Today, Dan and Jordan take a look at what Alex Jones is up to in the current day, and find him being absolutely all over the place. His lawyer is a guest on two straight episodes and the two of them seem to think they have psychic powers. More importantly than all that, this episode contains the greatest out of context drop of all time.
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like this show, I'd like to support what these guys do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show, we would appreciate it.
So, like I said, in the present day, mentioned it on the episode from last Friday, that we were very interested in finding out Alex's very predictable spin on the Mueller press conference.
And it also had yours truly at the top of the list.
Because their people were obviously listening in on my phone calls with the president.
When I said, sir, you got to go after him for the illegal FISA warrants.
This is when he called to thank me two days after he got elected.
I told him this.
When he called me a month later, when he called me a week after that, when he called me the time after that, I said, Mr. President, can you stop thanking me?
Because I know this is just a pat on the head, sir.
I know you're calling people that supported you, and I appreciate it.
I don't need the praise.
They're coming after you.
You've got people that have infiltrated all around you, sort of telling them who they are.
I said, these are Soros operatives.
And I listed some of the names.
And I said, you've got people lying to you that are bringing these folks in, and they're going to try to bring you down.
And he'd say, very interesting, tell me more.
And I'd say, well, here's this particular lady that they brought in over your staffing.
You think she comes from the Republicans, but she really has worked at the State Department for the whole Soros project.
So basically she's a Hillary operative, and she's going to stack the deck against you, and they're running espionage operations against you under the name of counterespionage.
But what I'm saying is if they wanted to get him off the air or whatever because he was telling the president stuff like this, he's misleading the president.
Yeah, Trump believes her to be on the team, but she's actually a Soros operative.
So what does it mean to be, quote, over the staffing?
If it means being chief of staff, then this conspiracy Alex is warning Trump about is impossible, because guess what?
Since that position was created in 1946 under its original name, Assistant to the President, no woman has ever filled that role.
So obviously this can't be a chief of staff that Alex is talking about, which is weird, because that's who does a lot of the staffing in the Oval Office.
Mick Mulvaney is currently the acting chief of staff, but that's a fairly recent thing.
So for our examination, I'm only going to consider people who were around under the reins of Reince Priebus and John Kelly in order to pin down who Alex is talking about.
Obama had no female chiefs of staff.
However, there were five women who served as deputy chiefs of staff.
So maybe this is what he's talking about.
An Obama-Hillary holdover.
But unfortunately, none of them stuck around at all into Trump's administration.
So Katie Walsh was a deputy chief of staff working on scheduling for the Trump administration.
She was on board from the jump as she was a part of the transition team, but she left the administration early in March 2017 to join the pro-Trump dark money super PAC, America First Policies, which was founded by Brad Parscali, Trump's head of digital operations in the 2016 election.
A lot of Trump administration folk found their way to America First Policies.
Their director of advocacy, Carl Higbee, had to resign in early 2018 after CNN found a bunch of old radio shows he did where he was super racist, super Islamophobic, super anti-LGBTQ, and literally advocated for being able to shoot and kill anyone who came across the border undocumented.
This seems in line with everything that guy is saying.
There were a few other racism scandals, but the worst was probably the one that surrounded America First Policies, the guy who was their policy advisor, Juan Pablo Andrade.
Andrade had previously been on Trump's National Hispanic Advisory Council, as well as the National Diversity Coalition, before heading to the super PAC America First policies.
Newsmax had put him on their 30 under 30 list in 2017, signaling that he was a real rising star in the dumb-dumb right-wing world.
Unfortunately, that year his star exploded when he recorded himself ranting in a hotel room at a Turning Point USA conference.
A hotel room, I should point out, was paid for by Turning Point.
He wasn't just an attendee of the conference.
He was there by invitation.
Anyway, in the video he says, quote, the only thing the Nazis didn't get right is that they didn't keep fucking going.
I'm sure he'd like to argue that he was just joking, but if you look more into the circumstances, he definitely wasn't.
Yeah, no, I think at a certain point, you guys, we all gotta just admit that a few bad apples amounts to, and actually they're creating Nazis on purpose.
So anyway, Katie Walsh was the deputy chief of staff, but she left to go join that group, so she clearly isn't the person that Alex is talking about.
