In Knowledge Fight #298, Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dissect Alex Jones’ January 20–23, 2013 episodes, exposing his selective outrage—mocking Gabrielle Giffords while framing Steve Scalise’s shooting as a conspiracy—and debunking Sandy Hook false-flag claims with James Holmes’ academic record, including a $26K NIH grant and no DARPA ties. They ridicule Jones’ reliance on discredited sources like Jim Garrow (a self-proclaimed "Nobel Prize loser" with an unaccredited doctorate) and Melissa Melton’s shift from Infowars to gun control skepticism, while highlighting racial double standards in coverage of shootings. Jones’ escalating conspiracy rhetoric, they argue, risks alienating even his own audience, revealing a pattern of reckless, unverified claims over genuine journalism. [Automatically generated summary]
So, Jordan, today we got an interesting episode to go over.
We're going over January 20th through 23rd, 2013, because I was looking at stuff this weekend and I was just thinking, I cannot talk about the present day.
I just don't want to do it.
I'm not leaving the present day behind.
We'll get back to it probably for Wednesday.
But I was just in a state of mind that I was like, I can't do it.
And I'm too curious about what's going on with the 2013 investigation looking into Alex's coverage of Sandy Hook, especially after Paul Joseph Watson interviewed Professor James Tracy on the last episode.
I was very interested to see what would happen from that.
Yeah, I mean, if you want to know our opinion on current day events, I believe we just did an episode fairly recently where we talked about how all abortion should be legal.
Well, I'm sure Alex is talking about that, and I think there is some value to us covering that, which is why I'm not leaving the present day.
And that's not really why I decided not to get into it.
It's that I watched a couple episodes, and some of the stuff I was just like, I don't fucking, I don't think it's, I don't think it's good to cover this.
If you'd like to support our show and what we do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show.
So now, Jordan, I told you that I don't want to talk about the present day, but I was listening to May 15th, 2019, and Alex said something on the episode that made me think that we're having an effect on his world.
And then at the end, he brings in our boy, John Rappaport, to have a little chat.
It's a useless episode.
Although, it is worth noting that January 21st, 2013 was the day of Obama's second inauguration.
On the day of his first inauguration, Alex left the show to go get interviewed on RT for a little while.
And on his second inauguration, Alex wasn't even in the studio.
For someone who's so committed to the fight against the globalists and Obama, he seems to not ever be around on big news days or be totally fine to just leave the ship.
Fans think I'm super smart and that, man, how does he keep knowing what's going to happen?
And then my detractors think I'm up here writing science fiction on the air, telling you what I imagine is going to happen because it's so fantastical.
And it's neither one.
I've read hundreds of books and probably over a thousand different white papers put out by the CFR, put out by the Club of Rome.
Yeah, for those of you who have not listened to our coverage of Alex's documentary Endgame, I should explain why that clip is really fucked up.
Alex's bibliography for Endgame is mostly just citations to Ancarta pages for things that don't actually support his claims at all, links to Infowars articles he wrote himself, and tons of entries that just say insert citation here, evidencing a completely incomplete work that he never felt the need to finish.
And for a lot of those entries where he needed to insert a citation later, he could never have completed his task because there were bibliography entries presuming to provide a citation to something that doesn't exist, often completely manufactured quotes.
His bibliography for Endgame is complete shit.
And a high school teacher wouldn't even let it fly as acceptable for a term paper, much less for a documentary presuming to prove a grand conspiracy bent on global enslavement and depopulation.
Even people who believe Alex should really see this bibliography as damning proof that he has no idea what he's talking about.
WhatistheEndgame.com was a website that Alex used to redirect to EndgameTheMovie.com.
But this episode that we're listening to here is in 2013.
And according to snapshots on the Wayback Machine, the URL, at is the endgame.com, has not worked as a redirect since at least 2008.
It's been five years since this has been an appropriate place to direct his listeners.
So we don't have time to right now cover all of the details of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and also not just her being shot, a lot of other people, including a nine-year-old girl who was killed in that shooting.
We will get into that at some point.
I promise everybody that I know that we've gotten some requests to cover that because I'm sure Alex's behavior is terrible.
unidentified
Yeah, well, just the way he flippantly said, she got blue or whatever.
And the only thing that I would point out about this, and the only thing that I really want to draw attention to, is the difference between how Alex is treating this and Steve Scalise.
The idea that he turned Steve Scalise's shooting into proof of Antifa Democrat hunting Republicans and all of that.
Well, people on the right really don't like it whenever they are the results of their own actions, you know?
And so they have to undercut any other possible results of their actions.
In order to preserve the ability to scream bloody murder about when Republicans are attacked by gun violence, they have to minimize whenever anybody else is attacked by it.
Not these people specifically individually, but that's where this leads.
That's what tyrants end up doing.
Here it is.
unidentified
But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for?
The only reason I think you need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally, and pop him.
Alex still, no matter how much I disagree with him about everything, he's right to not accept someone talking about him like that, especially on national television.
So Alex has found a new clip of Piers Morgan talking about shooting people, and he plays it over and over and over again, and he says that it's about shooting gun owners.
And so in this next clip, he plays the clip again and discusses it a little bit more.
And because he played it so many times.
I was just going to ignore it.
Honestly, I didn't care.
But because he played it so many times, I started to notice what was actually being talked about.
See if you can pick out the names that are being discussed and what the situation the interviewer is asking Piers about.
Because I can explain it all to you on the other side of this clip, and it has nothing to do with what Alex is talking about.
He's saying Piers wants to line up and shoot gun owners, but as you could tell from just barely listening to the clip, it's obvious that's not what he's talking about.
The first indication of that is that the interview is asking Piers about certain people, imagining what he would rate them if they were contestants on Britain's Got Talent, a show that Piers Morgan was one of the judges on for the first four seasons.
One of the names listed is Clarkson, which, as you were able to suss out, is a reference to the Sun journalist Jeremy Clarkson, who's possibly best known as one of the hosts of Top Gear from 1988 to 1998, and then again from 2012 to 2015.
I say this is obviously a reference to Jeremy Clarkson because he and Piers Morgan have a well-documented long-standing feud.
Some of this dates back to when Piers was the editor of the Daily Mirror.
Clarkson wasn't happy about some of the photos that were published of him in the tabloid and how Piers was kind of sort of having Clarkson stocked to dig up dirt on him, being that Clarkson was at the sun, which was a direct competitor, and the mirror was in bad shape financially at the time.
Unhappy about that treatment, Clarkson poured a glass of water on Piers when he ran into him on a plane.
This later escalated at a 2004 British press award ceremony where a fairly drunk Clarkson approached Piers and told him, quote, now that you're in my world of the telly, I can tell you you're crap.
The two would publicly end their feud in 2015 with Piers announcing that they declared a truce after a, quote, five-hour drinking session.
Clarkson said the inspiration for the truce was, quote, I'm going through a difficult.
I'm going through a difficult divorce.
