Today, Dan and Jordan continue looking into how Alex Jones covered the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in the days immediately following. In this installment, the gents see a solidifying of Alex's "this is all about my guns" mentality, but also the beginning of a troubling drift toward finding ways to sensationalize things that everyone knows will not end well.
Jordan, we've got an interesting episode to go over today, but before we get to that, I need to give a shout-out to a couple of new people who have signed up and are supporting the show.
So first of all, I'd like to say thank you to Connor.
I'm not surprised that any time there's a threat to guns, he's going to spend the next week being like, people get killed all the time by knives and shit.
But there are some interesting developments that go along the way, some interesting pieces of his rhetoric that enter the conversation that haven't so much in the past.
And it's interesting because this gave me an opportunity to look into them a little bit more.
And his first clip is actually a great example of that.
Alex trying to reinforce his insinuation that the government probably did Sandy Hook.
As we've heard so far, he's compared it to all these other things that he believes are fake, whether it's the Aurora shooting, whether it's Kaczynski, that sort of stuff.
And now he pulls up an interesting piece of history to bring it to the conversation.
There are some government operations where they've been caught red-handed staging mass shootings, especially in Europe, where our own government staged them via Operation Gladio and the NATO option.
That has been declassified.
That program went on from the 50s into the 1980s, including mass shootings at schools, train stations, blowing up school buses, shooting up school buses, and was used to take guns all over Europe.
And it has been declassified, partially by the U.S., completely by the Italians, that it was staged to take the liberties and disarm the people.
So, whenever Alex wants to suggest some kind of tragedy is fake and he needs to prove that what he's saying isn't ludicrous.
Because if he just wants to not have any real defensibility, he can point to his Aurora shooting narrative and stuff like that.
And that's good enough for most of the time.
But when he needs to appear like he's not being crazy, he'll inevitably bring up Operation Gladio and, with less regularity, Operation Ajax.
Both of these were ops that were clandestine operations that the government was involved in to an extent.
They're both fucked up pieces of our history.
But if you take a closer look at them...
You'll see that neither of them really help reinforce the point that he's trying to make, namely that the United States government is perfectly fine with killing their own civilians in order to take Alex's guns.
Operation Gladio refers to the stay-behind networks that were put in place in countries throughout Europe after World War II.
The reasoning for creating these secret units was obviously that they were worried about the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact allies invading.
And having people in place in the countries involved to deal with that possibility was deemed preferable to having large standing armies or doing what they were doing previous to, like in World War II.
Having these people who were allied with the cause of fighting against the Soviet Union, but it was so disorganized that they would rely on late night...
Supply drops and fractured communication among people.
So they deemed that setting up these cells of people in secret operation were the best way to do it.
I'm intentionally not going to take a stance on their choice, neither for or against it, because I'm not really sure that I can say that I'm an expert on the factors that led to these countries choosing that path, and to pretend that I am would be dishonest to you and to our listeners.
A lot of this interpretation comes from a 2004 book by Danielle Ganser called NATO's Secret Armies, Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.
I'm almost certain that this is where Alex is getting his ideas about Gladio from because his version of it and the one espoused in the book match almost perfectly.
The bad news about Ganser's book is that it isn't really so much a book that contains documented history as much as it is a book full of misused true information mixed up with unfounded assumptions and rumor.
Olav Rist of the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies was a researcher on the topic of Norway during the Cold War, and he dug up some information about the actions of stay-behind networks in his home country.
His information is used in Ganser's book and even cited in the bibliography.
Olav found that his primary research was being completely misrepresented by Gantzer, saying, quote, a detailed refutation of the many unfounded allegations that Gantzer accepts as historical findings would fill an entire book.
Other reviews of his book followed similar patterns.
Hayden Peake, an expert who's frequently published in journals regarding intelligence and operations, took a little bit of a stronger tone than Olav.
Quote, proof is a problem for Ganser.
He complains at the outset he was unable to find any official sources to support his charges of the CIA's or any Western European government's involvement with Gladio.
Nevertheless, his book devotes 14 chapters to the, quote, secret war in various Western nations on his list.
So to finish his quote, quote, Ganser fails to document his thesis that the CIA, MI6, and NATO and its friends turned Gladio into a terrorist organization.
