Knowledge Fight’s #303 dissects Alex Jones’ January 29–31, 2013 broadcasts—where he dismissed Facebook as a "joke" while using it to spread warnings, promoted unverified cancer cure claims from Younggevity’s parent company, and amplified Jim Garrow’s baseless military conspiracy theories. The episode also exposes Jones’ racial bias in labeling the Price Middle School shooting gang-related without evidence, his exploitation of callers like a disabled Kansas fan spending $900/month on InfoWars merch, and his dismissive treatment of a British caller debunking globalist myths. His selective sourcing—from 4chan hacks to Ted Anderson’s gold scams—reveals a pattern of profit-driven misinformation, priming audiences for future false flag narratives while demonizing Obama and the left as tools of control. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh, for a friend of the show and your friend Matt Riggs' bachelor party, there was a little bit of a boat excursion into a lake where I was deeply hungover.
I was swimming around, and I famously declared that I belong in the water.
I think we've gotten a number of new folks into the show lately because I did get a number of messages from people expressing like, what the fuck is this?
Isn't their job, though, less to opine about how awful Mueller is, Mueller, and more be like, hey, he said a bunch of stuff, but the report really basically means this.
You don't need to read it.
Please, if you are a Republican or a conservative or a patriot, do not actually read the report because it will tell you things that maybe you shouldn't know.
I assume Alex is going to devote the entire month of February in 2013 to Black History Month, and he's really going to go through a lot of the different things.
So, one thing that's important to remember about this time period right here, this January 29th specifically, is that we have crossed a line of demarcation.
First of all, we've had Alex on the last episode say very clearly, I haven't gotten into these actor theories and these people saying that they were actors at Sandy Hook and these people, these victims aren't victims.
But now I've seen the CNN footage where Anderson Cooper's nose disappeared.
Well, Alex hasn't committed to that in any meaningful way yet.
He has signaled that he is supportive of those theories, which is building upon him having Professor James Tracy on as a guest to be interviewed by Paul Joseph Watson.
So we are past the point where he has gotten in contact with Alex and made InfoWars aware of the fact that their coverage is having a negative impact on their lives.
So everything after this point, we can really take away any kind of illusion that he doesn't know the effect he's having on people.
We will sell no wine before it's time is the tagline of Paul Maison Winery, which if you guys, I would play this audio on the show, but it's so visual.
If you haven't watched it, go on YouTube and watch the outtakes of Orson Welles trying to film the Paul Maison commercial.
It's nuts to me that he's passing off a quote of Orson Welles that is actually just a wine slogan from a commercial that he probably saw when he was a kid.
So in this next clip, we get an interesting difference between present-day Alex and 2013 Alex.
And that is that he doesn't seem to value social media really all that much in 2013.
And in this next clip, it's funny to hear him say these sorts of things about Facebook, for example, and know that in the present day, he's arguing that one cannot operate without Facebook, and it's the public square, and it needs to be regulated as a utility.
We're using the enemy operation, the enemy combine, the enemy system, the enemy data relay to jack into their matrix and try to warn people inside of it.
That's what it is, folks.
This is a war.
And if I can seize their weapon systems and use them against them, I'll do it all day long.
Now, certainly, he still believes those sorts of things about Facebook, like the ideas of it being the enemy system and all that.
But he does not seem to have any concern about the idea of it being something you are entitled to be on in 2013.
Seems like that's changed quite a bit.
Maybe because he got on it and his business model shifted so heavily towards the need for sensationalist promotion on social media, grabbing attention, clickbait.
Well, if Jim Baker didn't exploit specifically, like Jim Baker's not given back a dime from all of the people who make $900 a month and give it to him.
When he told me that he was a former terrorist who wrote a book called God's War on Terror and he converted to Christianity, my suspicion is he is not real or not telling the truth.
He claimed he was locked up by the Israeli police, and after his release, he came to the United States and went to college here in Chicago, ultimately becoming a U.S. citizen and converting to Christianity in 1993.
In 2005, he began his publishing career with a book called Why I Left Jihad, The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam.
He has said that he began to get more active in this line of work around 9-11 because he saw the outcome of terrorist activity that he had surrounded himself with.
In 2009, he brought in over $500,000 on the lecture circuit, as well as from the sale of his merch.