My first ex-wife has also come out of the woodwork to give me hell.
I'm smoking too much, drinking too much, my back hurts.
I'm all over the papers with this N-word scandal.
I'm at war with the BBC bosses, and my mother has just died.
I simply don't have the energy for you anymore.
That N-word scandal is a reference to how, on an episode of Top Gear, when trying to pick between two cars, Clarkson did the old eeny-meenie-miny mo thing, but also mumbled the N-word in the spot you might expect a habitual racist to.
The desire to shoot Jeremy Clarkson has nothing to do with guns in this clip, or his support for guns.
Anything like that in this clip.
The second person that was listed by the interviewer as a contestant on this hypothetical episode of Britain's Got Talent is Trinny, which is a reference to Trini Woodall.
Trini appeared as a contestant on the 2007 season of Comic Relief Does the Apprentice, the UK version of.
She and Piers got into a bit of a famous fight on the show.
On the episode, each team was supposed to get a chef assigned to them that would help them complete their mission for the episode.
The chef for the girls' team accidentally showed up at the boys' team, who decided that instead of sending him where he was supposed to go, they would lock him up in their bathroom.
Trini went to try and sort this out, but an argument broke out and things turned a little bit violent.
If you watch the actual video of the show, the whole thing began as an obviously contrived and manufactured drama, but it appears to have led to some bad feelings between Piers and Trini, who was mocked quite a bit in the media about how she ended up crying after the fight.
This sort of fight went a long way towards solidifying Piers' reputation as being a complete asshole.
So I'm sure he doesn't look back at that interaction with Trini fondly.
Him joking about shooting her has nothing to do with her supporting guns either.
The interviewer is asking a hypothetical question about these two people doing an act on Britain's Got Talent.
He suggests Clarkson would be going on about his green credentials because Clarkson was a big enemy of the green movement, calling it a, quote, byproduct of old trade unions and CNB lesbians.
Trini would talk about what everyone is wearing because she was the host of What Not to Wear for its first five seasons.
This clip has nothing to do with guns.
It has to do with Piers Morgan's high-profile feuds in the UK.
I grant that the joke that he's making is an incredibly poor taste, and I would probably critique him for that, but to pretend this clip has anything to do with his positions on gun control is a brazen act of intellectual dishonesty.
Alex is confident he can pass it off because his audience, he knows, won't carefully listen to that, and they'll just assume Clarkson and Trini are gun lovers in the UK or something like that.
If Alex were operating from a sincere position, he would never try to pass off this kind of manipulation on his audience.
You know, it's weird because it is played in enough of a context for you to get that he's not necessarily taking it out of context, but because you don't know, because the average American has no idea what the context actually is, it is exactly like playing it out of context.
You know, it still has that character, but he's not getting people whipped into a frenzy the same way he does in the present day before he goes to an ad.
He doesn't have that interesting of an appearance of his own volition, let's say.
Something happens while he's on air that ends up becoming very interesting, and he's just sort of silently on the phone and getting interrupted because of that.
But this is probably the only clip I'm really interested in playing of his, and that is him making financial predictions.
unidentified
Now, whether the bonds collapse between now and April, as I predicted on your show last year, it could happen.
I think it could happen.
I might be wrong, but I won't be wrong by much.
I could be wrong by a few weeks, a few months.
But that's huge.
We're going to see.
We're going to see bonds collapse.
We're going to see gold now panic like buying in the gold market, taking gold a lot higher.
While it would be absurd to say that the bond market collapsed in April 2013, there was a very large sell-off that occurred in May 2013, which is close enough that I find giving him kind of partial credit for that prediction.
The sell-off was the result of the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, signaling that he was going to taper off quantitative easing and slow down bond purchases.
It's worth noting that Alex and his guests constantly call on the Fed to end quantitative easing, so they were getting exactly what they wanted, and unsurprisingly, it led to a downturn in the market.
What?
The bond market began to stabilize by the fall, and within a year, things were back up to where they started with an almost full recovery.
Ultimately, I fail to believe that Alex or Max really care too much about the health of the bond market, considering that immediately after Trump won the 2016 election, the bond market crashed to the tune of a loss of $1 trillion.
And I don't recall either of them issuing dire warnings about that situation.
He's being a little bit more sensational than he needs to be, possibly, but he's not being as irresponsible as a lot of Alex's other guests in the financial sphere.
But it's important to note that they're only talking about the coming market trouble in service of that second part, that gold is going to go up.
Despite Max his explicit prediction that it was going to go up because of the downturn in the bond market, the bond market did go down more or less as he predicted.
But gold started 2013 at $1,663.75 per ounce.
On the day of this episode, it was up to about $1,692.32 per ounce.
By the time of the bond market sell-off, the price was down to $1,470.44 an ounce.
Alex and Max's prediction about the bond market exists in service of strengthening their appeals for their audience to buy gold, which would maybe be decent speculative advice if this weren't a show being syndicated by a gold sales company.
These sorts of conversations seem like they would be a bit more suspicious, less suspicious, excuse me, if they weren't immediately followed by a commercial for Midas Resources, which it is.
As soon as they go to break, Ted Anderson has a commercial for Midas Resources.
But the thing that I find more interesting about it is that Max, in terms of the financial people that I've seen on Alex's show, he's the closest to having not crazy setups.
The other people have pretty insane first stages that get to the gold thing.
I have predicted that after Alex recognized the popularity of these Sandy Hook YouTube videos, as represented by him and Paul both talking about 10.6 million views in 10 days on this YouTube video.
We got to get into this business.
Paul Joseph Watson interviews James Tracy.
I had a strong suspicion that there was going to be something.
And I believe that the way Alex is covering this shooting at the Lone Star College in Texas is a pretty strong example of his pivot.
But what he's going to do is insist that there's something suspicious about CNN not covering this shooting, not broadcasting everything live for the world to see because there's a cover-up going on.
CNN learned their lesson because of Sandy Hook because they talked to people on the scene and they showed a guy in the woods and now there's all these questions.
So Alex insists that he's going to play the streams from the local news channels on his show because he's going to show you the truth that CNN won't show you.
Sure.
So here is him covering this, and we'll get into what's going on.
Obviously, we have it recorded and we'll have it on the nightly news tonight.
I'll file a special report for him for sure.
We'll have already listeners.
As this develops, at least three people shot at Lone Star College in Houston, and I walked out there during the break, and CNN's going, We're not going to show live feeds.
We'll show selective clips.
So now, oh, we're not going to show live feeds.
But who is is K-H-O-U.
So we need to go to their website, K-H-O-U, and K-V-U-E has it.
So we've now reached a point where CNN will not show you what's happening.
Oh, because we might see other shooters in camo getting arrested.
God, that's the most crass capitalistic thing that like the idea that he's already plotting in advance how he's going to make money off of the next school shooting that his rhetoric makes renders inevitable.
What she's saying and what anybody is saying is very irrelevant, apparently, because we are not listening to any of it and we're just hearing, see, this is suspicious.