She could have been a Soros operative that was on the transition team and then left for America First Policies, this place that seems to be literally dripping with bigots, and is run by Trump's head of communications, digital communications.
In the early days of the Trump campaign, paranoia was at a fever pitch on all sides.
Folks on the left and in the middle were rightfully very worried about what was coming, but the right was really worried too, just over slightly different issues.
The right, particularly the more authoritarian-leaning part of the right wing, were very worried that unless dissent was crushed within the Trump administration, he wouldn't be able to enact the white supremacist positions they supported him for.
There was a real sense that the real progress towards an awful end that they wanted could be achieved.
But the biggest thing that stood in the way was the people who were inside wouldn't go along with it.
Chuck Johnson, Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, and Jerome Corsi all led a charge to out the people who could possibly slow down the march towards their dystopia, targeting unnamed collaborators and wolves in sheep's clothing within the administration.
You remember this from Alex Jones' show back then.
There was so much talk about internal palace intrigue.
By engaging in this rhetoric, this trying to out people who are wolves in sheep's clothing within the inner machinations, you build up a preemptive excuse for why Trump isn't getting anything done.
You maintain the climate of fear you need in your audience that should be diminished by their guy being in power, and you make an example of people in government as a sort of tacit warning of how anyone who'd be seen as deviating from the program will be treated.
The chief way that these propagandists rationalized their attacks on the government staff was to accuse them of being leakers.
No one can deny that there were tons of leaks going on, so it was the easiest blanket accusation to Right.
It's to create a perpetual feeling of a witch hunt where purges of government employees who fail vague purity tests are seen as, you know, the purging of them is seen as something you should support.
Well, and it's interesting that it's being carried out by the supporters of the administration.
They're sort of crowdsourcing this purge, or at least the motivation or the rationalization for the purge, as opposed to it being directly from the seat of power.
Well, I mean, it's kind of a situation, I think, where all of these guys, not all of the guys in power, but for so long the people in power on the right have been stoking these horrible, horrible impulses in order to win elections, knowing full well that if they were to actually implement any of this shit, it would either be illegal or people would start getting murdered.
So then the people that they've been stoking and...
Abusing and exploiting this entire time.
Finally, we're like, what if we just killed everybody who disagreed with us?
And that's kind of the way that a lot of the other media, the more older media, did a disservice and sort of helped the right-wing media.
That was their version of it.
So it's also probably worth noting that this past Thursday, Reuters was reporting that after the most recent summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump didn't go so great, Un carried out a purge of government officials who were in charge of negotiations for it.
Kim Hyuk-chol, the direct counterpart to Mike Pompeo in the negotiations, was allegedly executed along with four foreign ministry officials who stood accused of spying for the United States.
When the North Korean state elaborated, this alleged spying boiled down to, quote, poorly grasping humanism.
So what people like Chuck Johnson, Cernovich, Posobiec, and Alex Jones are doing, like we kind of referenced already, is basically crowdsourcing a dictatorship.
They're bringing authoritarianism into the gig economy.
Reminders of this like what just happened in North Korea.
It's really hard to look at that sort of behavior that was going on and think that like...
Those dudes who were doing this witch-hunting behavior about officials who weren't on board with them and going around yelling, lock her up at everybody, they fucking knew what they were doing.
It's almost inconceivable that they didn't realize, like, oh, what's the next phase of this?
So listen to this cognitive dissonance on display where Alex, in 10 seconds, says both that they're unelected and that his buddies are winning elections.
Nigel Farage doing this shit and running for EU Parliament with the Brexit parties really introduced just a baseline problem for Alex.
Because for years, one of the constant arguments he's made was that it's governed by an unelected group of bureaucrats in the Parliament.
It's a constant drumbeat on his show.
The unelected EU Parliament is repeated over and over again as a compound noun.
Unelected has become an epithet to the EU Parliament in the same way that Gentle was to Patroclus in the Iliad.
That's all good and well, except when there's an EU parliamentary election being held, which there was this year.
Alex says in this clip that five years ago people didn't know that the EU parliament is unelected, which is interesting because EU parliamentary elections happen every five years.
So he's specifically saying that the last time they had an EU parliamentary election, people didn't know there weren't elections for EU parliament.
Yeah, in a sense, there was still a democratic root to it, but Alex's argument is a little closer to legit in that setting.
