Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a couple of incredibly messed up days on the Alex Jones Show. Most of the coverage is about Alex's insanely convoluted coverage of the tanker incident in the Gulf of Oman, and about a recent cyber attack that has targeted InfoWars. Along the way, though, the gents learn how leftist brainwashing on college campuses works, and that one of Alex's lawyers may not be totally insane.
I was actually thinking of Calvin and Hobbes when he orders for the beanie, and he thinks he's going to be able to fly with it, and it turns out just to be a propeller.
So I was thinking about that, and I was thinking, have you ever ordered anything off the back of a cereal box or something that takes like four to six weeks?
The world would not allow us to go back to our fun.
Fun, relatively speaking, of talking about Alex in 2013, as is our tradition on Mondays.
Because, as I predicted on our Friday episode, we're recording this on Thursday, but I bet by the time this episode's out, something really fucked up will have happened.
But if you're listening out there 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.
And what we're going to witness over the first 20 minutes of Alex's Thursday, June 13th show, is him try and talk himself into believing this actually happened and that it was a wrong.
He needs to figure out a way to be like, I know I say everything.
It's a fucking false flag.
But this one's got to be real because Trump really wants it to be real.
What am I going to do?
So it's a struggle and he knows the destination that he's trying to get to.
If you're a fucking conspiracy theorist truth teller and you use terms like quasi-false flag that can be defined however you want depending on your mood, you're signaling that you're an idiot and you're just making stuff up.
It's like a semi-weekly means twice a week and bi-weekly, no other way around.
So the idea of a false flag is that a ship would attack another ship and they would be flying a different flag than the country or group they represent.
Instead, they would be flying the flag of the group that they wanted to be blamed for the attack.
In the case of the sinking of the Lusitania, a German U-boat did that and they admitted they did it and Germany argued that the Lusitania...
It constituted a military boat, so I'm not even sure where a quasi-false flag comes in here.
I guess maybe Alex could be referring to the Lusitania itself changing its flag from a British flag to a US flag in an attempt to appear neutral, but that action is really irrelevant in terms of what happened.
That boat was getting sunk no matter what flag it had on it, unless it was a German flag.
So, more importantly, Alex is misrepresenting history pretty egregiously here.
First of all, the sinking of the Lusitania didn't start World War I. World War I started in July 1914, and the Lusitania sunk in May 1915.
What Alex means is that the Lusitania sinking brought the United States into World War I. And there's another person that matters?
But the way he seems to phrase it, it seems like he doesn't even recognize that people have been fighting and dying for a year in Europe before the ship sank.
But even that thinking is flawed.
The U.S. didn't enter World War I until April 6, 1917, so it makes little sense for the powers that be to false flag attack this boat, then wait two years to follow through with the plan that that false flag allowed them to put in place.
That's nonsense.
After the Lusitania was sunk, Woodrow Wilson demanded a stop to sinking of merchant boats by the German U-boats, and Germany agreed to cut it out.
Then, on January 31st, 1917, Germany announced they were resuming, quote, unrestricted submarine warfare.
Wilson responded on February 3rd that the United States would do nothing unless Germany committed overt acts against the United States.
In the following two months, Germany sank nine American ships, none of whose names Alex Jones even knows.
Most historians agree that the singing of the Lusitania was not the reason the U.S. got involved in the war, but that it's remembered as the Cossus Belli, and the reason for that is probably classism.
The passengers of the nine merchant ships sunk in the weeks before the US declared war were, quote, low-status, underpaid merchant mariners, whereas the Lusitania was a passenger-focused ocean liner, which carried people of an elevated social standing.
Here are the nine ships that were sunk by Germany that actually caused Woodrow Wilson to turn 180 degrees on his campaign slogan, which was, he kept us out of war.
It was the Housatonic, which was sunk on February 3rd, 1917.
The Vigilancia, which was sunk on March 16th, and that one actually had 15 crew members who were killed, six of whom were Americans.
The City of Memphis, which was sunk on March 17th.
The Illinois, sunk on March 17th again.
The Heraldton sunk on May 21st, killing 21, seven of whom were Americans.