Interestingly, one of his clients was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who paid him to give speeches where he said things like, quote, all Islamic organizations in America should be the number one enemy, all of them.
But here's the problem.
Shobat's story involves specifics, and those specifics can be investigated.
So because of these specifics, if you do look into them and they're not true, that introduces a huge credibility problem.
There's no evidence that Shobat was ever involved in terrorism.
Bank Lueme has gone on the record and said that there was no firebombing that could match the description and timeframe of the attack Shobat claims to have carried out.
The Israeli government has stated clearly that they have no record of him ever being arrested or jailed.
His family members have said that his story just doesn't make sense.
And of course his story doesn't make sense.
How would that even work?
A guy firebombs an Israeli bank, gets caught, then has no trouble heading to the United States and becoming a citizen?
And when the claims are more closely examined, they don't seem to reflect reality at all.
Now, what I find interesting is that I do believe one part of Shobat's story, namely that 9-11 was a turning point for him.
The DHS was spending money like crazy, and as the war on terror ramped up in the following years, there was so much money on the table for a former terrorist who could give a glimpse into the mindset of this country's supposed enemy.
When there are no records to support the backstory you make up, you can claim that you're using a fake name to elude the PLO terrorists who have a bounty on your head.
When your family members say unequivocally that you are not using a fake name, you can claim that they themselves are terrorist sympathizers who hate you for converting to Christianity.
There's always a way out of the corner, as long as you're willing to be a huge asshole, which seems to be what Waleed Shobat has done.
In the course of his career, Shobat tricked a whole lot of people into thinking he was some kind of an expert on terrorism, and he made a pretty profit off it.
In 2008, he was soliciting donations to the Waleed Shobat Foundation, which he claimed was registered as a charity in Pennsylvania.
Although the Pennsylvania State Attorney's Office has said that there's no such record of registration, which, of course, raises some pretty serious questions.
But the biggest questions need to be directed towards how it was so easy for someone who is so clearly kind of in favor of terrorism to be boosted as an expert in counterterrorism.
For example, after the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, he said, quote, the only ones moaning over 50 gays slaughtered are liberals, idiots, and gay lovers.
I don't care about gays who are Muslim-loving, anti-gun liberals.
Stupid people who hate life die.
Stupid people who hate life always die.
After the Charlie Hebado shooting, he applauded the terrorist attack because the magazine had, quote, insulted the Virgin Mary.
Thus, it should be no surprise that he's a big supporter of Trump and that his son Theodore has explicitly called for Trump to establish a quote Christian supremacist society, saying that in that society that he wants to be created, there would be quote no free reign for homosexuals.
There's no liberation for perversity and debasedness, and just downright weird mutant psychos walking around with clipped liberal dyke hair and men dressing up as women and all that sick psycho shit stuff.
People who flaunt the Quran in a Christian society would be arrested, at times put to death.
In the present day, Waleed and his son are spouting shit that sounds really similar to a lot of the stuff that comes out of Alex's mouth pretty regularly.
But what's interesting to me is that if you listen to that clip of Alex talking to the caller, like I said, he's not interested in this dude at all.
He doesn't know who he is, even though Waleed has been agitating against Islam for years at this point, and the caller is bringing up his third book.
Islamophobia is not a primary part of Alex's marketing strategy in 2013, which I have to assume is largely because he didn't realize something that Walid knew from day one, and that is that this is a super lucrative business to go in.
I think there's more just like if you don't have a real good through line and you're just making shit up, eventually the worst parts of yourself will become amplified.
Here is a clip of Alex getting embarrassed by a British guy who he thinks is doing a fake accent, but is actually pointing out that Alex has no idea about the royal family.
It's just that at the heart of so much of the New World Order we see being pushed is the Transylvanian royalty that you've got perched over there in London.
unidentified
It's not actually Transylvanian.
It's actually a German family.
But at the same time, they're as British as anyone else that moved to Britain 200 years ago.
The point is, I think that, and I, like I said, the accent a little bit.
But because this guy knows what he's talking about, he gets Alex to say, like, well, yeah, you know, I guess, you know, being into the royals is kind of okay because, you know, like UKIP, they're nationalists, but they believe in the royalty as a nationalist thing.
But the point is, is that, and then higher levels, 90% will be killed.
And then higher level, it's no, 5% will live.