It's like saying that the Secretary of State is unelected.
Sure.
Technically, that's true, but they're appointed by a directly elected president and have to be confirmed by directly elected members of Congress.
In terms of the EU Parliament, however, Alex's claims really don't make sense anymore, because in 1979, they started holding elections for their own membership every five years.
With only a few rules in place about proportional representation that are universally required, member states are free to run their elections to name their parliamentary representatives however they choose, which is a great celebration of national sovereignty, which Alex doesn't want to talk about.
All Alex can really be talking about is the position of the president of the European Commission, which you could argue is an unelected position.
The various political parties field their candidates to hold the position, and a vote of the parliament determines who will be the president of the commission.
But that post isn't the same as being the president of Europe.
The position is described as being, quote, the first among equals in the European Commission.
Members of the Commission are selected by elected governments of member states, then work together to advance their country's interests in the context of a collaborative body that balances the larger needs of the continent with those of each state.
These examples of unelected folks within the hierarchy of the EU government are easy to point to as examples of undemocratic government run amok, but if you look at them closely, you find that each of these appointed positions are filled directly by people who were elected by the people, and they could be ousted from their positions by electing different people.
If Alex wants to be philosophically consistent, attacking these positions for being indirectly elected requires him to have a problem with every appointed position in our government.
Every cabinet secretary should have to be directly elected.
The list goes on and on and on of officials who are just unelected or indirectly elected.
In a purely technical sense, you could say that this European Commission is unelected.
But that's not what Alex says.
He says that the EU Parliament is unelected, which categorically is not true.
For years, he's been able to just be free to lie about the EU Parliament because he knows that none of his listeners are going to look into it.
But then, like three months ago, Nigel Farage started the Brexit Party, and it became clear that the story of this year's EU election was going to be favorable to Alex's nationalists-are-taking-over-the-world narrative.
Immediately, he had a huge problem.
How do you maintain your bullshit about the EU Parliament being unelected while simultaneously bragging about your Eurosceptic and Fascist friends winning EU Parliamentary elections?
Well, the first thing you do is you put your finger up to your head and you say, well, oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive, and then you think more.
Yeah, but isn't that what Brexit is to the National Health Service?
Like, so many people who voted with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage's whole, like, we're spending all this money when it could be going to the NHS, and they voted specifically for that type of circumstance to go down.
And of course, if Brexit actually follows through with the way that it's supposed to go, especially if it's a no deal, the National Health Service is going to be privatized by American insurers anyways.
So they're all doing something that is actively undercutting whatever it is that they would like the result to be.
What he does want is to list off things that aren't true.
I'm going to explain each of these and why they're not true.
But what's interesting to me is when he's in a tizzy and he's expressing why he doesn't like the other side that he perceives as his enemies, every single thing he says is not true.
Then he says his enemies say, quote, America has never been great and it never will be great.
This is an intentional mischaracterization of comments made by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo during the lead up to the 2018 midterms.
Cuomo is being critical of Trump's catchphrase, make America great again, by expressing a very defensible position that for many people, the American government is not.
The part of the quote that Alex is specifically using is just, quote, We're not going to make America great again.
It was never that great.
But that quote relies on what Cuomo said immediately after that in order to give his point context to have it make sense.
He went on to say, quote, We have not reached greatness.
We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.
We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping of women, 51% of our population, is gone, and every woman's full potential is realized and unleashed, and every woman is making her full contribution.
Naturally, it would have been nice if he would have expanded his point to include other groups, but he was giving a speech specifically at a New York women's rights event.
So it kind of makes sense why the commentary skewed in that direction.
What Cuomo is saying is not in any way an insult to America.
It's a recognition that our ideals are great, but we've historically and are currently failing to live up to them.
What he was doing when he said, quote, we are not going to make America great again, was not saying fuck America.
It was expressing a clear difference between Trump's catchphrase and Cuomo's vision of what our greatness should be and what we should strive for.
This is a willing misinterpretation that Alex is carrying out to create a false version of his enemies and paint them as thinking America has always sucked.
So now the world ending in 12 years thing is a reference to an interview that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did, where she said that we have 12 years to cut emissions by 50%.
Alex is turning this into some kind of doomsday prophecy that she was peddling, which is kind of hilarious considering what he did on Y2K.