So Ganser wrote these things, but he didn't prove them.
But Alex takes that book, or at least the ideas espoused in it, as proof when he really shouldn't.
Especially considering that in 2005 it was revealed that a lot of Ganser's narrative relies on a historical forgery that he took to be authentic.
This is what's known as Supplement B to the U.S. Army's Field Manual 30-31, which purports to be a classified section of the very real Field Manual 30-31, but is in fact a forgery put out in the 1970s by Soviet disinformation teams.
The forged document contains exactly what Alex Jones thinks.
There may be times when host country governments show passivity or indecision in the face of communist or communist-inspired subversion and react with inadequate vigor to intelligence estimates transmitted by U.S. agencies.
Such situations are particularly likely to arise when the insurgency seeks to achieve tactical advantage by temporarily refraining from violence, thus lulling host country authorities into a state of false security.
In such cases, U.S. Army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince the host country government To this end, U.S. Army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment with the tasks of forming special action groups among the more radical elements of the insurgency.
When the kind of situation envisaged above arises, these groups acting under U.S. Army intelligence control should be used to launch violent or nonviolent actions according to the nature of the case.
That serious scholars and formal investigations have ruled to be a forgery than the evidence that the stay-behind networks that were part of Operation Gladio actually committed any false flag terrorism completely falls apart.
In the interest of fairness, there have been some indications that old weapons caches from Gladio-style stay-behind networks very may well have been used in later terrorist attacks.
And even if that's true, that's a far cry from...
I don't take that to be a good piece of evidence from Alex's...
And as for Operation Ajax, Jordan, that one is more real, but Alex isn't really using it correctly.
That operation refers to the CIA's 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh and the reinstallation of the Shah into his dictatorship over Iran.
While this is a great example of the CIA doing something underhanded and what you could easily call evil, it doesn't really work to help Alex's point about the globalists doing false flags in the United States for one pretty big reason, and that is motive.
Operation Ajax happened because Mossadegh was leading a massively popular drive to nationalize the oil assets of the British company in charge of their oil, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which was a huge threat to a lot of people's profits.
The CIA rationalized overthrowing Mossadegh by appealing to the idea that if they allowed him to take over Iran, all of the oil would be in the hands of communists, and that would be a real problem.
Riots were manufactured and the Shah swept in and removed Mossadegh from power with the full support of the U.S. government at MI6 because they knew he would be easier to play ball with.
I know history is more complicated than that brief summation of it, but the thing that sticks out to me is that Alex is way out of line using this as a piece of evidence to support his worldview.
All of his narratives are built on the backs of people who existed solely to demonize communism.
He loves the John Birch Society and all the most virulent anti-communist weasels you can find.
He excuses all sorts of evil in the name of saying, at least it's not communism.
And guess what?
That's exactly the reasoning the CIA used as propaganda to justify reinstallization.
But I think it's interesting because that's the first instance of two major instances on this episode that I think Alex is projecting onto Obama what he would do in these circumstances.
Stop doing it and then we'll stop blaming it on you!
You know, if the right-wing terrorists weren't right-wing terroring all the time and it's all just fake, why is it that so much more has happened when there's a Republican president in office?
Yeah, and it would stand to reason that more of it would be happening during Obama's presidency if it was false flags, whereas if it were real right-wing terrorists...
No, because that argument, that's an impossible Ouroboros argument, because Alex would just say, no, because the globalists are now panicked because of how powerful and popular...
Why is it that all of his conspiracy theories about these globalists are them coming up with utterly silly and stupid plans that he thinks he's going to take down mainly because they're so stupid?
Well, because it doesn't seem like in the instances that these things have happened in the past, anything against the right-wing has actually been done.
Yeah, even when the globalists put out this massive document calling all of us terrorists or patriots, they just got rid of it in like two seconds because you guys bitched the whole time.
The article is about early indications that Adam Lanz's mom was a bit of a survivalist prepper.
But if Alex had read the article, it says toward the end, quote, The extremity of Adam Lanz's crime has created a desperate desire for explanations, and dismissing him as a crazy survivalist, or the son of a crazy survivalist, will likely prove irresistible for many people trying to make sense of a senseless act.
But the ultimate truth of his motive is not likely to be so simplistic.
