Today, Dan and Jordan take a look at some modern day Alex Jones to see what they can learn from it. It turns out, they learn that Alex may be basing a lot of his worldview on a specific sci-fi novel, and that his lawyers don't seem to trust him much.
So, Jordan, today we've got an interesting episode to go over, but before we do, I'd like to take a moment to say thank you to a couple of new people who have signed up and are supporting the show.
So first of all, I'd like to say thank you to Darren.
And now, if you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I'd like this show, I'd like to support what these gents do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show.
So, Jordan, today what we're doing is we're getting back into business, I would say.
You know, like the last couple episodes since we came back from our wee break have been the deposition episode and then Mark Richards, Project Camelot episode.
So there hasn't been like meaty Alex, I would say, since we've come back.
And so today we're jumping back into the present day of Alex Jones.
And today we've got this episode here.
What we're going to be doing is we're going to be going over April 4th, 2019.
Something that I wanted to do or I kind of thought about doing.
Was the idea of going back through some of the stuff that happened while we were on break.
And stuff just to catch up to present day, as it were.
through some of it and I was like well this is just not we're gonna get mired down in a bog if we do that we're never gonna get back to present day yeah if we just constantly are like looking back in the rear view at something that might have been kind of fucked up that happened like Alex blaming the people at the chicken restaurant for him yelling at them that sort of thing yeah well all right and Joe Rogan came on Alex's show and that's all good and well that's that's totally fun but I think one of the things that makes that not something I
unidentified
necessarily think we need to talk about all that much there's two things first is that when Joe comes on Alex's show what's really going on is Joe is being fucked up.
and then the second thing is that I went back and I listened to the March 25th episode the part where Rogan was on and it's just a 20 minute segment of the one hour interview that he did with Rogan and it's entire It's kind of a teaser.
Well, I just walked in there about two minutes ago before we went live, and I wrote the headline for the page we post every day that has the show in it, so people can share the audio and video link.
And the headline states the facts.
The planet is only six months away from total civilizational...
I don't know exactly what's going on here, and in terms of all the stuff that I like to look into, this isn't one of them, so I just decided to leave that alone.
But it's very important.
The Kanye part isn't, but the people listening to Demons part is very important because it informs some of the stuff that's coming up on this episode.
The establishment's obsessed with the technology they've got.
They're obsessed with the breakaway civilization.
They've got life extension.
They've already got everything.
For all intents and purposes, they found forms of immortality.
And they're able to push off death so far they believe they'll have true immortality within 50 years.
And so, we're just an afterthought.
You see, globalism was always meant to fail.
But for the acolytes, the sub-level, not the actual elite, but the sub-oids, the professors, the technicians, they believe they're taking over the earth to save the planet, and it's their right to rule and organize society.
That's why they're going to reduce population.
If you're just kind of a mid-level person, you're told 80%.
If you're higher level, you're told 90%.
If you're really high level...
You're told 99% of humans will be taken out.
And if you're in that maybe 2,000 people that have been given the whole ball of wax, the whole picture, you're told humans are an abomination.
So, Jordan, that clip made me feel like a fool in a way that few Alex Jones clips ever have, simply because it made me remember something I'd forgotten and that I really should have remembered.
I read Childhood's End, the 1953 sci-fi novel by Arthur C. Clarke back in junior high.
But unfortunately, the details are a little bit murky in my mind.
I remembered that it was about an alien invasion that was benevolent, that led to the destruction of the planet.
But past that, it was kind of a little bit gray.
So when Alex brought up the book in that clip, I decided that maybe I needed to revisit the text.
And when I did, I realized that Alex very well may be basing most of his worldview and his conception of the power behind the globalists on Childhood's End.
But unfortunately because I read a lot of things before I was probably old enough to really internalize a lot of them, I've lost my memory of a ton of shit I read.
And Childhood's End was one of them.
But I just read it yesterday because I was like, I need to get into this.
I need to see what Alex is talking about.
So if you haven't read it, and spoiler alert here for Childhood's End, the book is about...
Also, there's a sci-fi network series based on it that was apparently disappointing a couple years back.
But the book is about a future where the countries of Earth are at the brink of nuclear war by way of militarizing a space race, which promises to destroy the planet.
