Today, Dan and Jordan talk about what Alex Jones is doing in the present day. In a move that is not surprising, Alex expresses deeply bigoted positions. In a move that surprises a few, Dan reveals that he is real into Depeche Mode.
Because my buddy Sal, back in Missouri, we were drinking one night and he told me about how he was in the snowstorm that that song is based on and I just believed him.
Which is ultimately unsatisfying, because here, as we were recording this on Thursday, all Twitter is abuzz with Trump is going to declare a state of emergency and all that.
And I'm sure Alex is tumescent at the news.
So...
We'll cover all that stuff probably on Monday's episode.
But for now, based on the material we have, as much as I'd love to talk about that, because I have thoughts, we've got to cover the beginning of the week that was.
And I know that I made the sort of observation and prediction that Alex is moving away from Trump, and I do still believe that's the case.
But I think it's a slow process, and he's still going to validate a lot of Trump stuff in order to make it look like the worldview that Alex presents is more popular than it is.
So the victory that he's going to talk about is that Trump is at 52% approval ratings in the polls.
Celebrating a victory for Trump, but it's still in line with him moving away from him because it's really more about the idea that my nationalism, my populism is super popular and we can see that by Trump's numbers.
Yeah, Rasmussen has a pretty heavy, like, center-right leaning in terms of their polling.
Look, it's just Alex is stupid.
So now that he's literally saying that he thinks that pollsters think that Democrats are the dominant party and thus they cheat polls in their favor...
We now have the information that we need to address this.
Because before, I was willing to push this aside and just be like, Alex is dumb.
Makes me think that we may need to explain things a little bit.
So when anyone is trying to conduct a poll, the result is useless unless it represents a representative sample of the population it's seeking to poll.
And often, achieving representative sampling is incredibly difficult.
Just because the researchers want a random sampling to take their poll, it's not good enough that they just randomly call a thousand people and see what happens.
The characteristics of the people they polled needs to match the demographic information of the geographic area that's being polled.
And because of the near impossibility of the respondents to your poll perfectly matching the area's demographics, the results often need to be weighted.
Easy example, older people are more likely to answer their phones and complete a survey or poll.
So almost every poll's raw results will inevitably reflect the answers of more older people.
Like, realistically, the older you are, particularly if you're white, the more likely it is that you identify as a Republican.
And older people are overrepresented in the raw respondent data of most polls.
The amount to which this needs to be fixed by weighting inevitably depends on the demographic information that the poll takers bring in with their random sampling, so you'll see in write-ups of polls exactly the extent to which they weighted the numbers.
Credible polling organizations conduct reviews on the raw data, the processed data, and everything in between that led from the raw to the processed.
It's just how professional statistics work.
Alex is just...
He doesn't understand that very, very basic thing that he would understand if he didn't drop out of junior college and actually took a statistics course.
Now, the interesting thing, and I don't really know exactly how much this is going to play out, and again, this would also be predicting the future, which would be tough, because there's a possibility that even as the generations that are heavily Democrat now or left-leaning get older, there's a chance that, as in past generations, you'll see them skew more towards the right as well.
But if that doesn't happen, if you look at generational differences...
Republicans and right-leaning ideas are taking a bath in younger generations.
It is harshly towards the left.
Especially among people of color and women.
The numbers are crazy bad for conservatives in the future.
So as those people start to get older, or if polling places find a way to incorporate using cell phones or something like that, there's a really decent chance that you'll see Democrats be...
Groups that are Democrat being more respondents to polls, and then you'll see conservative waiting being done.
that some polling can absolutely have an influence on people's behavior.
If you see a poll like, for instance, for so many people during the, Trump-Hillary campaign, you saw those polls, and there was a lot less urgency there for people who were saying, well, it looks like Hillary's going to win by 10 points anyway, so I'm not really going to be as engaged in this as I would otherwise.
But if your polling is too inaccurate, people are just going to write it off immediately.
So that's why you see those polls, even for Rasmussen, which has a right bent to it, you still see them within this certain margin of error that everybody deems acceptable.
So if you want to say that polls can influence outcome, that is an argument that can be made.
If you want to say that they over-represent Democrats by 15% every single time, you just don't understand how polls work.
Now, first of all, I have no idea where Alex is getting that Gallup data from, because it doesn't appear to exist.
In their data from January 21st, or I'm sorry, 17th to 21st, 2019, Gallup showed a 37% approval rating for the way Trump is handling his job of the president, which is down from a high of 45% for the week.
Right after inauguration.
But also, how he's handling his job isn't the exact same thing as an approval rating, so even that would be sort of dicey for Alex to run off of.
But also, interestingly, if you look at it by party, Trump has an 88% approval rating among Republicans and a 5% approval rating among Democrats.
These numbers actually are part of setting a new record for the most polarized approval ratings that Gallup has ever recorded since they began in 1945.
Trump set other Gallup records, with his first year in office being the lowest approval ratings of any first-year president ever, beating out the previous record by 10.9%, and his first two-year numbers were the worst since World War II.
In an article that was posted on February 13th, Gallup reflects a 44% approval rating for Trump, but that doesn't match Alex's 52% number, and that data is from two days after he recorded this episode.
So what I'm saying is I think that Alex is making that Gallup shit up.
Rasmussen did have a Trump polling at 52% approval rating on February 11th.
That is true.
That number dropped to 50% on the 12th and is held there as we're recording this episode today.
But it was also at 43% on February 1st.
Most people consider this increase to be the result of the State of the Union, giving his numbers a jump, which is a pretty common phenomenon in presidencies.
For instance, in 2011, Obama was at 46% approval on January 17th, which jumped to 52% by the 25th when he delivered that year's State of the Union speech.
Some important things to consider about this poll, though, Jordan.
What?
Rasmussen releases daily presidential approval rating statistics, and if you review them...
So this poll is heavily weighted, but I'm not saying that in any way to disparage it.
I'm just saying that to illustrate that even this poll that Alex is touting is great is produced exactly the same way that Rasmussen polls have been, all of these have been produced, like the one on August 2, 2017 that showed Trump with a 38% approval rating.