Additional information will emerge over the coming days, but we may never know really why Lanza killed his mother and so many innocent teachers and children.
Understanding the context of his actions may provide useful insights that could prevent future incidents, but gross oversimplifications will only stand in the way.
The article is literally a voice of caution warning people that labeling Lanza as a prepper and using that to explain his act is somehow, or it is something that will stand in the way of future understanding of the tragedy.
It's literally the opposite of what Alex is saying.
Yeah, but I don't think Alex could ever actually, like, disregarding the fact that Alex can't read, even if he could read, those sentences would, like...
Just short-circuit his brain.
Like, he would white out, and it would just be on the floor, and he'd be like, I'm gonna pretend those didn't exist.
So let's just move on to this next clip where he talks about how the system's at war with him.
And then he says something else in the same way as that clip a couple ones back.
It's sort of unclear if he's referring to Sandy Hook when he says something about shootings being fake.
But in exactly the same way you brought up, it's only reasonable to assume that the one that is most recent and he has been talking about is what he's referring to.
It's run by foreign banks that have looted Europe and are now looting us, engaged in all sorts of crime in front of us, arming to the teeth against us with armored vehicles and tanks, meaning cash in every town and city, martial law being incrementally turned on, TSA on the streets.
All of this being done in the name of Al-Qaeda.
Then they flip the script and say, no, no, no, it's for preppers, it's for conservatives.
Now the rollout starts.
And they create the simulation, 20 dead kids, from some person under psychiatric care, undoubtedly on drugs, video game head.
Alex seems to be implying that Obama either staged this shooting or is behaving in response to the shooting the way he is to get more traffic to his YouTube channel.
If Alex could get away with staging something like that, like some giant publicity event, like, I don't know, it's like starting some sort of fight with some famous podcaster.
If he could stage any number of different events that are not true and are not based on anything real in order to get views, then of course the president would kill kids.
Because of what we know about other shooters and that being swept under the rug and a report of a guy in a mask and then reports of other shooters and then who this guy's dad was, high-level GE exec.
We're getting some intel right now.
It looks bad.
They probably had some globalists.
Grease mommy.
Get him wound up, drugged out.
Get him in there.
Shoot him.
Because this has been done before.
Then have your real group that did it.
But even if that's not the case, it's cultural mind control, the television, the shooter video games designed by the Pentagon to make you kill instinctively and uncaringly in a program-trained fashion.
The same thing he's accusing Obama of is what is going to, I'm more convinced than ever, what is going to lead him to make the unforced errors that he makes as we go through this.
I'm just saying that I think that there's a way that he could achieve all of the political goals he thinks he's achieving or trying to achieve without doing any of the stuff that's bad.
So in that last clip, he said that his gut was telling him all these things about how the globalists took him in there and did all the blah, blah, blah.
It's less that, I promise you, it's less that, although that is a big piece of it, than that he foresees a civil war coming because of the gun grabbers.
If you look at it and you think about the loss of life that would come from an all-out civil war, you could say that that might be worse than a school shooting.
He goes on to talk about how kids are killed in foreign countries as a byproduct of our foreign policy.
Fair point.
Doesn't help here all that much.
But when he says they're using the deaths of these children in order to push that stuff, it does imply there's a fakeness, but it also still could be...
Just in the use of the story in the media afterwards.
So, someone you know has had a prophetic dream about this, and then he relates it to a time that he had a literal prophetic dream, which does seem to imply that this person who's, like, Infowars employee's spouse did have a prophetic dream, which does tend to imply that what happened, evidenced by this prophetic dream...
Is people rappelling into the school and shooting kids.
Well, because I'm trying to look at this from a structural perspective.
I'm trying to look at this as if I were an entirely unbiased observer who's like, all of his bullshit talk about his gut, you just throw that out the window.
I still think he's couching his language.
And maybe that's the more important piece.
He's couching his language and not saying, guys, this was fake, the White House was involved, or something like that.
He's still relying on that secondary premise in order to fill in the gaps in his listener's mind, as opposed to overtly making the statement.
And the overtness is the point I'm far more interested in.
I think you're overcorrecting for your unbiased listener, because even an unbiased listener, were they to listen to this in succession, like all of these clips in a row, they'd be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's happening.