Before the trigger could be pulled, alien ships appear and nuclear war gets put on the back burner.
These aliens say...
That they're going to be supervising Earth to make sure that we don't bring extinction upon ourselves.
And since there are a ton of spaceships over major cities, humanity goes along with the plan.
The aliens, called the Overlords, are in charge of the major issues of the world, but they're not enslaving humanity at all.
The only direct interference that they have are in international relations issues.
And other than that, outside of the sphere of international relations, they only interfere twice in humanity's affairs.
Once to outlaw bullfighting because it's a barbaric practice, and once to relieve the persecution of the white minority in post-apartheid South Africa.
Because at the time that he wrote this book, there was the perception of apartheid is going to end, and then it's all going to be flipped, and the white minority there is going to be brutally repressed.
And so he imagined that being the state of it, and these aliens, the overlords that Arthur C. Clarke had conceived of, would think that that was such an inhumane situation that they would try and rectify things.
So the overlord supervisor, Carellin, only speaks directly to the Secretary General of the United Nations, which is where we get one of our first connections to Alex's worldview.
Alex believes that the globalists, among whom the leadership of the UN are bigwigs, they take their orders from an off-world race, an idea that is a very basic piece of childhood's end and the storyline thereof.
Though Carellin speaks to the Secretary General, he won't allow him to see his physical form.
The Secretary General presses on the issue, saying that humanity won't be horrified of them and likely won't fully trust the overlords if they can't see them.
Corellin discusses the idea with his superiors and decides to promise to show their true form to humanity after 50 years, a point at which humans will have gotten used to the overlords being around and it won't be so shocking for them to see their true form.
When the time comes, the overlords appear to man and they look exactly like the traditional image of demons.
This is the second direct mirror to Alex's worldview.
He believes that off-world entities that are giving orders to the globalists are actually demons who don't want you to think that they're demons.
We heard it earlier in that clip where he said they're hiding their teeth and wings.
So you don't see and you don't get afraid.
That tension, the concept of masking the image of looking like a demon to gain people's trust, is an idea that he almost certainly lifted wholesale from this book.
So the overlords guide humanity through a number of years of prosperity and peace, but ultimately mankind feels uninspired and like they're losing something that makes them vibrant.
So, an artist's colony is established in opposition to the overlords, although the overlords don't really care that people are doing it, on an island called New Athens.
The colony is supposed to be a utopian place where humanity can thrive, but ultimately, the inhabitants there blow themselves up with a nuclear bomb.
Which, I think, is where Alex is getting his ideas about what happened to Atlantis from, that we heard from.
So I'm skipping over a lot of stuff here, but it ends up being the case that the Overlords aren't necessarily here to help humanity as much as they are here to usher us into the next phase of our evolution.
They serve the orders of something called the Overmind, which is a godlike entity that's made up of ascended elements of other species from throughout the planet.
Sorry, throughout the universe, all kinds of other planets.
The Overlord's mission was to facilitate the inevitable ascension of humanity into the Overmind.
They're the cosmic midwives, unable to ascend into the Overmind themselves, only able to experience the divine process vicariously.
This also mirrors Alex's ideas about the globalists lacking some spark that humanity has, something that they envy.
It's not so clear from the text that the overlords are particularly mad or jealous of humanity's ability to Right, right, right.
And help us become one with the overmind.
And it's not like a manipulation.
That was something that was going to happen.
That Ascendance was happening one way or the other.
They were just there to help the process go smoothly.
They're not doing it to us or something like that.
But Alex, as a suspicious guy, could easily read the book and be like, they did that shit.
But some of the ideas I think are really interesting and worth exploring.
So anyway.
The becoming one with the Overmind happens because the children of Earth begin to express psychic abilities that evolve pretty quickly, and they become more and more of a unified entity.
All of these individual children become one.
The sort of metaphor that they use is the idea of islands, while the ocean is there, appear to be separate things, but if the ocean disappears, you see them as connected through the bottom of the ocean.
You see that all the islands are actually the same landmass.
That's what happens to these children.
They all become one.
become completely a different thing than the rest of humanity.
They are just there to usher through the process that's happening with or without them.
