Today, Dan and Jordan discuss Alex Jones' show from the day after last week's terrorist attacks against mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Unsurprisingly, Alex attempts to create absurd narratives and implies that the attack may have been a false flag, while dancing around some real gross victim blaming behavior.
And I appreciate you asking, and I'm sure the listeners are very interested to hear.
On your news front, we can't talk about it.
No.
There has been some interest in people wanting to know how that story is going and supporting you in your situation, but we can't talk about it until there's some resolution.
If you are out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like this show, I'd like to support what these guys do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show.
People can send things, because I really do appreciate it, and I think it's a really cool impulse, and I don't want to disrespect people's generosity or anything like that.
This is Friday of last week and the night before our time in the United States time.
Late that previous night there was some shootings in New Zealand in Christchurch and 49 people are dead.
As a result of a gentleman, that's unfair to call him that, a dude, a terrorist, went in and fired on people in a couple mosques engaging in their Friday prayers.
I don't want to get too much into that story specifically because as is the case so often with these things, there are developing elements of it.
We know the basics, certainly, but...
In terms of, you know, did he have accomplices?
All the other sorts of elements of it.
I don't think, as we record this here on Saturday, I don't feel like we have...
One of the main problems is that you could do this sort of thing with pretty much any day that something happens to occur on.
We have enough recorded history and enough really wild shit that's happened that you can absolutely craft some kind of conspiracy out of just about any date.
To test my theory, I imagined a fake terrorist attack happening on May 23rd, a random date I came up with using a random number generator.
And now, I will pretend to be Alex crafting pointless speculation about this imagined terrorist attack on May 23rd.
Now you see, the globalists love to attack Christendom on May 23rd because it's a twisted mirror of how way back in 1430, on that very day, one of the great heroes of the West, Joan of Arc, was captured by the Kingdom of Burgundy, who put her to death because they knew that she was the only one who could defeat the Muslims.
It was the globalists celebrating the capture of Joan of Arc.
It's all right in front of your eyes, people.
That's why in 1934, on May 23rd, the real-life Bonnie and Clyde were murdered by the globalist police after they were framed for all those strong-arm robberies and murders that were actually done by Antifa.
But the way I imagined this bit going is that I'd come up with a random date and pretend that there had been a terrorist attack on that day.
Unfortunately, I don't think that game is even possible to play.
On May 23rd, 2014, Elliot Rodger killed six people in a murder spree through Isla Vista, California, motivated by his feelings of rejection by women he found attractive.
I promise you, I didn't cheat choosing a date and just work backwards from this.
I chose a random date to make a joke out of this, and inevitably, you find a, you know, uh...
Terrorist attack that is real on pretty much any date you're going to randomly choose.
It's a grim exercise to think I was doing a bit and end up being like, oh, that's a bummer.
Jesus.
Also important point, the Manson family murders in 1969 happened on the night of August 8th and 9th and have literally nothing to do with the Ides of March.
Alex has no idea what he's talking about and just connecting completely unrelated things together.
He doesn't care about doing a good job.
He doesn't care about having any information.
All he cares about is justifying white terrorism and depriving Muslim victims of this terrorist attack any empathy or human decency.
He is a complete monster and he demonstrates it within 30 seconds of starting his show.
I'm saying we need to pull back and investigate every part of this because there was a famous shooting more than 20 years ago in New Zealand that...
Allowed them to confiscate all semi-auto and then all basically bolt action where all you could have was single-shot shotguns and rifles with special licenses.
Alex is saying here that there was a staged shooting more than 20 years ago in New Zealand that was used to take everyone's guns, and thus it's important to investigate all the angles of this current-day shooting.
This is a really rough position to be taken, to be honest.
Like, it's really not good.
If this is where he's coming from, this is a bad starting position.
Well, my first point in saying that he's off to a bad, bad start here is that nothing Alex has done or does in the present day about a mass shooting or even a completely benign topic could rightly be called investigating.
All he does is obscure things and for him to pretend that he's doing anything other than blindly and embarrassingly covering up white terrorism is disgusting.
Secondly, they didn't outlaw a ton of guns in New Zealand, as Hugh rightly pointed out, back when Alex is saying they did.
And I sincerely mean this.
Alex is just making shit up about gun laws, which we'll see a demonstration of later in this episode.
And he doesn't even realize that he has been invalidated on air.
The legal actions he's talking about happened in 1992, when an amendment was made to the Arms Act.
And all it did was create greater registration requirements for gun owners.
Among the changes were adding photographs to gun licenses, requiring that license holders reapply after 10 years to have a new license reissued, making it so only licensed gun owners can buy ammunition, that sort of thing.
The amendment also created a new category of gun from a legal standpoint that was the military-style semi-automatic, but it didn't ban them at all.
Thirdly, and most importantly, this wasn't the result of a staged shooting.
This was a response to the very real Aramawana massacre that took place on November 13th and 14th, 1990.
It all started when local asshole David Gray got into a bit of a fight with his neighbor, allegedly about the guy's dog being too loud.
Failing to make progress by arguing, Gray went over to the guy's house and shot him multiple times with a semi-automatic rifle.
The neighbor's two daughters were in the house, along with the daughter of the neighbor's girlfriend.
Gray found one of the girls named Chiquita, age 9, and shot her in the chest.
She would survive, but the other two young girls who he found later and shot died on the spot.
Gray then set the house on fire.
From there, he began shooting at anybody who was around.
The girlfriend, who realized that her daughter was in the house, was shot at as she tried to approach the situation to help.
People who stopped their cars to try and help with what they thought was just a burning house were fired on.
