Today, Dan and Jordan continue their investigation into how Alex Jones behaved in the immediate aftermath of the shootings at Sandy Hook. In this installment, the gents learn more about how awful Ted Nugent is, discuss UK crime statistics, and struggle with Alex taking a serious turn in his rhetoric for seemingly no reason.
And it's one of the reasons that I find that, like, dealing with the present day stuff, at least this last week especially, incredibly difficult to figure out an angle on.
Because, quite frankly, I don't know what's going on with that story.
It's one of the times where it's like, I'm so grateful we don't do a new show because every part of this story, you see how shitty all of the media and everything really is.
There's a lot of jumping to conclusions, a lot of...
A lot of people sensationalizing this, and maybe not a lot of that is the media in terms of the sensationalizing stuff, but some of it is, and then a lot of it is just the bouncing, the ping pong ball of Twitter going back and forth.
Also, it leads me to think that perhaps his staff lacks creativity.
Because if the sickest things that they can think of are things that they can prove with a Google search that the government is doing, they aren't very creative.
So I recognized, as I was editing the last episode, that it really hurt us emotionally, I think, or at least me, that I started with ten minutes of that Gladio breakdown, as opposed to starting with something that's inconsequential.
So I threw that in there now, and now in clip two, Jordan.
Over a hundred FBI deals, even mainstream media admitted, where they would go find mentally ill people and give them a bomb, train them, take them to bomb the Christmas tree in Portland or whatever.
And then it came out they were setting up mentally ill people.
And this guy was now under psychiatric daily visits.
All it took was him producing a special report that Alex could point to as proof that things don't add up.
The conspiracy angle that they decided to take is the idea of the second shooter, specifically the guy who's seen being arrested in the woods in camo, as Alex is describing.
As it turns out, the police detained a number of people in the woods on December 14th.
It kind of makes some sense.
If you look at the area around the school, while it would be unfair to say that the Sandy Hook Elementary is surrounded by woods, it wouldn't be too far off.
Most of the school's north to west side was Woods, as well as the east-southeast side, with only one paved driveway leading to the school.
With that road obviously blocked off, the Woods became a preferable way to reach the school for people who had reason to want to be there.
That was the case for two reporters, who were trying to get better coverage than they were being allowed to at that point.
The police confronted them, guns drawn, questioned them, and released them.
This isn't the case Alex is thinking of.
I just bring it up to highlight that there was a lot going on that day.
What Alex is doing here is he's relying on the unreliability of first-hand accounts of crises in order to create the narrative that he wants to deliver.
In this case, he's combining two people into one story, and possibly even three.
It's even possible that he's not doing that intentionally.
It's just ultimately how reporting goes when you go too hard too early when you don't have any of the facts.
One of the things Alex is probably operating off is early reports about Chris Manfredonia.
Chris was a parent who was on the way to the school to make gingerbread houses with the first grade class when he heard popping noises.
This man being described by this first-hand witness.
He didn't come out of the woods and was being interviewed by police who determined him to be an idiot who was in the wrong place.
He saw flashing lights, got really curious, and decided to check out what was going on, but had nothing to do with the shooting, which was long over by the time he was detained.
And if this was high school, if this was in our time in the late 90s when we would have been in high school, there would have been high school kids walking in the woods looking for thrown away porn mags.
Any one of them could have walked out of the woods.
So, the police interviewed him, searched him and his car, and since he wasn't involved in the horrific crime that had just occurred, they decided not to release his name, which I think is a really good call.
Alex is getting the idea of the man in the woods from a different report of the man found in the woods.
But in the chaos of the day and the imprecise reporting that came out of it, something completely benign became incredibly suspicious.
The man who was supposedly found in the woods was an off-duty policeman in plain clothes who was responding to the incident.
There was a bit of confusion because he wasn't in uniform.
He didn't run from the police or get arrested.
People were just confused because of how it appeared for two uniformed cops to be running with a non-uniformed cop.
It made it look like a chase when the three of them were actually running together.
So yeah, it gave the appearance of a chase, but it was not.
Ultimately, there wasn't anything to any of this.
The supposed second shooters and people in the woods ideas are all easily explained once the information starts to trickle in.