If it was one of those, if it was any one of the clips that you have put together, an unbiased observer would be like, ah, that's not...
100% proof.
But when you got six in a row, they're like, come on, man.
When you cover a conspiracy theorist and someone like Alex, it is the sort of thing where you almost find yourself making leaps of logic that aren't appropriate.
And so I try to keep as mindful a presence of that in my head when I'm looking at this stuff that I have to adhere to a pretty strict this means this, this means this.
So, earlier you were asking sort of the idea, is he implying that the government and all of them knew in advance?
And in that last clip, I think he is heavily implying that.
But now, he actually, instead of just saying, my gut tells me this, in this next clip from December 17th, he says something that if he believes, and he's reporting this as a thing, that it's actual a story, a news story.
If he believes this to be true, there is no way that he cannot think that it was planned ahead of time.
But he's afraid that they're going to take the guns, right?
And one of the things that he's already made the argument, and he said a couple times, that they're ramping up martial law stuff because of the Sandy Hook shooting.
He does scream a bunch about how the Republicans are just there to help you, the patriots, bend over for the Democrats who are the ones who are really running the ball down the field for the globalists.
I feel you on that, but I would also stipulate that I wouldn't respond this way if we were listening to this in 2012.
I am responding the way I am in part because we're listening to this years later.
And that's not to say there isn't any stakes involved in us covering this, but it's certainly not the same as if it was happening in real time in front was listening to these episodes and we were doing this podcast in 2012, I would probably have responded to the day of him saying it was fake, like with alarms going off.
You know, like, Alex is suggesting this is fake, guys.
You know, it would have been much more a big deal.
And I think...
One of the reasons I'm giving so many benefits of the doubt is because I know it's going to get really bad, and it'll be so much worse for him if we're fair.
Is on a case-by-case basis, and you've got to be careful with it, but there is an overarching lesson to learn, and a lot of times the other side doesn't care as much as you care, and that can be a hindrance, but I don't know.
I don't know how to apply that across the board effectively, because if you do that across the board, then you...
Paint with a broad brush of all of your perceived enemies, and you give yourself carte blanche to never listen to anybody who might be not a horrible person.
So Alex has an interesting take on this situation out of Paragold Arkansas.
He sees a story about police dressed up in SWAT gear patrolling the streets, and he instantly reports on it as somehow being related to the aftermath of Sandy Hook, when it in reality has nothing to do with that.
Reporting in the Arkansas Times reveals that Todd Stovall, the Paragold police chief, announced his plans for police in SWAT gear patrolling citizens in high crime areas in a town hall meeting on December 13th, the day before Sandy Hook happened.
In that clip we just listened to, Alex misreports the date of the meeting as being December 14th, because the way he wants to tell the story is that this happened as a result of the shooting, and as an example of the globalists'use of the shooting.
the shooting to bring in martial law.
But that story doesn't fly if the meeting happened the day before.
Anybody else, that might be excused as a slip of the tongue or getting a detail wrong in some sort of benign way.
But in this circumstance, with this dude, that seems very likely to me to be a straight Yeah.
It was Rita Sklar, the executive director of ACLU Arkansas, who said that Stovall had, quote, zero understanding of constitutional rights, period.
So the ACLU, Alex's sworn enemy and somebody who he thinks is an arm of the globalist, was the one organization on the ground that was organizing and acting against this guy's plan to foment martial law in Paragold.
So it's clear that Alex didn't read this article either, and he only knows the headline.
Because if he presented the contents of the article, it would go a long way to undermining the essential narrative that he's trying to present.
Before I get into the article, it's important to remember that he's presenting the idea that the globalists are trying to get everyone on Prozac because it'll make a certain percentage of the population kill themselves or kill others, and the globalists can then use those killings as an excuse to carry out their nefarious plans.
He's not just a concerned citizen who thinks a certain medication is dangerous.
He believes that evil globalists are giving it to you and the public to fuck them up.
Now, in this article, you immediately find some red flags.
This Daily Mail article.
The first is this passage.
Quote, Teenagers could be barred from being prescribed Prozac and other antidepressants amid fears that they may increase the risk of suicide.
Using antidepressants, increased suicide-related behavior in children and adolescents, said the London-based European Medicines Agency.