He killed more kids who happened to just be out on the street, one of whom was out looking for his lost dog.
This all led to a standoff, which ended with him being shot by the police the next day after he charged out of the house, shooting at them and yelling, Fucking kill me, you bastards!
He didn't actually die immediately and was taken in an ambulance where he yelled at the police for not successfully killing him.
He would get his wish, though, and he died from his wounds before arriving at the hospital.
When it was all said and done, Gray had killed 13 people, four of whom were 11 years old or younger.
One of them was a police sergeant.
This wasn't a false flag.
This wasn't a staged event.
This was the destruction of many, many people's lives at the hands of one man with a bunch of guns.
And just because this shit's so stupid, if the globalists did, like, somehow planned this Aramawana massacre just to grab everyone's guns, why the fuck didn't they do the second part of the plan?
Why are they so competent about the part of the scam where they pull off elaborate acts of terrorism in order to steal people's guns, but they can't fucking finish step two?
It's impressively shitty that Alex can be working to deprive people of their grief and ability to heal in the present while still having time to be a completely inhuman monster to people who lost their loved ones 29 years ago at the same time.
He is so bad.
This is so bad, this episode.
He sucks.
I'm laughing at your perplexed face, not any of the content.
There are some issues with this, and we'll talk about some of that on the other side of this clip, but here is how Alex decides to start covering that aspect of the story.
When you actually read the manifesto of the supposed shooter that we have posted on Infowars.com and Newswars.com, You learn why the mainstream media is pulling this down on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Because the guy praises Communist China.
He praises all sorts of socialism and environmentalism.
And then he demonizes PewDiePie and Candace Owens by praising them.
There's something really weird going on with this terrorist's manifesto and it's something that Alex doesn't pick up on for almost the entirety of the show while he's talking about it.
Towards the end, Harrison Smith comes in and he's trying to warn Alex that there's a lot of 4chan, 8chan type of trolling and stuff.
In the text of it, and that he should be careful about what things actually mean, what are inside jokes.
Alex has no interest in hearing any of that stuff, and just keeps barreling forward with the position that he wants to take.
I think he even shut off Harrison's mic in the middle of him talking about it.
Some of the manifesto appears to be straightforward arguments being made, but other parts read like winks to corners of the internet that we don't live in.
And even more of it reads like traps being set for people to report on, which will then only boost the media coverage of his act.
Robert Evans wrote a really great piece on Bellingcat explaining this better than I can, which I recommend that everyone go check out.
It's very well done.
That said, I do want to point out that this is an impressively unfair act for Alex to claim that this manifesto is pro-China and socialism because it says positive things about them, and then in the same breath claim that it's anti-Kandace Owens and PewDiePie because it says positive things about them.
This is very literally doublespeak.
What Alex is doing is trying to force two conflicting thoughts into his audience's head at the same time, and it's an abusive act.
If positive things being said about someone in a terrorist's manifesto can either mean that he's very into those things, or that he's demonizing them by association, then the only truth that remains is that only Alex's judgment can be trusted.
Anyone attempting to cover reality would never behave like this.
It's the exclusive action of a propagandist, and given the circumstances, it's an act of extreme cruelty towards his listeners.
I've read over most of the manifesto, and what I come away from it is that this isn't even close to up to par with what I expect out of a manifesto.
It's not like Anders Breivik's manifesto, which was definitely way too long and full of insane bullshit and plagiarized content, but what wasn't stolen was sincere, almost to a fault.
He was very clear about what he was doing, why he was doing it, and how others could do what he did, too.
He included excerpts from his diary about the planning stages of the attack.
It was jarringly up front.
This manifesto is clearly someone who is inspired in a big way by Brevik, but is also someone who's lived on the online world for the past eight years since, and that online manner of communicating slips in from time to time.
And those insincere, trolly aspects of the manifesto make it very difficult to assess tone, even in the parts that seem entirely sincere and literal.
That said, if Alex wants to cherry-pick lines about eco-fascism and liking China, that sword cuts both directions.
For example, the Coast Guard terrorist from last month, he had a manifesto that said, quote, liberalist globalist ideology is destroying traditional people, especially whites, which is basically the guiding principle of Infowars' editorial department, if such a thing even exists.
The title of the current terrorist manifesto was The Great Replacement, which is a reference to the white genocide narratives that run behind almost all of Alex's reporting.
All the times he's interviewed white nationalist South Africans, all the times he's yelled about the dangers of variable birth rates and demographic cliffs.
Alex is deeply, deeply invested in the Great Replacement narrative that is the title of this guy's manifesto.
I'm not saying anything other than the game he's playing is an unfair game.
It goes both directions.
And I want to be clear about something.
I think that Alex absolutely has blood on his hands for this attack.
But I don't say that in any way because of anything I read in the manifesto.
I've already discounted most of that document as being unriable narration, at best.
Alex has blood on his hands for the constant, irresponsible, excessive, and disgusting demonization of Islam that he carries out, and the way he perpetuates the idea that there is no moderate Islam.
Alex has blood on his hands for the way that he incessantly calls immigrants and Muslims invaders.
Alex has blood on his hands for normalizing and mainstreaming these white genocide narratives that serve to create an existential fear in his dumb listeners.
The information ecosystem that he's a part of is not okay, and attacks like this are the natural fruit of that ecosystem.
Alex has blood on his hands, and we focus on him because this show is about him, but he's far from the only one.
Ignore the dumb manifesto or take it cautiously with a grain of salt, because ultimately it doesn't matter.
Prominent voices on the right have been doing everything in their power to insist that Muslims are incompatible with freedom and white people's idea of civilization for years now.