And this really highlights one of the main problems with what Alex Jones does.
He constructs narratives out of the suspicions that are only reasonable because of the absence of information available.
I could have a conversation with him now about the second shooter idea and how it's stupid, but if I were in studio on December 19, 2012, if he asked me who was that guy, I could only respond with, I don't know, we'll see.
You remember the old Patrice O 'Neal bit where he's like, I never litter because I don't want the chance of like, I toss a recede into the bushes and then there's a dead body and now I'm suspect number one.
So now to Alex's other idea about the FBI setting people up and that shit.
So while it is true, and I'm not going to argue that the FBI doesn't have a real dicey history in terms of setting people up for stuff, I find it absolutely hilarious that the only example Alex can come up with is this Christmas tree bombing.
So he's referring to the 2010 car bombing plan in Portland that was to take out their Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
This was an instance of a would-be terrorist unknowingly working with an FBI agent who was undercover to plan the attack.
The FBI made sure that the bomb was incapable of detonating, and after Mohammed Osman Mahmoud used his phone to set off the inert bomb, he was arrested.
That is a story of the FBI post 9-11 all too often.
A lot of the times, and not a lot of the time, but a practice that has been covered and talked about is that the FBI would find potential terrorists, and in order to justify their expanded budget, they would essentially teach the terrorist how to make a bomb, and then...
Ask him to do the terrorism and then arrest him after he was caught.
There are plenty of examples of that, and that is true.
And this event actually set off an interesting debate about whether or not the FBI had entrapped Mahmoud, seeing as agents had been in contact with him for months after he came up on their radar.
He was on said radar because he wrote for a publication called Jihad Recollections and was in contact with a man in Pakistan who was known to the FBI as being a terrorist recruiter.
So they knew that entrapment would be a good defense for Mahmoud.
And should things ever reach that point, the undercover agents were overly cautious and tried to talk him out of the attack.
From an article in Washington Monthly.
Aware of entrapment legal defenses, undercover agents offered Mahmoud multiple alternatives to mass murder, including mere prayer.
But he insisted he wanted to play a, quote, operational role and even picked his target.
Told he'd likely kill a lot of children, Mahmoud said, yeah, I mean, that's what I'm looking for.
Though I don't know how I feel about how embedded within the agents were, this is not a good example of the FBI inventing terrorists out of whole cloth.
Mahmoud had made his intentions to commit a violent mass casualty event totally clear, independent of and prior to the FBI getting involved.
There are better examples Alex could have chosen, for sure, but most of the examples he would be able to come up with are minorities or left-leaning groups who have been selectively targeted by law enforcement.
The story he wants to tell is one of right-wing oppression at the hands of the FBI.
In a 2012 article in Rolling Stone by Rick Pearlstein, he lays it out really well.
Because they're involved, on some level, the FBI can control how the bust goes down, at what point the plot is disrupted, whether there's media attention or not, etc.
They can essentially use the investigation to help them tell the story they want the public to hear to get them to focus where they want them to focus.
That's why from the 60s until the present day, these stings are almost exclusively used against left-leaning groups like Occupy and the anti-war movements, with Muslims being a very common target in the past 20 years or so.
But it's never the right-wing groups.
Right-wing terror plots are generally found out after the case.
After something goes wrong on their own, or they carry out the plot, or someone from the group defects.
Something like that.
They flip and tell the law enforcement about it.
There are so many examples of white nationalist, white supremacist groups in the last 30 years or so, and none of them had to do with the FBI prodding them to carry out whatever attack they were.
And that's something I'm starting to think about is, like, I think the debates might be real, but I don't think they're the way he wants to present them.
I'm starting to suspect that the debates were people...
Like, Alex was saying the government killed all these kids, and then other people saying they're all fake.
So, I mean, it's kind of just like, if the narrative never progresses from there, which we know it does, it would still be like, I'm just, I'm put off by it.
But, you know, the reason that he has to do these things and he has to keep diving in is because he's in pain when he sees what's going on in the world.
And it is so painful to see the fact that our country has gotten to this point and is in the grip of hardcore mafia that is dangling 20 dead, sad little children and their families and the sadness they're going through in our face to terrorize us and say, you're not a good person if you don't turn your guns in.