The agency did not find any evidence of deaths caused by the drugs.
So clearly, the first problem is even the organization that's lobbying to get Prozac banned admits that they have zero actual cases where Prozac caused someone's death.
That's a problem for Alex's argument, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for him to wiggle out of it by saying they reclassified deaths or something like that.
The bigger problem, and the one he can't wiggle out of, is that this ban was being promoted and pushed by the European Medicines Agency.
Why is that a problem?
Because the EMA was specifically created in 1995 by funding from the European Union exclusively to exist as a body within the EU.
Their website is ema.europa.eu, and while they used to be based in London, they've since had to relocate to Amsterdam after Brexit because they're an EU body.
This is entirely anathema to Alex's narrative.
He's literally saying that globalists want to give you Prozac to kill you, and at the same time, the medical arm of the EU, the world's largest globalist entity, is actively campaigning to ban Prozac.
In the world of this man, who just swims in contradictions, this one is still pretty impressive.
It's the equivalent of slam dunk where you hit the back of the rim and the ball bounces back all the way to half court, but you think that you dunked, and so you flex when you get down to the ground.
And for the first time probably in the, you know what, when we're done with this episode, it'll be four days worth of episodes after Sandy Hook that I've heard of Alex's.
This was the first time that I sort of shuddered a little bit.
Thankfully, it's not really about the shooting itself.
He's trying to make fun of Obama and his response to the shooting.
He plays some of Obama's speech.
And the way he's acting, I find so deeply reprehensible that, I don't know, we'll see on the I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same.
Yeah, I think there's probably a piece of that in there.
So I'm going to skip this next clip because it doesn't really matter, and he says very similar things, but he's just trying to make the argument that when people get killed with cars, you don't blame auto manufacturers and stuff like that.
I'm sure there is a technical term for that, but at this point, Alex goes out to break like this, this next clip, and it made me have a realization that I don't think I've ever had before, and I really should have.
Just wanted to take a little break in the episode to call myself out about something.
So, at this point in the episode, Alex has a guest on who I've never heard on before and has the unfortunately very generic name Matt Williams.
He's on to talk to Alex just about how he loves guns.
He's a guy who teaches concealed carry classes.
And he's just, you know, it's just fear-mongering and paranoia peddling about the gun grabbers.
What have you.
Very standard interview.
Not really a whole ton worth going into.
I believed in the lead-up to this episode and my preparation, I thought I'd figured out who Matt Williams was.
And so a lot of the conversation that Jordan and I had about the interview, even though the interview itself, quite bland and unnotable, dealt with who I thought he was.
And it turns out that after we had recorded and when I started editing up the episode, I challenged some of my own assumptions and wanted to make sure that I was correct about Me thinking that I figured out who this guy was, and after giving it another once-over, I'm not confident that I know who this guy is.
So I removed all of this stuff where we talk about him, which is why I needed to give you all this little bumper, and mostly also because in this next clip, Alex is going to be talking to Matt Williams, and Matt is going to say something that I think is really great.
And I didn't want to cut out of the episode because I think it's an important piece of the episode.
But I had to remove the stuff where I just can't stand behind it.
Got to be on the up and up about this.
So, yeah, I guess that's the situation.
So, anyway, back to the episode.
So, earlier in the episode, Alex talked to Jesse Ventura.
He had him on, and I was very interested to hear what Jesse Ventura's take on this whole thing was.
And Alex mirrors that, at least in terms of arming the teachers and that sort of thing.
And so he tries to bring this up to Matt Williams at the end of this episode, and Matt accidentally completely destroys the argument that having teachers be armed is worth a damn.
And then second, the argument that Alex is making is arm the teachers, have an officer in the school, and Matt Williams' response is like, yeah, that makes sense.
We had a substation in our school and it didn't do shit.
So, hey, guess what?
From the anecdotal evidence that your gun-loving guest is bringing to the table, it doesn't work.
So, Mike Adams is out here doing a pathetic comedy piece about how guns don't kill people, trying to stress that his gun doesn't fire by itself and that a person has to do that part.
On the one hand, it's kind of an example of missing the point of what people are complaining about when they say that guns kill people.
But more importantly, it's just wrong.
In 2000, the year 2000, Barbara Barber accidentally shot her 9-year-old son Gus with a Remington Model 700.