Everyone from Sam Harris to Ben Shapiro, from Alex Jones to Hannity and Tucker and Bill Maher, from every dumb fuck with a struggling YouTube channel to our goddamn president, who in 2016 said, quote, I think Islam hates us.
There's something there that is a tremendous hatred there.
We can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people who are not Muslim.
When you ask yourself what happened here, the answer is really simple.
It's just yet another person who took right-wing narratives seriously and decided to act on it.
If you believe the words that these monsters say and think that it's only a matter of time until there's too many of them to stop them from dominating white people, killing Muslims is one of the predictable outcomes.
And there's literally no chance I would ever believe that the Islamophobic media chorus doesn't understand that fully.
This attack was the natural endpoint of that rhetoric, and it's been allowed to metastasize, and things are not going to get better until that is addressed.
Very seriously, very frankly, and very honestly.
Very soul-searchingly.
People need to understand the parts of this that they are complicit in, and take a humble, fearless moral inventory.
And I don't think that a lot of people, specifically the people I just named, are in any way willing to do that.
And therefore, they will continue to be part of the process that feeds this.
I started going through this episode, and I have pages of notes about points that he's making, and I'm like, okay, here, this is stupid, this is stupid.
Go fuck yourself, Alex.
What are you doing?
And then three hours later, I realized, shit, I'm three minutes into this episode.
Because what he's trying to say there is he's trying to say that...
The intent behind the manifesto was to attack right-wing figures because the only way that it could be a false flag is if he was also attacking right-wing figures.
So in the manifesto, he actually praises all of this stuff because that's what the globalists love, and he has to say that he's praising right-wingers as part of the plot.
I would accept a documentarian 20 years from now combing through the manifesto and doing a whole post-mortem on life in general through this manifesto.
I don't want anybody talking about it right now because it's just pointless.
My instinct there is to say, okay, fine, let's take left and right out of it, and let's just talk about the issue, which is that this guy has so many guns.
But that's the wrong instinct.
We can't take left and right out of this.
This is a network.
This is a concerted effort by a large group of people who are white nationalists.
And the media is white supremacist, white man, white man, white man.
But when it's a Muslim running over hundreds of people with a truck, including toddlers, or blowing up a church, or shooting people up, they go, oh, this wasn't Islam, even though they're yelling Allah Akbar.
That's my big frustration, is that when radical, out-of-control Islam destroys hundreds of churches in Egypt just a few years ago and crucifies...
We've always known that Alex thinks that Islam is all one thing, so when an individual Muslim does something bad, he expects the conversation to be about how Islam is evil, and he's always disappointed that not enough people are having that conversation.
That's what he's describing as my big frustration there.
He never understands that people who are saying this wasn't Islam are only doing that in response to people like him saying, see, we told you all Muslims are evil.
He doesn't understand his part in that cycle, and that people wouldn't...
Have to defend the entirety of Islam if propagandists and anti-Islam forces weren't trying to attack with that angle.
It almost does feel like that's a latent belief that he has that colors the way he relates to this stuff.
Also, a recent study published in Justice Quarterly found that attacks carried out by Muslims, quote, receive on average 357% more media coverage than those committed by other groups.
The study found, quote, out of 136 terror attacks in the United States over a span of 10 years, the authors studied those attacks.
Muslims committed on average 12.5% of the attacks yet received more than half of the news coverage.
White terrorists conversely receive disproportionately little media attention.
Because of this disproportional coverage, many people are duped into thinking that there's a far greater threat to them posed by Islamic terrorism, when in reality this is far from the truth.
People like Alex Jones serve to make that gap in perception versus reality even wider.
And ideally, they want to make it so wide that it's impossible for that gap ever to be bridged, leaving you with no other answer than to take matters into your own hands.
It's really hard to look at the reporting that Alex is doing today.
In the circumstances that the world is in and not think that he's trying to get people hurt.
It really is super irresponsible the way he's behaving when the reality is so very clear about a lot of the things that he's talking about.
So, straight off the bat, if your argument about why people shouldn't be upset about a shooting in a mosque is that ISIS attacks churches, you are playing from behind.
Your argument is terrible.
And here's the big reason why.
ISIS is a terrorist group, and they're treated like one.
Our country is literally at war with them.
So if you want to justify a white nationalist shooting up a mosque by saying, what about ISIS attacking these churches?
The only real way to avoid sounding like a fucking idiot is if you admit that white nationalists constitute a legitimate terrorism problem and accept that they should be treated as such.
Otherwise, this is a fucking stupid conversation you're trying to have.
Also, ISIS bombed a church in the Philippines in January of this year, killing 20 people.
But that didn't happen on Easter.
Last Easter, ISIS did attack a church in Pakistan and four people were killed.
These attacks are awful, but it's dishonest to say that they were just a blip in the news.
Mainstream media outlets covered both of them.
Interestingly, a search of Infowars archives actually fails to turn up stories about either of those attacks, but a simple Google search brings up stories from the New York Times about both.
So really, I'm not sure what point Alex is trying to illustrate here other than he's a fucking idiot and he's bad at his job.
I'm certain that those attacks were mentioned in some larger article about something else, like in paragraph 20 or whatever, but I'm not going to read every article on his site.
So, like we were just sort of talking about making fun of the idea of a little bit ago, the idea here is to not deal with the fact that this is white supremacist, white nationalist terrorism that has been a problem for a while and it's rearing its head in a very shockingly awful way again.
And, you know, the goal for Alex is not to describe it as terrorism and that sort of thing, because if you do, then it does open up that idea that we should be treating this in the same way we treat other terrorist organizations.
Trying to disrupt their communications.
Trying to infiltrate.