You're not a good person if you don't go along with all of this.
So Alex is using statistics out of context to argue that the UK made restrictions to gun ownership and then violent offense numbers jumped dramatically.
If you just look at the raw numbers, you can make that argument.
But in order to do so, you have to ignore literally all of the context surrounding those numbers and numerous investigations and publications put out by Parliament.
In 1997, the UK passed the Firearms Amendment Act of 1997.
Prior to this, there were regulations in place about registration and whatnot, but this act effectively banned private ownership of handguns.
This act was passed in part as a response to the Dunblane School Massacre, where a man entered a school, shot 16 students between the ages of 5 and 6, shot a teacher, and then killed himself.
This is referred to as the UK's first and only school shooting, possibly because they took action.
So that's some of the backdrop for why the Firearms Act was considered, but it doesn't provide the necessary context to understand and explain why Alex is lying about crime rates.
And if he were a serious person at all, he would have every reason to know what I'm about to tell you.
In 1998, Parliament pushed through changes in how police departments were to count crime statistics.
Prior to this, there was no real standardization between departments, so you ran into issues where an identical crime could be classified completely differently depending on what department investigated it.
So it's a little bit like the difference between crime reporting in Chicago and crime reporting in Joe Arpaio's neck of the woods, where crime reporting in Chicago would include rape, and in Joe Arpaio's world, they're like, that doesn't even really happen.
That would be encouraging them to standardize or anything like that.
So they made new counting rules and introduced the National Crime Recording Standard, which led to a large jump in crime stats, including a 118% jump in violent crime alone.
Part of this was because departments were now required to include indictable and possibly indictable crimes in their statistics.
And they also changed their reporting to reflect one crime report for each crime.
Then, in April 2008, the Home Office made another change to the way they countered offenses that would lead to a large jump in statistics of serious violent crimes.
They began to include, quote, gross bodily harm with intent as a serious violent crime, whereas previously it would not have been.
This boils down to situations where the assailant intends to do gross bodily harm but fails to do so.
That would not have been considered an instance of gross bodily harm assault previously and now was.
This change came as the result of a 2006-2007 assessment by a cross-party review board that determined that the definition of violence was not defined clearly enough and to get a better picture of crime as it exists, it would be wise to include attempted violence and credible threats of violence as counting as serious crimes.
This alone led to a massive spike in reports of serious violent crimes, with no actual additional crimes being committed.
Statisticians have analyzed the data, and their assessment is largely that crime is fairly close to flat or even down, but that there's an outward appearance that has been on the rise since 1998 because of these changes to how crimes are reported and counted.
And we talked about this with Sweden, too, how they count crimes changed at a certain point.
It makes it look like there's a massive increase.
Unfortunately, 1998 is right after the UK essentially banned handguns.
So all the optics are in place for Alex to take these statistics totally out of context and present the image that they banned guns, then boom, violent crime went through the roof.
No, and even then, based on what we know now, it's hard to come down anywhere other than...
So this next clip, I mean, we don't really have much to go on from that last one other than Alex was being weird.
But he gets back to Piers Morgan.
And, you know, this is great because this is sort of a prelude to when Alex actually goes on Piers Morgan's show and does that great publicity stunt that he does.
While Piers Morgan is calling Larry Pratt a liar on Communist News Network last night, while he's a foreigner, nothing against foreigners, but, I mean, don't come to my country and tell me to give up my rights, especially when I had a war with your king over this 200-something years ago, punk.
While he's talking, I'm going to be showing statistics where their crime rate exploded in England, highest in Europe after they took the guns, and how our crime rate is dropping.
Guns are saving this country, and they are taking each little crime and making it huge on the news to give you the perception, just like Jaws made people think there were great whites eating everybody.
Yeah, in terms of the argument that he's putting forth, I will say I agree with the premise that Jaws did cause a lot of people to be afraid of sharks unnecessarily.
And Alex, at another point in this episode, he revisits this theme, and he's talking about how, like, after Jaws, a bunch of beaches almost went bankrupt.