At the highest levels, they talk about killing everyone, and then the last globalist will merge with the mega computer and become God.
I'm not saying that's going to actually happen.
But do you think two New World Order skexies up in their Ivory Tower, if they actually succeed in this program, merging with cybernetic systems, are not going to kill each other?
I mean, do you really think that?
unidentified
Well, actually, what I really think is that most of what you're seeing comes from H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell.
If I'm allowed to keep talking, it will reveal that there is a larger political context to everything that he's trying to present to his audience that actually refutes a great deal of it.
And all Alex is doing is mispurposing fucking science fiction authors and then people like Bertrand Russell.
He's just using stuff from their work selectively, out of context, and manipulatively in order to create this conception of these globalists that he's afraid of.
If you have the idea that they want so desperately to take your guns that they're willing to commit false flag terrorist acts to blame on you in order to facilitate getting your guns, if you have that in place, then anything can be fake.
And the way you selectively use the accusations of things being fake becomes crucially important.
That last clip is a perfect encapsulation of how you get the groundwork laid in order to excuse just about anything.
So in this next clip, Alex talks about Bill Joy, his article from Wired magazine, Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.
We've talked about this a hundred times.
Yep.
Alex claims always consistently that Bill Joy's article was about a meeting of high-level technocratic globalists who were getting together to discuss what to do about humans once they're taken over by machines and robots.
And that is not true at all.
That is only true of a very short passage in this article where Bill Joy is literally quoting the Unibomber and not discussing that as a decision being made by high-level technocratic globalists.
So in this next clip, the reason that, and we've talked about this a hundred times, Alex brings up the future doesn't need us a ton.
Why should it be discussed again?
One reason and one reason only.
I believe in this clip, Alex makes it way too clear that he knows that he's misusing that article, and he knows that what he's doing is quoting the Unibomber.
But the globalists have said on record in things like Wired magazine with Bill Joy that I've talked about probably 300 times since the April issue 2000, where he said, Yeah, I went to a meeting of a couple hundred top computer company owners, and our debate was, do we just give you games and fun things to play and make you a bunch of idiots, but let you keep destroying the resources, or do we kill everybody?
And the consensus is we're going to kill everybody.
So I'm just going to tell you that what the Unabomber said was right.
Unless this technocracy takes over, humans will be obsolete.
That is Alex admitting that he is well aware, or at least he's aware that what he believes to be true about this article is just the Unabomber part of it.
Anyway, in this next clip, if you think that that is kind of damning about Alex's beliefs about what the globalists plan to do, we're about to hear Alex say something that leads me to believe that news radio's Jimmy James might be a globalist.
In fact, a lot of these globalist bosses have a robot in their office when they're in a different city or different country, and the robot rolls around with a camera and stuff on it.
So instead of talking to that dude, we get the second guest, and he ends up staying for like two hours because this guy seems like someone who will never fucking leave.
We had him on last week, and the hour went by very quickly.
So I wanted to get him on for an hour today so you could question him.
Jim Garrow was talking about a, quote, a retired military living legend saying that the military brass that he knows has told him they're having a litmus test.
Will you fire on U.S. citizens?
Well, the military's training for that, and that's in the news.
And General Boykin, the former head of special forces, Boykin?
He's been talking about plans for a police state.
He's been talking about our government giving al-Qaeda terrorists weapons.
Gee, I wonder what general Mr. Garrow is talking about.
But he has more to say today.
And he said the general, not that we know it's Boykin, did not want to go public himself, but wanted to go through Jim Garrow.
And I looked up Jim Garrow.
He runs heavily in the big Christian circles, as General Boykin does, the same circles.
But he will not reveal the source.
I'm smart enough to know who it is.
And again, people say, well, why are you revealing it then?
You know, 99% chance.
Because the NSA and the government already knows.
I don't live in a delusional world here, ladies and gentlemen.
So we talked about Jim Garrow on a recent episode, and we went over how he's just making this shit up about Obama giving soldiers a litmus test for advancement in the form of asking them if they'll fire on U.S. citizens.
So we went over how his claims, he claims to be running a gigantic child trafficking ring to get female children out of China, which he's most likely making up entirely.
He's a big old piece of shit, this Jim Garrow.
Since his last appearance on the show, his fake leak from his high-level source has gone quite viral and has become a huge talking point in the right-wing media and the militia patriot circles.