Trying to figure out how they operate and figuring out ways to...
Hey, Jordan, in the wake of that truck attack in Nice, France in 2016, prominent Egyptian Muslim cleric Shaki Alam released a statement saying, quote, people who commit such ugly crimes are corrupt of the earth and follow in the footsteps of Satan and are cursed in this life and the hereafter.
After that attack, the Arab League chief Ahmed Abdul Gait denounced the attack strongly and called it an act of, quote, craven terrorism.
The United Arab Emirates foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zahid al-Nahyan, said, quote, this heinous terrorist crime makes it imperative for all to work decisively and without hesitation to counter terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
Now how about that nightclub shooting at Pulse in Orlando?
That was at a gay club.
There's no way Muslims would speak out against that.
They hate gays according to Alex.
Nahid Awad from the Council of American Islamic Relations said, quote, we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
It violates our principles as Americans and as Muslims.
I have a word for ISIS and their supporters.
You do not speak for us.
You do not represent us.
You are an aberration.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said, quote, I unequivocally condemn the horrific attack on Orlando, Florida.
Nothing can justify killing of civilians.
Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hassini, who is one of the female Muslims in elected office that Alex pretends don't exist, said, quote, I condemn this dastardly act of terror in the strongest possible terms and reiterate my government's zero-tolerance policy against any form of terrorism and violent extremism.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said, quote, This heinous and cowardly act on LGBT people in Orlando is an attack on our freedoms and values.
We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Orlando.
Hey, what about that Charlie Hebdo attack?
There's no way Muslims would condemn that, right?
They should all be for it, because it was about the drawing of Muhammad and all that.
There's absolutely no way Muslims condemn that attack.
The Council on American Islamic Relations released a statement saying, quote, We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack and reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures.
The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create and widen societal divisions.
The Arab League chief, Nabil al-Arabi, said, quote, He strongly condemned the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo's newspaper in Paris.
I could literally do this all day, and part of me considered doing exactly that, just going through every major terrorist attack committed by a Muslim and listing off condemnation after condemnation from influential Muslims and Islamic organizations around the world.
But ultimately, I realized there wasn't much a point to it.
The perception exists that Muslims aren't speaking up about terrorism, and no amount of proof to the contrary is going to change the mind of someone whose mind has been closed off by propaganda.
However, there are two important points that need to be brought up.
The first is that it's a little insulting that so many people seem to insist on making Muslims apologize for and denounce things they had nothing to do with.
That seems very abusive.
Second, the more abusive aspect is that Muslims are speaking up about this stuff, but people like Alex aren't listening.
Muslim leaders can denounce this violence all day long, but the only place Alex gets any of his information from is the Drudge Report.
Good luck ever learning about the larger Muslim world.
It's an insane level of gaslighting to complain all day that you're being blamed for the actions of another white guy and that's so not fair, while at the same time demanding all Muslims condemn the actions of another Muslim and when they do, you pretend they didn't.
I literally cannot imagine a less responsible way to carry oneself as a broadcaster, particularly on a day like this.
All over Syria, all over Iraq, all over Egypt, all over Pakistan, anywhere that someone dares still have a little church or a Christian shrine from thousands of years ago and a few Christians show up boldly enough in Pakistan or wherever to say, we love you, Jesus, there'll be a bomb there or they'll all get machine gunned.
And there won't be one word said in condemnation by the establishment Islamic leaders.
Because they have the House of Islam, and everything outside the House of Islam is war.
And the Muslims that aren't radical will get killed if they ever speak out against radical Islam.
In 2014, Iyad Amin Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, released a statement saying that he denounced the, quote, forced deportation under the threat of execution of Christians in Iraq.
He called it a, quote, crime that cannot be tolerated.
Mohamed Gormez, the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate, the highest religious authority in Turkey, said, quote, The statement made against Christians is truly awful.
Islamic scholars need to focus on this because an inability to peacefully sustain other faiths and cultures heralds the collapse of civilization.
After the 2017 bombing of churches in Egypt by ISIS, Maha al-Ghandadi, the executive director of the Islamic Networks Group, said, quote, As Christians around the world observed Palm Sunday earlier this month, powerful bomb blasts struck Pact Coptic Christian churches in Egypt in an assault claimed by the Islamic State.
The timing and brutality of the attacks were particularly shocking as they violated both the sanctity of Christian houses of worship and a holy day as well.
Islamic Networks Group and the San Francisco Interfaith Council joined Muslims, people of all faiths, and leaders across the world not only in swiftly and vigorously condemning these actions, but also to reaffirm the long relationships and the commonalities between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Again, this list goes on and on and on, but people like Alex aren't listening.
He's not listening because he doesn't want to listen.
If he did, he would...
He's a scared, pathetic man.
Also...
If you want to get really sad about a website existing, go check out MuslimsCondemned.com, where you can find a running collection of things prominent Muslims have condemned.
The fucking President of the United States condemnation of white terror is not even close to the concept that the condemnations of Islamic terror from the people that you've put out there.
If Alex is going to keep playing this game, I guess I will too.
You remember the terror attack in Paris back in November 2015?
The one that involved suicide bombers and hostages at the Bataclan Theater that eventually ended up in 130 deaths?
The one at the Eagles of Death medal concert?
The Council on American-Islamic Relations released a statement that said, quote, These savage and despicable attacks on civilians, whether they occur in Paris, Beirut, or any other city, are outrageous and without justification.
We condemn these horrific crimes in the strongest terms possible.
Joko Widodo, the president of Indonesia, said, quote, Indonesia condemns the violence that took place in Paris.
Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayyib, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, the thousand-year-old center for Sunni Muslim scholarship, said, quote, we condemn this odious attack.
The time has come for the whole world to unite in order to face this monster.
According to ABC News, here's how the Muslims of the world responded to the Paris attack.
Quote, in Mumbai, India, Muslims gathered Monday to protest the violence, displaying signs that read, we hate ISIS terrorism and we stand with Paris.
Protesters also trampled on an effigy of a member of ISIS.
Even though people like Alex consistently refused to hear them, the Muslims of the world were trying really hard to be heard.
From a story on MSNBC from right after that terrorist attack in Paris, quote, on Saturday, a coalition of eight leading national and local American Muslim groups held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to condemn the carnage.
The Paris attack was on that Friday.
The next day, Muslim groups held a press conference, and still Alex pretends there isn't any moderate voices in Islam.
It's just pathetic.
And now I probably actually am done with this game.
You know, when you look into this sort of thing, you can find so many condemnations that are strong and meaningful and come from a real place.
And while you look into that sort of thing, you can also find tons of articles from people in the Muslim communities who are like, I don't know why everybody keeps asking us to denounce things when we are and no one's listening.
Right.
unidentified
So that's an extra painful level for a lot of people in in these worlds, in the in these organizations that are about Islamic American relations and things like that.
Yeah, and any other day, these sorts of things could probably, like, we could cover it, and it wouldn't be as infuriating and frustrating, but, you know, given the circumstances, it's just, I'm sick of his shit.
Every now and again, there's going to be an episode where I'm just like, I'm not playing around with you, you dumb asshole.
I hate you.
You suck.
What you're doing is dangerous.
Let's stop the pretenses here.
And, shockingly, most of those episodes are in the present day.
Yeah, I would never consider even to make our analysis more robust or whatever.
I would never do that.
That's so horrifying.
And the idea that Alex has a radio show and he's going to play audio of it and on his video show he's going to play a blurred out vision of it is abusive.
That is something that is inappropriate.
I really can't put that strongly enough.
The kind of show that he does playing something like that is devastatingly inappropriate.
And I would even say the same thing.
I don't know if they have.
I certainly hope they haven't.
But if CNN or MSNBC played a blurred out vision of it, I would have fairly similar criticisms of them.
They've kind of named an island off Mexico, a similar name, the Island of Women, Isla Mejeres.
Isla Mejeres.
But they put the sign back up, so they arrested them for hate because the Muslims can't even see across.
See, we bring in an incompatible religion that doesn't want to get kind of numbers, live incompatibly with us, that historically always attacks us, and then we wonder when a screwball goes and does this.
Him saying, okay, go subscribe to PewDiePie, or man, I love Candace Owens, but she's so radical and her calls for violence are so more serious than I am.
So he hasn't read it, and he is acknowledging that on some level he understands that some of this is jokes and trolling and stuff like that.
But then at the end he says he sounds like an Antifa lunatic.
There's an entire page that's dedicated to Marxists, communists, and Antifa.
He calls them anti-white scum and he threatens to murder them.
So I don't know how much this guy actually sounds like an Antifa lunatic or whatever, but it's just the way that Alex can characterize him to get some of the stink off him.
And you have documents and everything's declassified and you have sources in the DHS and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
No one gives a shit.
So Alex goes to calls and he tries to take calls from specifically New Zealand and Australia.
It doesn't go great.
He only gets a few callers from around there, and one of them that we're going to listen to later actually debunks his idea that you can't get guns in New Zealand, which is a big problem for Alex, and maybe shouldn't have actually taken calls from people who know anything.
And he does mention climate change in the manifesto.
And so this caller has a dumb question.
unidentified
Just an interesting fact I'd like to bring up is the fact that he described himself as an eco-fascist.
However, on the day of his attack, there was mass climate protests going on where you have all the students walking out, it's occurring here across America today, but it was yesterday for Australia and New Zealand.
So I was kind of thinking, if you're so into climate change and preserving it, why would you hijack the news coverage of that?
But the issue is that according to the range of information that this broadcast is supposed to have access to, the question that this caller is asking is already answered.
Again, I don't know how much of this guy's manifesto to read is sincere, but Alex has already tried to use the manifesto as a source, so it's part of what's being covered.
In the manifesto, the terrorist makes totally clear that his version of environmentalism was entirely about killing minorities who have too high of birth rates.
He believes that climate change is a problem, but it's one that would automatically be solved if all the, quote, invaders, as he calls them, were killed, because they're the ones who are reproducing too much, which he seems to think is the totality of the problem.
unidentified
I believe Alex has said that whites aren't reproducing.
If the guy is being serious here in his manifesto, it's clear that he doesn't either doesn't actually care about the issues of climate change, or he doesn't really know anything about the actual science behind it and what the real concerns are.
Most likely, this is probably a sarcastic answer in the manifesto on his part, or equally likely a belief he's incorporated into his worldview as a way to make it look like his hatred of Muslims wasn't based on pure visceral fear and insecurity, but was actually rooted in Just like some people...
It's like he's a child in the doctor's office, in like a pediatric office, and you've got the three-year-old there who's putting squares through the square hole and circles through the circle hole.
And he's looking at that kid and he's just like, alright, so this is a square and that goes through the circle hole.
In this next clip, he kind of makes it a little more overt and actually suggests that The whole way this has been carried out is incredibly synthetic, incredibly inauthentic.
It looks like a perfect third-party shoot-em-up game.
And I was making those points a few segments ago.
Even the Daily Mail has journalists and reporters saying that...
This thing is a trap to set up reporters so they find every group and every organization they want to blame to get everybody fighting with each other, which is exactly what he says he wants to do.