Calling all patriots, calling anyone who's awake not under globalist mind control.
They're stealing the pension funds, imploding the dollar, getting rid of the borders, bringing in world government.
Total NSA spying, 1.6 billion bullets, armored vehicles and treaded tanks being cashed and delivered into all major municipalities in preparation for total war against the American people, total federalization of police.
They're trying to fire all the good cops and have nothing but insane people that will give your wife cavity searches without warrants on the side of the road with no probable cause, just randomly.
So no gun programs on there to speak of, unless you count something like NCIS as a gun show, which I don't think you would.
So if you check in with Nielsen, they have the ratings for network and cable programming combined.
And the top ten most watched programs of 2012 were all number one through eight being NFL football, number nine was the Summer Olympics opening ceremony, and number ten was the Grammys.
Their top ten ratings for a regularly scheduled program was three entries for the NFL, two entries for American Idol, two entries for Dancing with the Stars, then NCIS, The Voice, and the show Vegas.
They have a top ten of programs that were recorded to watch later, like on DVRs, and what do you know, zero-gun programs.
Just Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Justified, Fringe, Sons of Anarchy, American Horror Story, and of course, Suits.
So, also, this Entertainment Weekly article provides breakdowns for all these different demographics, like adults 18 to 49 and adults 25 to 54, and none of them contain any gun shows.
I literally have no idea what Alex is talking about.
I can't make sense of it.
It does not track with any of the actual statistic-keeping places.
It's almost like, you know, I don't know how to describe it, but you remember when Jimmy Kimmel Live first started and he'd have a guest co-host that would be there for a week?
Yeah, that makes sense though because in this time especially, even if he's not doing his own bookings, which he probably has a hand in, but even if he's not doing them solely...
Naturally, he would want to surround himself with the most psychopathic gun people that he can in order to insulate himself from any kind of empathy that he might feel.
That's possible.
In the same way that he's putting that shit out in order to make his listeners afraid and distract them from the tragedy of the situation, he also needs to be distracted.
He said, the Congress has no power to disarm the militia, their swords, and every other terrible implement of a soldier are the birthright of an American.
Funnily enough, after the country was founded, Cox declared himself a Whig, but then within five years decided he was actually a Federalist, which then helped him secure a position as Great.
Because he changed parties so frequently and so opportunistically during the first few years of the country's existence, many began leveling accusations that he was actually a British spy and a Tory.
I'm not sure about those accusations, but I do know that his critics would refer to him often as Mr. Facing Both Ways, which is...
As far as nicknames go, I think that is a better nickname than Mr. Worldwide, which of course is Pitbull, but not as good a nickname as Mr. Steal Your Girl.
Were the slave trade right, safe, and constitutional, a single year would give us the cotton business, which they do now, referring to other countries.
But, as labor is, and is likely to be in America, we shall make a progress a little slower, but not less certain in transferring to our hands much of this business of raising those supplies.
Though philosophically opposed to slavery...
Cox's actions in rallying for and lobbying towards a southern economy largely based on cotton ended up being one of the greatest drivers towards the rationalization of and acceptance of slavery in America.
From PBS, quote, within 10 years of the cotton gin being put into use, the value of the total United States crop leaped from $150,000 to more than $8 million.
This success of this plantation crop made it much more difficult for slaves to purchase their freedom or obtain it through the goodwill of their masters.
From 1790 to 1810, close to 100,000 slaves moved to the new cotton lands in the south and west.
From 1810 until the Civil War, 100,000 slaves were forced westward each decade, half a million in total.
As cotton cultivation spread, slaveholders in the tobacco belt, whose crop was no longer profitable, made huge profits by selling their slaves.
This domestic slave trade devastated black families.
American-born slaves were torn from the plantations they had known all their lives, placed in shackles, and forced marched hundreds of miles away from their loved ones.
The enslaved populations in cotton-producing states saw increases of 27.5% per decade in the early 1800s, and it can all be traced back to the exact problem that Tenchcox was clearly aware of in his 1808 letter, namely that if we do this reasonably, it'll take a while.
If we had slavery, we could take over this market in a year.
No, in regards to, like, your elementary school education where you're like, and one of the biggest inventions of the time was Eli Whitney's cotton gin, and they didn't provide that...