Mere days into Obama's second term, it's being seen by these dumb-dumbs as the best shot they have of getting Obama impeached and bringing in a Biden presidency, I guess, which is their big goal.
I don't think we learned too much from this episode that we didn't know before, but I find it slightly interesting that Alex has now completely decided that Garrow's secret source is General Boykin, despite the fact that literally none of the details that Garrow has given him about his source match Boykin.
My cynical brain is fairly convinced that Alex knows that Garrow is just making this up, so he's kind of free to make shit up, too.
You know, it's not like Garrow is going to call Alex's bluff by revealing his non-existent source, so Alex has the green light to pretend he solved the mystery and he gets to make himself look super clever.
It reminds me a little about how Alex treated QAnon early on when it started.
He was fairly dismissive of the whole thing, but he also said he knew who was behind it.
It's a smart gamble.
When someone else is running a con, they can't really do anything about it if you decide to piggyback their con without risking blowing up their entire thing.
That's just one element of this kind of thing that reminds me of QAnon, though.
Here you have a guy coming on the show and giving out cryptic, unverifiable information that ostensibly comes from a high-level military source who's just trying to get the word out and warn the people about the evils of the left.
There's less anonymity to this con, so it's a little easier to collapse when anyone starts looking into Jim Garrow or when tons of patriotic ex-military officers don't start coming forward to back up his bullshit.
But the framework there is very similar.
So I thought that was kind of interesting.
But it's very strange to me.
I'm 100% convinced that both of them know that they're both full of shit.
The dynamic of the QAnon thing is just sort of a stray thought that I had that I definitely need to think more about.
But there's kernels of similarity in the skeleton of it.
Yeah.
And I think there are probably a lot of examples of that in Alex's career.
It's kind of interesting to think about when Steve Pieczenik would come on in the lead up to Alex deciding he loved Trump and tell about the counter-counter coup against the Clintons.
AL International announces results of longevity clinical studies performed by Clemson University, Yahoo Finance.
They took cancer cells from human cancer in the colon that's just exploding because of all the toxins and chemicals, and of course it mutates the cells.
And the longevity beyond tangy tangerine that tests some of the others as well.
You can go read the results in a scientific study.
It seems like thin ice, but I also think Alex is kind of protected.
I think legally he's protected because he's just reading a press release about one of his sponsors asserting that their product has a health benefit that the FDA hasn't evaluated and hasn't been proven.
But he's not saying that beyond tangy tangerine is going to cure your cancer.
He's just reading a press release that heavily implies it, and that might be legal.
So, whatever the case legally is, I'm certain that this is a deeply, deeply unethical thing for Alex to be doing.
And here are the reasons why.
First, Young Jevity is one of Alex's primary sponsors.
He has a deep financial interest in overselling their products.
Assuming that a study has been done that seemed to indicate that their products could treat cancer, he's the last person who should be covering that story as news, since it takes a story away from the context of being serious science and analysis of the study and lands it directly in paid advertisement territory.
If you were Youngevity and you were serious about this study, you would never want Alex reporting on it.
You do not want him being the person to convey this message.
Second, I think they don't care, Longevity that is, because I don't think they're serious about this study.
The press release that Alex is reading is from AL International, which may sound like a scientific research group, but it's actually just Younggevity's parent company.
Of the nine results on the first page of a Google search for the Institute of Nutraceutical Research at Clemson University, you find a Facebook page for the Institute that has no followers and no posts.
One amateur slideshow presentation about the Institute, and seven links to stories about the Youngevity story.
In 2016, Michelle Van Etten was announced to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.
And as it turns out, she was involved with Youngevity.
This led to some people in the media taking notice and asking a few questions, one of which was about this study that Youngevity has made a big part of their marketing.
Quote, Clemson's Institute of Nutraceutical Research did some limited preliminary laboratory research for youngevity several years ago.
No clinical trials were performed, and Clemson has in no way endorsed any youngevity product nor authorized the use of Clemson's name or data in conjunction with any claims of efficacy.
The Institute no longer exists.
This is a real problem because the website for InfoWars team, Alex's multi-level marketing operation, they just reposted AL International's press release in full, and it literally says that they did, quote, clinical research studies, which they did not.