However, the misrepresentation that they're somehow affecting the children of Earth is completely in line with Alex's beliefs about how the globalists are targeting the children and trying to change them through the water, through hormones, these sorts of things.
All the attacks on the children and the family very clearly mirrored in a misreading of childhood's end.
In the end, the Earth is destroyed, not by the Overlords, by the way, but the Earth is destroyed, and the children mature enough to ascend into oneness with the Overmind.
The Overlords move on to await their next mission from the Overmind, the next species that they'll be tasked with aiding in their ascension.
The last human, Jan Rodericks, escapes the chaos on Earth by stowing away in a supply ship that goes back to the Overlord's planet.
There he has a conversation with some of the aliens about what's going on and realizes there's nothing left for him at all.
He has no hope of ascending with the evolved children.
There are no more humans left, and he can't very well become an overlord.
What kind of an existence would he have if he just went along with them to the next planet that they go?
They're functionally immortal.
The overlords live forever.
He wouldn't even make it to the next planet, probably.
So he has nothing left.
So he decides to witness the end of Earth, the end of the planet, and report back to the Overlords about the experience as it happens.
Because they have, like, cameras watching the planet, but they don't know experientially what it's like for the end of the planet to happen.
But before that happens, he has this exchange with Rasheveric, another one of the overlords.
"Tell me this then," Jan said.
"Here's something else you've never explained.
When your race first came to Earth, back in the distant past, what went wrong?
Why had you become the symbol of fear and evil to us?" Rasheveric smiled.
He didn't do this as well as Karelin could, but it was a fair imitation.
Quote, no one ever guessed, and you see now why we could never tell you.
There was only one event that could have made such an impact upon humanity, and that event was not at the dawn of history, but at the very end.
Quote, what do you mean?
asked Jan.
Quote, when our ships entered your skies a century and a half ago, that was the first meeting of our two races, though of course we had studied you from a distance, and yet you feared and recognized us, as we knew that you would.
It wasn't precisely a memory.
You have already had proof that time is more complex than your science ever imagined.
For that memory was not of the past, but of the future, of those closing years when your race would know everything was finished.
We did what we could, but it wasn't an easy end.
And because we were there, we became identified with your race's death.
Yes, even while it was 10,000 years in the future.
It's as if a distorted echo had reverberated round the closed circle of time, from the future to the past.
Call it not a memory, but a premonition.
The idea was hard to grasp, and for a moment Jan wrestled with it in silence.
Yet he should have been prepared.
He had already received proof enough that cause and effect could reverse in their normal sequence.
There must be such a thing as racial memory, and that memory is somehow independent of time.
To it, the future and the past are one.
That is why, thousands of years ago, men had already glimpsed a distorted image of the overlords through a mist of fear and terror.
Alex's idea of race memory don't make sense when you think about it being an expression of epigenetics.
And he always talks about the ideas being something much more complicated and grander than just instincts.
What he believes doesn't line up with anything real.
But it lines up perfectly with the concept expressed in Childhood's End.
I think that Alex just believes that science fiction books are real.
And Childhood's End is a giant piece that explains so much of what Alex believes about the entities that are behind the globalists that he's against.
And I feel really stupid.
Not stupid, but I wish I had remembered that book better.
Months and months ago as we were going through this because I think a lot of our confusion could have been dismissed with like, he's just talking about fucking Arthur C. Clarke.
Oh my god, I can't believe they talk about racial memory in this book.
If it was just a book that talked about racial memory, I wouldn't be like, alright, that's one thing.
But the fact that it's the same book where you have an alien race that communicates with the UN, it involves messing with the children, the demise of the planet, the races, and the idea of them hiding their appearance because they look like what we think of as demons.
Now you can say this is some psychotic group that just has these visions and have created these entities in their minds as an alter ego that they communicate with in their giant psychosis to carry out these operations against us.
But one way or the other.
The heads of the major intelligence agencies and all these other groups believe they're following the orders of an eternal being that they believe is God.
And so that's why I'm glad that this next clip leads us into that territory.
When Alex comes back, he starts talking about the idea that, you know, there's an essential difference between Christians and non-Christians, even if you are genetically the same.
So like a genetically similar Christian and non-Christian, there's a fundamental difference between the two of them.
And this is going to lead me to something I'm pretty mad about.
