Today, Dan and Jordan take a little look at a very uninspired string of episodes of the Alex Jones Show. In this installment, Alex gets condescending about the Super Bowl, has a caller accuse him of being controlled opposition, and throws an impromptu rally to yell at Piers Morgan, who is in Texas doing some filming.
And very excited, but before we get to it, I'd like to take a little time to say thank you to the people who have signed up and are supporting the show.
Finally, I'd like to say thank you to somebody who donated on an elevated level, and we appreciate it very much, so I regret this, but penisaurus dicks, you are now a technocrat.
And 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 the button that says support the show.
He seems a little bit upset about the commercials, and he seems upset about Sandy Hook choir performing at the halftime show, but he's not really that upset about it outside of being like, they just want to turn everyone against guns.
Yeah, you guys are mentally ill, and I appreciate your call.
You know, whenever we hired six graphics people for the magazine and for working in here, and the University of Texas is here in Austin, Stratford is like a private intelligence gathering firm that, in my opinion, puts out propaganda as like a feedback loop to, like, agree with the Pentagon so they can say, look, this private group said it, and somebody worked there for a month and a half as an unpaid intern and helped write a paper on China.
And, I mean, what am I going to do if somebody was ever in the military or somebody ever...
I mean, you know how many people...
You know about a third of the UT journalism people that we bring in here for interviews?
Because we hired a couple from UT.
Actually, three of them are from UT.
Did you know about half of them or more had an internship there?
There's not many places to get a media internship.
The Austin American Statesman, the Austin Chronicle, this is for print, the Houston...
Well, the Texas Observer or whatever it's called, that's small.
And then Stratford because it's mainly writing thousands of things a day.
So Mallory Mahoney has become a code word in these conspiracy worlds, these conspiracy circles.
When someone uses her name, what they're trying to signal is they believe that Alex has controlled opposition, which is proven by the fact that he employed a woman named Molly Maroney, whose name this guy is getting wrong, who had previously worked as an intern at Stratford.
After Alex didn't pay him enough to write some of his books or to sell some of the books that he was putting on his website, Mark Dice turned on Alex Jones and started making videos was full of shit.
During that period, he would often bring up Molly as evidence that Alex was controlled opposition.
Those videos mysteriously all disappeared when Mark and Alex made up and Mark changed his tune real fast.
Surprise!
unidentified
Some might say that that's an example of Alex paying off Mark to shut him up, but an equally likely possibility is that Mark was mad that Alex stiffed him, so he started making shit up, and then once Alex paid him, he got back to Yeah, that's an easy way to retain friendship whenever your friendship is based on a transaction anyways.
Either way, as a non-insane human, I definitely respect Alex's response to that caller.
He's clearly a bit frustrated by these accusations, but he doesn't seem like he's responding with the kind of blind rage he usually uses to deflect from valid criticisms.
His explanation for why someone who used to be an intern at Stratford might end up working at Infowars makes total sense.
So in order for someone to make this look suspicious, I'm going to need something a little bit more damning in order for this like, oh, she was at Stratford, she now works at Infowars, it's a clear, it's proof!
Yeah.
So I need more.
And before I get into any of this, let me be clear.
None of this should be interpreted as me saying that Stratfor is not a shady and suspicious entity.
That's a matter that other outlets can probably cover way more competently than I can.
I am only concerned with checking in on the arguments that people make that try and connect Alex to Stratfor.
That is my only interest.
A lot of the belief that Alex Jones is an agent of Stratfor traces back to a February 12, 2012 article written by a guy named David Chase Taylor on his website, truther.org.
Before addressing his specific points, it's worth noting that a related article link on this article is, quote, 10 reasons why Alex Jones is the biological son or grandson of one Adolf Hitler.
Also, before we accidentally take too much of what this guy says seriously, it's important to know what he's up to in the more recent days.
In 2017, he put out a press release saying, quote, After months of deliberation and with great trepidation, I begrudgingly announce that I am the so-called messiah.
I do not reveal this for fame or gain, but rather out of self-preservation, for it's far less likely that the Geneva-based CIA will assassinate me prior to the end of the Maya calendar.
The last thing the CIA wants to do is martyr the whistleblower journalist who exposed CIA headquarters beneath Lake Geneva right after he declares he is the so-called chosen one.
So here he goes on to say, quote, Although Jesus Christ allegedly existed 2,000 plus years ago, he holds the title of Messiah and has been deemed the Savior of mankind.
The reality is that mankind didn't need a Savior back then like they do now.
Therefore, the story of Jesus depicted in the Holy Bible is the story of the future Messiah, which has now been identified as David Chase Taylor.
Aside from all the physical traits and similarities, the trials and tribulations suffered by Jesus are reflected in the life of David Chase Taylor.