In the post on InfoWars team, it claims that the study showed that Beyond Tangy Tangerine, quote, killed 60% of cancerous colon cells, 65% of cancerous liver and stomach cells, and 30% of cancerous breast cells.
While their other product, Ultimate Classic, quote, killed 95% of cancerous colon cells.
Well, they put some cancer cells on, like, one of those shooting targets, and then they threw tangerine at it, and they realized that it put holes in the, yeah.
Plenty of studies have been done on cells and test tubes that find that everything from strawberries, grapes, rosemary, green tea, and ginger kill cancer cells.
This is true in test tubes, but has literally no application towards whether they have any similar effect when taken by a person.
One blog I found described the study, they put it this way: bleach kills cancer cells in a test tube, but it's not going to help your cancer to drink bleach.
This is the sleight of hand of a study like this.
The Institute of Nutraceutical Research knew before they started the tests what the outcome was likely to be, and they knew that they wouldn't get similar results with clinical trials, which really makes this smell like research for hire.
I can't prove that, but it has some of the hallmarks of you paid for this study in order to get the thing you needed.
Dr. Wallach is not in bed with the Koch, for all I can tell.
Fair.
Whatever the case about the law is here, and whether or not the Institute was paid to deliver a meaningless study for Young Jevity to lie about, it doesn't matter to me.
What Alex is doing on air regarding this study is deeply unethical.
He's selling false hope to his listeners.
And in this case, as opposed to other instances, the stakes are a bit real.
Like when he sells them pills to give them virility, it's really just a placebo effect he's selling them.
But with Beyond Tangy Tangerine being sold as it might kill your cancer cells, that's a whole different level.
There's an actual underlying condition here, which makes this fucking super bad.
Any further action will just lead people to realize I'm claiming to run a child trafficking ring, and I don't want the law enforcement to get involved there.
Maybe he just didn't realize that what he was describing was a crime on he said in that interview no one knows like people in China don't know what I'm doing like in the orphanages because it's fucking illegal.
But we start here with Alex talking to Paul Joseph Watson, and he's bringing up those hacked documents that the caller called in a couple days ago and told him he had found on 4chan, and he was afraid for his life to send to Alex.
I want to get in when we come back to this report you put out that got picked up all over the world concerning this now admitted hack of a British defense contractor.
Yesterday, when the British defense contractor that you contacted on Monday for a comment finally responded to the Russian national news saying, look, we did get hacked.
The thousands of pages of documents, scans of passports.
That's why we said it looked like a real hack.
But we pointed out could be that somebody inserted fake stuff into the hack.
They're saying the emails where they're discussing a staged chemical event, which has been discussed by the news everywhere, that they were contacted by Qatar to be part of this.
The idea of somebody hacking something for geopolitical purposes in a semi-sophisticated way and disseminating that information through certain channels, that sounds like something Russia might do.
It's unlike anything else in the country, and I can totally understand why Alex loves it so much and makes it a vacation destination.
There really is so much to appreciate there.
Like, you have historical value as the land in the park once served as a home for members of the Comanche and Mescaleros tribes, and artifacts at that time could still be found around the park.
The park is home to a bunch of really cool animals like roadrunners and jackrabbits, as well as all manner of cactus and wildflowers, all protected by the status that it enjoys as a national park.
There are gorgeous rock formations and waterfalls, canyons and picturesque views to enjoy a sunset.
It's a one-of-a-kind thing, boasting three complete ecosystems in the form of a river, mountain, and desert, each separate from one another, all in one national park.
Thanks to the federal government, that land has remained relatively protected for hundreds of thousands of people a year to visit and enjoy and appreciate.
Obviously, this makes the area a bit complicated from a political perspective.
My feeling is that the only real way to crack down on immigration there would be to militarize the national park, which would require a ton of development of the land.
Anyway, I only bring all this up because you can really tell that Alex loves Big Bend National Park.
He talks about it all the time.
He has tons of stories of being in those hot springs and how much he enjoys going hiking in the canyon with his kids.
That's why it should break his heart that in 2017, when Trump was trying to get his border wall made, Big Bend was seen as many as the place he could easily build.
The reasoning was that it was a stretch of land along the border that's already owned by the federal government, so building a wall there wouldn't require using eminent domain to seize private land, which would inevitably lead to drawn-out court cases in order to get any of this wall built.