But the manifesto itself is a trap in itself, laid for journalists searching for the meaning behind the horrific crime.
The truth is there, invaluable clues, the shooter's radicalization.
But it's buried beneath a great deal of, for lack of a better word, Yes.
We're recording this on Saturday, so if anything has come out on Sunday or Monday before this comes out, maybe we will look naive or unaware, and that's because, hey, guys, we're in the past.
She's a woman who grew up in Australia but is from Syria.
And from everything I understand, she's kind of a Bashar al-Assad apologist.
Like, a lot of the narratives about how the chemical weapons attacks were false flags and stuff like that, a lot of it traces back to her and some of her reporting on Infowars, quite frankly.
She is kind of a voice of reason.
In her appearance.
We're not going to listen to too much of it, because Alex just doesn't care.
But she's just saying, like, hey, a lot of this stuff in the manifesto doesn't look real.
Like, a lot of it seems like fucking around, and we should be careful about it.
And Alex just...
It goes right past her.
There's almost no content in their interview other than that sort of inability of Alex to even accept the idea that some of it might not be just A means A, kind of literal concrete thinking.
So Matt Bracken is claiming that he has a CIA buddy who has told him this.
That's the source that he's claiming it's coming from.
And that's bullshit.
Most of what he ends up defending his argument with when they come back from break is that there is a passage in the manifesto where the terrorist is doing a hypothetical Q&A session with himself, and he asks the question about why he cares about European heritage if he's Australian.
And the answer that he provides never specifically says that he is Australian.
He just points out that Australia is an offshoot of Europe, like the penal colony and all that stuff.
Based on this, Bracken theorizes that he might be Serbian.
The problem is that in another point in the manifesto, the terrorist spells things out more clearly.
Quote, I was born in Australia to a working class, lower income family.
My parents are of Scottish, Irish, and English stock.
This is shitty work on Bracken's part.
It's self-contradictory.
His speculation or whatever he's reading into the manifesto is contradicted by something that is literally in it.
He's doing a really bad job.
And if this, like, I don't know, just the fact that there's Serbian writing on the gun doesn't mean anything.
The fact that, like, a lot of people in the right wing of these terrorist communities are inspired or take inspiration from the crisis in Serbia, that doesn't mean that he's Serbian.
Anders Breivik was very inspired by the same thing.
Oh, I was at a hotel in Isla Mujeres off the coast of Mexico, and they were having a gay wedding night.
And I was watching, in the interactions for the two days, I was at this one hotel, I was watching all these gay guys trying to kiss the ass of a bunch of Muslims wearing, you know, hajibs and everything.
All you're doing is equivocating and making okay what was done to these 49 people and countless others who survived and the victim's family members and their loved ones, the entire community that is traumatized because of this.
That is all they're doing.
They're getting on air and equivocating, blaming their perceived enemies, and then at the same time, in the same breath, saying, like, I mean, he makes a lot of great points.
This isn't someone at a cocktail party years later telling you about how the Unabomber had good points.
This is the day after.
This is the day after.
While the situation is still broiling.
While the situation is still an intense crisis.
It's a life or death situation for tons of people.
I just wonder why these mass shooters, curse them to hell, whether it be Islamic or leftist or right-wing or whatever, would just stop targeting mosques and churches and unarmed innocent people.
You're a real man.
I'm not saying do this, but go find some soldiers.
Go find some warriors.
That's what warriors are supposed to do, is they go find the other group's warriors.
That's why I'm a giant critic of Islam that loves to attack women and children.
Like, that awesome song is, like, underneath his...
Horribly disgusting desire for actual war, I guess?
And then this condemnation that Muslims attack women and children.
Jordan, here's a short list of white terrorists in the United States who have targeted women and children, which is not surprising at all because they're terrorists.
Timothy McVeigh intentionally chose a federal building with a daycare center in it because he believed he was getting revenge for Ruby Ridge, where Randy Weaver's son was killed by the police.
He wasn't a Muslim.
Dylan Roof killed six women in his church shooting, two of them who were older than 70 years old.
He wasn't a Muslim.
Robert Gregory Bowers, the terrorist who killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue, killed three women, none younger than 75. One of them was 97 years old.
He wasn't a Muslim.
Devin Patrick Kelly, the terrorist behind the Sutherland Springs mass shooting back in 2017, killed 10 women and 8 children and one unborn child.
He wasn't a Muslim.
Elliot Rodger of the 2014 Isla Vista shooting spree targeted women he felt rejected him and dudes he felt didn't deserve the women who had chosen them over him.
He killed two women, but definitely he was trying to kill way more.
He wasn't a Muslim.
This list could go on and on, just like my Muslim condemnations of terrorism.
But I think you get the point.
Alex is making definitions of Islam by a definition of terrorism and refusing to accept that it is not a one-to-one parallel.
He is demonizing an entire community by making statements like this.
This is the dangerous rhetoric that exists in the world that is unfounded, not based on anything, and only leads to othering and putting people's lives at risk.
And now he is working his way up to making a target of, I mean, the entire community of Christ Church to some extent in New Zealand.
I don't think if you were a Muslim and you were to listen to this sort of thing, I don't know how you would feel safe.
Like, with this sort of rhetoric being put forth by someone who has a large audience, and knowing that whatever's being said on this radio show pales in comparison to what's being said off air.
I don't understand how you could not feel completely threatened by this.
If you were like, I don't know, a 12-year-old Muslim who just wants to live their life and all that stuff, I don't know how you couldn't feel like you were a target.
So, in this next clip, Alex pretty much says that this attack in Christchurch was a false flag, and then you're going to love what happens right after that.
