaim the patriot energy that is in the world right now through Glenn Beck, through the rising of the Tea Party, and make it my version.
My version is this version.
The other version is the counterfeit version, which he spells out in this next clip.
They created the fake militia so the media could then demonize it and attack it, and the ADL and Southern Property Law Center got caught running these groups.
Mainstream news has reported on that, Elohim City.
So, you know, that's the groups we're talking about, the real militia versus the counterfeit militia, like we're the real patriot movement.
Then you've got Glenn Beck, who's definitely an operative.
But at the same time, the Oath Keepers are a part of the Tea Party.
They were a part of it.
It wasn't separate or anything like that.
And so the idea that they're sort of scoffing at the Tea Party, not the whole Tea Party, but the Glenn Beck part of it, it does lead one to suspect that they might have a slight external...
So, they're talking, Stuart Rhodes and Alex are talking, and Alex gets into what the globalists want to do, and we know that they want to kill the middle class.
Because, like I said repeatedly already in this episode, there are ways to do that.
There's ways to present that in a natural way, which is, I...
Like I said, my research team dug this up.
Or, hey, look, I overlooked an element.
Any of those sorts of things.
But instead, he's pitching a lot of the same narratives that he does all the time and then throwing in, like, they're trying to create this socialist state and destroy the middle class and give it to George Soros.
He's adding it on as an addendum, and it seems forced to a certain extent.
I mean, I can still talk about the tradition of hating Soros and how this is still popping up out of nowhere, but it takes away a little bit of the sting of the coming out of nowhere.
Like, now, that connection could have been one tweet that was sent out, and over a day, every single human being who is in these circles would have been connected to it.
This guy had good syntax, though, so I appreciated that.
Like, he actually was a pretty decent writer in this comment.
But what he was expressing was an idea that, like, you're on this side, you're brainwashed, you're indoctrinated.
We love freedom and all that.
And there may come a time when you're dead because of us.
That sort of thing.
And this guy, this Daily Coast writer, was talking about, like...
Do you think for one second these assholes out there cosplaying are going to actually have any impact against the United States Army?
Do you think that is possible?
Do you think that these dicks are going to go out there and strap explosives to themselves and run into an army base?
Do you think they're going to do that?
Absolutely not.
Do you think that they're going to be able to pierce armor with the weapons they have?
You're going to wage a war of pointlessness.
That sort of thing.
That's the article that this guy wrote.
Stuart Rhodes is presenting it as, this guy is lusting after them killing us.
And it's a classic misunderstanding that these people on the right do in terms of creating their own victimhood out of someone being like, look, you don't have a chance against the...
It's a nonsensical struggle, so what you should direct your attention to is the places where we actually have a way to change things, which is through the democratic process.
Right, but the real threat that he's getting from the Daily Coast writer, based on your characterization of what the writer said, was, you're calling us cucks.
My real issue with you is you're saying that we're ineffectual bullshit artists and we're not capable of doing any of this.
He's just using it as a piece of propaganda because he knows what the author was saying, and he doesn't give a fuck about that.
But because he's talking about, like, are you willing to go to war with the United States military knowing that if you do, they're just going to bomb your house with your wife inside, which was intentionally trying to draw a parallel to what the United States does in foreign countries.
And he's interested in the mission, which is creating the idea that all of these people on the left and these media figures are lusting after the idea of killing our families.
Which is more important to him than preserving his masculinity in some way.
But that's still important to Alex.
So that is actually really fascinating.
I didn't intend to talk about that, but...
Your instincts about all this world are so sharp, but they're just about Alex.
It's interesting, the symbiosis of it, because, like, you hear that and it's kind of triumphant, and if you're dumb and you believe in him, it's like, oh, that's invigorating.
And other books and magazine articles that I've seen over the years where they're claiming, oh my god, the Republican Party has the right wing militias that want to overthrow the government and kill everybody.
The opposite is what's more important, is that when the direct attack on the MIAC report happened, there was no mention of George Soros.
There wasn't a single...
And that was the day when he was freaking out on air about the idea that they're demonizing the militias and the people like Ron Paul supporters and Chuck Baldwin and all these people.
They're trying to say that we're all terrorists.
Not a single fucking word about George Soros being involved in any of that.
So this, to me, is one of the most clear-cut examples that when the MIAC report came out, which again is about a month from when we're talking about.
Like, it's not...
Super far connected.
It seems like it because of how slowly we're going through 2000.
If you go from zero to 50, there is a way to do that.
But you need the ramp that takes you from zero to 50. Without it, it's just...
What?
How are you supposed to make that jump?
You can't make that jump.
And that's what Alex is doing.