That is to say, the persecution allegedly suffered by Jesus has been inflicted upon Taylor tenfold, who has been subjected to unspeakable tortures and persecution over the last seven years of his quest to save humanity from extinction.
So when we talk about the accusations that Alex works for Stratford, consider that the source of those conspiracies trace back to an article written by that dude.
I went through the original article, and here are the basic claims that he makes.
Alex is in Austin, and Stratford is headquartered in Austin, so there's a geographic connection.
So the people who push the Alex Jones works for Stratford narrative that's based on the incredibly inconclusive blog post by David Chase Taylor, they aren't doing so because they're worried about Alex secretly working for the feds.
It's all about the idea of Alex working for Stratford as an explanation for why he won't come out.
And they're all super weak.
And they all come back to people who are mad that Alex won't publicly say that the real enemy is the Jews.
One thing that I've always considered and kept in the back of my mind is how valuable having enemies like that is.
For someone like Alex, who's vulnerable to accusations of anti-Semitism based on his anti-Semitic worldview, it's almost a get-out-of-jail-free card to have a loud group of people who are way more anti-Semitic than you attacking you for not being anti-Semitic enough.
Also, if Molly Maroney was some kind of deeply embedded intelligence agent working for InfoWars under the cover of being a graphic designer and editorial staff member for InfoWars, it makes no sense that they would credit her under her real name.
Why would they credit her at all for being a graphic designer on the InfoWars magazine?
I think the fact that she's listed in the credits is almost an indication that this is not suspicious at all.
Something that makes me even less suspicious is that Molly seems to have gone on to have a career in visual arts as opposed to in propaganda.
In 2013, after she ended her very short time at InfoWars, Molly started an art collective called...
Bradix, SPR, ATX, Austin, Texas.
And they do this really cool thing called Free Art Friday.
I'm not sure if they still do, but they did this thing where artists would hide pieces of art they'd created around the city for people to find and take home.
They'd post clues on Instagram as to where the pieces were hidden, so everybody got to play a big city-wide game of hide-and-seek.
So in this next clip from the third, Alex says something that seems to imply that he does believe that there were actors at Sandy Hook, which is not good.
But it's clear that that's at least in the background and kind of what he believes.
See, what's happened is the public has lost faith in the mainstream media and the government, which overall is a healthy thing.
The founding father stated that.
History shows that.
But they had judgment.
It doesn't mean that then everything is fake.
It doesn't mean that I'm Bill Hicks or that I'm really an actor and the professor in Florida who says that Sandy Hook may have been staged with crisis actors, which they really have, that I'm him.
But it's so muddy, what he's expressing, that it could easily be interpreted as him saying that this professor from Florida says that there were crisis actors at Sandy Hook, and there were.
So, first things first, there is nothing suspicious about the White House saying that people can't Photoshop or use the image without permission.
That's a boilerplate disclaimer that's literally applied to every picture on the White House that they release.
No one ever enforces it.
But it's a universal thing that Alex is making a big deal out of because the Daily Caller, a conservative trash rag run by Tucker Carlson, made a big deal out of that.
The idea that you can't Photoshop it.
They pretended that it was a suspicious detail, only relevant to this image, which isn't true.
The Daily Caller article was then boosted by Drudge, which Alex picks up.
And now we've got a conspiracy that Alex says you can't Photoshop a picture of him with a gun.
So Alex kind of, as the show is coming to an end, as he's getting towards the end of the show, he's struggling with this idea because he's like, it's a long trip to Katie, Texas.
He's going on about how, like, it was 33 minutes long, the outage, because it was the Illuminati signaling that the globalists want you to get used to power going out.
I'm just sitting there like, oh my god, this is so bad.
I'm just listening to it like, I don't, I can't, I cannot.
How you would like to see him and how he would like you to see him is how he sounds once he gets outside and he has his rally in front of him and all of his fans.
If you wanted to make the claim of, like, in court, if they want to do, like, hey, this is all an act, this is all bullshit, play those two clips back to back and everybody will be like, oh yeah, it is an act, it is all bullshit, fine.
Usually they're really great because I do a lot of crank before the show, but I forgot this morning, so this one's probably not going to be that great.
But also, that's such a fun feature that dovetails with everything else, because if you're a conspiracy theorist, of course you couldn't get the good stuff on camera.
They're too smart for that.
Like, being lazy plays into the good conspiracy theorist, as opposed to actually putting effort into making something work.
The only reason that I actually even think that it's very worth our time is that I think that this next clip is one of the few times I have ever heard Alex give an actual apology.
I have almost never, even when he's had to give formal apologies to, like, James Alphantis and Hamdi Ulukaya, I still think that this is one of the only real sincere apologies he's ever given.
All right, well, listen, I want to get you up for a full hour sometime next week to just talk about the American success story, and I'm glad Mike Adams called me up to say, look, that's a baloney media article, and I apologize that I bought in to what the media was saying.