Asterisk next to it.
Footnote, Eli Whitney's cotton gin led to a massive explosion in slavery.
This type of shit happens every time some gun show or some bullshit conservative-leaning thing gets canceled.
All the Alex Jones types take the cancellation that was due to some network decision-making that ends up getting the same sort of thing that gets any other show canceled.
And they repurpose it as proof of a war on conservatives in the media.
It's so goddamn lame, but I realize that maybe I should have co-opted that argument to see if I could have got that disappointing futuristic show that had dinosaurs in it, it was called Revolution, see if I could have got it a second season.
Maybe they could have figured out and righted the ship.
So immediately after he loses this gig at the Idaho Casino, two more of his shows at Tacoma, Washington's Emerald Queen Casino were cancelled, ostensibly for similar reasons.
Also, in 2012, Ted Nugent was kicked off a concert at Fort Knox being put on by the goddamn Army, where he was scheduled to open for REO Speedwagon and Styx.
This was in the lead-up to the 2012 election back in April of that year, so the Army wasn't thrilled with the recent comments Ted Nugent had made in a video posted on the NRA's official YouTube page.
Quote, If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.
If you can't go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house of this vile, evil, American-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made of.
Considering he'd also previously called Obama a, quote, subhuman mongrel, there's a decent chance that this one should have also been canceled for racism.
Also, just because it's fun, the day before Ted Nugent was kicked off this Fort Knox concert, he'd come to a plea agreement on charges he was facing for illegally killing a black bear in Alaska and transporting it across state lines.
Strangely enough, he'd kill that bear for an episode of his show Spirit of the Wild that aired on the Outdoor Channel, which should give any network second thoughts about having him on your network, even leaving aside all the stuff about how he clearly likes underage girls and is a flaming racist.
Would be mad at this guy is because he's bringing up the idea that he's associated with the NRA and these people make gun registration, gun regulation impossible.
And then it's so funny that at this concert where he's screaming about this guy, his team had said no guns in the venue, which makes it now a disarmament zone that all these people are so afraid of.
You have no guns there, now you're sitting ducks for the guns.
Nugent claimed that he said all guns were welcome and that the venue and the evil media are lying.
To which the venue replied, quote, we stand by what we said Tuesday night and this is the end of our Ted Nugent story.
unidentified
But I thought that the answer to bad people with guns is good people with guns.
I thought that, like, if you're afraid of the Pulse nightclub shooting, then you should have more good people, your fans, there with guns.
When you find something like that, that's what really sets me off.
To an extent that I usually don't get too worked up.
But that sort of thing.
Someone like motherfucking Ted Nugent, one of the worst pieces of shit in the world, between his clear love of underage women, his violent threats towards public officials, his overt racism, his clear inability to live by his own principles as it relates to preservation of wilderness and nature, which is supposed to be his big thing.
And why he loves guns and crossbows so much is because it's like, oh...
I respect nature and help with the balance and all that shit.
All that stuff's hypocrisy.
And then you have an instance like this where it's like, I fear for my own safety.
Exactly what you said.
And so I say no guns at the venue where I'm at.
That's not even a principle for you.
You stupid asshole.
Make it so everyone else gets hurt and then you wield what power you have to try and insulate yourself from your own fans.
Somehow the end result of our years, like when we end this podcast, our years-long discussion of Alex Jones will really be boiled down to, fuck Ted Nugent.
I think it'd be more fun if Lindsey Buckingham just went on stage and was like, hey, this next song is going to be another one of our hits, but also, let's kill the president!
Donald Fagan just loses it in the middle of a peg and starts screaming about assassination.
Could be.
I think there's one thing that's really confusing me, and I think it's partially because he has all these same guests on all the time, is that I don't know where a lot of our players are.
You know, like a lot of the people that we know from Alex's world, where are they?
Well, yeah, and what's happening now is you're finding out who the actual, you know, who the mealy-mouthed fake conservatives and fake constitutionalists really are.
All these big outlets that are taking guns off the shelf, all these conservatives, so-called conservatives, who are now willing to put guns on the table and talk about an assault on this ban, these are people who never understood the right to bear arms, never understood the Constitution, never understood liberty in the first place.