So on January 22nd, 2013, there was a shooting on the campus of Lone Star College, a community college in Harris County, unincorporated area outside of Houston.
The shooting was the result of an argument between the gunman, Trey Foster, and another student, Jody Neal.
Thankfully, no one was killed, but three people were hospitalized in the aftermath, including someone who was accidentally arrested.
There was a second person, this guy, who was arrested named Carlton Barry.
But charges against him were dropped six days later because he wasn't guilty of anything.
However, after the police pressed charges, he admitted that he was there and that he knew Foster had been the shooter.
The police defended arresting Barry and charging him because, quote, if they had not charged Barry, Foster might not have been arrested, and the gun believed to have been used in the shooting might not have been recovered.
The police were real insistent they'd done nothing wrong.
With the sheriff even going so far, save your lives.
The sheriff went so far as to demand an apology from the local news channel for covering his own press conference where he showed off Barry's mugshot and said, quote, if we can make an example out of anyone, we will.
I hope he gets what he deserves for putting others in harm's way.
It's important to make the distinction that this happened at a college and also that it was a shooting that happened at a school, not a school shooting.
It's still a terrible thing, and it's a disaster, but I do think that technical difference between an argument escalating into a shooting at a college and someone setting out to shoot people at a college or any other school are different things.
He has no information, and he's barely listening to these witnesses that are being covered by KHOU.
His intentions in terms of covering the story are crystal clear from the first seconds he's talking about this story.
He's convinced that with Sandy Hook, the globalists slipped up and accidentally aired evidence that their gunmen were in the woods and all that shit.
Alex is saying that they're not going to be so sloppy this time, which is why he's making a big deal out of the fact that CNN isn't live streaming coverage of the school.
The fact that without knowing any of the details, he covers this breaking story this way is all the proof you need to know that his primary motivation is finding alleged proof in this shooting that Sandy Hook was fake.
This story is a prop to him from the jump to help justify his own coverage or eventual coverage of Sandy Hook.
How many times do we have to see a white shooter fuck up 30 goddamn people, and then the news shows a picture of him playing fucking football in his backyard and a black victim gets his fucking mugshot put up to him?
A 2018 study out of Ohio State University found that white mass shooters are 95% more likely to be described as mentally ill as opposed to black shooters.
They analyzed media coverage of 219 attacks to reach this conclusion and said, quote, much of the media coverage of white shooters framed them as sympathetic characters who were suffering from extreme life circumstances.
But black shooters were usually made to seem dangerous and a menace to society.
It's pretty awful that this bias is so stark when discussing perpetrators of crimes, but it's completely insane to see this directed towards a victim.
And I find it very hard to ignore that racial element, considering the countless stories about white victims of mass shootings I've read over the course of doing this podcast.
In a 2017 article on the Huffington Post, which is an updating of the original pieces published in 2014, headlines regarding stories of white shooters and black victims are juxtaposed.
And the trend you see is very telling.
Media often responds to white shooters with a round of pearl clutching and disbelief that this good person could do something so bad.
Meanwhile, headlines covering black victims of murder often highlight how the guy wasn't really that good of a guy and probably a criminal.
So you shouldn't worry too much about the fact that they got shot to begin with.
It's super fucked up, and I don't know what else to say about it other than I would bet anything that Alex will not do a better job of covering this than Click to Houston.
This is kind of one of these big stories that Alex has been going on about at this time frame.
I haven't really touched it yet because I kind of thought it was going to be a flash in the pan, just like a one-day story, and then it was going to go away.
Because I just thought it was like, oh, this is stupid.
We don't have time to cover it.
But now I see it's not going to go away, so I decided I'd look into the story.
But she was threatening to shoot other students, which the school felt was in violation of their zero tolerance policies, regardless of the real or fakeness of the gun.
I would probably say that this is a little severe.
I understand their reasoning, but I think this sort of situation is one that probably calls for some creative thinking.
Probably the best response would be to not make the child feel othered or excluded, like a suspension might make them feel, but to provide them with some kind of a setting where their parents can, you know, we could discuss that this is really inappropriate and can't be allowed.
Whatever my feelings on the matter are, I'm not a school administrator, and I've never really talked to a five-year-old, so my opinion is useless.
Take it with a grain of salt.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
On January 30th, the school district overturned the suspension and wiped the child's record clean, making this entire thing as if it never happened.
It may have been easier for the mother to get the suspension overturned since she was a former cop and had multiple lawyers with her at a closed-door meeting where they discussed the suspension.
The meeting was closed to the press, so we may never know exactly what happened within it, but it kind of feels like it was about suing the school district, since her lawyer announced after the suspension was erased that there would be no lawsuit.
It also is worth noting that the child's mother, when interviewed after the suspension was overturned, thanked the, quote, thousands of people worldwide who emailed the school administration.
This is almost certainly a result of media like Alex covering the case, because otherwise, why would someone outside of Pennsylvania care about a five-year-old getting a possibly slightly too strict punishment in her kindergarten class?
Who cares?
Right.
Alex posted multiple stories about this on Infowars.com, and it's come up a bunch of times on the radio show that I've been listening to.
But suspicious in its absence is any story pointing out that the suspension was overturned.
It has, however, been used since then as a waypoint in other stories with no clarification that it didn't lead to a suspension or any charges of terrorist threatening.
If you're a journalism outlet, that's pretty important as a clarification to make.
On September 22nd, 2015, Steve Watson wrote an article with the headline, quote, Judge, Clock Kid Family Could Be Charged with Fraud if Incident is Proved Purposeful Hoax.
That headline is meant to imply that a judge hearing the case about the child is saying that.
But the judge in question is Fox News host Andrew Napolitano.
The sub-headline of the story is a quote from Napolitano, quote, money has been collected on false premises.
The problem here is that the full quote from Napolitano is, quote, if the parents were involved in a hoax, now you have a fraud going because money has been collected on false pretenses.
That sub-headline is in and of itself a fraud.
It removes the conditional aspect of the beginning of the sentence, which the end of the sentence relies on.
InfoWars went out of its way to post tons of stories attacking Ahmed, framing the situation as an elaborate hoax to make it look like Islamophobia is an actual problem, when, as Alex is more than happy to tell you, it's not.
Of course, he'll tell you that right after he explains that once a population is more than 10% Muslim, the Muslims are commanded by Muhammad to attack everyone.
I'm not sure if it fully came out in that clip, but if you listen to the entire thing, there's a sense of deflation that comes over him as he keeps going back to the live coverage.
Kind of find out what the latest and greatest information may be as far as the city.
We're not over here and can give us any of that information.
We are going to bring that update to you.
But just to sort of recap what we believe we do know at this point is before she was pulled away to get the latest information, I did learn that the person that they do have in custody, they are unsure if that person is actually a shooter or is actually a person who may have been involved in the altercation that led to all of this at this point.