I've got to learn, just like...
You said, I can't believe I trusted him.
I called you and said, don't trust him, but I trusted him.
So I apologize for believing them and saying that tactical firearms was not pro-Second Amendment.
Well, the worst thing that you can call somebody in the gun community is an apostate, which I suppose is what he's describing as an anti-Second Amendment gun shop.
Peter Glidden reveals that he's a, quote, member of the Scientific Advisory Board at Longevity, the supplement line that sponsors Alex's show at this point in time.
Much like all the fucking assholes who come on Alex's show from Longevity, which I stress is run by a veterinarian pretending to be a human doctor, Peter Glidden is somebody who espouses sincerely dangerous ideas.
One of his big claims to fame is arguing that chemotherapy doesn't work, and it's just a scam by doctors to keep cancer patients sick and make more money off them.
Instead of getting that chemo and lining your medical doctor's pockets, you should use naturopathy and line the pockets of non-doctors like him.
Glidden justifies his claim by citing a 2004 study from the Clinical Oncology Journal.
He has selected one line that he uses to make his argument that says, quote, the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to five-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
And then he concluded that this means that chemotherapy only works in 2% of the people they use it on.
Of course, Glidden is intentionally misleading people about this study.
The 2% number is 2% of the total people diagnosed with cancer, not 2% of the people who get chemo, which is very different statistically.
A large number of the people considered in that statistic didn't get chemo, so the 2.1% is in no way related to the efficacy of chemo as a cancer treatment.
The misrepresentation of this study is important.
It's attacking science in the name of longevity, and the real consequence of someone believing him is that they might die.
I know that chemo isn't 100% a sure thing, but I would love to see double-blind peer-reviewed studies on Beyond Tangy Tangerine before we start having any of that fucking conversation.
Alternative medicine is all good, and it's all good and well.
And there's nothing wrong with studying natural cures to ailments, even ones that have mainstream medical treatments already.
Science is a big tent.
That said, where it all becomes a huge problem is when you use your unfounded medicine bullshit, this alternative medicine bullshit, primarily to attack mainstream medical treatments.
This isn't trying to advance medical treatment.
It's not based on a concern that patients aren't getting the appropriate care.
It's a transparent attempt to trick vulnerable people into spending their money on you instead of doctors.
And man, that sucks.
Oh, also Peter Glidden also hosts a show on the Genesis Communications Network called Fire Your Doctor Now.
So now about this fluoride study that he mentions.
Alex has no idea what he's talking about.
But also, part of the reason that the misuse of that study, the Harvard study, became so prevalent is that larger platforms allowed themselves to be infiltrated by anti-science bullshit artists.
Who used their platforms against them.
The Harvard study is an analysis that some researchers did of a bunch of studies on the effects of fluoride and IQ.
The researchers at Harvard didn't run any new trials.
They merely reviewed 27 already existing studies and discussed what they purported to have found.
Most of the studies they analyzed were about 10 years old and from China.
The studies were looking at people living in villages in China, Mongolia, and Iran where the natural fluoride levels, I stress, not added fluoride water.
I don't think that anyone would dispute that even beneficial chemicals being taken in at that high of a rate can be dangerous, but that's not how Alex or his fake doctor friends present that information.
They point to this meta...
...
and pretend that Harvard came out and admitted that they were right all along and that fluoride's an attack on the population.
Blah.
unidentified
The researchers who did that meta-analysis of studies were also very clear in their paper that the 27 studies that they reviewed had serious issues regarding the scientific method.
Some of them would probably not stand up to scrutiny if they were submitted to be published on their own, but they exist within the body of this meta-analysis.
Subsequent studies have found no link between fluoride and IQ, but it doesn't matter.
The misrepresentation of that Harvard study had already taken hold in communities that wanted to believe the false conclusion, so no amount of proof that that conclusion is wrong is going to be sufficient.
And one of the biggest reasons that this narrative became so popular was because exactly what Alex pointed out.
There was a Huffington Post headline.
Quote, Harvard study confirms fluoride reduces children's IQ.
The HuffPost contributor blog post was written by Joseph Mercola, who is an anti-vax pseudoscience grifter and has been for a really long time.
Multiple times the government has had to tell him to cease and desist of making medical claims that he was putting forth about products he sold, and in 2016 he had to pay back over $5.3 million to customers he had defrauded by selling them tanning beds, which would reduce their risk of cancer.
He's a real pile of shit, and probably worth a whole episode at some point, and if he ever shows up on...
Look forward to that.
But for now, just know Joseph Mercola sucks.
Huffington Post did a lot of damage by allowing people like him to have free reign to attach their misinformation to the presumably legitimate name of their platform.
Even people like Alex understand that mainstream media outlets have more rigorous editorial standards than he does.
That's why he constantly backs up his stories by saying it's in the mainstream news.