And so this is going to be a dividing issue among the political right and assaults.
He also even goes so far as to say it's a career-changing moment.
For politicians and for people.
Like, what he's describing there is, like, this is an opportunity for us to radicalize people and make sure that our ship is free of people who have resisted that radicalization.
That's 100%, like, what is behind what he's saying.
And he's absolutely 100% accurate.
Because I think that you've made this point in the past episodes that we've had about Sandy Hook is, like, once you get past that point, no matter how...
Decently or reasonably you present yourself, you're past that point.
And so people who stuck around with, even if it is just sort of the conventional GOP line of resisting any gun legislation at all, any regulation, you're past that point.
You are radical.
And that's what he's describing.
Kick the dummies out.
So I think that it's interesting that you can see the awareness there.
I think that that's interesting, that from a couple days after Sandy Hook, there's even an awareness that what they're doing is getting any moderation out of this thing.
Getting it all as extreme as we can make it, because it has to be.
And the interesting thing that I think is probably, like, I think they might be aware of this, but not necessarily.
I don't know, but they don't kick out everybody who...
Or it's not like, hey, we get past this point, everybody who's still on board and isn't voting against our Second Amendment or whatever, get them all out.
Because there's people who are still the cuck conservatives, as they might be called.
Like a Marco Rubio is still around.
And I think that, like, to sane people, Marco Rubio is still past the radicalization point.
In order to push the Overton window so far that what we would consider a moderate radical, or just a moderate GOP Republican like Marco Rubio, is actually now an incredibly radical politician, but the Overton window has just moved so far right that you're like, well, that must be moderate because he's not...
With the full recognition that, no, what you need is a goddamn Mitch McConnell, who's exactly what you hate.
It's insane.
You need to radicalize, but you need to bring the people who know how to do the work along with you and keep them somehow cloistered from the outright association with denying Sandy Hook, being a Nazi, those sorts of things.
Because if all of your people who know how to get anything done are like you, then it becomes too clear what your party is about.
And it's so important for the moderates, like, not moderates, for the fucking evil, conniving pieces of shit like Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio to have these assholes around in the same way that it's important for our assholes to have those assholes around.
Because the moderate guys can paint themselves as moderate while at the same time being the most fucking radical...
Douchebag conservatives that you can be.
Because you can always point to Steve King and say, I'm not him.
Because I want to pledge with you, I want to say here on air, I think I'm going to make a video about this, that I pledge to never turn in my lawful and legal firearms, that this is all a hoax, and I pledge to expose the illegitimate occupational government we have that openly is becoming a dictatorship.
And I pledge my name, my treasure, my honor, my family.
To it.
You know, I've pledged to call for secession to reconstitute the republic, and that got a lot of national attention, because I knew this was coming.
So, when it comes to that radicalization question, though, the idea of, like, trying to use this to get rid of the milquetoast people and what have you, that, you know, makes sense.
Kind of makes sense why you would do that in their world.
But in this next clip, it becomes very scary because Stuart Rhodes starts talking about these specific people he wants to be on his radicalized team.
unidentified
This is the great victory we have in the Internet.
The freedom of speech on the Internet and on radio is what's turning the tide, and the powers that be know that.
As it must be to get tons of retweets and stuff speculating about what Jussie Smollett did or didn't do.
It's not as fun to hang in the back and wait for information to come out and grieve along with America as it is.
It's much more fun to say, this shit was fake and make more money off it.
None of the stuff that is the right thing to do in these situations feels good or is the most fun.
As a person, you're morally obligated to do those things, especially when you have as huge a platform as Alex, because to do otherwise is to do harm to people.
But they really don't understand what a double-edged sword is, do they?
Because if your angle is what we need to do is radicalize the military...
With right-wing pro-gun propaganda in order to make sure that if something does go down, we have the military on our side who will then presumably go to the liberal cucks' homes and take their whatever equivalent of guns.
You're fucking up by doing this because, by and large...
As history has progressed, progression has happened.
So no matter how much you want to try and break the system to fuck up that progression, all that that's really doing is ensuring your own fucking downfall later on as the pendulum swings.