At the end there, Alex is framing this commentary as being about how Christians are more productive than animists or Muslims, even if the groups are genetically similar.
I would suspect that he's just making that up, because he goes on to say that he's not even talking about mainline, glitterbug Christians.
He's talking about, quote, real Christians.
Which is something that's only vaguely defined even by him, if at all.
So I have no idea how anyone would be able to study that in order to produce productivity statistics for real Christians versus genetically similar animists.
It's ludicrous, and I'm pretty sure he's making it up, and I don't really have any interest in discussing it.
My sense of it, because I've listened to a ton of him, is he's using productivity there as kind of a placeholder.
To talk about relative value of people.
Yeah.
And I want to take a moment to discuss it, because, like I said, it falls in line with this thing that Alex does all the time, where he likes to create the perception that if there's a group of Christians living next to a group of Muslims, or animists, I guess in this case, invariably the Christian group will be upright, great citizens, and the Muslims will try to fuck with them, and then try and collapse civilization, as Alex has informed us, is six months away.
So that is something that pervades a ton of his rhetoric, not just this clip.
It's something that is a piece of his worldview that he's expressing in the auspices of discussing productivity there.
But that's not what this is about.
And what makes this sentiment that he expresses in this clip particularly fucked up is, like you responded to, he uses the example of Rwanda.
The reason this is a problem is there was that whole genocide thing in Rwanda back in 1994, which was perpetrated by the Hutu against the Tutsi.
While it's true that some Tutsi were Christian and some were Muslim, the Hutu were a mostly Christian group.
But the real issue here is not that, and the real issue is this.
The religious aspect of that had very little to do with what happened.
The campaign of genocide against the Tutsi people was a direct result of Belgian colonialization in Central Africa.
When the Belgian took control of Rwanda from Germany after World War I, they found a unified culture that was made up of three distinct groups, the Tutsi, Hutu, and Tua people.
They had differences in physical characteristics and traditional occupations, but they existed as a single group.
In the days of, let's say, 400 years back, the Tutsi and Hutu lived in a symbiotic state.
The Tutsi herders raised cattle on the land that couldn't be used for crops, and the manure from the cattle would multiply the yields of the crops that were raised by the Hutu farmers.
The Belgians saw the differences between the groups as evidence of prevailing theories of the time about ethnic superiority.
This is to say that the majority Hutu were mostly peasant class, while the Tutsi were mostly cattle herders and thus had more property and had physical characteristics more attractive to the colonizers.
Thus, the Belgians believed that the Tutsi were better people.
They provided education for the Tutsi and established indirect rule over the country through them, though they were a minority of the population, making up only approximately 15% of the country.
In 1926, the Belgians passed the Mordahan Law, which made it so only Tutsi could be appointed to positions of power, and granted them authority over things like taxation.
The elite among the Tutsis saw the benefits that came from going along with this system that the Belgians had set up, where they were the superior group who wielded all of the political power in the country, and thus the ethnic status quo was reinforced internally.
By the 1950s, Hutu empowerment groups began to get organized, such as the Association for Social Promotion of the Masses and the Hutu Social Movement, two groups that would combine in 1959 into the Parti du Mouvement de l 'Emancipation Hutu, the party of the movement for the emancipation of the Hutu.
Naturally, this made the Tutsi elites a little bit nervous, so they started their own group, the Union Nationale Rwandais, which would begin clashing with the Hutu groups, inevitably.
Of course.
The clashes became violent, and many Tutsi went into exile, whereupon largely Hutu Rwanda voted for its independence in 1962.
From this point onward, the Tutsi that remained in Rwanda were a harshly repressed minority, and those who fled before independence viewed themselves as refugees from their homeland and began launching guerrilla attacks from across the borders of Zaire, Uganda, and Tanzania.
Part of this was probably motivated by the fact that many of the Tutsi weren't trusted in the countries that they fled to, where they found themselves unable to successfully start a new life and wanted to go back.
The Ugandan governments of both Milton Obote and Idi Amin established rules that made the Rwandan refugees second-class citizens who were subject to arbitrary detention by the police and were scapegoated for domestic problems, which only exacerbated their desire to go back home.