He knows that makes his bullshit sound more believable because the mainstream news does fact-checking.
The HuffPost contributor platform does not, but shares a name with an outlet.
It is a severe disservice that science journalism has done.
Not like intentionally, just...
It's almost like there should be, like, in the same way that there are clearance levels for stuff, like, something like that study should be under a clearance level so you can't fucking abuse that kind of bullshit.
And because of the intersection between capitalism and journalism, and science journalism especially, nobody wants to read headlines that are like, Incremental benefits shown might occur based upon these controlled variables being applied in this specific fashion.
And I love the way he describes this, like getting in trouble.
This is so awesome.
This is a 30 second little clip.
And what he does is like, you first of all are amazing.
You're delusion.
And then second, you belong on Alex's show.
unidentified
The only reason we put up with this nonsense is because there is not a free medical market in the United States.
There isn't.
You want a perfect example?
The state of Illinois just fined me $5,000 for putting the word doctor on my website.
$5,000.
The only person that can call themselves a doctor in the state of Illinois are people that have MDs after their name.
It's ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen, which is why the best thing you can do for your health if you're suffering from a chronic disease is fire your MD now.
Get on board with medical nutrition and take your health back.
Rob Dew, the head of the Nightly News crew, he was out tubing, got caught in some rocks, ripped, I forget the names of it, the ACL, but also the other side of his knee.
They said, two different doctors, 100%, you need surgery, you'll never walk again.
I said, listen, go to a chiropractor.
He said, no, I'm going to go to one.
I said, try to work that out.
Six months later, he hiked four miles up a mountain with me, and his knee is completely better.
And he went to chiropractors, and they worked it out and realigned it and told him the exercises to do and also to take high-powered vitamins and minerals.
And guess what?
They didn't get to cut open his knee.
Ted Anderson, they told him, you've got to have surgery on this knee.
Six months on Beyond Tangy Tangerine, the essential fatty acids, and other products from InfoWarsHealth.com.
Gone.
Gone.
They absolutely do not want you to know this because they want to cut you open.
This would have gotten Alex fined a very serious amount if anybody was paying attention back in 2013.
Endorsements and testimonials are really interesting things, according to the law.
When you're advertising a product, one of the more powerful ways someone might try and discuss the efficacy of said product is to vouch for it working personally.
A testimonial.
rules about how those are used.
The FTC is pretty clear about how they can and can't be used.
And one of the chief guidelines is that if you're expressing an endorsement from someone else, you have to accurately express their beliefs.
You have to represent them accurately.
So, if Ted Anderson and Rob Duke don't believe that Yongevity products were responsible for their knee recoveries, Alex just committed a crime.
So they would have to, under oath, say, yes, absolutely, I have a reasonable basis for believing that Yongevity helped me get my ACL back.
Furthermore, making unsubstantiated claims in the context of a testimonial in no way gets you off the hook for making unsubstantiated claims.
If Young Jevity is marketing by having Alex talk about unsubstantiated or misleading medical claims, they are still liable for those claims.
It's not like, hey, Alex said it's fine.
That's not how it works.
Also, by FTC rules, Alex really fucked up because, quote, an advertisement employing endorsements by one or more consumers about the performance of an advertised product or service will be interpreted as representing that the product or service is effective for the purpose depicted in the advertisement.
Therefore, the advertiser must possess and rely upon adequate substantiation, including, when appropriate, competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims made through endorsements.
same manner an advertiser would be required to if they had made the representation directly.
Because he used two testimonials, endorsements, the law now interprets this as a medical claim that needs to be supported by evidence in exactly the same way as if Young Jevity had come out and said, our product cures ACL tears.
Because Alex used two examples, and at no point did they say something like, these results are not typical, or something similar as a disclaimer, he effectively committed a crime.
Perhaps the most important breach of ethics here, though, is that the two testimonials are being offered.
They're from people with material connections to the company they're making claims about.
Rob Dew is the Infowars nightly news director, and Yongevity is one of Infowars' main sponsors.
At this point, Infowars Life and Infowars Health are basically just resellers of Yongevity products.
Rob Dew's salary is in part subsidized by Yongevity, so his testimonial is tainted.
And I know this is beating a dead horse, but in that very short clip...
Alex Jones manifested multiple instances of behavior that are directly against the rules of the FTC.
If anyone cared about what he was doing or paying attention in 2013, he could have been shut down years ago for using this kind of deceptive and possibly overtly illegal business practice.
If the globalists actually existed and gave a flying fuck about what Alex was doing, they could have had him anytime.
Which further reinforces my argument that Alex is pretty aware that he's fighting against an imaginary enemy.
Yeah, no, I mean, why the fuck wouldn't you say that bullshit?
You're already convincing people.
Look, if you're convinced by him not to get chemo against the wishes of your doctor, of course you're going to believe that he's telling the truth on this one.