I say accidentally because she didn't even touch the trigger.
The gun just went off and her son was killed.
She decided to take legal action and it turned out that she wasn't the first person to experience this from Remington.
A class action lawsuit in a CNBC investigation revealed that as many as 7.5 million guns sold by Remington could be susceptible to a design flaw where the gun could accidentally fire without the trigger being pulled.
They allege that at least 100 injuries and 24 deaths were attributable to this happening.
Guns going off all by themselves without being touched.
The very thing that Mike Adams is mocking the idea of in this field piece.
And the Remington case isn't even close to the only one.
In 2013, Iowa Sheriff's Deputy Chris Carter sued a gun manufacturer named Forhas Torres after his PT-140 Millennium Pro pistol spontaneously discharged after it fell out of his holster.
In the suit, it was discovered that nine different guns Taurus produced could potentially fire if they were, quote, bumped or dropped or when the safety is on and the trigger is pulled.
Oh, but all these people who have definitely not received money from the NRA consistently vote against the idea that you're able to sue gun manufacturers.
It's crazy.
This problem was estimated as potentially affecting approximately 956,000 guns in the U.S. alone.
The idea that you had the safety on, you pull the trigger, it could still shoot.
This case was settled in 2016 with tourists offering to repair or buy back affected guns, but here's where the evil aspect of this comes in.
They weren't required to recall the guns, and as such, they didn't have to warn people about the danger that those almost one million guns posed to law-abiding, completely responsible gun owners.
And the story that brought this to light was a family whose son, who was a responsible shooter, ended up shooting himself because of this malfunction in a Taurus gun.
And they were furious about the idea that, like, no one sent out any kind of warning that you should get your gun checked if you have one of these guns.
Part of the problem is that, unlike pretty much every other product that's sold on the market, there is no governmental body that can recall a broke-ass gun.
The gun lobby and people like Alex have made sure that any attempt in that direction can never go anywhere.
Specifically, the NRA had a close relationship with Taurus, which explains why they, presumably a gun safety organization, didn't warn their members about the danger that these defective guns posed.
All this is to say that Mike Adams is a fucking idiot.
Gun manufacturers rely on people like him to muddy the water and make sure that people think all criticisms of their actions are actually veiled attempts to take everyone's guns, when often the criticisms are really as simple as something like, your product is defective and caused me to kill my own child, and you shouldn't be able to sell a product so severely defective.
That's not an attack on the Second Amendment at all.
This is a conversation that, like, you can't have a conversation about reasonable gun ownership, responsible gun rights, until you have the same oversight that's applied to everything else applied to guns.
As evidenced by these, and Alex would minimize this, being like, oh, what, 24 people were killed by those Remington guns that were defective?
Or at least not caring as you kill your children or yourself.
Yeah.
The idea that it's presented as a gun safety organization, when issues of gun safety like this are ignored, that is disqualifying as you being able to call yourself that.
If you are a gun safety organization, then one major thing is you should be on the side of recalling defective guns.
Because they will kill people.
It's not like, I don't know, maybe a defective toaster could kill somebody.
It could.
You could get electrocuted or something like that.
In articles I was reading, too, about that specific manufacturer, Taurus, their history is super messed up.
Their parent company operates out of Brazil.
And they had bought up a competitor, so they provided like 90% of the guns that were sold and produced in Brazil.
And the Brazilian government has a law in place where law enforcement has to buy Brazilian-made...
Yeah.
And so they're basically the sole supplier of the military and police's guns, and nine of their models were completely defective, or at least potentially had the very serious risk of being completely defective.
I did watch a video, too, of the lawyer who was...
Running that case.
Demonstrating how the defect works.
With an unloaded gun.
It's crazy.
You watch him very meticulously turn on the safety and then pull the trigger and it's like, this would have fired.
It does the exact same thing with the safety on.
Dude, if you read interviews with him, while I filed my briefs and my lawsuit...
One of the things that I put very specifically into the language was that this has nothing to do with Second Amendment rights, people's rights to have guns.
This is very clearly a product quality defective issue.
The owner of this Thai restaurant apparently said in a since-deleted Facebook post, and when I mean since, I mean by the time Alex is reporting on it, that he fails to give a shit about the kids who died at Sandy Hook in as much as I don't care that white children are being killed.