She started with this overeagerness to be like, this is going to be the next Sandy hook, and I'm going to be on the ground getting the information that others will then use to make these super popular, profitable videos.
And I don't have any clips of this, but he and Max Kaiser discuss how Glenn Beck is trying to buy a bunch of property and create a libertarian fantasy land in the middle of Texas.
In the middle of the conversation, Alex conveniently remembers a recent conversation he had with a real estate guy who was working with Beck and reports that Beck is planning on buying a closed shopping mall to serve as the center of his new town.
And then when they have the telltale signs, then it moves into it's a probability they are.
Especially Colorado.
I mean, that is cartoon level, where he's getting DARPA funding and mind control.
He's got a top Air Force psychiatrist who'd been the head of whole operations at entire bases in San Antonio over him, meeting with him multiple times a week.
They're talking about national security and the police don't want it released his workbook with her where he reportedly was planning to do all this.
You want me to keep going?
Witnesses of multiple shooters, all the rest of it.
Him in the jail saying, I don't remember who I am, obviously drugged out of his mind.
So I've been waiting for a while, like I said, for Alex to bring up specific complaints about the Aurora shooting.
But over the course of the last bunch of episodes, all he's done is say it's fake.
And that's unsatisfying for me to respond to because then I have to assume what his conspiracy theories are.
I was waiting for him to get into the details because I've read James Holmes' entire 128-page psychiatric evaluation and so much more about this case.
And I was just itching for Alex to pop his dumb head above the ground so I could bonk him on the head like a whack-a-mole.
As sane people remember, on the night of July 20th, 2012, James Holmes went to a midnight Dark Knight Rises at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado.
He proceeded to set off tear gas or something similar to tear gas in the theater before opening fire, ultimately killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.
After that, he exited the theater and waited for the police to come and arrest him.
As he told the authorities, he'd done some calculations and realized he wouldn't survive the escape.
He absolutely committed this horrific act of terrorism.
And in the next, however long this takes, I will deconstruct and disprove each one of Alex's reasons for believing this was a false flag or, as he calls it, cartoonishly fake.
I was going to say something about his creativity, but then I realized I was drifting way too close to Alex saying you've got to give it to the smaller pirates.
He ended with a GPA of 3.77 and graduated 82nd in a class of 531.
He went on to do his undergrad at UC Riverside, initially setting out to get a Bachelor of Arts in neuroscience, but changing his path to seek a Bachelor of Science, still in neuroscience, a few years into his college career.
He graduated college with a GPA of 3.949, so on paper, he was a pretty damn good student.
The psychological evaluation that was done to try and determine whether he was competent to stand trial includes his GRE scores, but they're literally impossible to be accurate, as their number is way higher than the GRE test scoring range.
Yeah, other reports I've found said that he was in the 98th percentile for the verbal session of the GRE and 94th percentile for the quantitative score.
These are the kind of scores that would put you well on your way towards scholarships and ease of entry into most grad programs.
But some of the most top-tier schools, particularly ones with very specific programs, have other requirements they look for in candidates than just test scores.
My dad is involved in the process of grad school applications for the religious studies department at UT Austin, and I've spoken to him in the past about the process.
It's very complicated to put into concrete terms, but a school doesn't want to offer one of their limited slots in their grad program to somebody that they don't feel will succeed there.
It could be that they feel like the student would do better in a different program, and they're aware of the different programs in different schools.
You could be perfect on paper, but if, say, six other people that are a better fit apply than you that year, you may still not get into the program that you apply for.
And this is what appears to have happened with Holmes.
He applied to a bunch of the best neuroscience schools in the country, but was rejected by all of them.
These were elite programs.
So he was probably up against candidates that had just as good a test scores, probably better extracurricular records, and almost certainly better interviews because he was socially weird.
After getting rejected from these schools, his parents reported that Holmes fell into a depression where he would sleep most of the day and watch television.
They encouraged him to apply to schools that he had a better shot of getting into, and he did.
One of the schools he applied to was the University of Iowa, and their admissions process officers gives a glimpse into how the applications went.
The person interviewing him noted that Holmes' record was a, quote, slam dunk.
But the interview that he gave, he was found to be, quote, bizarre, disconnected, and aloof with a global lack of affect.
This administrator went on to tell the admissions team not to admit him under any circumstances.
He applied to at least five schools and was accepted to two, ultimately choosing the University of Colorado at Denver over the University of Illinois, Urbana.
His first year there, his performance was not up to what the high school and undergrad careers he had would have led students to expect.
And his GPA slipped to around 3.3.
In his lab rotations, there were a lot of people that he was making uncomfortable with his social awkwardness and his habit of, quote, uncomfortable joke making.
He entered the program in June 2011, and a year later, he had to undergo his preliminary oral exams.
And on June 7th, 2012, that was when they were to take place.
The results were not good.
Quote, James did not pass the preliminary oral exams.
Professors report that James was unable to get from A to G in a timely, organized manner in his answers.
They stated that they were concerned that he might not have more than a superficial knowledge of the material, or that he simply knew the words to use without understanding the concepts.
They stated that he performed poorly uniformly, not just in one particular portion or topic.
He failed these exams, but grad schools don't kick out students lightly.
They told him that he could take a different exam and stay in the program, but Holmes said he would rather resign.
Alex believes that he received DARPA funding.
And the reason for this theory is that Holmes was the recipient of a grant awarded by the National Institutes of Health in the amount of $26,000.
Here's how that grant works.
Every year there are about six new neuroscience grad students who enter the program at the University of Colorado, Denver.
The grant from the NIH is given to the school, and then the director of the Neuroscience Center at that school, Diego Restrepo, along with a group of faculty members, decide what students to give the grant to.
The NIH didn't choose James Holmes, and they probably actually had no idea who he even was.
Each year, three of the six new grad students get this grant, and three second-year students get it as well.
Holmes basically had a 50% chance of getting this grant through the school.
There's nothing weird about this, especially considering that on paper he looked like a super promising candidate for their program.
You have to understand that element here.
He was overqualified on paper for a school like the University of Colorado, Denver, but unable to pass the more nebulous aspects of the application process for a top-tier school.
This is in no way meant to insult people who went to the University of Colorado Denver or anybody involved with the school, but they were probably super excited to have a student like him in their program, so him getting that grant makes total sense.
Also, that grant is a large part of the conspiracy that DARPA funding was involved in Holmes, and he had mind control work that he was doing, but that's complete bullshit and doesn't take into account how grad schools work or any of the facts in the case, really.
From there, the assertions get even wilder.
Kurt Nimmo wrote in an article on InfoWars about Holmes' DARPA connections, and these connections are super weak.
The first is that Holmes was a research assistant at the Salk Institute at UC San Diego, and that the Salk Institute had worked with DARPA on the, quote, peak soldier performance program.
First problem with his theory about this peak soldier performance program is that though the name sounds scary, that program wasn't about mind control or anything like that.