Between 1987 and 1990, the Tutsi group called the Rwandese Patriotic Front, the RPF, attempted to negotiate a, quote, unconditional return of all Rwandan refugees and to accord all Rwandese equal rights.
The Hutu president, Habarimani, said that the country was full and would accept no more people, so the RPF took up arms.
Interestingly, when Trump visited the border this past Friday, he said of immigrants and refugees, Very similar rhetoric that never seems to exist in good places.
unidentified
The fighting went on for three years And the RPF was on the verge of victory When foreign forces intervened To save the Habri-Amani government These forces ironically included the Belgians Who 60 years prior Had set up a brutally pro-Tutsi social structure Only now to be militarily aiding The Hutu government In repulsing the Tutsi From returning to the country They don't give a fuck.
To this day, it still remains an open question, although there's pretty strong indications that, as is so often the case, the arguments about something being a false flag seem like bullshit, and the RPF probably did it.
Almost certainly.
Regardless, what happened next is much less an open question to history.
In the next 100 days, between 800,000 and 1 million Tutsi were slaughtered by the Rwandese army, as well as the government-backed civilian militia, the Interhomwe.
Some estimates claim that 7 out of 10 Tutsi citizens were murdered in the genocide of 1994.
And that doesn't even count the 10,000 TWA people who were murdered, which made up approximately one-third of their population, after propaganda started circulating that the TWA were aiding and abetting the RPF.
This piece of history is unspeakably horrible, and the consequences of what transpired are the direct result and indirect result of colonialist systems that were put in place by the Belgians.
Alex can talk about how a Christian African is great, but an animist or Muslim African is barbaric all he wants, but that's a cowardly and idiotic way to look at the world that doesn't match up with history at all.
Now we also got to take into consideration about what the Belgians did to the Congo.
Where King Leopold II established a country-sized labor camp where he enslaved the natives to harvest natural resources like rubber and killed millions who didn't go along with his plans or just failed to do a good enough job.
Officers in his army weren't allowed to waste ammunition because it was really expensive back then.
So they needed to prove that each bullet they used was used appropriately.
To prove that each bullet did kill a person, the practice of cutting off the right hand of the deceased was implemented.
Of course, enterprising soldiers started to realize that if they just cut off people's hands, they could use the bullets for whatever they wanted, like recreational shooting, and thus the scourge of bodily mutilation of Congolese citizens began.
The practice got pretty out of control, and a lot of innocent people were subjected to arbitrary bodily mutilation at the hands of the ostensibly Christian colonialist forces.
This is in addition to the slavery, the use of rape as a method of terror, the floggings and torture, the burnings of village, the kidnappings of children, the starvation, all of that stuff.
Because of the unspeakable horror he subjected the Congolese people to, King Leopold amassed a staggering fortune of between $100 and $500 million, which has reportedly made him, which did reportedly make him at one point the richest person in the world.
So I guess the argument that Christians, being pretty productive in Africa, might, they Oh, boy.
Oh, boy.
Ultimately, however, the legacy of the Butcher of the Congo has lived on.
Ten weeks after Congo declared its independence from Belgium in 1960, General Mobutu Sisi Siko led a coup d 'etat and took over the country, staying in power until a few months before his death in 1997.
Siku presided over one of the worst human rights records ever, routinely torturing and murdering political dissidents, reportedly even feeding detractors to crocodiles at his palace.
It would be hard to draw a parallel from the colonial days to Siku's rule, but it's worth noting that he did have a habit of disfiguring the bodies of dissidents that he killed.
You know what?
I said that it would be hard to draw that parallel, but what I meant is I don't know that I can draw it.
I'll let the Chicago Tribune do that.
Quote, Mobutu's critics say that his system of repression sprang from the colonial history that set an awful example.
Among other atrocities, the rulers of the former Belgian Congo used to slice the hands of rubber workers off if they were caught misbehaving.
King Leopold, the butcher of the Congo, was a Catholic.
So was Mobutu Sisi Siko.
Or at least he was until some years into his rule when the Vatican started to criticize his murderous habits and he decided, fuck this, I'm not a Catholic anymore.
So also you may remember that Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, two professed Christians, made a whole lot of money lobbying for and representing Siko.
And his interests.
So this idea is a bunch of illusion.