This would be a cheap victory to put up the Plato Wall there.
That was what tons of people were saying was being discussed.
The proposed border wall would, by definition, have to run through Big Bend National Park, and according to every expert, that would mean a complete destruction of the delicate ecosystems protected there.
One easy example of this is the Mexican black bear, whose population had been dwindling in the 1950s, but because of the protected land of the park, was able to fight off extinction and repopulate.
A border wall would completely disrupt the bear's migratory patterns and could lead to them facing renewed extinction concerns.
And that's just one of hundreds and hundreds of species that would be rocked by a disruption of the park, which building a huge wall in the middle of it would absolutely achieve.
Marcos Paretas, a retired ranger, said, quote, many, many people have put their whole careers working out here, preserving and protecting this area.
In one fell swoop, we stand to undo all of that with this border wall.
It's hard to tell how much of the calls to build a wall are just meant to rile up nativist paranoia and fan the flames of xenophobia in an attempt to keep Trump's base engaged, but let's leave that aside for now.
Alex Jones fucking loves Big Bend National Park, and yet he supports Trump building a wall, something that would probably destroy the very hot springs he loves to bathe in.
He's a stupid racist monster who's willing to destroy something he loves to satisfy his desire to hurt immigrants and refugees.
Or that desire has blinded him to the fact that following through with the plans he supports would destroy something he loves.
I think this is a pretty good microcosm of Alex Jones's life as a whole.
He used to love his radio show, but his blind hatred of the government has led him to slander murder victims, and lawsuits about that have become the proverbial border wall that's completely disrupted the ecosystem of his show.
From an external perspective, there's very little in his public life that doesn't appear to have been completely destroyed as a result of him pursuing his petty hatreds far past the point where any sane person would see destructive consequences coming.
So to put this more succinctly, Alex Jones sucks and is a total idiot.
And conversely, national parks rule, and we need to do everything we can to protect them.
A 2003 study by the Department of Justice explicitly says this about people who crossed the border in Brewster County, the county where Big Bend Park is located.
Quote, undocumented persons crossing through Big Bend National Park often die from lack of water or exposure to the elements.
According to the county sheriff, often their bodies are not found until their remains have skeletonized.
In terms of any crime that's described in that report about immigration patterns, one of the main things in Brewster County is, quote, rural burglaries.
That's a crime that they have to be concerned about there.
A county official had this to say about that.
Quote, I've had people break into my house, get something to eat when I'm not home, wash the dishes, and leave them by the sink with a few pesos.
The county had to pay four times as much for autopsies and burials of bodies of undocumented immigrants that they found in the county than they did for law enforcement purposes.
So I think there's a load of bullshit that Alex is spitting.
That's one of four counties in the country that are named after Jefferson Davis, all of them in the deep south, in Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and Jefferson Davis Parish in Louisiana.
Kansas had a county named after him, but even fucking Kansas realized that was fucked up and changed its name back in 1869.
23 counties in Texas, or approximately 10% of the counties in the entire state, are named for Confederate including Brewster County, named after Henry Percy Brewster, who was a colonel in the Confederate Army.
It's not so easy to find counties named after abolitionists.
Georgia likes to claim that Douglas County was named after Frederick Douglass, and that's technically true.
It was named after him in 1870 when the county was created.
But pretty soon after that, Confederate Democrats regained power in the government and changed the name of the county.
It's still called Douglas, but now it's spelled with one less S in honor of Stephen Douglas, an Illinois politician who ran against Lincoln for president and supported slavery as being protected by states' rights.
Douglas literally believed that the Declaration of Independence only applied to white people, saying, quote, this government was made by our fathers on the white basis, made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever.
All right.
So that's just a little bit of like, hey, pull back the curtain a tiny bit.
And being food implies something worse than a warning or maybe a small citation.
I mean, I bet any of those people who were, if you were drinking a Course at the hot spring and you're not allowed to, I'm sure someone would come over and be like, hey, pour that out.
unidentified
Yeah.
That doesn't even seem like it would be the first time that a park ranger saw that.
Or he also would have gone, I have no sympathy for Alex pretending he's food and overhyping his sort of victimhood aggrievement mentality as it relates to him going to a national park that I would love to be in right now.
So in this next clip, Alex has a guest, and it's Larry Pratt from Gun Owners for America.