The thing is that the right wing has attacked AOC pretty harshly for this.
And everything.
Yeah.
But all she was doing was citing a report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that said exactly that.
They predicted that there was probably 12 years left to keep global temperatures from rising to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
I assumed that everybody would know that she was quoting something, but now that I think about it, of course, people on the right had no idea what that report said.
In that interview, she did say, quote, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
However, an important point is what she'd said just before that.
The larger context of that quote is that she's saying that the younger generations, millennials and Gen Z, are looking at the older generations and saying that we have mere years left to address climate change before it destroys the world.
And the older generation's response is, how are we going to pay for it?
She's since said that the world-ending part of the quote was dry humor, and there's a little bit of that that's clearly apparent, but I also think that you could just say that she was clearly expressing what a lot of people are saying.
She isn't in that interview making a specific prophecy that we have 12 years left, then it's all over.
She's referencing a scientific study and articulating the fears and concerns of a big cross-section of the public.
Yeah.
unidentified
No one is saying that the world will end in 12 years if we don't do anything.
They're saying that it's likely that's the amount of time we have before things will be completely out of our hands and no amount of emissions cutting will stop the domino effects of climate change.
Alex is misrepresenting this intentionally to create the image that his enemies are lunatics trying to scare you with doomsday prophecies in order to get you to pay carbon credit.
I really think that there should be a bias adjustment.
For these kinds of studies.
You know, like how when they do polls, Rasmussen has a right word bias, all that stuff.
All of these studies have an optimistic bias.
That we should really account for.
Because every time they update it and everyone that's revised, it's like, hey, if we don't do this by 2200, and it's like, well, if we don't do it by...
It's going to wind up being the next report is like we have six years left.
Alex would say that that's evidence they're just making shit up.
They're like, oh, you're not scared yet?
We're going to make it shorter.
I can see that.
Yeah.
So as for the cauliflower thing, this is just a complete right-wing smear.
This relates to a recent live stream that AOC was doing where she visited a community garden and discussed issues about what keeps some minority communities from embracing environmental efforts like community gardening.
One of the things she pointed out was the difficulty of growing crops that are traditionally used in their cuisine in community garden spaces.
She singles out yucca as being a plant that is more difficult to grow in urban environments as opposed to cauliflower, which she just picked out as an example of a vegetable.
She wasn't even saying anything specifically about cauliflower.
In fact, she says, quote, cauliflower or something.
Didn't say that cauliflower was racist or anything like that.
And, I mean, you could...
You could make an argument that cauliflower has been used colonially.
The English introduced it to India in 1822.
It wasn't native there.
Who cares?
AOC chose cauliflower as an example of a crop that these communities may be less involved with culturally, but it's what can be grown easily in urban settings.
So it's popular in the big city community gardens, where space is limited.
I'm not entirely sure that's fully accurate of cauliflower, but that is absolutely what she was saying and chose cauliflower as an example.
Right.
Entirely possibly just because she had seen it at a community garden that she had visited.
So this, according to AOC, is an example of, quote, taking a colonial approach to environmentalism.
Well, of course, the knee-jerk response to this on the right is to say that she's stupid and that she's calling cauliflower racist.
But in reality, what she's talking about is a pretty important and real issue.
As a paper published in 2009 by the Sustainability Research Institute points out, quote, around the world, colonialism became synonymous with the alienation of people from their land and resources.
Colonized people became alienated from their resources, largely because the colonizing powers did not think they could be trusted to steward over the land themselves.
This is basically what she's talking about.
Environmental projects should make sense in a cultural context, because if they don't, it's an expression of colonialism being portrayed as environmentalism.
You can disagree with her point if you want, but if you do, then you've got to wrestle with a ton of scholarship on the intersection.
Yeah.
Especially when we're getting very similar, like...
And that can sometimes boil down to if everybody lived like this, if everybody lived like us, which for some people is culturally absolutely colonialist, if everybody just wiped out what makes them individual and unique, then there you go.
They territorialize everything by saying everything's racist, and then they're the high priest over fighting racism, so that gives them jurisdiction over you.
That was an attempt by people on 4chan and trolls on the internet to create the appearance that the left thought milk was racist so they could mock their hypersensitivity.
It appears that they managed to trick the right person, in this case.