But, Alex, in talking about this Thai restaurant, Makes this statement, and he's really angry about the racism of, like, I don't care about these white kids being shot.
Of course he is.
And then he says this proclamation about, what if I did that about other groups?
I'll guarantee you, folks, if I got on air when there was, say, a gangland shooting in Chicago where a couple black kids got killed, and if I said, who cares, they're just, you know, intercity black kids.
But that is also another huge part of it, is we're coming into it with that sort of present-day awareness of Alex that maybe didn't exist so much in 2012, where there wasn't the stigma of showing up on here, and maybe this guy wouldn't get any bad feedback from it.
Walter B. Jones was a member of the House of Representatives from North Carolina, serving from 1995 to February 2019.
Actually, about 15 days ago from when we're recording now, when he passed away while in office.
So he did die very recently.
Rest in peace.
His career in Congress is one that's particularly difficult to discuss.
Very simple terms.
For instance, from 1982 to 1992, he was a member of the North Carolina State House of Representatives, where he'd been elected as a Democrat.
His father, Walter Jones Sr., had been a member of the U.S. House from 1966 to 1992, when he also died in office.
Walter Jr. decided that he wanted to run for his father's open seat, but failed running as a Democrat, so he tried again in 1994, this time running as a Republican.
He used this strong anti-Bill Clinton sentiment as a weapon against his opponent, Martin Lancaster, who'd been photographed jogging with the president.
And Jones rode a wave of midterm Republican energy.
He was initially a firm supporter of invading Iraq, but later became a harsh critic.
He is a member of the Liberty Caucus and claimed to have libertarian values, but still co-sponsored legislation to ban online gambling.
Jones was the one who, in March 2003, furious that France didn't support the U.S. going to war in Iraq, demanded that the Congressional Cafeteria rename French Toast and French Fries, Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries.
A 2005 article in The Guardian points out that the, quote, the name change still in force made headlines around the world, both for what it said about the U.S.-French relations and its pettiness.
It also should be noted that among the list of his top donors, you'll find that he's received $53,500 from Northrop Grumman, $52,500 from Lockheed Martin, and $48,200 from the NRA.
The Center for Responsive Politics lists Jones as the largest recipient of NRA money among North Carolina House members, with the total he received, including expenditures that they made on his behalf, coming in at over $56,000.
So it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that he has an A rating from the NRA and consistently votes against any common-sense regulations about gun safety.
In 2007, Jones voted to ban gun registration in Washington, D.C., and repeal the law that did exist on the books about needing to lock up guns.
He voted in 2009 to make all state concealed carry permits valid in every other state, which seems to run counter to the state's rights ideas that these people profess to have, but I don't remember.
Also, in 2010, Walter Jones signed a House resolution that would encourage schools and community organizations to use the Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program and encouraged supporting funding for the program being used in schools.
The Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program was developed by and run entirely by the NRA.
That is a super slimy move.
And it's just as slimy as Alex Jones having Walter Jones on his show to spread fear about how the man is coming for your guns without disclosing that he has accepted money from and tried to funnel government funds to the NRA, an organization that exists almost exclusively to disallow the possibility of having a real conversation about guns in this country.
Whatever else we can say about how Alex responded to Sandy Hook.
These few days that we've heard so far clearly indicate that his number one priority was to round the wagons and pack his show with pro-gun propagandists.
So we have one more clip here, and that is, at the end of the show on December 18th, Alex gets a call from somebody who lives in Newtown.
And someone who, their kids went to Sandy Hook.
They don't go there anymore, but they went to the school.
And I'm going to play this clip because this clip is firmly demonstrative that if, like, Alex can't ever in good conscience believe that the people at that school were actors.
This clip firmly proves that he has to think that everything was real.
unidentified
And we were involved.
I was very involved with the school.
I ran the Cub Scouts, the third and fourth grade.
Out of Sandy Hook Elementary.
I live like a mile down the street.
My wife used to do the Sandy Hook Elementary School clothing line.
We used to sell it.
You know, they do stuff for Christmas and Halloween and, you know, all the holidays.
They try to represent, you know, by having some gathering or, you know, parties at the school at night.