It was largely about preventing muscle fatigue and creating cool new things like gloves that can cool as well as warm for soldiers' hands and also prosthetics.
They have a lot of innovative ways for wounded soldiers who've lost limbs.
It's a lot of research into being able to have them have mobility and arm use again.
Also, DARPA funds research all over the goddamn place.
That doesn't mean anything definitive in terms of this, like proving a link between them and Holmes.
All you have here is a super flimsy connection that you can use to then suggest secretly that there's way more going on here than you know.
Meanwhile, you've proved nothing.
For instance, in 2015, Janelle Ayers got a $500,000 grant from DARPA while at the Salk Institute, the same place that they're talking about, to pursue her research into, quote, bolstering a person's microbiome to help their body overcome an infection.
DARPA is super public and open that every year it gives out a ton of grants in the form of their young faculty award to quote rising stars and junior research positions.
It would be kind of more interesting if maybe James Holmes had gotten one of those or if they were disproportionately awarded to the schools that he was at, but none of that's the case.
So conspiracy theorists conveniently just ignore that part where DARPA splashes research money all over the place, making it super easy to connect them to things through webs of coincidence that you could just exaggerate, which is all that's going on here.
The conspiracy, at least this piece of it, was largely the result of quote-unquote reporting, or as I'm going to call it, speculating, done by former InfoWars employee Wayne Madsen, who, if you recall, is the guy who we're making fun of with our Call Larry Nichols shirts.
As you can see, again, this is super interesting that essentially what's happening is that someone Alex has deep connections with and who has at least freelanced for Infowars at this point is coming up with the bullshit conspiracy theory, which Alex is then propagating.
Anytime Wayne Madsen comes up, we have a responsibility to remind people that it was him who said that Hillary Clinton's chef got murdered and a piece, a paper on his shirt, said Call Larry Nichols.
Makes no sense.
Wonderful.
So now we get to the claim of the top Air Force psychiatrist who'd been working over whole operations in San Antonio was working with Holmes.
So one of the things that's important to point out here, just off the bat, is that in order to complete their psychological evaluation of Holmes and determine if he was sane enough to stay on trial, the Colorado Mental Health Institute conducted interviews with 12 mental health clinicians that he'd had relevant contact with before and after his crime.
During the relevant period between March 21st and June 11th, 2012, Holmes was seeing a therapist through the University of Colorado Student Health Services.
This therapist was Dr. Lynn Fenton, and they met seven times in total.
Her name was made public very early in the investigation because before carrying out the shooting, Holmes sent Fenton a package containing the notebook that Alex is lying about, saying it's a workbook that they worked on together.
He sent her a package that contained that notebook, and because of that, her name got released, possibly unintentionally, when reports came out about the package.
It doesn't matter if he told her or not, though, because she got the point.
In his trial, Fenton testified that after their last session, which he left early, quote, she was so concerned that Holmes might be a danger to the public in the month before the Aurora theater shooting that she contacted police and Holmes' mother, a violation of healthcare privacy law.
She breached confidentiality, but she decided that she couldn't do anything further since he hadn't been specific enough in their sessions for him to reach the legal criteria for her to hospitalize him.
From his psychological evaluation, it's pretty clear that he knew where the line was, and he kept things from Fenton specifically, so she couldn't hospitalize him.
He said he couldn't tell her that he was buying weapons, any details of the specific plan, or that he wanted to be locked up, because if he did, she would hospitalize him, and then he couldn't carry out his plan, which he thought would cure his depression.
There are plenty of people who have questions about whether or not she did enough, but from where I'm sitting, I see a therapist who broke protocol to try and stop this guy from hurting people.
Definitely not someone who is his mind control handler, as the conspiracy theories go.
Quote, she worked as a physician in private practice in Denver from 1994 to 2005 and was chief of physical medicine for the U.S. Air Force in San Antonio, Texas in the early 90s, according to her resume.
According to the conspiracy chef blog, her resume said that she was the chief of physical medicine and staff psychiatrist for the U.S. Air Force in San Antonio from 1990 to 1993, which is absolutely not proof of anything other than that she is a doctor and she had a job.
Nowhere does anyone prove that chiefs of physical medicine are mind control doctors.
Nowhere does anyone establish that staff psychiatrists are, quote, over whole operations.
This is just complete assumption and embellishment that these people are carrying off.
Well, if we cross-reference this, though, with all the other Air Force heads of physical medicine, then we can conclude, of course, that every mass shooting has been traced back to an Air Force head of physicians.
Maybe, but I think that the conspiracy theorists knew that was kind of weak.
So in order to make things more convincing, they point to the fact that Fenton was reprimanded for prescribing herself and a few other people that she knew drugs in her past.
But a closer examination of what she actually did makes the infraction look super minor.
Though she was reprimanded in 2005, the incidents happened between 1997 and 1999, and they were Claridin and Ambien for her husband, which I say, who cares?
All of a sudden, she turned into an unethical psychiatrist, and people started to write blog posts that started with the words, a lot of people are asking.
So there's literally zero evidence that Dr. Fenton is anything other than a school psychiatrist who also worked in an Air Force base 13 years prior.
There's no evidence that she was a, quote, top Air Force psychiatrist or psychologist, especially considering that she only worked for them for three years, and Lackland Air Force Base isn't even close to being the biggest or, you know, I don't know.
And to make it worse, to make exactly what you're saying worse, much of the primary sourcing for the conspiracies about Lynn Fenton trace directly back to John Rappaport, who, again, is a very frequent contributor to InfoWars.
Many of the blogs that paint her as an unethical therapist and speculate about her being up to no good with Holmes link back to articles on Rappaport's own blog, No More Fake News, as well as articles that he wrote with his byline on Infowars.
Again, we can see this pattern.
Alex's associates create flimsy bullshit.
He spreads it, presenting it as well-researched facts.
So Alex is saying that police are citing national security and they don't want to release the.
It did get released.
Yeah.
So in May 2012, Holmes began planning his shooting, writing about his mental state and what he hoped to do in a notebook.
It's important to note very specifically that he wasn't working on this with any mental health practitioner.
This was strictly an extracurricular activity.
On InfoWars, an anonymously written article claims without proof that the notebook, quote, is an obvious attempt to hastily arrange a backstory on Holmes and portray him as a murderous psychopath.
He'd been expressing his desire to kill since March 2012 when he told a friend identified as Miss D as much in a group G, or I'm sorry, in a G chat.
He says he wanted to kill people, to which she replies that it's too much effort and he'd just end up in jail.
Holmes replies, quote, that's why you kill many people.
In these G-Chat logs, as well as his notebook, Holmes expressed ideas about what he calls human capital.
It's basically a twisted version of believing that an hour of skilled labor is intrinsically more valuable than an hour of unskilled labor.
In his conception, the human capital of a life is priceless.
So, quote, you take away life and your human capital is limitless.
He seemed to believe that his life was low on human capital, and that by killing a large number of people, he would get the capital that he was missing.