But what they do is they combine a bunch of different polls and then weight them according to the similar process that's done on these individual polls.
So they take the data from other polls, go over how their methodology worked, and then use that to weight each poll in terms of making a composite poll.
And then put out the president's approval ratings on a daily basis.
If you look at the polling data currently available, Trump has a negative 14.8 net approval rating, which is the worst any president since Harry Truman has seen at this point in their presidency, with the exception of Reagan, who had a negative 20.2.
Most people view that as a result of the economy being in the toilet back then, and all the goodwill he had after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate him, having worn off.
I trust polling agencies with rigorous standards in place, even when they release data that doesn't reflect what I perceive to be real.
It's entirely possible that even after adjusting for demographic weighting, the Rasmussen poll showed a 52% approval rating.
Ultimately, I also think it's possibly an outlier in the data, of all the data sets that are out there, and also could be explained by some obvious real-world events, the State of the Union, the ending of the government shutdown, etc.
variables.
unidentified
But I also understand why Alex is doing what he's doing.
When the bigger picture of everything is so shitty, you have to make the most of what you have.
And for now, all they have is this 52% approval rating, so you've got to run with it, because it makes it look like a majority of Americans love what Infowars is doing by virtue of their support for Trump.
So we're going to talk about some of that, my feelings about the right-wing backlash and stuff like that, and also some of my feelings about what she probably did a little bit wrong in terms of presentation.
I don't think that she did anything wrong big picture.
I don't think she was acting out of anti-Semitism or anything like that.
I think there is a conversation to be had about that not being the smoothest way to make a point or whatever.
And we'll talk about that here in a second.
But it is important to point out that those people in Congress or these commentators, for the most part, were acting out of some sort of a craven...
I think that a lot of people would want to say, like, what they were doing is they were defending AIPAC, and so they behaved in ways that were disgraceful and defamatory towards Representative Omar.
That is what a lot of people would want to say, and I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I think that a lot of people recognize that she represents an incredible threat to the fiction that is generally accepted of a benign U.S. foreign policy.
Yeah.
unidentified
And I believe that people are really looking for any opportunity to take her down because of the holes that she can puncture.
It's super important that when we have people who were directly involved in...
Similar things that led to genocides.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Those are things that are important to come up, and most people don't do it for whatever reason, whether it's a financial motivation, whether it's cowardice, or just don't want to rock the boat or whatever.
If you listen to this clip, it's 45 seconds long, and you'll see how quickly he transitions from lying about her tweets and what have you into rank Islamophobia.
And he starts saying some deeply irresponsible things that are in no way based in reality, and I'm very excited to explain to you just how wrong he is after you put your mic down for this clip.
Of course, she's an Islamicist, probably had her genitals cut off, has total Stockholm Syndrome, up there wearing her burqa, running around in public with her jibs.
And not to dismiss it or say it's okay or anything like that, but us spending our breath arguing about that is going to end up being a waste of our breath.
So I want to talk to you about his contention that in Islamic countries they don't elect women.
Here's from Afghanistan.
I'd like to tell you about their history.
Fauzia Kuzi ran for president in 2014 and had been elected as the president of the National Assembly of Afghanistan, where she'd served since 2005.
Fun fact, Afghanistan has more women serving in their National Assembly with 28% than the U.S. does in Congress with 22%.
In Indonesia, Megawati Sukunoputri, she served as president from 2001 to 2004.
In Turkey, Tansu Siller was elected prime minister of Turkey in 1993.
What about Pakistan?
Of course, how could anybody forget about Benazir Bhutto, who was elected prime minister twice, serving from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996.
Bhutto was a member of the Pakistan People's Party, a socialist progressive party, and on December 27, 2007, she was assassinated by a terrorist who shot her and then proceeded to detonate a suicide vest full of ball bearings, killing at least 23 people.
My point here is that it's painfully easy to find elected female leaders in the Islamic and Arab world.
And in many cases, they outpace the West in terms of that sort of thing.
Whether it's Afghanistan having more women in parliament than us, or it's just them electing women to high-level positions long before we ever did, or have yet.
We have not had a female president.
A lot of these countries have had female primary leaders.
Well, we can't have a female president because Islamic countries have done it, and we know now that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the West, which is why we can only have male presidents.
What Alex is doing here is a disgraceful, disgusting display of Islamophobia, and he's trying to erase the historical contributions that these women and many others like them have made in order to make his point.
He has more in common with the terrorists that killed Benazir Bhutto than he does with any of these women, many of whom have worked to make their countries safer places for women and make them more westernized, something that takes a level of courage Alex could only imagine having.
Also, I really, really hate his phrasing here.
He didn't say that Omar didn't have any consequences for what Alex thinks are lies she's told.
He said, nothing's been done to her.
That sort of language is unacceptable.
Nothing has been done to her suggests that something needs to be done to her.
From someone else, that might sound like an innocent slip of the tongue.
But coming from Alex Jones, that is an incredibly violent sentence.
The idea that someone needs to do something to her.
It's incredibly fucked up.
And just because I want to make this even worse for Alex, maybe because he uses language like that, I have another variable I want to bring into this.
After he would be presented with this list of elected women in Arab and Muslim countries, he would probably get defensive and move the goalposts by saying that no Muslim country would ever elect a Christian to their government.
And he'd be super wrong about that.
Bahrain is over 70% Muslim, and Elise Saman, a Christian woman, was elected as the chair of their upper house of parliament in 2005.
Boutros Boutros Ghali was Egypt's minister of state for foreign affairs from 1977 to 1991.
Granted, he was a huge dick and helped sell weapons to the Hutus in Rwanda that aided in their genocide against the Tutsi, but for our purposes, he was a Christian.
So then also Janet McHale, a Palestinian Christian, was elected mayor of Ramallah in the West Bank in 2005.
And Leopold Siddar-Senghor, a poet and cultural theorist who was a large part of developing the concept of negritude, which sought to help Africans rediscover a post-colonial unifying identity, was a Christian and the president of Senegal from 1960 to 1980.
Senegal is a country that is about 96% Muslim.
Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to US Congress in 2007.
The point here is that by many, many metrics, much of the Islamic world is far more progressive than we are.
There are 17 countries that require their head of state be Muslim, but in many of them, other elected posts can be held by anybody.
Obviously, that's not an ideal state of affairs, but I don't really like the idea of telling countries how they have to run their affairs.
Also, once we have a president who is anything further away from Christianity than Jefferson's wishy-washy deist leanings, we can probably talk more about how open and pluralistic we are.
So, my point is that if you get into the reality of stuff, none of it matches.
The Islamophobic version of history and these countries that Alex wants to perpetuate.
So what they brought to the conversation and to the countries that they were seeking to radically change were the sort of things that Alex should be in favor of.
But because he's so beholden to this idea that Islam is incompatible with any good idea and that Muslims are essentially barbaric, horrible folk, he can't see the forest for the trees.
He can't see those people.
So Alex gets back to his complaints about Representative Omar.
And this is...
I haven't really talked too much about Alex's response to the State of the Union address because I think it's kind of boring.
But you can kind of see what most of his complaints are in this clip, and we can discuss it a little on the other side.
Wouldn't stand up during the State of the Union against sex slavery and women being freed from sex slavery because that's Islam's main business, is capturing non-Muslim areas and selling the women into sex slavery.
Islam has a business?
Like cancer of the lungs or bone or brain.
But don't worry.
Trump's the bad guy.
Well, the people are seeing through it, so they're going into high gear to remove him from office.
We'll tell you about that master plan that's been a huge news story since we broke it yesterday.
It's hiding in plain view when we come back.
We'll get into the latest on Cortez and so much more today.
But let me get to this.
We're funded by you, and I know you know that, but literally, we are under siege.
Well, and the idea that that's some sort of a plot and that the Russia investigation was a cover for them to do that sort of thing is nonsensical.
The idea that in tracking down threads that were related to this investigation of the Russian interference and what have you, in the process you stumble across things that are like, that's super illegal, it's outside my scope.
Yeah, it's like if you rob a bank or something like that, someone's investigating a bank robbery, and you find an unrelated murder that the person committed maybe in the lead-up to...
So the thing about Omar and Tlaib and Casio-Cortez and all those people not standing during the State of the Union, Alex has repurposed that to be they support child trafficking and therefore they were against Trump in his speech.
Now we're going to get to this and the plan to remove Trump from office.
We've been breaking down a moment, but earlier I didn't properly plug the special we've got going right now.
So I'm going to do it right now for you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we set out with Brain Force Plus about four years ago.
I said, why are we going to all these top firms and all these top research groups and paying all this money trying to figure out what the best, cleanest nootropic is?
Go to all the top publications.
Go to all the top studies.
Look at who the top three or four sellers are.
Then look at their product reviews.
Look at their ingredients.
Have experts check those.
Then go out and find a top lab, source our product even better, and then kind of fuse the best products that are out there and make it stronger for a lower price.
And what I keep thinking is like if you're going to be a flaming, awful, inaccurate bigot, then it kind of behooves you to go ahead and get your information right.
Or not the information right, but do your show right.
Don't do stuff like that.
Don't do two attempts at a live read for a commercial that you shouldn't be doing on your show to begin with right after all of that inaccurate bigotry.
I would guess that that means all the other stuff has been blustery bullshit.
I'm going to guess that is, too.
He should save that for his journal or something like that, night pages or something.
You know, like, I really need to get these letters sent out where I threaten to sue people who are washed-up YouTube stars who call me a white supremacist.
Alex, if you do listen to our show, which I don't know either way, I've been asked that question a lot lately and I don't have an answer for it, but if you want to let people know that you listen to our show but you don't want to say our name, the next time you talk about having slam dunk cases, say that people should call you the Rex Chapman of the court because you've got a slam dunk case.
What is important is that Alex in this next clip is going to say some interesting things.
I'm being generous.
He says some things about...
I don't know how to tell you this ahead of time, really, except to say that what I think he's saying is he likes the world that unions have created, but also refuses to give any respect to unions for having created those sorts of working conditions that most people enjoy.
But there's nothing like people who are in America bitching about how bad it is when they're trying to recreate.
What's outside the U.S.?
Because say what you want about the U.S., we've had our problems, but as corruption goes, we were one of the few places where you didn't just hereditarily get all the power and then everybody had to bow down to you.
People had shootouts with the railroad magnets.
I mean, people went to war with the establishment and stood up to it and got some concessions.
I love not being paid in fun books that can only be used in the railroad magnate's own store that are actually undervalued and he's overcharging me for in his own fake currency.
So, like I said earlier, I believe that Alex is still at this point drifting away from Trump, but maintaining the perception that Trump's victories are his group's victories.
I think that's the dynamic that's at play.
And I think that'll change by our next episode just based on this stuff.
But for now, as we're listening to this on the 11th, one of the reasons that I believe that is because of this next clip.
So he believes that Trump is in so much danger from this deep state cabal, and he's been preaching the truth from the wilderness and what have you, and Trump isn't getting the message.
I love him compared to Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore, which is basically him saying, I love Trump compared to people I think are the devil.
But, like, if he does that, I think it'll throw a wrench into the gears in terms of Alex's time frame.
But even if it didn't, and no matter what...
I think that there is a turning away from Trump in terms of this stuff but retaining the appearance that Trump's victories are his victories and all that stuff.
I don't foresee a situation when Alex will ever turn entirely on Trump until Trump does something along the lines of actually recognizing the white supremacy problem in America.
Everything else that he's cared so deeply about, he's turned his back on.
Things like Rex 84, things like Posse Comitatus, he said, are conditional now, because Trump is doing them in some sort of a white nationalist defense way.
And in this next clip, we have another example of it.
This one was really fucking hard to hear.
unidentified
You know, I don't know exactly how it entirely works, but is there a way that Trump could possibly use the continuity of government in calling for the...
I'm Mr. Anti-Police State because I saw the Democrats building up an apparatus for the constitutionalists.
Then the cops wouldn't do what the Dems said, so they started killing cops with a strong cities initiative to try to bring them in under globalist control.