That one is actually a tenth entry on this list, because it was actually sunk by a mine, and it probably or may not have been Germany who was at fault, but it's still part of the reason why we entered the war.
The Aztec, which was sunk on April 1st, killing 28, 11 of whom were Americans.
The Marguerite, sunk on April 4th.
And the Missourian, sunk on April 4th as well.
Each of these boats, as they were sunk, debate raged about whether or not they constituted overt acts of war by Germany.
The first three involved no casualties, and in the case of the Housatonic, it appeared that Lieutenant Hans Rose, captain of the U-53 that sunk it, he'd given the crew warning and then towed them in lifeboats to a place where they could easily be rescued by a British ship.
If Germany had continued to sink U.S. boats in that fashion, there probably would not have been any legal justification for Woodrow Wilson to enter the war.
Rusatonic was carrying foodstuffs meant for the Germans' enemies, and under international law, they had every right to consider that contraband.
The same sort of thing could be said for the Lyman M. Law sinking.
The crew of that ship was warned in advance, the ship was sunk, and the passengers were put in lifeboats and towed to land.
It was a very courteous sinking, if there is such a thing.
Those sinkings had happened pretty soon after Germany announced its intention to resume full-scale submarine warfare.
And in their announcement, they made clear that some of their ships had already launched before the announcement was made, and you might expect more lenient treatment from them than from U-boats you might encounter in the future.
Germany knew that this was one area where they had a real leg up on all other belligerent parties, but an essential problem was that if they exerted their full force in the sea, the United States would end up getting involved in the war.
They needed to be able to act with impunity in the ocean and not worry about us, so the best way to achieve that was to stir up some other shit that we would have to deal with.
On February 24, 1917, Woodrow Wilson received the Zimmermann Note, a telegram that was intercepted by British intelligence from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to German Ambassador in the United States Johann von Bernstorff.
In the note, Zimmermann requests that Bernstorff reach out to the German Minister of Mexico City to offer an alliance with them on the condition that they attack the United States from the south.
The offer was to involve a promise to give Mexico back land that was lost in the Mexican-American War if they went along with this plan.
After Wilson received that message and the U-boat attacks continued and intensified, he was in no position to argue with the more hawkish side that had been arguing that past acts constituted overt acts of war.
The next attack of the Algonquin on March 12th did not involve such courteous Germans, as we had seen with Hans Rose.
They didn't give a warning, and they didn't help the stranded crew find rescue.
But there was still a problem for the Warhawks in this case.
The ship had recently transferred from British to American ownership right before the sinking, so it had gone from a belligerent flag to a neutral one since the war had started, which meant that its sinking didn't qualify as a justification for war, because there's every reason that Germany could have not known that it was now an American ship.
When a German U-boat straight-up torpedoed the Vigilancia four days later and ended up killing American civilians in the process, that qualified under international law as an overt act that merited declaring war.
The subsequent attacks that reinforced, they only reinforced that Germany was trying to antagonize the United States and was not going to stop.
And with the Zimmerman note, it was clear that they were also trying to promote attacks against us from our neighbors, which ended up justifying a declaration of war.
The public arguments about the justification for declaring this war very rarely mention the actual ships that were sunk and changed Wilson and his cabinet's minds.
Instead, they often revolved around the much sexier story of the British cruise ship that was sunk two years prior, the Lusitania.
That ship was never the reason the United States got involved in the war, but because blowhards didn't really care about the loss of working class lives, they used the Lusitania as a proxy to talk about the other ships, and thus that misunderstanding is carried down through history to people who don't look too much...
But it's also being carried out in the present by these soon-to-be victors.
The sinking of Lusitania itself is a really controversial topic, even to this day.
It definitely does seem like the British government in particular was eager to cover up something about that boat and its sinking, but to claim that you know what that thing is reflects a little bit of hubris and a lot of assumption.
One of the things that they might have wanted to cover up is that the British knew that the U-20 was nearby and they didn't warn the Lusitania.
This is a hugely consequential decision, saying...
Right, right, right, right.
There are some strong indications that in the aftermath of the sinking, Winston Churchill may have been less than forthcoming about what happened at sea in an effort to protect room 40 from being exposed.