He's trying to jump Snake River Canyon without a rocket pack and without a fucking ramp.
He's trying to get over this gap of, I never talked about Soros, even though I talked about the exact same things I'm demonizing him about now, to the other side of it where we all hate Soros, right guys?
And unfortunately, this is probably a Herculean task of research that no researcher would ever be able to do.
I'm on it.
No, I can't think of any researcher who would have the ability to kind of go through just all of the right-wing information around this time period and see where Soros popped up in most of these places.
You have Glenn Beck saying the FEMA camps aren't real, we're all cooks, you know, restaurant Paul supporters, but then he's still our best friend.
You've got all the big liberal sites doing it, and their own members are posting, the majority of comments are countering them, going, no, no, Alex Jones is good.
He calls for nonviolence as they go, Jones says kill cops.
This isn't going to work.
And anybody you hear putting that out as an operative, folks, you want to know instantly who an operative is.
Sometimes it concerns me that you sound like a benevolent race from a Doctor Who episode where you're like, you guys weren't ready for this information yet, and now we have brought you to the point where you can handle it.
Okay, let's go ahead and go to this Russia Today piece, because a lot of folks are watching at PrisonPlanet.tv or want to hear the audio as the radio listeners.
So we'll go ahead and play that for everybody.
And I think I succinctly, in ten minutes, boil things down very simply to the world audience.
Here it is.
unidentified
Here it is.
you you Our team is in Austin, Texas, catching up with radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker Alex Jones.
Alex, thanks for sitting down with us today.
My first question is, several months after Obama stepped in as President of the United States, you make a documentary calling him a deceiver.
There's just one thing that I really want to point out that I really want everybody to be clear on, and I think everybody kind of knows, but it's like...
Those people who say they're into the Constitution always say Constitution and Bill of Rights and really never talk about any of them other amendments past that.
That seems like something that Russia would be super interested in hearing, based on the fact that they are going into Georgia, going into Ukraine, and the United States is one of the people who are like, ah, hold on now.
So we have one more clip from this interview with RT, where Alex lists off his enemies.
This interview came out on April 6th, 2009.
Two days before the episode that we're listening to.
This interview is very interesting for a number of reasons.
For one...
The things that Alex is saying here are super not out of the norm for things he normally says.
He's not way outside of his rhetoric, but at the same time, this rhetoric takes on a decidedly different feel when it's being presented on the state media channel for a fairly hostile foreign power.
When Alex says that Obama is a deceiver, it's not saying that he's a liar.
That's saying that Russia is right not to trust the proposed reset in the talks between Obama and Medvedev.
When Alex says that the U.S. is a corrupt empire, it's not saying that our system is bad.
It's saying that Russia is right to encroach on their neighbors in Georgia and Ukraine and fucking don't care about what's going on in Syria and that the U.S.'s response is simply an expression of the corruption of the empire.
But what really interests me about this interview is who is interviewing Alex?
The interview is being done by a woman named Anastasia Cherkina, who is a prominent journalist at RT for a while.
However, in addition to being a reporter, she's also the daughter of Vitaly Cherkin.
You may remember him from earlier as Russia's ambassador to the UN, who was saying that Russia would deploy their missiles if the US put their radar station in the Czech Republic.
Cherkin had been a prominent member of Russia's foreign relations team and the permanent representative of Russia at the UN since April 2006.
And in his time there, he's most known for being quick with the wit and even quicker to veto UN resolutions that went counter to Russia's interests.
In the time span that he was at the UN, he was the one to veto 13 resolutions, many of which were about human rights abuses in Syria, a few others about Georgia and Ukraine.
In the same time frame, the US vetoed three resolutions.
Before becoming Russia's main man at the UN, Vitaly Churkin had a storied resume.
Having risen up from the U.S. desk at the USSR foreign ministry in the late 70s to becoming the ambassador to Belgium and Canada in the early to late 90s and early 2000s.
My point here is that Vitaly Cherkin is a big player in Russian international politics and foreign relations.
And it seems...
I find it very unlikely that he wouldn't know that he was being interviewed by such a high-ranking international relations figure's daughter.
I don't think that's possible.
The only way that it's not possible is that Alex has no idea about the worlds he pretends to know about.
Now, you might also remember Vitaly Churkin as one of the prominent Russian officials who died under slightly suspicious circumstances in the months after the 2016 election.
I have no idea if he really died of a heart attack, as many of the media people have suggested, or if it was a political murder.
There is a very strong possibility that coincidence was involved.
I don't like the conspiracies that go around about this, like, trying to tie them all together, in the same way that I don't like the conspiracies that Mike Adams and Alex pitch about the idea of, like, all these...
People who are trying to give you natural health cures end up dying.