Great.
Who is a mess?
In this next clip, though, he makes clear that so Alex has been bragging a ton about his appearance on Piers Morgan, but also Larry Pratt Has been on Piers Morgan, and they got into a little bit of a fight that got way less media attention.
But it apparently has been boosting the membership roles and applications for Gun Owners for America.
And in this clip, Larry Pratt thanks Piers Morgan.
And then Piers Morgan, bless his British heart, did his fair share to increase our membership.
And we're very grateful to Piers Morgan.
I think I'm not quite grateful enough to form a fan club, but I do have to acknowledge that even though he didn't intend it, it has I think, frankly, not only did he help our membership and the NRA's membership, but I think he provided what we may look back and say that was a pivotal moment when he started lecturing yours truly about how the United States ought to operate with that bloody supercilious British accent of his.
That just kind of fills most Americans right up to the gag point.
He can form some sentences better than Alex anyway.
The thing that's important is that these people, I'm going to go ahead and call Larry Pratt a fascist for a specific reason that we'll get to in a moment.
But when you have people like this who have nefarious intent and you allow them access to your platforms, if you don't be very careful with it, you help them.
Larry Pratt is expressing very clearly to Alex, we used Piers Morgan as a useful idiot.
He didn't understand the game we were playing.
We played the game.
You know, there's a fight.
He's stupid.
We won.
And that is what happens when you don't push back.
Now, the reason that I'm calling him a fascist is because he was at the Rocky Mountain Rendezvous that had the KKK and the neo-Nazis and all those folks back in the day that we talked about not too long ago.
Larry Pratt is an OG.
So he, for whatever legitimate Second Amendment defense arguments that he has, there's something behind that that is far darker.
And even if he doesn't express outright white supremacy and neo-Nazism, he's very, very adjacent.
And I don't think we were even really all that aware of that until spending this much time looking at deconstructing Alex and his associates and then some of these offshoot folks.
Yeah, I don't think that we would be aware of that if it wasn't for deep immersion in this.
And yeah, I think that a lot of people are falling for it.
It's so much easier with social media.
They can run these games so much easier, capitalizing the quick attention span aspect of social media.
But yeah, 100%, they are playing a different game.
Well, I mean, and that's just even more obvious when you, in the context of McConnell's Supreme Court shit, that people calling him hypocritical is insane to me.
He's always been.
This is a consistent thing.
He was full of shit then.
He's full of shit now.
He's playing the game better than you because you think you're playing a different game.
Because anybody who you need to convince that McConnell isn't above board isn't going to be convinced by accusations of hypocrisy because they see the hypocrisy as being in effect their benefit.
And that's a way to take the 70 million viewers, the number one show in North America, and to shove a bunch of anti-Second Amendment garbage down our throats and re-invoke all this.
Hey, how about we handle the choir from Mexico of schools where the drug cartels or government comes in and kills 100 people?
They've almost had 60,000 killed, more than Vietnam the last six years.
Why don't we have that?
Or kids killed by Fast and Furious Guns, the president ordered ship down there.
Why don't we have the family of the dead Border Patrol agents killed by Fast and Furious Guns of the police officers?
How about they go and sing at this event?
I mean, they are just shoving this garbage down our throat.
That's sort of a Cloud and Pithen approach to publicizing the victims of gun violence.
And I think Alex would have a new complaint if he did that, which is like, why are there so many people?
Somehow still not to address the central issue.
Now, the thing that I find very interesting about this is that this will become a large conspiracy.
Now, I don't know what Alex does with it, but one of the things that James Tracy was putting out was this idea that some of the children that were said to have died in the shooting were actually singing at the Super Bowl.
That becomes a large conspiracy that goes around the internet.
So the idea that Alex is mad about the Sandy Hook choir singing at the Super Bowl is interesting to me because that doesn't seem to be present in what he's saying here, but we're still a little ways off from the Super Bowl.
I don't think that that means anything, but it is a word that's associated with Steve.
I don't know.
It's really weird.
You'd expect a lot more of these regular people to have been there because this is now a whole month and a week, a month and a half almost that I've listened to straight of 2012, 2013.
And nothing.
Not really.
Just gun dudes, man.
It's just Larry Pratt, Stuart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers, and a bunch of scam people.