He felt that raising his worth in this way, raising his human capital level, was the only way that he could rid himself of this terrible depression that he lived in.
Holmes wrote all about his plans in this notebook, which he mailed to Dr. Fenton on July 19th, 2012, choosing that date specifically because he knew it wouldn't arrive until after the shooting.
He sent it hours before he would go off to do this shooting.
So the notebook is full of disturbed thoughts and descriptions of what he was going through in the months leading up to the shooting.
He discusses deceiving Dr. Fenton and how his plan was to, quote, prevent building a false sense of rapport, speak truthfully, and deflect incriminating questions.
So he was intentionally withholding information from her in order to be able to follow through with the plan.
Throughout the notebook, Holmes presents himself as having a lifelong struggle about the question of the meaning of life as well as the meaning of death.
It's a question he can't solve, and it seems to give him great anguish.
The solution he arrives at, it seems, is that, quote, if you destroy all life, then there is no question.
But he also discusses having these grandiose thoughts since the age of 10, imagining that he would be able to do something that would kill everyone in the world.
That's tough because that is something that, like, bipolar, I've had delusions of grandeur so many times.
Like, and like a disconcerting number of times where I'm surprised that I'm still allowed here anywhere.
So it is unfortunate that it's like, I totally understand how that can twist and warp you in ways that you, like, it's impossible to really kind of explain to somebody who's never experienced that.
It's to explain that this conspiracy that Alex is pitching is complete nonsense.
Right.
This is something, this notebook is something that he created on his own as who knows, maybe it helped him feel like he was doing something or externalize himself from the fact that he was going to kill a bunch of people, intellectualize it, work through these issues.
And it had nothing to do with Dr. Fenton.
He sent it to her before he went and did the crime, knowing that it would arrive later.
I've looked through the conspiracies about the idea of multiple shooters being involved in the shooting, and nothing even rises to the level of interesting me.
It's all very standard stuff about police dispatchers saying there may be multiple shooters and witnesses reporting things like someone said someone was shooting in the lobby.
So all that sort of stuff is exactly what you see in every situation.
So throughout his psychological evaluation, Holmes repeatedly discusses how he made various efforts to alter his appearance for the shooting.
So he could emotionally separate the part of himself that he decided that decided to kill a bunch of people from the part of himself that he thought was normal.
He bought black contact lenses to wear during the shooting, quote, as a way to differentiate myself from my normal self.
He said that he liked the look because it looked like he was possessed.
In the initial police report, the first officers to make contact with him pointed out that his eyes were very dilated, but this was before they knew that he had black contacts in.
This is where the misconceptions come from, where he was whacked out on drugs.
So he had taken one Vicodin an hour prior to going to the theater just in case he got injured while doing the shooting, but other than that, he was completely clean of alcohol or street drugs.
So he was on a few medications, but by the time the possibility of antipsychotic meds came up, he rejected the idea while he was working with Dr. Fenton because by that point he'd already failed out of grad school and his insurance in the program wouldn't cover it.
Around June 11th, 2012, he dyed his hair red, but contrary to the media's portrayal of it, he didn't intend for it to have any connection to the Joker.
Again, it was an attempt to differentiate who he was going to be from the part of himself that he felt was good.
And he said he changed his appearance, quote, because I was not my normal self.
God, that's another fucked up part of it is that, like, oh, well, I can't get anti-psychotics because my insurance won't cover it or because I ran out of insurance.
After he was put in custody, Holmes took a predictable turn for the worse.
The ideas that he had about being able to raise his human capital and free himself from his depression by killing hadn't worked, and he was still depressed.
He descended into a full-on psychotic break, requiring staff to restrain him for his own safety as he was banging his head on walls and apparently trying to fall from his bed in a manner so as to fall on his head.
Dr. Frazier reported that he did not know where he was and that his thinking was completely disorganized and talked a lot about being in a quote shadow box and the need to hide from shadows.
He was put on Resperidone and responded very well.
He became able to organize his thoughts enough to understand what year it was and who was the president and where he was.
His auditory and visual hallucinations subsided as well.
They also found that he was in a starvation delirium due to not eating because he was paranoid about the food that was being provided at the hospital.
They put him on a saline drip and he improved again dramatically.
During that time, he was also put on the right medication.
Before that, he was saying all sorts of wild shit, but he was also being kept in isolation, so no one but his doctors would have heard him saying any of that stuff.
The stories about the things that James Holmes said in prison all come from a man who was also in the jail at the time, a man named Steve Unruh.
Unruh claimed that while they were both in booking cells, he had a four-hour talk with Holmes and talked him out of committing suicide in this chat wherein Holmes said he was programmed to kill by an evil therapist.
What we do know for sure is that Unruh was at the Arapahoe Sheriff's Detention Facility in the hours before the shooting, having been arrested on drug and theft charges.
He alleges, although prisoners are kept separate, they can communicate through gaps in cell doors.
Multiple officers at the Sheriff's Department, including the captain and lieutenant, have gone on record and said the communication, like Unruh is describing, is impossible due to the layout of the holding cells.
So he's almost playing on the idea that we have from movies of the jails being bars, and you can still, like, even if it's a solid wall between you, you can still talk through the bars and get that.
Given the unlikely nature of their communication being possible and the inconclusiveness of any proof that Unruh has been able to provide, I see this with a little bit of skepticism.
Probably one important thing to consider is that Unruh had just been released from six years in prison and then had been rearrested and was looking at a steep sentence for reoffending.
From an article in Westworld, quote, he's going public with this account of the encounter with Holmes, he says, only after trying to interest the Arapahoe County District Attorney's Office in his story.
He's currently facing habitual criminal charges and had hoped to deal his way into a mental health treatment rather than a 12-year prison sentence.
Although an investigator visited him, quote, the DA hasn't been working with me, he sighs.
Occam's Razor tells me that this story is a load of bullshit, and that Unro was spending it to cut a deal and somehow turn a coincidence that he was in the holding at the same time as Holmes into a positive for him.
The DA didn't believe his story, since it's clearly nonsense, so he decided to take it to the public and see if he could find any interest there.
It's also probably worth noting that in 2014, Steve Unruh self-published a book called The Truth: Massacre at Cinema 16.
And here is the description of that book.
Quote, a family man with an addiction relapse gets an intervention in his life, and also in a mass murderer's life.
Just hours after the man kills 12 people and injures 70, the killer wants to commit suicide, and the author is used as a vessel from a higher power to pray with the killer, convince him to repent, and talk him out of his suicidal thoughts.
I think all this has a pretty simple explanation, and that is that Steve Von Rue is not a good source of information, and we should not believe him.
But this jailhouse confession, it seems kind of like he is an opportunist.
This isn't a complete rundown of all of the conspiracies that people spin about the Aurora shooting, but there's no way that you possibly could in Alex made five specific claims that he was using to reinforce his position that the Aurora shooting was cartoonishly fake and obviously a false flag.