Alex wants to portray a world where there is a clear distinction between the behavior of Christians as being civilized and good and the behavior of Muslims as being barbaric, brutal, and destructive.
And this is purely an expression of bigotry.
Sure, there's plenty of examples of Muslims doing horrible things in the history of Africa and elsewhere.
But those horrible acts are no more a condemnation of the religion of Islam and its adherents as the acts of King Leopold are a condemnation of Christianity and the vast majority of Christians who don't behave that way and don't think that's okay.
What's behind these atrocities is the lingering, untreated consequences of a brutal, racist, dehumanizing history of colonialism and imperialism.
The West that Alex fetishizes committed a horrendous crime against the native peoples of Africa and plenty of other places, and now he's blaming the victim's progeny for the aftermath.
It's a pathetic and childish way to view the world, and it's so incredibly important to respect and understand the complexity of things like this that propagandists wish to make simple.
It's hard to discuss the lingering damages of the past that are still killing people in the third world today and the lingering benefits of those damages that the West has enjoyed.
It's far easier to say, fuck it, we're good, they're bad, and it's because of Islam.
And it's absolutely mirrored in the way that so many of these people treat black people in America now.
It's like, well, you're not wealthy because you're not working hard enough.
Not because we absolutely destroyed any possibility of your family ever accruing wealth and then forced you to stay in that situation.
And the fact that he's using, it is immensely suspicious to me.
Obviously, I can't make this statement 100%.
Factually, I can't see into why he did everything in his own mind.
But it is very important for me that he specifically went out of his way to choose African nations to make that comparison between Christians and Muslims.
Because he's trying to take his own racism out of it.
Yeah, it's a good thing we don't see examples of that literally across the entire world where colonialists went in, redrew their borders, and just fucking bailed on it until they felt they needed something.
And then just, you know, I'm just saying that India and Pakistan were made by perfectly normal...
You will not find a bigger collectivist on this planet than Alex Jones.
And that's why I'm a total individualist.
Because each of us is a cell, and I've got to be strong and not be cancerous, and I've got to stand against the cancer and stand against the evil and be as strong as I can in what I do to try to lift up the entire system.
That was actually Windows 95. Why all the literature from every culture demons want you to hurt kids and burn down buildings and kill crops and have famine and starving people and death?
Because it's a weapon.
It's a weapon fired into our psyche to make us destroy ourselves.
It's a torpedo.
And we have to just say, no, we don't accept the torpedo.
We don't accept the operating system of the crazed, demoniac garbage.
The other stuff there, like the idea that these demons are fallen and they can't connect to the Overmind, that's in there.
And that's from Childhood's End.
But even before that, when he's talking about we're at the cusp of going to the stars and stuff like that, and then these demons show up, that is also directly from Childhood's End.
The idea that we were having this weaponized space race, and that's when the aliens stepped in because we were going to destroy ourselves.
Alex could read that and be like, no, no, no.
We were about to invade their area.
We were about to become as great as them.
And so they stopped us from it as opposed to what's actually in the text.
They were going – we were going to destroy ourselves.
And we were important to the overmind that we not destroy ourselves.
And so the midwives came in to assure that we don't destroy ourselves.
So Alex is again just misreading science fiction and using it to make an argument about the real world which is fucked up.
Although there is a part in Childhood's End where Karelin tells the people that humanity is not destined for the stars.
And that sort of thing.
Like the idea that we aren't going to be making spaceships and traveling through space.
Everybody's got to be more involved than ever praying, being involved, and standing against globalism and the UN and open borders and their entire plan.
Whatever they're pushing, it's death and destruction.
All the proof's there.
So oppose everything the UN and CNN says, and you'll do great.
The reason I kept that clip in is because, again, he's saying that they're going to collapse the planet.
I guess there's not really any more information about the six-month time frame, whatever.
In the episode we did about the deposition, I was very specific to defend Alex against all these psychosis headlines that are going around.
And I don't think I was wrong to do that.
However, what he was describing that was reported as psychosis, and he did use that word, is the idea that when he was younger, he distrusted the media so much that he thought everything they said was bad and fake.
What he's saying in that clip is the exact same thing.
He's saying the exact same thing as he, in the deposition, was presenting as his old mindset that he's learned was wrong.