It began with legitimate Nazis making videos or they made a big deal out of drinking milk.
Then Richard Spencer in Baked Alaska added milk emojis to their Twitter names and helped push the hashtag MilkTwitter.
They were doing the same thing that they've done a bunch of times.
We saw it recently with a botched attempt to pretend that the actual hashtag, the symbol, the hashtag, was a white supremacist symbol.
Trolls sent journalists tips trying to get them to cover the story, but none took the bait except for McHale Thalen of the Daily Dot.
Interestingly, McHale Thalen was a writer for InfoWars for years, but is now rebranded as a tech writer at Daily Dot.
But this is a part of a larger strategy where neo-Nazis and white nationalists attempt to create innocuous symbols that they then attach to their communities in ways that can be easily passed off as a joke if they're ever called on it.
We saw this with the okay hand gesture.
It was simultaneously a legitimate symbol being used by these extremist communities to signal to each other and as a way that they could mock their detractors.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the okay sign is a gesture of hate, because by its usage, it became one.
There's a synergy going on.
And the same is true of the accusation that the left thinks milk is racist.
It was a manufactured campaign to make the left and accusations of racism look baseless, because creating appearance that racism accusations are baseless really just helps out people who are constantly being accused of being racist.
Anyone still peddling this narrative in 2019 is either woefully stupid and incompetent at knowing the news, or they're actively trying to signal to their base of neo-Nazis and white nationalists that they're in on the joke.
Either way, it doesn't look good that Alex is still on this bullshit.
And unfortunately, those white supremacists who were actually onto something with their stunt campaign, as our boy Jared Holt covered in a piece that he wrote for the Huffington Post.
The attempts to make milk a racist meme were supposed to be a prank, but there's actually a racist history attached to milk that they accidentally stumbled onto.
Fine.
His article discusses a book called Nature's Perfect Food, How Milk Became America's Drink, which does seem to argue that at very least the early advertising campaigns for the National Dairy Council were explicitly racist.
In the early 1900s, the National Dairy Council marketed milk by saying things like, quote, people who have an appreciation for art, literature, and music, who are progressive in science and every activity of human intellect, are the people who have used liberal amounts of milk in its products.
books.
unidentified
The book goes on to say, quote, "By declaring milk perfect, white northern Europeans announced their Ugh.
In the 1930s, an agricultural history of New York said, quote, So...
Aryans seem to have been the heaviest drinkers of milk and the greatest users of butter and cheese, a fact that may in part account for the quick and high development of this division of human beings.
The reason this could be called racist is because the marketing was specifically designed around the idea that there was an association between drinking milk and being better people.
A paper by Andrea Freeman of the University of Hawaii School of Law points out that, quote, although statistics vary, 79% of African-American adults, 45% of African-American children, 74% of Mexicans from rural communities, 98% of Southeast Asians, and 90% of Asian-Americans cannot digest lactose.
A large number of non-white communities are lactose intolerant, so when you market something as being associated with being naturally better people and it's something that only white people can consistently drink, what you're doing is kind of racist.
And if you want to go even further with it, the very term lactose intolerant is even kind of messed up as a way to describe people who can't digest lactose.
Using that framing makes it seem like being intolerant to lactose is the exception as opposed to being the norm, when in reality, quote, a significant percentage of individuals from all communities, with the exception of Scandinavian and Northern European whites, did not retain the enzyme lactase through adulthood.
Northern Europeans and Scandinavians developed this enzyme as a response to living in climates hostile to creating sustainable food sources, which compelled them to resort to drinking their herd's milk.
So it's something that is specific to communities, the abundance of lactase enzyme retention.
So calling it lactose intolerance is to somehow...
Make it appear that, like, oh, this is a deficiency you have, as opposed to a change that Scandinavians and Northern European whites had.
None of it's bad, and none of it's wrong, but, you know, you take those little things, like the lactose intolerance framing is even somehow making it appear negative.
All this is to say that this shit that Alex is on is really fucking stupid.
There is a reality to the racist history in the milk and dairy industry, but that isn't what he's responding to.
He's being tricked by or participating in a fake outrage campaign organized by Nazis and white nationalists, intending to make any criticism of racism look suspicious.
The goal here was to provide a response.
The next time you or one of your racist buddies gets called a racist for being racist, you can pull out the, oh yeah, I'm racist, like milk is racist.