None of them stand up to scrutiny, even in the least, and all are easily cast aside as completely manufactured or misrepresented bits of information, seeking a predetermined conclusion, namely that the shooting was fake.
At least two of the theories I can trace back specifically to InfoWars contributors as either being the root of the theory or being the largest propagators once they got rolling, which I think feels a little bit significant.
Ultimately, what's going on here is that Alex is aggressively arguing that the Aurora shooting was fake to justify his position that Sandy Hook was fake.
When you analyze his claims about Aurora, you can clearly see that there's no support here for his Sandy Hook position.
And in fact, it only makes his behavior look worse.
They released decks in collaboration with Infowars in January 2013.
But it also does speak to something that I've learned from knowing a lot of skaters over the course of my life, and that is that many of them are really cool, and some of them are pretty clever, but they're not the best decision makers, generally speaking.
No.
One of the things that's the biggest bummer about hearing that clip is that at the time, Alien Workshop was owned by Rob Deerdick, star of the delightful MTV shows Robin Big and Rob Deardick's Fantasy Factory.
It's really sad for me to realize that he put out an InfoWars deck between the fifth and sixth seasons of Fantasy Factory.
And most of the responses I can find that remain online are not positive, ranging from a Reddit comment that just says, fuck Alex Jones to a message board thread accusing Alien Workshop of being a satanic company that, quote, gay-ass occult doodles on their brand, their boards and clothes.
They also accuse Alex of selling out for working with them, which is pretty funny to imagine that co-branding a skateboard in 2013 is the point at which someone would accuse Alex of selling out.
I told you earlier that we were going to meet a real crazy, a real bad person, a real monster, which is the sort of thing that always excites me about doing these episodes.
On the one hand, I was also really excited about the opportunity to talk about the Aurora shooting because Alex brings it up all the time as proof that Sandy Hook could be fake.
And I knew that down the road we would need to do that.
But that was probably like 20 minutes, half an hour of this episode.
And I'm sorry if that bored anybody, but it's essential that we cover that as we go through Sandy Hook.
It's a big piece of his shit.
But I thought that was going to be it for this episode.
Dr. James Garrow joins us because if you're up at Infowars.com, you can see this article.
I'll also punch it up for people watching on television.
Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Obama asked military leaders if they will fire on U.S. citizens.
Shock claim purported to come from one of America's foremost military leaders.
Well, we've already got General Boykin, former head of special forces saying our government, he believes, was giving weapons to Al-Qaeda, and that's what Benghazi is as a cover-up.
But the point is, if you go to our article, and there were other articles that actually broke it in The Examiner and a couple others the day before, and I'm giving him credit.
Our articles, though, back it up with the Army training manuals from 2010, FM 3-39.40, interment resettlement.
So for a long time, I've heard Alex make the following argument, which is what he's talking about here, and what Jim Garrow is on the show to talk about.
Obama only wants bloodthirsty patriot haters in the highest offices of the military and the police.
In order to achieve this goal, he's put a litmus test in for advancement, if you want a promotion.
This test is asking potential candidates if they would fire on American citizens.
Sometimes this is couched as shooting people who won't turn in their guns or wouldn't go along with martial law.
There's different flavors of it.
The particular details change depending on what narrative Alex wants to push, but the basic point is the same.
Obama is selectively promoting evil patriot haters so they can have a top-down control over law enforcement, which will then oppress Alex and his friends.
I've literally never once thought to look into this because it sounds like complete bullshit and just a dumb paranoid fantasy.
But one of the other reasons I never looked into it and I never wanted to dig into it was that Alex never gives a citation for it.
He never talks about where he got this information from.
Who said this?
So I'm happy to look into all sorts of obviously not true things, but when it just looks like a wild goose chase, I have better uses of my time.
Not much better, but slightly better uses of it.
Fair, fair, fair.
And now, on a silver platter, Alex tells me that he got this information from Dr. Jim Garrow.
He even makes it seem a little bit too clear in that clip that Garrow's claims are all he has to back this up, and he's taking his word for it because he thinks Garrow is credible.
Here are some of the completely unfounded claims that he has made over the years.
He was a guest on the End Times radio show where he claimed that he knew that Andrew Breitbart, Tom Clancy, and Michael Hastings were all killed under direct orders by Barack Obama because they knew that he wasn't actually an American president, but was in reality a Saudi Arabian agent.
On the Tea Party, on a Tea Party podcast, he claimed that Obama was in touch with aliens or some group that would pretend to be aliens.
It's kind of unclear.
Either way, Obama was planning to unveil the contact with these aliens as a grand deception, which is dangerously close to the plot of Childhood's End.
And so I don't care.
In November 2013, he went on another right-wing show and alleged that Obama and George Soros were conspiring to kill 300 million Americans by dropping nukes on cities.
He said that Obama and Soros, who he was calling a Nazi collaborator at that time, hatched this plan so Soros can make more money betting against the dollar.
There's literally no evidence that any of this ever happened, and nukes did not kill 300 million people.
He's claimed that Obama blew up the Malaysian plane and has also accused Obama of being a secret Chinese and Muslim operative along with Saudi Arabia and one.
Another requirement is that you have to have three years' experience in a relevant field, like being in the military or law enforcement, which I don't see in Garrow's story.
So it seems like he doesn't reach that requirement.
Also, you have to be a citizen of the U.S. to join the CIA.
And according to his bio on IMDb, written by user Dr. Jim Garrow.
He has a profile on IMDb, as I mentioned, because in 2015, he started pivoting towards being an actor, appearing in Nothing You've Ever Heard Of, but also having more acting credits than Alex.
Garrow did two episodes of a show called Shadowland where he turned in a game-changing performance as fly fisherman.
He calls himself Dr. Jim Garrow because he claims to have a doctorate degree from North Carolina College of Theology, which is not an accredited school.
And in case anyone wants to go back and look through their records and pull up his coursework or anything like that, don't worry about it if you don't find anything, because the degree is honorary.
So he didn't actually even do he got an honorary degree from a place where you could probably buy an honorary non-accredited College of Theology in North Carolina.
Like many weirdos Alex knows, Garrow claims to have been nominated for a Nobel Prize and claims that he lost specifically to Obama, thus only further igniting their rivalry.
He got in a little bit of trouble when Transit Canada found out that the plane he was using was not insured or registered, leading to a $2,850 fine after, quote, a civil aviation tribunal found he had intentionally deceived his instructors.
All this is to say that I don't know if I think Jim Garrow is a very credible source.
I might go ahead and not believe him when he says that Obama is trying to get troops to agree to fire on citizens based on all this other bullshit he said.
However, some people have raised some questions about whether or not Garrow is just making all this stuff up.
Brian Stey, who adopted three children from China himself, has become a bit of an advocate and facilitator for people who want to adopt children from China.
And when he heard about Garrow, he got in contact with him to learn more.
Quote, I've talked to Jim Garrow a lot about the program.
He indicated areas in China where he works, and I've made contact with orphanages in those areas and have been unable to substantiate anything he said.