So like you talked about the last time we talked about the pendulum, if you really slam it as hard as you can, maybe it doesn't swing back.
It's obvious if you start looking at, and especially, it's probably the gift of having time, you know, being in 2019 and looking back at this stuff and recognizing how quickly Alex flipped on so many of his long-held positions once.
He knew he was safe from whatever tyranny may be encroaching.
Behind all of it, the flimsiness of the narratives, the way that time has shown that his anger towards tyranny and authoritarianism doesn't mean anything, it makes you start to realize that all of this stuff is just like, we have to make sure they don't do it.
I'm not saying that it's bad to cite V for Vendetta or anything like that.
You can make whatever movie reference you want.
But I just start to realize that, like, Alex has no literary references.
He claims he's read all these books and he has such a dearth of knowledge about these sorts of things.
And every single time he brings up a philosophical concept or some sort of an idea, as opposed to citing a book, citing a philosopher, anything like that.
If you're good at distilling information down to an accessible chunk, which I think Alex is to a certain extent, he makes complicated subjects very easy to understand.
Alex takes some calls, and he's still got Stuart Rhodes on the phone, but the two of them take some calls, and he gets this call from a guy who's frustrated by the idea of, like, I call the, like, senator's office, and I leave him a message about, you know, like, this is bullshit.
But at the same time, a lot of the times that he was complaining about stuff in the Trump era was when I don't- No, some people went and bullhorned Tucker Carlson's house.
But I will say, from my heart, I would say don't do it, because it invades people's private space.
Inevitably, you're going to end up finding stuff that has nothing to do with whatever you're curious in, and that's a violation of people that is unnecessary.
Like, whatever problems you have about Mitch McConnell, for instance, should stay in the political realm, or whatever.
Like, what if you put a PI on him and you find out he's cheating on his wife?
So, in this episode, we've seen a lot of, like, just sort of standard Alex Jones.
There's a lot of it that we're not listening to, necessarily, that I was listening to him like, this could have been 2009.
Like, it's pretty, like, there's a lot of standard operating Alex Jones, which is interesting, because the other days haven't really been as, like, regular.
And so now to see him kind of be in a place where he's comfortable enough now, because Rob Dews made that special report.
And he does just his gun defense narratives, and that seems to be much more comfortable territory for him.
At the same time, that solidifying of the government did this, they did it, this is the government doing it in order to then launch the op to take our guns and stuff.
That is bad.
In the beginning of the episode...
Alex gets a call from a guy who's like, did you read the article in Veterans Today about how Sandy Hook was retribution on behalf of Israel for something or other?
And Alex shoots him down.
This is a guy suggesting a conspiracy that Israel did Sandy Hook.
This is the day after he took that call from the guy who knew Victoria Soto, the teacher who died.
And Alex had put up a picture of her.
He's reporting on air talking about this video of the father, I believe his name is Robbie Parker, who was laughing nervously before giving a press speech.
And we've talked about this in times past.
The idea of how people grieve and how you respond to nervous situations.
It's ridiculous to make a claim like, he was laughing before that interview, that means he's faking this.
Most people don't have to give press conferences ever.
Most people aren't good at public speaking.
You and I both have years of experience doing stand-up.
And so our response would be very different than Johnny come lately off the street or whatever.
If we were pulled in front of a camera, we wouldn't have as much...
Didn't expect any of this to be in his life mere days prior.
The only reason you would ever cover this story or bring it up with any suspicion is if you're intending to introduce the idea that his kid didn't die and he is an actor.
That is the only fucking reason to do this.
There is no reason to cast suspicion on the family if you believe...
That people died there.
And I need to make this very strongly at this point.
This doesn't match with the narrative that he's been building for the previous days.
This doesn't match with anything that Larry Pratt, Rhodes, Stuart Rhodes, that weirdo who loves guns, his friend, Matt Williams, the senator or the congressman who was on the other day, any of his guests.
None of these people have suggested in any way that this stuff is fake.
Alex is doing this on his own.
He's bringing up this story of the idea that this father is laughing and reading off cue cards on his own.