So the police have woken up and kind of rebelled.
Doesn't mean they're perfect.
Nobody is.
They're a cross-section of the country, but the country's woken up.
So the police have woken up, by and large.
In fact, statistically more than anybody else, other than the military.
So that's a convoluted load of nonsense, but what's underneath it is Alex being like, look, I'm an anti-martial law guy.
I'm Mr. Anti-Martial Law, but I would really love to see a martial law.
I'd love to see Trump use these COG continuity of government things that I've been screaming about for years being super terrible.
I'd love to see him use those.
It's just so sad.
All these dominoes that keep falling of his life's work, his entire career, just being like, just on this.
Being thrown away is wild.
It really gives you a cautionary tale about what it's like to not have unconditional principles.
To have principles that you pretend matter, but actually don't.
They're really in service of something else.
Because if you present them as intrinsic and unconditional priorities for you, and then when conditions change a little bit, and you just waffle on those priorities...
It really calls into question your believability about anything.
And the point being is I am interested to know if this is how it has always been or if there was a turn based around the propaganda that was built up when Obama was elected wherein it stopped being about even trying to govern.
There was no government.
Like, whenever...
What's this fuck?
McConnell said, it's our job to make sure you're a one-term president.
And the other problem, too, that I don't know if I've seen a whole lot of talk about, necessarily, in terms of this stuff, is if Trump does declare a national emergency and it's in order to build this wall and stuff like that, what's behind that is the idea that you have to stop immigrants with this wall, or whatever.
I'm asking that slightly rhetorically in the sense of, like, oh, no, no, I mean, I think your response is fine, but at what point would you ever rescind that state of emergency?
You can always use it as a threat that we're under.
At what level of immigration?
Because it's never going to be zero.
We're never going to get to a point where there's nobody coming in.
There's a lot of stuff I don't know how to set up in this episode.
I think that he crosses a line in this episode.
We talk about lines he crosses quite a bit.
I think it's important, as you listen to this next clip, to remember that earlier in this same episode on February 11th, he's talking about an elected representative.
Just if they want a war, just like at Bunker Hill.
You know, the captain said, listen, we don't want a war.
We don't want to start today.
But if they came for a war, they're going to get one.
Don't shoot first.
Well, the shot heard around the world was fired by the Redcoats.
And the rest is history.
So if they want a war, they're going to get one.
And they know who's loyal to America and who isn't.
They know who isn't going to back down and who is.
They've already been testing to see who's going to roll over during this.
So get ready, folks.
You want to go toe-to-toe with the globalists, just understand it's on.
And remember, Pelosi and all of them are going to wait this out in Kauai.
And in Tasmania.
But I imagine that there are a lot of people in those areas that have already made Santa Claus lists about, you know, everything that's going to go down.
Because if the globalists think they're going to sit here and screw this country and screw our children over and pull all this crap and that there ain't going to be a two-way street here and there ain't going to be blowback, what do you think is going to happen, my friend?
If you were the caller there and you were like, I just want to talk about stuff.
And he's like...
All I'm saying is you should probably be ready to kill, and if you aren't, you're a pussy, and if you're not ready to kill, that means you're probably a globalist, so we're going to kill you.
Okay, listen, you got me ready to have a cream in my pants.
So let's just stop right there.
I get what you're talking about, brother.
I understand.
That's exactly what these bastards don't get, is the very helicopter pilots, the very jet pilots, the very people guarding them hate their guts and can't wait to deliver them to the bottom of the Davy Jones.
When you have a situation where you're saying that there is a conditional point at which, in order to save America, we will need to kill our enemies, and someone calls in talking about the idea that I'm inside people's houses, I'm there, people don't even understand.
I've been in Ray Kurzweil's house and shit like that, and then asks, what's the catalyst?
And your response is, I think we'll know it when we see it.
unidentified
You are now giving them permission to define the point.
The idea that you're telling people there is a time, you'll know it when you see it, is just sort of being like, I want this to happen, but I refuse to take responsibility for saying that I want it to happen.
And I don't know.
I don't think it's illegal, but I'm right up against where I think it should be illegal.
So you don't know who you're talking to at any point.
And if that person has some sort of a belief that Trump is going to do X, Y, or Z and it's going to be a sign or something like that, they could take any indication of some tweet of his as to be like, let's go, let's go, let's go.
You might end up encouraging someone to kill someone.
And so Alex is doing this whole thing and he's like, I know about the SPLC.
And he's pretending he has all this hidden knowledge and stuff like that, but it's all just him being like, they were at Alheim City, they were running it.
Like, alright, you've said that for a decade.
Who gives a shit?
That's not news.
Whatever.
So we're not going to talk about any of that stuff because I don't care.
So I think it probably goes without saying, but Alex is kind of just making shit up here.
about this story because there's a conversation that's happening in the larger world about the idea of late-term abortions and New York has become sort of the focal point of it and then unfortunately also this murder happened around the same time and it's creating a very convoluted conversation in the right wing and I think we need to disentangle some of the pieces of it.
While it's true that there is a law that got changed in New York recently regarding whether or not you can be charged with homicide when you kill an unborn child, that is true, it likely doesn't really have anything much to do with this particular murder case that Alex is talking about here.
Some of the language that was taken out of the legal definition of homicide included, quote, homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks under circumstances constituting murder.
The victim of this murder, Jennifer Irigoyen, was five months pregnant, so it's unlikely that she was even past the point of 24 weeks.
It's far more likely that this is, like, what the situation was involving her murder is that the prosecutors had an open and shut case of first-degree murder, and the prosecutor probably didn't want to tack on more charges that may or may not stick.
When he's going away for life, I kind of understand, you know, why get messed up in a little of this gray area?
So, there's a few corrections that I need to make to Alex's story.
The first is, the murderer didn't stab Jennifer in the stomach 30 times.
Some of his stabs were to the torso, but he also mostly targeted her neck.
Two, he didn't yell, quote, die, baby, die.
There was a neighbor who heard the attack who said that she heard the victim scream about how he was going to kill him.
kill the baby.