So, you know, we were pretty involved.
We knew a lot of the teachers.
And I want to thank you, first of all.
You know, before I...
I forget to do this.
I want to thank you for everything you do.
And I want to thank you for putting up Victoria Soto's picture because she was actually my son's after-school tutor.
You know, kids are having problems with, like, math or whatever.
She was a tutor for him for, like, the last three years he was in Sandy Hook Elementary.
And for folks that don't know who she is, tell them about her.
unidentified
Well, she was a young girl who did, she was like a teacher's assistant, and she did, like with my son, he was having trouble with math, so she would work with the kids after school for an hour, hour and a half, you know, giving them, you know, extra tutoring, you know, bringing them up to, you know, the skills they needed to get through their class.
He posted a photo of her memorializing her on Infowars.com.
He has this guy who's calling in thanking him for that, whose kids went to the school.
And don't go there anymore because they've aged out.
He's talking about years in the past that they went to Sandy Hook Elementary School.
In order for Alex to pivot his narrative into believing that people were actors and this was staged, which we do know is an eventual end point he gets to, he has to then believe that they were actors planted in that school for years.
You know, giving a respectful hearing to this guy who, again, you know, Alex Jones' callers are always going to come with a grain of skepticism, but I listened to his entire call.
I don't see any red flags.
He has a lot of details and seems...
He has a very natural way of speaking about his experiences.
He doesn't strike me in the same way as a lot of Alex's bullshit callers do.
So I'm ready to accept whatever he's saying, and so is Alex.
Alex accepts this.
This is the reality.
The reality is tragedy.
Whatever he wants to make on top of that tragedy in order to defend his guns and his...
Admittedly fucked up fears about a civil war that may come from the taking of the guns.
Whatever the case is, here's the way I want to say this better.
The recognition that you see in that clip is what he exploits, if that makes sense.
The fact that we know and we can see that he knows that this is real and this 27-year-old teacher at that school was murdered.
And he knows.
He knows that.
That is a building block of his lies.
And that makes it so much worse to me.
And that's why you have to be fair to him.
That's why you have to be fair to him, because it makes it so much worse.
The same thing we go over a lot.
We talk about a lot.
The lies that people tell about Alex Jones are often spiritually true, but they lack certain amounts of accuracy and the nuance and the accuracy make it worse than the broad You know Alex Alex lied about Sandy Hook.
Yeah, spiritually true Yeah, but when you dig into the muck a little bit you see the ways that he lied about it and you see the awareness that he had to Have known he's lying about it.
No matter how many times you're confronted with the reality of trafficking women, every time you're just blown away by how cruel and stupid and pointless human beings can treat other human beings.
Well, I think the only explanation for it, and it comes back to what I was saying earlier, is that he has to convince himself, or he has to have convinced himself, that they are trying to do this to get guns, which will lead to a civil war, which will lead to way more kids being killed, or whatever, and a greater risk to my children.
So if you frame it that way, there is an empathic argument.
Or something.
You know, like, there is, like, an argument from the saving lives perspective that you could talk yourself into.
Now, the problem with that, and the reason I have a problem with that, is that it's such an extreme, this will lead to that, it's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and backing.
And I can't imagine being able to convince yourself that that was the reality without reading all of these things.
When you are also somebody who only reads headlines and then reports as if you understand all and everything about all this stuff, how do you convince yourself that a civil war is coming and that's what I'm fighting against?
How do you not have the humility or the presence to just be like, this is what I think.
And I think that you see on the first couple episodes of this him trying to find his footing and then finding it a little bit on Sunday.
But the evolution that it's taken...
On Monday and Tuesday here with this, like, he's being much more overt about thinking it was fake and that the government did it.
He's bringing in, he's introducing new narratives about CNN reporting days before about gun stuff as a priming the pump kind of thing.
And then having these paid gun people on in order to help reinforce his narratives, I think you're seeing a pivoting towards, like, him knowing what he's doing more.
That was the first statehouse election where they all decided that the only way that the North Carolina statehouse was going to work is if everybody agreed to kill a guy.
No, and she actually should be someone Alex looks up to because of her behavior in trying to fight back against SWAT teams mirroring martial law that Alex is so afraid of.
She's never killed anybody, but one guy technically probably has.