It's an attempt at building a counter-narrative that 100% only exists to defend and deflect accurate criticisms of the racist.
Yeah.
So it shouldn't be all that surprising that he's on this tip.
So we got these foods.
We got cauliflower.
We got milk that Alex is very mad about.
I just gotta say, he is fucking triggered by this conversation about foods being racist or something.
Because he starts yelling about corn and people thinking corn is racist.
Well, the problem with that presentation and the way he's yelling is I can't tell if he's saying that mockingly or if he really means that everything hinges on fighting back against this accusation that Cauliflower is racist.
Because either could be something I could see him saying.
I could see it being almost like a wave function through each word as he's saying it, what he's intending changes.
As he's going through, it all, and I mean that it all hinges on this, hinges, nah, this is actually a joke, on, I do mean this, this, nah, this is actually a joke.
I can't remember for sure which bird it is, but there was a guy who was so obsessed with Shakespeare that he believed that every bird mentioned in Shakespeare should be on all the continents.
So he brought starlings here, and it destroyed every competitor and became a monstrous, nightmarish blight.
I think it's so convenient that all of the people who are critiquing Alex and suing him for the things that he's defamed them about also just happen to be wanting to destroy this country and all of his listeners' families.
And then number two, it makes it so much of the content of his show can sort of low-key be about him being sued without him having to say things that will end up...
Being another lawsuit.
If he attaches the idea of all of these globalists and all of these enemies of America, they're the ones who are coming after him, it makes it very easy for his audience to build up that hatred of the people who are coming after him through his long rambling diatribes about the globalists.
All of these arguments are in service of creating the very circumstances and environment where power can be abused that Alex has pretended to be against for his whole fucking career.
So, not too long ago, maybe like a month or two, maybe a little bit longer than that, we heard Alex talk about how he can't sleep except sitting up with, like...
Intense machinery because he has terrible sleep apnea and his neck is super thick.
I'm somebody that usually sleeps like a dead person.
Everybody, they've gotten the left with this propaganda so wound up, so hateful, so wanting war.
I've got stacks of articles where they're writing major news articles about, I love the last Game of Thrones where the Queen used the dragon to kill a city of 100,000 people.
We need to kill Republicans like that.
I mean, so what you're feeling is...
They want to take over.
They want to kill you.
They want to kill babies after they're born.
There is a real energy of these people, and they are crazy enough to make a run at Trump, which, if they were successful, will cause a civil war.
So any way you slice this, all I'm saying is, the sixth sense doesn't just stop at feeling somebody staring at you from behind you, turning around, sure as hell, they're looking at you.
It doesn't just stop with a mountain lion.
You feel, and then you turn, and there it is.
It's bigger than that.
And we've talked about this privately.
It's not mumbo-jumbo.
It's like a wireless internet in the brain.
Our brains are electrochemical.
We now know they do broadcast.
We're not just seeing with the so-called five senses.
And I think we all inherently, you're an in-touch guy.
We're not getting to mumbo-jumbo here, but we've talked about this privately.
And you don't put a name to it either.
It's just that I think everybody's mojo knows we're at a crossroads.
When you look at a show like Game of Thrones, one of the most popular shows on television, one of the most popular shows in the history of cable television, the two writers really believe that their ending their last couple of episodes were going to be very popular.
In fact, they're the most unpopular ending of a series and basically see...
TV history.
Definitely cable TV history.
And how did that happen?
They presumed that people would find it normal, okay, within the range of acceptable conduct, for someone to go kill a bunch of innocent women and children just because they were mad that day.
Wait, so is his contention that the writers, the D&D, were thinking that everybody would be super stoked that Danny kills everybody?
Or is he saying that the people hate the episode because they think it was actually a good idea for Danny to have killed anybody and didn't like seeing her retribution at the end?
I think it's more just that everything has become so much about guns that in order for it to make sense, then that has to be the root of why you're doing what you do.
Yeah, I think that the most likely explanation is that Alex has reached the pathetic level, that he's just constantly hanging out on air with someone he literally pays to defend him.
I also think that it's probably a bad sign that Barnes is trying to position himself as kind of this hotshot lawyer to the ascendant right-wing fascist community.
He was the lawyer for the Covington kids, and he keeps popping up on Alex's show.