Now he's going out to break, do whatever the opposite of the UN and CNN says, you'll be fine.
So Alex talks quite a bit in the middle of this episode about how he's about to go to L.A. He's going to go take a trip to L.A., and he does this like, I think you can guess what that means.
Now, I believe that probably it might not be the Mercers specifically, but the fact that his own lawyers are like, this doesn't add up, what's the deal, makes me think it doesn't add up.
Yeah, he's not a knuckle-dragging, inbred idiot like us, so that's why he's created his own pill business, which is not really his own pill business as much as it is putting labels on other people's pills and then selling them to your idiot fans, which is a good scam.
And I don't blame the president for trying to make people think, you know, hey, we're going to close it, but unless he calls out a couple hundred thousand troops, and unless he puts major pressure on the Mexican government right now to stop this, it's done.
And that's what I'm getting at here is the UN plan to break countries.
Is to set up refugee centers, brainwash communists and socialists, tell them there's all this free crap, send them to our countries in Europe and the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, where the leftists pick them up on buses and take them and enroll them on welfare in sanctuary cities and get them jobs and then skim money off of them and money laundering.
The Democratic Party is a criminal group.
They have converted to the lowest person in the Democratic Party now.
It may or may not be actually related at all, or it might just be something that has made me think of that.
He's got nothing.
He can ramble about the idea that there's these UN plans, but the only specific in there is a reference to Paxton, we can't remember his name, in Aliens.
That's it.
That's all he has.
This is exactly like Childhood's End, being behind his conception of the entities that are behind the globalists.
These hiding demon alien figures that pretend that they want to do good but are actually here to destroy the world.
Bullshit.
All of it just goes back to him not understanding the difference between fiction and reality and assuming that all fiction is just reality presented as fiction because it's lesser magic.
Yeah, but I mean, it'd be better if he just goes through all of the natural disasters in all Paxton movies, just like, and you know how they're going to do it?
And so that's the sort of stuff that you're just like, yeah, fuck you, Alex.
Get the fuck out of here.
But then, again, much like earlier, we were talking about all the childhoods and stuff, and then we're reminded the stuff that is important.
Him talking about these differences between Christian Africans and Muslim Africans.
Again, this last clip, he's talking about all this, the UN plan to break up countries and we've got to bring troops to the border, and it's just like Alien, the movie, science fiction movie, great movie.
So Alex said in that last clip that this is standard Islam, and then brings up Omar and Tlaib, and Linda Sarsour there is the third figure that he's mentioning with the Women's March.
On Friday of last week, 55-year-old Patrick Carlinio was arrested after he called Ilhan Omar's office and threatened to kill her.
He reached a staffer who he asked, quote, Why are you working for her?
She's a fucking terrorist.
And then he went on to promise to, quote, Put a bullet in her fucking skull.
When he was arrested, he told the police that he loved Trump and, quote, Hates radical Muslims in government.
The next day after the man's arrest, Trump gave a speech in Vegas for the Republican-Jewish coalition, where he said, quote, A special thanks to Representative Omar of Minnesota.
Oh, I forgot.
She doesn't like Israel.
I forgot.
I'm so sorry.
No, she doesn't like Israel, does she?
Please, I apologize.
Billionaire Trump donor Sheldon Adelson was in attendance where he wore a red yarmulke with the word Trump on it.
Then Trump called Netanyahu, quote, your prime minister, despite the attendees being American Republicans who happen to be Jewish, which many have commented is way more anti-Semitic than anything Omar is being attacked for saying.
Pure and simple, there's no two ways about this.
These people are trying to get Representative Omar killed, and it's disgraceful.
So in this next clip, Alex talks about that gay wedding that he saw in Mexico again.
I mean, I told you I was in Isla Mujeres, an island off Mexico.
There was a gay wedding at the hotel we were at.
And I watched for three days the gay guys try to kiss the ass of all these Muslims that were there wearing burkish.
And the women would go, get away from me.
Get away.
Get away.
They would talk.
And the gay guys would grovel.
Oh, God, you're a Muslim.
But...
Guaranteed, those guys probably hate me because I'm a libertarian.
Sure.