Yeah, we mentioned it earlier, and we talked about it on the show before, but it's worth reminding anyone who hasn't listened to our back catalog that Ted Anderson, the guy who syndicates Alex's show and is one of his biggest sponsors through Bidas Resources, is no longer legally allowed to sell precious metals.
About two years after this episode came out, Ted got in trouble with the state of Minnesota, and they revoked his license because he, quote, misappropriated customers' money and misrepresented terms of sale to them.
The state found that Midas Resources, quote, routinely failed without prior agreement to deliver Bouillon coins to its customers within 30 days of payment and otherwise misrepresented to customers the terms of sale.
He was kicked out of the precious metals business and had to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars to customers in restitution.
Ted Anderson is running a shady as shit gold company.
So it makes it a little hard to swallow that Alex is just having him on here to sincerely complain about some other gold company running ads on Rush or Glenn Beck's show with markups that offended him.
It's straight bullshit.
He is doing this.
I don't know why he's doing I mean, it's just shading the competition, you know?
It's one of these things that like if you were doing this and you're working with this like scammy fucking gold operation, don't call other gold operations scammy.
That's going to draw attention to how scammy you are.
I know that apparently in practice, it doesn't work that way.
To see within a couple days' span this kind of shilling for Ted Anderson's gold and the younggevity can cure cancer study, you just got like you got a gross, gross business model here.
And in terms of this clip, it's wise to remember that after Alex had James Tracy, the guy who thinks that people at Sandy Hook were actors, after he had him on the show and saw that there was a video that got 10 million views on YouTube about those Sandy Hook conspiracies, he started to change the way he covered things, particularly school shootings.
We saw the Lone Star College shooting where he was saying that CNN was covering things up and trying to find a false flag angle on it.
And then he realized that the school was pretty much all black people being interviewed, and he decided it was gang-related.
In February, police would come out and say that they were investigating a gang angle to the shooting.
But that information wasn't out when Alex dismissed this shooting as not even really being worth covering.
I can find zero confirmation or details about the conclusion of the gang investigation.
But even if the police are 100% correct when they suggested that this could be the result of two gangs fighting, that doesn't change shit.
I don't particularly trust the flippant definition of the word gang when it's applied to black youths by police, particularly when it's short on any details.
And details are absent from the reporting on this story, even in the articles that I can find.
The victim's mother was publicly very clear that her son wasn't involved in any gangs, and no one alleging gang involvement has provided any concrete information.
Plus, and most importantly, even if this was a gang-related shooting, it doesn't make Alex right.
He had zero reason to assume it was a gang shooting other than he saw that all the students at that school were black.
That's the only piece of information he's operating off of.
And that by definition means he's operating entirely off of racial prejudice.
Also, parents couldn't pick up their kids from the school because they'd been evacuated to a nearby church where they were on a short lockdown before they got the whole situation sorted out.
There's nothing suspicious about that at all.
So what you have here is Alex does not really care about this.
But I'm saying that devoid of context, that desire to dismiss this story as gang-related shooting, you'd be like, huh, that's weird.
But when you take it in the context of the larger world that the end of January 2013, Alex is existing in, where he wants to tap into the Sandy Hook market.
He wants to find his own what it's the general Boykin narrative offshoot that he wants to make of the Sandy Hook conspiracy stuff.
He wants to find that, and so he's trying to sift through, using his pan to sift through all of the school shootings, and whenever something's not gold, he's just like, eh, fuck it.
Oh, I'm positive that what happened is that he got it from the producers.
They shot over an article to him, and he saw that it was all black people in the photo.
And it's like, I don't know.
I don't know.
I got nothing on this.
Now, what I'm saying, though, is that the bigger context of this Sandy Hook reclamation that he needs to do, that's the larger context that this lives in.
And the lone star shooting coverage is the more specific context that this lives in.
When he was covering that, so excited that it was possibly a false flag that he was going to get the information on.
And when he started to realize, this isn't anything and it's all black people, he's like, immediately, ah, this is gang-related.
The fact that he goes to that so quickly in both of these instances that what's the similarity?
Predominantly black schools.
It means that that's how his brain works.
This isn't worth attention.
It's not worth feeling anything about.
Fuck it.
It's gangs.
unidentified
Who even cares if somebody in a gang gets shot, Dan?