He was a guest on a recent episode of Dave Rubin's show, and he seems to be on Fox News a little bit pretty regularly, or at least he has popped up on Fox News.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Given all this, I decided maybe I should look into him a little bit more.
So I read his bio on his website, and I decided that maybe I don't need to look too much further into this guy.
Quote, once established in a law and business advisory practice that spanned the globe from his home base in Malibu, California, Barnes parlayed his keen understanding of persuasion and patterns into a lucrative side business in sports and political betting.
A real weird thing now for him to be actively involved in political activities that support Trump when he made half a million dollars gambling on an election.
His bio goes on to say, quote, Barnes is now working for the rights of the underdog, providing his prescient fortune-telling strategy and polling insight to candidates of the populist persuasion.
I think that that means he literally thinks he can see the future, and he's using his mystical abilities to help fascists, which doesn't sound at all like something that Hitler did back in the day.
In 2008, Robert Barnes represented Girls Gone Wild creator Joe Francis on tax evasion charges.
Well, he did for a little while, but ultimately left as his counsel, to which Francis said, quote, The only reason they wanted me as a client was to mooch off me and open up an L.A. office.
They're the Paris Hilton of lawyers, just to be famous, not to do anything.
So, in 2017, Barnes represented Cassandra Fairbanks when she was trying to sue a reporter for Fusion.
The reporter had tweeted an image of Fairbanks at the White House doing the OK hand gesture, which the reporter captioned as a, quote, white power hand gesture.
This is exactly why the trolls started doing that gesture to begin with, to bait people into responding this way, then suing them.
It's a publicity trap, and the lawyer Fairbanks got to represent her was Robert fucking Barnes.
Fusion rightly responded, the complaint, quote, is clearly frivolous.
This suit is an obvious publicity stunt in an attempt to intimidate reporters who scrutinize the extreme right.
In June 2018, the lawsuit was thrown out because, of course, it was.
In 2018, Chuck Johnson hired Barnes to represent him when he sued Twitter when they kicked him off after he had threatened to, quote, take out civil rights leader DeRay McKesson.
So, a number of folks over the years have tried to claim that they've discovered the archaeological sites where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood, but each time their claims are scrutinized and found to be deeply flawed.
But one of the more prominent proposed locations for Sodom is a dig site called Tal al-Hammam, which many found to be a pretty good candidate, as fitting geographically possibly where it was.
unidentified
Tal al-Hammam and tell your mother you're brilliant.
Unfortunately, once people look closer, they found that if that site is accepted as Sodom, then it completely rewrites and invalidates accepted biblical dates for the time period.
Similar problems pop up in many attempts to pin down a geographic location for either of the cities.
Alex is kind of right, and as much as some enterprising archaeologists looking to make a name for themselves do think that they've found Sodom or Gomorrah, but a wider scholarly community takes a more measured approach, taking the position that they could be real places, but we don't have evidence that they are as of...
Also, I don't think you'd find many archaeologists who believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah literally.
I would suspect most of them would say that if the place was real and there's any truth to the story, it's a metaphorical retelling of a natural disaster that happened and wiped out a ton of people.
It's an element of oral tradition.
It's scapegoating.
We talked a little bit about this when Alex brought up Aesop, and there are a lot of parallels.
You tell a story about two cities destroyed by a terrible earthquake or something, and you need to have it make sense.
So in oral tradition, you introduce an element of divine retribution that caused this instead of shitty luck, and that way you also reinforce cultural norms and expectations through the telling of the story, and there you go.
How all of these people in the right-wing media, including Alex and a lot of his guests, and people who were more associated with him then than they are now, people like Mike Cernovich, who doesn't come around anymore.
And what he's done is he's decided, now this is not the happiest or healthiest mechanism of dealing with a failed peace conference, is to kill and imprison everybody who he blames for it.
But what he's doing is he's establishing that he wants it to go forward, that he does not blame the president, that he wants the president's agenda, and he blames his people for not achieving that agenda of the peace and detente that the president's called.
That was one of the most disjointed ideas I've heard come out of a lawyer's mouth, let alone a guest on Alex Jones' show.
Like, it's...
It's delusional, first of all.
What the North Korean press, or what I was reading was that the idea for the purge was that Kim Jong-un was mad that these people didn't understand U.S. intentions in the meeting.