It's like a fetish to love your destroyers, to love your usurpers, to love those that destroy Western civilization and all the egalitarian freedom we have that these very people take advantage of and they don't care.
Yeah, they're definitely going to make it through the appeals court, and the Supreme Court is going to be like, yeah, we're going to need to take this case.
So if he goes on InfoWars and he doesn't have some sort of rah-rah, like, see, I'm going to take your defense and I'm going to take it all the way up to 11. Yeah, I'm going to, I'm working for you, my client, and if you, also, if anybody has been hit by a, or if, Do you have mesothelioma?
Yeah, and even if it was, like, all this stuff, we could still talk about it a little bit, but I cannot stand listening to this guy, because I don't think he understands how to use a windscreen.
Could you just be like, oh, it was around 2006 in the lead-up to the election, whenever Hillary and Obama were talking, and then you have the two of them instead of black president.
Well, Alex isn't defining his terms here, and I think that's the main problem, because what he's saying doesn't make sense.
If his argument that he was trying to make was this, like, during Obama's term, Democrats became a little more complacent and turned a blind eye to a lot of things they should have pushed back against, many of which involved war-type issues like drones, then I'd probably say that there was room for a robust conversation in what he was bringing to the table.
But that's not what Alex is saying.
He's saying that he turned on liberals when Obama got elected, largely because he saw them as becoming more pro-war than Republicans, and the numbers just don't back that up.
For instance, a June 2011 study from the Pew Research Center asked respondents if they favored the complete removal of troops from Afghanistan.
67% of Democrats were in favor of the removal of troops as compared to 43% of Republicans.
This study is great because it actually has a rebuttal for Alex's likely first objection to that.
I'm not really a Republican.
Their research included a variable for Tea Party folk, and it turns out that the Tea Party people were even less into troop removal than mainstream Republicans, with 42% only being in favor of troop removal.
The study has a few other questions in it, like whether or not the respondents thought that, quote, using military force in Afghanistan was the right decision.
54% of Democrats said it was, compared with 68% of Republicans.
So even that doesn't match.
In September 2009, Gallup ran a poll looking at the opinions of Obama's proposal to send more troops into Afghanistan.
63% of Republicans favored sending more troops into the war, whereas 62% of Democrats opposed the plan.
So, Republicans widely more in favor as of 2009, and that continued to 2011.
A November 2015 Gallup poll asked if respondents supported sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria.
56% of Republicans were in favor of sending troops, as opposed to 37% of Democrats.
So that doesn't make sense either.
A 2011 Gallup poll asked if people approved or disapproved of military action in Libya.
While it's true that 51% of Democrats approved of that one, the number was still lower than the 57% of Republicans who approved of it.
One of the main exceptions I can find is a September 2013 Gallup poll which asked about support for a military strike against Syria.
In this instance, 45% of Democrats were in favor compared to only 31% of Republicans.
It's interesting that this is the one instance where Republicans were pretty clearly anti-war as compared to Democrats.
And I'm pretty sure that there's a cool reason for that.
I don't know exactly what it is, but there's got to be something.
But as for the democratic support for the war, if you want to call 45% outright support for it, fine.
I'll allow it.
But if you're looking for an explanation, I think there's a perfectly reasonable one.
Obama was seeking congressional approval for the action in Syria as opposed to just attacking them, saying, quote, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective.
At the time of the Gallup poll, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had passed a resolution authorizing the strike in Syria.
It seems to me that the higher poll numbers for this attack among Democrats is less indicative of a support of war and more an indication that they felt that this was being handled in the appropriate way.
As you can see from that 2015 poll I cited earlier, the Democratic support for a war in Syria was very short-lived, and it turned around, as was the Republican opposition.
Alex is just making shit up here.
Again, it's just his way of not saying, I got really freaked out by Obama becoming president.
You come up with a different way to present it.
Democrats became pro-war.
The numbers don't really match that up.
You could have a different conversation that is similar to that about Obama's policies, but you don't want to do that.
You want to say that everything changed when that happened without saying we had a black president and that fucked with my head.
If you're basing your worldview on sci-fi, I wouldn't choose the sci-fi from the 50s.
Just on account of there are a lot of undertones behind the sci-fi of the 50s that wind up leading you to a place where you think, well, African Christians and African Muslims are different people.