But the way Alex is presenting this doesn't match any of the reporting on the story.
I think he's The pairing of the two.
And the third thing is, a big reason to change the existing law in New York is because the law, as written, didn't do anything except criminalizing appropriate health care.
If you were a woman there who found out in your sixth month of pregnancy that the fetus in your womb was unviable or wouldn't survive after birth, but your health wasn't at risk, it would be murder for the doctor to remove the unviable fetus from your body.
Essentially, you would have to go to a different state or live for three months in a state of unbelievable emotional devastation that no one should have to be put through.
New York State made abortions legal in 1970, three years before Roe v.
Wade, but has never updated their state statutes since, and thus the archaic language remained until very recently.
Literally all the old language did was make it harder on women, since in cases like the one Alex is talking about, there's still plenty of criminal charges on the books that could be applied.
New language added to the bill makes it clear that the only people who are permitted to perform abortions are licensed healthcare practitioners.
So the idea that this guy who was stabbing this woman, that's just a late-term abortion, is nonsense.
It doesn't apply at all.
Legitimately, all this is is about protecting a woman's right to choose, and many other states are far past New York in terms of protecting that right, even considering this new update to the language of the law.
This is a tragic situation where this woman's ex-boyfriend wanted to murder her, and whatever the...
Motivation for that murder was not public by the time Alex got on air and started talking about this stuff.
Yes, he probably did also want to kill that baby.
I don't think that that colors anything at all.
I don't think that that makes Alex's argument make more sense.
I think it makes everything more tragic, certainly.
And that's the thing that's amazing to me about the way that the right-wing has couched that language, is always like, we're trying to protect fetuses, but all they're really doing is harming women.
Like, with that 24-week situation, what are they really criminalizing?
Are they criminalizing doctors?
No.
They're criminalizing women who are fucking freaked out of their goddamn minds, who can't get an actual abortion from anywhere because of 24-week laws or whatever it is, and they try and self-induce an abortion or a miscarriage, and of course now they're murderers.
That's what the law is.
It is not a deterrent.
It is not something that's going to help anybody.
It is only something that is going to criminalize the very idea of being a woman.
But if you read those stories and don't come away from them with a greater understanding of what the actual issue is, then you're not paying attention.
There are...
One of the things that really struck me in one of the articles that I read, I think it was the one in the New Yorker, was the person who wrote the article was talking about the argument of any legislative or legal rules about abortion really hinges upon the idea that there's a world where people just want to kill fetuses.
No ethically operating doctor who wouldn't have other reasons that their license should probably be under review would ever perform late-term, real late-term abortion.
When there wasn't a good reason.
Whether it's the fetus is unviable outside of the body or is a risk to the woman, that sort of thing.
So actually, I had a bit of a maybe naive position or just unexamined position of like, yeah, after a certain point there should just be laws against abortions and stuff like that.
But from looking into this and reading a lot of these stories and looking at doctors' perspectives, I've come around to the point where now my position is...
When you study globalists and you study their publications, they have business publications that pretty much tell you what's going on because business readers are going to be investing in things and they really want to know what's going on for sophisticated audiences.
And this isn't to say that RT and Sputnik never have any clean reporting or anything like that, but I will say that any time it's something to do with the USSR and George Soros and it's coming from Sputnik...
But also, actually, if you go to Infowars, I don't know what font they're using, but I can understand how Alex missed that L. The F and the L do blend together a bit.
We'll start here with, I'd like to remind you that on the 11th, Alex was Islamophobic as shit, and then towards the end of the show, kind of conditionally told his audience to murder his enemies.
So what he did on the 11th was singled out a group as an other and then suggested to his audience that they should prepare for violence against that other group and ensure that when that other needs to be killed, they should be killed.
Doesn't it disclose to his listeners that this isn't an InfoWars boil down, this is a Sputnik article, and then he hasn't read it and misreads inflection as infection and just does this weird Soros voice.
I'm particularly focused today, and I've got a particularly powerful mapped out transmission for you.
And I don't think anybody that's been listening lately...
I can deny the broadcasts have been particularly piercing with the guests, the research, the reports, everything, because the times demand it.
Many historians and many individuals like Winston Churchill pointed out that a lot of times it's not that a person is that great, but that they are in incredible times and they step up making themselves great.
And unfortunately, like he did earlier with the COG stuff, the continuity of government stuff, where he sort of invalidated a lot of his past points, he now invalidates one of the only things that you and I and him had...
Asset forfeiture seizure, in general, inside CONUS, and against citizens, is unconstitutional and very dangerous and out of control, and I want it reformed until people are convicted.
Then it's constitutional.
But on the border, Katie Barr, The door.
That's where you're supposed to seize illegal stuff, and it's just a procedure, and that would fund it.
I mean, $14 billion in the coffers and different assets of El Chapo, that'll fund most of the wall right there.
Because in order to create this wall, they would still need to seize the property of tons of people who own the property along the border.
Like, it's not the idea just that you can't afford it.
The civil asset forfeiture argument still involves the idea of this is going to get into these people's property if you want to build the way you would need to build.
So the idea that Alex is bringing up being cool with civil asset forfeiture when it's not civil asset forfeiture in terms of El Chapo's property or assets or anything like that is a preparation.
For being fine with the idea of people who have property along the border, having their property taken from them in order...
That might not be under his licensing agreement, but somehow Depeche Mode's one of their, I don't know, I don't want to say lesser hits, but medium hits.
I'm going to start this clip over because I want to hear more.
And when I was hearing Alex talking about this, the species and stuff like that, who can protect it?
It kind of made me...
I heard echoes of it, you know, in the sense that in the 5% Nation, or at least a classical understanding that Clarence 13x put out, it was the idea that the black man was God and the black woman was their Earth.
And they lived in this sort of, like, symbiotic relationship of the God over the Earth and the Earth supporting the God.
Instead of the men having a symbiotic relationship with the women, have we considered just letting women have all the control and then keeping men as pets?
You know, I like Roger as a friend, but he doles out exclusives to, like, give some to Fox News, some to Daily Caller, and he works here.