And the U.S. intention that they didn't understand was that there was an expectation of complete denuclearization.
So it doesn't seem like the purge was particularly to get more in line with Trump.
So it seems like this is a step backwards, but Robert Barnes and Alex Jones are willing to go on air and argue that a purging of government officials in the wake of a not-going-great conference...
Man, you know, it is nice to see Barnes really demystifying lawyers, you know, because so often they're presented as being rational, intelligent people, when, you know what, they're just assholes like the rest of us, and that dude's fucking crazy.
Maybe there's not enough context from those clips, but what they're saying is that these tapes, they're not happy about the, like, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI and all their actions.
So if I were to make a complete list, this podcast may never end, but I wanted to point out a few things that Alex and Barnes are intentionally leaving out of their discussion of Martin Luther King Jr.
unidentified
Things that make me 100% sure that should Alex have been active in the 60s, he's not Oh, yeah!
Quote, when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplet of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
What Alex and Robert Barnes are doing here is engaging in whitewashing of Martin Luther King's life and legacy.
He was a uniter, absolutely.
But he was trying to unite people for a goal that these two Thank you.
Thank you.
of alex's guides and inspirations were diametrically opposed to martin luther king when he was actually alive alex's favorite book none dare call it conspiracy was written by gary allen a dude who worked for the george wallace campaign who was a fucking segregationist alex's favorite non-trump politician of all time ron paul was explicitly against the civil rights act and uh that's true of a uh upsettingly large number of libertarians Yeah.
My point is this.
You can say that Martin Luther King was a uniter all you want, and in many ways that's totally cool.
What Alex and Barnes are doing here, however, is stealing Martin Luther King's legacy from him and imagining that some possible world exists where they would have been in that very small percentage of the population that didn't hate Martin Luther King when he was still alive.
This is a pathetic and disgusting display, but just about what you'd expect from these couple of dicks.
You know, like that every day that Martin Luther King Jr. has been dead, we can take a little bit away from what he was actually trying to do, and then just really, oh, he was a symbol of American unity.
Whether what they're saying about him is true, I don't buy a damn, because I've been through so many lies, I don't believe a damn thing they say, plus they have no proof.
And so what you see with King is King presents a historical counter-narrative to the leftist agenda.
It's a unifying agenda.
It's an American-rooted agenda.
It's a Constitution-based agenda.
King was very much about unifying people, unifying people in the name of a conservative tradition in general, by appealing to our constitutional history, and by particularly saying, and very patriotic.
That because I'm an American, because I'm a man, I should have the same rights as all men and as all Americans.
This is a speech that Martin Luther King Jr. gave in 1968.
It was on his speaking tour leading up to the Poor People's March in Washington.
Quote, At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms.
Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm, and they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself up by his bootstraps.
And this is what we are faced with, and this is the reality.
He finished his thoughts by saying, quote, Now, when we come to Washington, in this case, It is explicitly about reparations.
Barnes and Alex are not interested in Martin Luther King Jr.
And, man, her husband was there, and I probably went out shooting everything.
He was a lawyer.
I've been out there when we're friends, but, man, I slapped her on the ass, and it was sexual.
And he kind of looked at me and said, hey, you better watch it.
And she laughed, but he was like, and I'm a 14-year-old slapping a full-grown woman on the ass, and he was kind of like, hey, Junior, you better watch it, because it was sexual, and I couldn't help it.
So it's really weird to have a situation where, yeah, I mean, there is the possibility that some of Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal history is going to change in terms of the conversation surrounding him.
I think that that's something that history allows for.
Scholarship allows for that.
The context of these recordings is something that will be a more complicated conversation to have eventually.
But when Alex is like, the left is just trying to take him out because he's a threat to the narrative or whatever.
And also, by the way, whenever there's accusations of sexual assault, I'm cool with it.
I kind of like the person more.
And then he immediately tells a story about sexually assaulting a family member at 14. It's weird.
But also, Alex does bring up something that really does scare me, because it is something that could be done eventually.
With the emerging technologies that we have.
That is, when someone's dead, you could completely rewrite their history by creating doctored videos of them and stuff with all the new technologies that are emerging.
There is the possibility of doing that.
I don't think that's what's going on here, but it's a fucking scary thought.