I've been saying the perfect thing with this Islamic invasion going on would be attacks on mosques, and I've said they're coming probably a thousand times last year.
and that it would probably be staged, whether it was some fellow traveler with the globalist or a leftist doing a false flag to blame us.
A false flag just simply means that it's not who you're told did it didn't really do it.
I'm just saying, who gains from this the larger global plan for societal collapse and crisis?
Please don't forget, I keep forgetting, store-wide free shipping, biggest sale of the year is now here.
I swear to God, if you don't men in black me at the end of this podcast, if we make this another two years and you don't use the fucking neuralyzer on me, I'm going to be pissed at you.
I'm glad you're upset because I'm sick of collectivists and eco-fascists, and they want to organize and run everything.
They're not America.
They're not 1776.
I can take a Christian guy from Egypt who's super smart and great and has brown skin, and he'll have a great business, a great family, and it'll be totally law-abiding.
You make him a Muslim, he'll act like a damn animal half the time.
You take a white person and act like that.
It's the culture and it's the spirit.
And we have to have the spirit of Americana defeat their spirit.
And ascribing blame to the victims and insinuating that because of their culture and who they are, they aren't capable of rising to the level of being seen as humans.
I mean, if you're just looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, yes, it's absolutely better.
If you're looking at how you'd love the world to be, no, it's not better.
If people secretly believe these things in their heart but aren't allowed to say them freely in public, that's not that much better.
You would wish that everybody understood each other and cared about each other on a human level.
Obviously, that's the ideal you'd like to get to.
But since we're in the real world, I think that you'd rather keep people from being the victims of crimes like this and terrorist acts that destroy entire communities.
The militia patriot community changed in some way that transitioned.
I'm not entirely sure when, but it changed into this character being predominantly anti-Islam.
And it's...
It's troubling, because all of the other stuff that he did before informs this, and all of the resistance to the DHS and the FBI taking white terrorism seriously has aided in the anti-Muslim worldview that he perpetuates now.
So it's really weird that what he did previous to even believing these things is a part of...
And it's also what traps them in this current ideology is because if they were to accept a change now, they would have to accept that they were wrong not to change that.
So let's take a break from all this heavy stuff because Alex does at this point in the show.
And he starts getting really...
If you ever need a full sort of glimpse at his narcissism and how it works, this next clip is Exhibit A. You know, if folks knew what was going on behind the scenes around here, if I was at liberty to tell you...
There's a lot of bad things happening, too, but the power structure has figured out that globalism as it was set up is not going to work.
The people are against it.
Because the people that run the upper echelons were still compartmentalized.
They now know what the endgame was, and it's not going to hunt.
The dog is not going to hunt.
So now there is a mud scramble to figure out what the establishment's going to do.
And that's the point that we have reached here.
And I'll just leave it at that.
Because I've got a lot of people not trying to charm me to the table with them.
But a lot of people from different levels of government and corporations and the military literally saying, well, what do you think the alternative is?
Well, just how about we don't model everything after communist China?
He's saying that back in the day he had globalists that would come up to him and try and charm him to the table to be like, hey man, you're really cool.
You should be on our team.
Now, things have gone so bad for the globalists that he has globalists that are coming up to him and they're like, dude, what do we do?
He is now the oracle that could tell the globalists how to right the ship and he's telling them, don't model shit off China.
No matter who you are, no matter what the time frame is, but especially the day after, be careful.
Because you might be helping what the terrorist wanted to get out.
You know what I mean?
In the same way that we've already talked over and over again about some of these things being trolly, some of them being clearly jokes and sarcastic, and attempts to bait people into X, Y, or Z. If you don't know what you're doing, and you just read this manifesto...
You run the very serious risk of aiding the terrorist in the end goal that they seek to achieve.
It's a game that you shouldn't play unless you are very certain you know what you're doing.
Which is one of the reasons why any time that we've talked about anything from the manifesto on this episode, I've tried to make very clear that I have no idea if he's serious about this.
And tried to only use things as like, well, here's why it's pointless what Alex is saying.
I chose firearms for the fact that it would have a social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide, and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world.
You see, this guy didn't feel like he had a home as a man to show he was successful.
He hasn't done this in business, but no, he had to do it this way.
The idea is like, okay, so I'm going to use all of these guns because I know that people are going to then have a conversation about guns.
The left is going to move on gun regulation and that sort of thing.
People like Alex are going to scream about it, and it's going to turn into some sort of a further conflagration.
I don't know if that's actually what he seeked to achieve, but that is what's in the manifesto.
Alex is reading that, not realizing that what he is manifesting is exactly the side that the right plays in the manifesto's conception of the back and forth that will come from this attack.
And in this next clip, I think he starts to get petty, maybe a little bit jealous.
There's a sense of Alex being like, I already know this shit, man.
I've been saying this forever, which is not something you want to hear.
Your response be to a terrorist's manifesto, sincere or not, like whatever he's writing, you don't want to be like, I've been saying that forever, man.
Later, when I keep saying these things, people are going to be like, you're just mirroring this terrorist's manifesto.
My reading is he is saying this guy's attack was unnecessary because we've already started the process by which we're going to get rid of and solve all the problems in his manifesto.
And I mean, if that's your response to, first of all, the aftermath, like the day after an attack like this, a terrorist attack like this, and reading this person's manifesto, like, you are so beyond fucked up.
It's the push and pull, the tension between the surface world of all this stuff, where you have people like Alex, people like Ben Shapiro, Tucker, even Bill Maher, who are doing these really disgustingly anti-Islam displays on the regular.
They do all this stuff publicly and all that stuff.