I pay his salary.
And I'm checking both my phones here.
Jack Masobic called us for comment on this, like, ten minutes ago.
I guess Roger Stone's going to go to the woodshed here pretty soon.
Roger Stone has filed a lawsuit against Robert Mueller, which he should.
CNN clearly is there being coordinated by the FBI.
He has the screenshots where the CNN screwed up and said, comment on your indictment with the idiot reporters.
One thing about these traitors is they are stupid.
They sent him the day before.
He didn't really know what to do with it.
He saw it the next day.
Hey, you've been indicted.
What do you make of this for the grand jury even building?
So that's incredible.
So this is not being picked up yet.
So this is a global exclusive in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia filed today Roger Stone's motion requesting a show cause order.
So, it's on Gateway Pundit.
Well, that's good.
Gateway Pundit can hire Roger, which I think Gateway Pundit does a great job.
In fact, Roger Stone now works for the Gateway Pundit, which is good.
I like the work they do.
They're very prolific.
They're bulldogs.
I really like them.
So, there you go here at the InfoWars Command Center.
Roger Stone has been charged with Congress.
It goes on from there about how they staged the whole deal, which is a great point.
And, you know, show the cause of how you trampled his rights to do this.
So there you go, and there is the document right there.
You know, people call us to find out what Roger's up to, and I just can't tell you.
I don't know.
So, Roger Stone now works for the Gateway Pundit, ladies and gentlemen.
Seriously, has him about 10 seconds ago.
I'm like, Roger, get a job with the Gateway Pundit now.
Here, let me check my other phone.
I don't want to go off half-cocked here.
Maybe he called this other phone and gave me the exclusive.
So at the bottom of the hour, this has gotten no attention, but if you think wearing blackface is better, if you think dressing up in a KKK outfit is better, which I think it's the context it's in.
I think that there probably is a Halloween costume where wearing a Klan outfit would be okay, but it would have to be some sort of a pun where you're making fun of the Klan with the costume.
So Alex has started this feud with Joe Rogan where he said he's going to hang him up by his legs and slit his throat politically or whatever.
Like a stuck pig and what have you.
And then he backed off on it because I think he just ran out of steam and Rogan wasn't responding and it just didn't go great for him.
So then a listener sent him a clip of Rogan from years ago talking about...
We're not going to play the clip.
Alex plays it.
It's like a 30-second clip.
I'm not sure what the context was, but it doesn't matter what the context was.
It was fucking terrible.
He's talking about going to see the Planet of the Apes in a mostly black neighborhood, and he goes to the theater, and Rogan says, I walked into the theater, and we walked into the Planet of the Apes, which is racist on its face.
But, as Alex keeps trying to point out through his conversation of this clip, Rogan is a comedian.
And so he's like, he's trying to walk this weird line where he's like, I'm not mad that you said that because you're a comedian and I get that you're not a racist.
And in the process, he talks about how Rogan has a couple black children that he's adopted, which he's like, you don't want people to know that.
It's not public.
I'm like, I don't know if it is or isn't, but if it isn't, Alex, you are being really fucked up right now in terms of putting Joe's business in the streets and not because they're black children or anything like that, because it's his personal life that he tries to keep private, whatever it is.
So if Rogan was trying to keep any information about his kids or any of that stuff private and Alex is just blowing hard on air in order to serve his argument that I'm not calling you a racist because some of your adopted children are black.
And he's trying to walk a weird line with that, too, where he's like, if I said stuff like that, everyone would be mad at me, but you get away with it and you're cool.
The left would pillory me for this because what they do is find clips and bring it to everyone's attention to attack a person.
I've been in full movie theaters that have celebrated, like, something happening in a movie, and it hasn't been as cathartic as those, like, ten people who are like, Rick Holland!
It was an explosion in this mostly empty movie theater.
My memory will live with me until the day I fucking die.
So, yeah, I'm not sure what Alex is trying to do, quite frankly.
I don't think that he's ventured too far.
into racist territory yet in condemning Joe's racism.
Certainly there are some problems.
I think he's dancing around ideas that he wants to make about, like, all of us look like apes and what have you, because they're mutual descendants.
That's what he would probably prefer to say, as opposed to being like, we're all in that family.
And all this anti-white racism crap, I stand against it.
But let me tell you, if I said what Joe said, he was all for my deplatforming before.
Now that he's under the heat, he's like, well, leave Alex alone.
Hey, fine.
Great, Joe.
I'm just letting you know something.
That I know you're not a racist.
And I know you do comedy because you think it's funny.
Your interracial jokes, which are true, like most of the interracial porn gets bought in the South, and one of your older jokes about, oh, look at that, that white woman, oh, that's funny stuff, man.
And I agree, comedy should be comedy.
But the left wants to project racism on everything, and you want to cuddle up to it, so feel what it's like, Joe.
And also so much of Alex's other things he's said in the past, as we've documented over and over and over again on this podcast, are way more racist than Joe making a joke that is absolutely racist about a black movie theater being Planet of the Apes.
Right.
Alex's career has so many highlights you could make.
I mean, I think it kind of matters what the test is and that stuff because it's what you're measuring.
Now, I want to say this really quick.
This is far too complicated of a topic for us to cover in depth right now.
But please, everyone out there listening, take my word on this.
Anyone who's making an argument that there are differences in IQ that are attributable to race is doing so to support white supremacy.
They aren't having a, quote, exchange of dangerous ideas or any bullshit like that.
They're rehashing long discredited theories that exist solely to give white people an excuse to never have to confront the social, cultural, and economic advantages they've enjoyed, which are built on the back of the social, cultural, and economic...
disadvantages other populations have been subjected to.
The primary function of thinking along these lines and these narratives that are perpetuated is to create the appearance of a scientific sounding way to blame marginalized communities for their own marginalization, pure and simple.
Many of these ideas and their proponents are inspired by Charles Murray's 1994 book, The Bell Curve, which Alex E. Yeah.
In that book, Murray completely misuses data to arrive at the, quote, near inescapable conclusion that differences seen between white and black IQ scores is the result of genetics.