Or if you're a listener who can't afford a fucking private investigator, well now you're a private investigator, it's time for you to do some sleuthing and fucking harassing them.
Because the only end result, if you think it's real, or are presenting the public-facing appearance that you believe it's real, as we get into that mess a whole bunch, we know that he knows it's real.
But we keep saying, like, he thinks it's fake.
But that's just what his narrative is.
When we say he thinks it's fake, it's what he's telling his audience.
He knows it's real, and he has from day fucking one.
Let's say Rob brings me this video that everyone's suspicious about on the internet, of like, oh, look at him, he's laughing before the interview.
If you bring that to me, and I'm Alex Jones, and I've already worked for a couple days to build the, it's all about taking our guns, the globalists came in, and they had commando teams and killed the kids or whatever.
And you are still like totally everyone died.
That's the rock we're standing on or whatever.
I would be like, huh.
Let's not talk about that.
I'd be like, okay.
I see how that would be a natural reaction someone might have to immense stress.
We thought it would be at least a while before he decided that...
We thought there would be some emotional distance between when he goes from, this is real and it's affecting me, maybe the government did it, but it is still children who died, to, it's all fake.
Even the people who died, the parents, they're all actors, all of this shit.
One school shooting happened and they went, fucking, hey, this gotta stop.
The only way it makes sense for our culture to have...
No legislative reaction to this is if people like Alex can turn that corner in such a short period of time to unify their message of nothing can be fucking done ever.
Nothing can be done about this.
Because if it took him three weeks, maybe people would have finally gotten the goddamn picture in three weeks.
But if it takes you a day or two to say that it's all fake...
If you're a decent person, you can watch that video of this father and not come away with it with any confusion or suspicion or anything like that.
But a lot of these other things, the anomalies that he's already starting to bring up of his own accord, things like the second shooter ideas and stuff like that, he weaponizes the idea that we don't all have the reporting on it.
We don't have the information.
And it just bums me out.
To such an extent that I can't prove this, but I don't understand how this isn't a financial motive for him.
I don't understand someone doing this who isn't getting paid a lot.
I know that I can't back that up, and I don't like to speculate about stuff, but there's only two ways that this makes sense.
One is that his show makes him so much fucking money.
And he's not even selling the supplements at this point.
He's just selling his magazine.
I mean, I have copies of it, thanks to Keegan.
Got us some of those copies, and they're terrible.
I don't know who would be buying those.
I can't imagine them being super expensive either.
And then subscriptions to his website.
I could see some revenue flow from that, but the amount of money that it would require to make someone behave like this so quick, it just screams to me that someone's got to be in his ear.
Even back then, someone has to be motivating this.
Right, but for the serial killers, another aspect of that is always wanting to be the smartest person, wanting to outsmart people, wanting to do it in public.
There's a reason, like, the Zodiac Killer didn't need to send fucking letters, you know?
I don't disagree with that assessment in terms of his mental state and how far gone he is.
But I still think there's got to be some undisclosed something.
I don't know what it is.
It could be financial.
I think it has to be.
Like from where I'm standing and where, like what I know about following Alex and how he, he operates, it really feels like there has to be some deep financial motivation in turning this weird.
Right.
unidentified
But then at the same time, he also is beholden to a lot of really bad sources.
So there are people like the Steve Pachenics and shit like that of the world who are in his ear and there could be some like really nefarious influence that hasn't reared their head yet.
Yeah.
unidentified
We don't know who or what is going on that is motivating this.
And I think that this conversation here that we're having is the reason why this must continue.
This investigation.
I'm not nearly done trying to find context clues from this stuff.
Just because five days after fucking Sandy Hook, he's already taking dumbass pieces of the conspiracy stuff that's being thrown around and using it on his show to insinuate that the victims weren't really victims.
And it took 20 seconds for him to speculate that it was fake or whatever and then find his bearings and still say that it's real and these people were killed and I believe the official story of it and it's so sad to all these folks and then now five days after he's already comfortable speculating that people were actors.
And I imagine there's a hundred other press conferences of less publicized events that you could find where people are, you know, awkwardly or uncomfortably goofing off and then get a message whenever the person starts interviewing them.