And then there are people like this guy who shot up these mosques who are doing the other part, which is the logical extension of their rhetoric.
And most people, like the Ben Shapiros of the world, whenever these terrorist attacks happen that are clearly an offshoot of what they put into the world through their discourse and rhetoric, they are like, holy shit, I'm not involved with this.
The idea that leftist professors, nefarious ones who have supposedly written this manifesto, did research and found out what a right-wing terrorist would say, I don't believe that that's too hard to believe.
I think it's super unlikely if someone's writing something, like, whether sincere or not, like, with the manifesto, like, that's pointing out old 1930s fascists and, like, marginally obscure 1930s fascists and Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof and these sorts of people, and then they say that their main source of radicalization is Candace Owens.
You can't take that seriously.
Like, it just indicates nonsensicalness.
And for Alex to recognize that it is fucking around on some level and then refuse to accept what that implies is just so indicative of how he does business.
It's just terrible.
So we've already heard him, Matt Bracken, and Stuart Rhodes indicate that they kind of agree, largely, with what motivated this terrorist act.
And as Alex is reading this manifesto...
He closes out his analysis with, I mean, once again agreeing with him.
So, towards the end of Alex's time on this episode, because he has someone else host the fourth hour, he keeps saying that Millie Weaver is coming up, so I turned off the episode.
It's all too clear to see what's happening here on this episode, I think now that we've come to the end of it.
Alex knows that this is big, and he knows that he has to fight back against the idea that this really was a xenophobic anti-Muslim terrorist, because of course he does.
But there's a part of me that suspects he doesn't even understand the scope of what he's dealing with right now.
As we touched on in the last episode, a major element of the undoing of the militia patriot community in the mid-90s was Timothy McVeigh.
...
display and people had to deal with what was in front of them.
When shown in the full light of day, it became incredibly clear to everyone that these militia groups were radicalizing crazy people.
And it was an inevitable conclusion that eventually someone was going to follow through with their logic and kill tons of people.
If you truly believe that a global elite group are planning on bringing in an oppressive worldwide dictatorship that involves universal oppression forever, it stands to reason that you might consider options other than, I don't know, starting an absurdly dumb radio show and then eventually selling boner pills as your plan of A certain amount of people who truly believe that message are going to become terrorists, and they're going to believe that they're justified to do so.
Timothy McVeigh forced people to see what was really going on in a way that they didn't have to previously.
This terrorist attack in Christchurch has the potential to be the same sort of watershed moment for what the militia patriot movement has become.
They still love their guns and yell about the New World Order, but the primary preoccupation of people in that community is a hatred of and an agitation towards Muslims.
Everyone kind of knows that on some level, but most people are going about their daily lives and they don't have to know about white genocide narratives that are pushed in these communities or the idea of a demographic cliff and the replacement theory.
A terrorist act like this makes them have to look at it in a way that Timothy McVeigh forced normal people to learn about the New World Order or the idea of a Zionist-occupied government.
The idea of the replacement theory is one that ultimately, by definition, must lead to violence and murder.
There's just no other way around it.
If your problem is that, and I'm just making up these numbers here, Muslims in America have twice the birth rate of white people, and you're scared that eventually that will lead to them having the numbers required to take over the country, you have an unsolvable problem.
Well, you're a horrendous bigot who defines people based on one attribute, but you also have an unsolvable problem.
And it's this.
At what point do relative birth rates become acceptable to you?
Can it be one-to-one between races?
Can you only accept a.75-to-one birth rate between non-whites and whites?
How are you going to enforce that sort of plan?
Before you even touch on the logistics of what these people are complaining about and pushing for, you're already at the point of racial quotas.
When a person who isn't a zealot, blinded by hate, that is constantly reinforced by manipulative propaganda, is exposed to these sorts of ideas, the logical endpoint they see of this thinking becomes clear.
The first suggestion that would probably be made would be to forcefully deport all people who don't fit the conception of what you want the population to be.
Many of those people would have been born here, and a forced deportation would necessarily economically cripple them.
If not...
Put them in legitimate danger and their life at risk, depending on where you're sending them.
And then you have to consider the fact that at least some of those people that you want to deport wouldn't agree to go along with it.
Possibly many of them wouldn't.
Then what?
Well, I guess you'd have to put them in internment camps.
And before you know it, we're already at the first stages of another Holocaust.
And we're not even talking about the point where it's, let's kill them.
Just the logistical aspects of what this worldview implies leads you to the first steps.
If you are obsessed with demographic cliff ideas and these sort of variable birthrate ideas, the next step in the conversation that you have to have is basically this.
Well, I mean, I suppose the only difference that the white nationalist Nazis now would attempt to claim from the Nazis, the Nazi Nazis, is that they don't want to create the Holocaust.
They want to...
Look!
Hey!
Hey!
Look, if we were running Germany in the 1930s, we would have just moved all the Jews to Israel.
And if people are forced to look at it, they will understand.
I hope.
They'll understand that a little better.
And this is not some kind of thing where liberals just call everything they disagree with Nazis.
This is a very natural extension of where the logic of demographic anxiety leads.
And one of the reasons that this line of thinking often leads to murder is because the idea of following through with this ideology in any other way, it just becomes absurd.
If you even think about it for a short amount of time, you start to realize how fucking stupid the ideas of trying to put this in action in any other way is.
So if you are someone who believes in these ideas, you probably start...
Thinking about it like, well, yeah, we could put people in camp, but you know, that would be so expensive to run all those camps, so let's just fucking kill them.
In the same way that I'm sure a lot of the people who were making good money off the militia stuff in the 90s were like, well, we hope we can control people from actually bombing federal buildings.