That book has been championed by the likes of Sam Harris and his ilk, and the unfounded notion of racially causative differences in IQ has taken on a new life these days, when there is no basis in science around that at all.
There are racial differences and ethnic differences in IQ scores, but the idea of a causative property between them is a leap that is way too far to make.
It's deeply fucked up.
And it's one of the weird things that you see it in all sorts of these...
Intellectual dark web worlds.
Like, you see it with Sam Harris and his acolytes.
These people like Dave Rubin have thrown these ideas around.
Stefan Molyneux makes a lot of mileage out of it.
But it's not something that I've really heard Alex talk much about.
And that is interesting to me.
And it's coming in the middle of a discussion of Rogan being a racist.
And in the same way that the last time he went and sort of loaded off on Rogan, he did that Project Camelot impression where he started doing like, you know, I want to talk to you about how...
how crazy things are.
Isn't it trippy?
Because he was trying to appeal to Rogan's audience.
I think this is another attempt.
This reference to the bell curve and race realism and this nonsense, I think it's an appeal to the listeners of Rogan's show that are the Sam Harris acolytes.
Yeah.
unidentified
The, the people who are into, This idea of scientific racism as opposed to emotional racism.
I would much rather you be intellectually honest with yourself and just say, I don't like people who don't look like me, than try and pretend that there are genetic reasons that it's...
Fuck off.
Fuck you.
Especially for somebody who constantly says, oh, we all bleed the same blood.
Whereas when you hide behind these sorts of over-intellectualized and pseudo-scientific ideas, you end up having to have conversations that are pedantic and mean nothing.
And they rely on misusing studies over years and stuff like that.
You get caught down in the weeds so much that you'll never end up getting to the point where you can make progress.
Because these communities and these populations are just intrinsically dumber, it doesn't matter if you give resources towards those communities for school and after-school programs and stuff like that.
It doesn't matter.
You're not going to make a blip in the radar because they are intrinsically worse, which is a function of white supremacy.
This is a very, very complicated issue in terms of the reality of it, but I think the things that we've expressed have been the important points for a podcast like this.
You want to get more into it, go ahead and dive into some of the research.
The issue is that Alex is bringing up this idea that because he is a white European, he is gifted with this higher intelligence, and Japanese people are also in the mix up there.
But then Alex starts talking in this next clip about why...
But that isn't meaning that we hate black people, because there are black people, statistically, they're as smart as anybody on the planet.
It means on average, whites have the highest IQ.
On average, well, you better have an IQ if you were spending hundreds of thousands of years in frozen wasteland at the top of the planet, because if you got back in your cave 10 minutes too late, you were dead in the doornail.
In Africa and other areas in the equatorial regions, it was about how strong you were, how fast you were, how cunning you were.
It's not about long-term strategic thinking.
So when I sit here and I criticize Joe for calling black people apes, dude, we are apes.
And I know you know that.
It doesn't mean we're not divine and God made us an image and there's other things.
The point is, is that you get away with that when it's not even accurate and people don't call you on that?
But at the same time, then, let's not hate white people.
Let's thank white people for electricity and airplanes and medicine.
And I also think that strategically, in order to deal with any element, just because you're like, oh, the cold will kill you, hot will kill you, or the animals that are there will kill you.
It's so awesome because that would be terrible in the middle of the show.
I think about this a lot.
The way he goes out to break is always so triumphant, but whatever he's saying, if it was in the middle, like he had to do five more minutes, it would be like, I have nowhere to go.
He's so famous for his screaming of stuff, but really, if you listen to his show on a regular basis, most of the time he yells things is when he knows there's a hard break.
Right.
unidentified
So he does that performatively in order to rile people up and do all that shit when It's like Howard Dean at the end of a sentence.
Electricity may have been developed and harnessed by largely European scientists, but there also is a theory out there that between the times of 650 to 150 BCE, the people living in what's now Iraq had knowledge of electroplating, as evidenced by the archaeological find called the Baghdad Battery.
But there's a lot of controversy about this, and people who have opinions on it are very split about the hypothesis of what that artifact was actually used for, and whether or not it was actually even a battery.
Honestly, Europeans may be able to take credit for most of the electricity science.
But that may be true.
Although there are also cultures who the word for lightning is exactly the same thing as the word for electric eel.
So there was kind of an understanding of the nature of electricity to some extent.
But that doesn't mean that there were...
Steps made to harness it.
Also, spoiler alert, in 2003 when the invasion of Iraq happened, the Baghdad battery was stolen from the National Museum and hasn't been found since.
And because of the 16 years of pretty much consistent war that's been going on there, there's a really decent chance that whatever progress could be made towards finding other...
Evidence to reinforce that theory or anything like that is probably impossible.
The accepted version of the reality that Alex is operating under, like for aviation, is that one day the Wright brothers got a crazy idea that we should fly and then created the technology out of whole cloth.
Legends of people flying go way back, but probably don't depict reality.
For instance, Icarus probably didn't actually have wax wings or anything like that, and Daedalus didn't do all the shit he did.
However, the concepts involved in the development of aviation go back a long way, and their roots are not in the West.
In China, in the 5th century BCE, Luban and Modi invented the kite.
And immediately after that fact, after that development, began finding interesting applications for the new technology.
There are contemporary reports that some kites were able to lift men into the air.
But the first manned flight ever occurred in China in 559 AD using kite technology.
The idea for many of the elements that would allow the creation of the helicopter were directly taken from a bamboo rotor device that was invented in China in 400 BCE.
The underlying technology for hot air balloons is similarly understood by the Chinese dating back to as far back as the 3rd century BCE.
Much of the advances made later in terms of aviation were built on the things the Chinese had invented in the long distant past, but never took the logical destructive end point that these technologies could have.
Which I don't know if they could have developed a way to make planes.
It's basically just these people who are the grandfathers of aviation using long-discovered techniques and principles that were invented by the Chinese thousands and thousands of years ago.
Medicine is the worst thing for Alex to give Europeans credit for inventing.
I'm guessing he's just talking about, like, deciding that Hippocrates was white and then assuming that it goes back to him.