Because he's doing this shit without the proper authority on a very real and technical level.
He's involved in a child trafficking ring.
The flippantness with which Garrow admits that he's illegally taking children out of China has, quote, led some to worry that Garrow is involved in the buying and selling of babies.
He's claimed that Pink Pagoda has incurred $26 million in expenditures over the span of 10 years, and that the money came from running an importing business, particularly of Tim Horton's coffee.
Tim Horton spokesman Alexandra Seigel, quote, says Garrow has no affiliation with the company.
I read a review of this book that I can only describe as scathing that was posted on the Research China blog, run by a group dedicated to helping families understand the stories of the children they adopt, so as to help them create a fuller sense of themselves as they grow up.
The book is described as a litany of stereotypes about Chinese culture, which gave the reviewer, quote, the feeling that he was watching a predictable movie.
Garrow's view of China is described as, quote, Western, simplified, and largely unfamiliar.
The book is devoid of any discussion of the specifics of how adoptions work, and it seems like...
It's only made worse by protracted action scenes in the book where Garrow's Chinese intelligence operative friend, who he calls Yoda, commits a bunch of murders to protect Garrow and his mission to save children.
So there's a really good chance that Garrow's never been arrested for child trafficking in a ring that he claims to operate because he's just making it up.
Journalists who have tried to contact any of the schools or orphanages he claims association with in China are constantly unable to find any proof that they're real and end up just dialing phone numbers that lead to disconnected lines.
In late 2014, he was arrested and, quote, faced charges of unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, and careless use and storage of a firearm.
As is the case with everyone who Alex hangs out with, Garrow immediately claimed he was set up, and it was probably Obama behind it.
I can't find out any information about the outcome of this case, but I assume that it wasn't too severe, since afterwards, he's still all over right-wing media making up all sorts of complete bullshit.
And it's mostly because what he isn't interested in, what he is interested in, is this claim that Garrow has made on his Facebook page that Obama has put in this litmus test.
And so here he describes that litmus test information.
And keep in mind, as you're listening to this, that what he's describing is third-hand information.
A call the day before yesterday in the morning from this officer, a former officer.
He's retired.
But he was quite upset that one of the people he'd encouraged to join the military was being squeezed out, that he was forced to resign his commission.
And it was because a question was asked of him.
Now, I've called it a litmus test, but basically what it is, he was asked, if in a scenario, if in a situation where the military was called upon to go and confront people who were armed, American citizens, who would not relinquish their arm in spite of the Second Amendment right to hold arms, would you fire on American citizens?
This gentleman related to me that the officer was totally flummoxed that he would be asked this question, and he said his answer was no, I would not fire on American citizens.
And he was forced to resign his commission immediately.
The problem is that Jim Mattis announced his resignation in April 2012.
So now we're looking at a few possibilities.
Either Obama told Mattis he needed to shoot on civilians, he said no, and Obama said, okay, I'll just keep you around for 11 months while we try and find a replacement.
Meanwhile, Mattis kept serving the president he knew was trying to get him to kill patriots.
You know, my guess, if I have to say who it is, is that it'd be somebody like Lieutenant General William Boykin, who's also exposing right now that the government's giving weapons to Al-Qaeda.
So Alex insists that it's Boykin, and he later is like, I'm certain of it.
I'm 100% sure.
Here's the problem.
You know, Alex believes that Boykin's the person that Garrow has recently talked to about recently being drummed out of the service, which is stupid because Boykin retired in 2007, well, before Obama even took office.
So he wouldn't have any reason to get mad in 2013.
Also, in 2013, William Boykin was employed as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council.
As you might guess, from that piece of information, William Boykin is a real piece of shit, and Alex loves him.
Unfortunately, we don't have time to get into him today, but I'm sure he'll show up as a guest on the show soon since Alex thinks that he's Garrow's source for the show.
And they might try and turn that into some sort of a spectacle.
I'm not entirely sure.
This interview goes great.
Alex loves Jim Garrow.
I don't think the two of them have ever spoken before, and they are fast friends, mostly because Garrow is reinforcing all the things that Alex talks about.
And he does the Steve Pieczenik move of really over-flattering Alex.
He's like, I didn't know who I was coming in to talk to today, but you know everything.
You are right on about all this stuff.
And so here they talk about how Obama has Hitler youth ready to replace these old generals that fail the litmus test of shooting on civilians.
Alex gets so fucking excited that this guy is on the same tip as him.
And Alex keeps bringing up, do you understand why we need guns?
And he's like, Alex, even if I had a thousand guns and I was in the woods and I had a fortified position, if those drones come, the military is going to be able to, you know, I don't think you having guns is really going to make that much of a difference.
But I thought, like, when Alex said, we're going to have the Young Turks Jenk Uger on, it's going to be, you know, I was like, this is going to be crazy.
And it's ultimately not that crazy.
It's just kind of a boring interview where Jenk tries.
Like I said, it's just him saying, this is more complicated than that, Alex.
Well, and in probably refutation to your argument, crime in the areas where guns are concentrated has not fallen violent crime compared to that Stanford study about concealed carry and crime rates hadn't come out at this point.
When they're dang wretching their guts, I'm about to take the whole express elevator straight to hell, where the devil and all his angels are waiting to roll with your soul like a millstone and take you right to the center of the frozen lake in the ninth circle.
And I think it's interesting because some of the things that I expected are coming to pass.
You know, like the prediction that after Alex had, or Paul Joseph Watson, more correctly, had that interview with James Tracy and they recognized the value of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, that he would try and get more aggressively into that market.
His behavior in the aftermath, in the literal immediate aftermath of the Lone Star College shooting, indicates to me, I mean, it's just a few days after all the talk about how popular the Sandy Hook videos are.
So I see that as kind of a pretty strong indication that he's wanting to get into that market.
And that we might see whenever there's any kind of a shooting or breaking news, Alex try to behave this way.
I think he's going to lose his mind through that.
That constant chase for the proof of the fakeness of these things.
I think we're seeing the process of him trying to capitalize on this thing, the profitability of Sandy Hook videos, and he's going to end up in a shoot where he's actually perpetuating these things that he was just trying to capitalize on.
much reinforcement from the audience yeah much people many people saying you gotta tell the truth about sandy hook uh i think he's i don't know i i started to I started to reflect on this.
I'm like, I really, I see such trouble ahead in 2013.
I see such trouble.
I can't get over how fascinated I am about how badly this is going to go.
I mean, the prediction that I had on the last episode that he would start getting into this business a bit more was made before I listened to that episode with the Lone Star college shooting.
I didn't know that in advance.
And so the idea that the next day that he's back in studio after his vacation, that's the angle he takes.
And I think that within context, even things that are known, like that he did say that they were actors, I think you provide the things that preceded that and led him down that road.
It kind of does suggest a very, well, I mean, if you were doing a psychological evaluation, you would say he is mentally fit to stand trial for this situation.