In 1020, Ammar Ibn Ali al-Maswali performed the world's first successful eye surgery.
We could go on and on listing the non-white, non-Western influences in the development of medicine and medical practice, but it would take all day.
The way we've arrived here where we are today in terms of medicine is a process, and the entire world has been a part of it.
And to selectively erase non-white elements of that history is by definition a product of white supremacist thinking.
So the larger point here is that white people, or the West, has been responsible for a ton of great innovations and inventions over the span of our history.
But in no way do non-white and non-Western people need to thank them for it.
This is a profoundly fucked up way to look at the world, as if Alex somehow deserves credit for someone who shares his skin pigment doing something a thousand years of the past.
I'd like to propose a healthier way to look at things, and that is to honor and celebrate the people from all cultures across the world who have helped lead us to where we are today in terms of our understanding of the world and our mastery over flight and the elements.
Because I think that's a better way to look at things.
We've all shared in this history some of the things that the Islamic world did have helped create...
Stones upon which the Western world could use as staircases up.
There's a collaborative effort that goes on, and the idea of ascribing any history of, like, these fucking browns should thank all of us white people for planes and medicine, it's disrespectful to the people who are instrumental in creating the reality that we have now.
Like, if you just want to pretend that the people who created the jet engine did it out of nowhere...
Then what you're doing is erasing everything that came before it.
Like, the collected knowledge of the world just destroyed itself.
Like, we have no idea how much was invented prior to so many...
Let's call them...
Destructive acts by white people.
You know, like, how many times can you think of something where it's like, oh, a bunch of white people came and destroyed the history of the world, and then they were like, yeah, but we invented that.
It's always someone standing on the shoulders of not giants, but others.
Yeah.
And even, like, when you talk about, like, the Library of Alexandria and what we could have lost there and stuff like that, that's like a, you know, that puts your mind into a place of, like, what successes did we lose?
And what I'm more interested in on some level is the erasure of failures.
Because a lot of the things that have, Contributed to our ability to fly.
Our ability to have a coherent medical system.
Even electricity.
Is people doing failed experiments that led people away from the failed thought.
All I'm getting at is, I hear stuff like that, and it really bums me out.
It really bums me out because, in the same way, like, I'm interested in this because it's also completely unintentional, but just the way the episode is being bookended is these, like, at the beginning of the episode, he's erasing the history of female politicians in the Arab and Islamic world.
And that's offensive and disgusting.
Because it's presenting a worldview where...
Muslims are all savages and they hate women and would never vote for them.
That sort of thing.
And that's disgraceful and completely Islamophobic and counterproductive towards all of us working for it.
And then we come to the end of the episode and he's saying that white people need to be thanked for these things that they've brought the world.
And you look at the actual history of all this and when you deal with it on a more realistic basis, he's doing the exact same thing.
If you go back, in terms of cultures that are still around that innovated so many of the really basic things, you come down to India and China being so pivotal.
But like, yeah, if you play that game, what you're going to end up with is something that Alex doesn't want to wrestle with, which is that it isn't Western white cultures that created the building blocks that led to the innovations that the Western white countries did.
And I only think that understanding that...
Can help us all understand the world better.
It doesn't demonize white people.
It doesn't take anything away from the innovations that white Western cultures did.
It only builds a more robust understanding of how we're all in this together.
And your idea informs...
This person's idea and their innovation on your idea helps you come up with a better idea later.
I mean, I've paid for abortions back when I was a teenager, and I've repented to God for it, been fighting ever since.
I've killed my children.
I think on a scale of 1 to 10, that's like a 7. You know, two dudes together is like a 3. I'm not judging anybody, but I'm telling you, the realization of what's right and what's wrong is important.
Because I do think that what we saw on the 11th, on Monday's episode that we covered, he's...
He's perpetuating a language and a worldview that is tacitly giving permission to his audience to choose your spots, which is kill people when you think the time is right.
You'll know it when you see it.
That sort of thing.
That sort of lackadaisical, like the Supreme Court porn definition.
I know when I see it.
That sort of thing.
That's not okay when people are asking, when is it the time to kill?
The question from a caller who has a military background, who is expressing the idea that he is in other people's houses, who clearly is unstable, who is looking for any and every excuse to do what he wants to do.
And if you're a responsible human and someone asks you that, even if you're Alex Jones, the response of that has to be not, you'll know it when you see it.
It has to be something prohibitive.
It has to be something like...
Don't shoot till you see the whites in your eyes.
And I'm saying that is the worst possible response.
But it would at least harken back to some sort of weird revolutionary war mythology.
I honestly think that there's no reason this is allowed to keep going.
I do think that we're at a point where we're past the point where this...
I don't know the laws in terms of exactly where free speech...
I really don't, but I feel spiritually we're past it.
And it's very difficult for me to keep listening to it past this point because there's this trivial nonsense like, oh, he's reporting on this Soros article that's really just him reading a Sputnik article or something like that.
When the day before, he's doing shit like that.
I don't know what to do with this.
Beyond that, it's very difficult for me because...
Like, we have this now.
Trump is going to declare the state of emergency, and that's going to create a new whirlwind of bullshit and what have you.
At the same time, in the Sandy Hook lawsuit that Alex is in, it just came out that the judge has decided that Alex will have to be deposed for a five-hour session.
With the lawyers.
And that's going to be a complete disaster for him.
So I honestly think that in ways that he has not been subjected to in the past, when he's defamed people, like Hamdi Ulukay or James Oliphantus, he is cruising for a bruising.
Like, he's on a path towards this could actually hurt him.
Or the flip side of that, you take it to the courts, and then a precedent that could become encroaching is set.
Yeah.
You know, other people's, like, ambiguous speech becomes suspect just because Alex is, like, legitimately telling people, eh, time's coming, you'll know when you see it.
I'd rather err on the side of allowing Alex to say things like this and us talk about it and everyone understand the danger of it than legislate this should not happen.
It's a strange place wherein it's important to have the concept of free speech be enshrined, while at the same time have the ambiguity of what it is enshrined as a fundamental concept of it.