There are plenty of lingering questions about whether or not there were munitions being transported on this boat full of civilians, and I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't look that great if you look at all the details.
The idea of potentially making your boat full of non-combatants a target is pretty unacceptable, but from everything I can tell, this was not why the U-20 fired on the Lusitania at all, and if anything, it was only used as an after-the-fact justification for it.
They sunk that ship because it was their express purpose to be out at sea sinking boats like it.
I'm open to the idea that possible negligence led to the sinking of the Lusitania, but from all the information I have available, I don't see sufficient evidence to claim any kind of conspiracy existed to have the boat sunk in order to get the United States into World War I. That wasn't the result that came from the sinking, and the sinking is absolutely completely in line with what the German U-boat campaign was doing at that time.
They were at war with Britain and viewed Britain as an island nation that could be best defeated by aggressively isolating them by sea.
Churchill had expressed a desire to increase neutral shipping traffic to Britain in hopes of causing a flare-up between the United States and Germany.
You know, like, they'll attack these neutral shipboats.
So Alex is kind of correct that the singing of the USS Maine did lead to the start of the Spanish-American War.
Sort of.
Sort of did.
It set some of the conditions in place and was a spark, certainly.
But he's expressly wrong about everyone being off the ship.
The USS Maine had a crew of 355 men, and when it blew up, 253 of them were killed, with eight more dying later from their injuries.
Yeah.
It was complete luck.
On February 1st, 1898, the USS Maine blew up while docked at Havana Harbor.
Immediately, debates flared up about what had caused the explosion, with many viewing it as the result of an accident where on the ship, coal had combusted and lit munitions.
Others, notably Teddy Roosevelt, who was also pushing for war after the Lusitania sunk, because that dude just loves wars, argued that it was probably a mine that blew up the USS Maine and we should attack Spain.
In the immediate aftermath, neither side was really arguing from a place based on evidence.
They were just using the event to push toward the result they wanted.
Calmer heads didn't want things with Spain to escalate, and then people like Roosevelt were eager to start a war.
Left to their own devices, these sides probably would have just argued between each other until a formal investigation had been done, and ultimately the war may never have actually even happened.
I base that assumption on the fact that President McKinley was not intervening.
Yeah.
In the 1890s, though...
There was a bit of a media feud going on in the New York newspaper market between Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal Both great dudes.
The two dudes did not like each other and wanted nothing more than to put the other one out of business so they could have more share of the market, which manifested in them trying to outdo each other in how sensational their news could be.
They were competing in a profit-driven zero-sum game where the public were the pawns.
They found they were able to sell more papers if they were more sensational, had more inflammatory headlines, and framed news stories in more creative ways, whether or not those creative tellings of events depicted reality or not.
They knew that if they built a narrative and pushed it with enough vigor and emotion, it would drive people to buy their product.
It would work people up into an emotional fervor, then you sell to them.
It is not a business model we're at all familiar with.
I mean, even if you're in favor of the cause behind their actions, you can still see the promotion of Cuban independence in their papers the way they did it as bad means towards a good end.
They'd been playing that game for a while and making a lot of money off it by the time the main sunk.
So they were in an ideal position to capitalize off it.
With no more information than the doves in the government or the hawkish Teddy Roosevelt, both Hearst and Pulitzer set out to rally the public against Spain, explicitly arguing that Spain had sunk the Maine.
Their papers pushed the slogan, Remember the Maine, and did everything they could to advocate for war with Spain.
They did this partially because they were biased in favor of Cuban independence, but more importantly because it raised their profit margins.
Now, it would be stupid for me to sit here and argue that Hearst and Pulitzer were responsible for the outbreak of the Spanish-American War.
There was a piece of the puzzle that they were massive propaganda organs making up stories and sensationalizing kernels of real stories intent on bending public opinion towards war.
As the idea of a military intervention became more and more popular, the more they tugged on the heartstrings and embellished news to line their pockets.
They never would have been able to start the war on their own, though.
They needed influential people like Teddy Roosevelt banging the drum internally within the government to make it happen.
He's kind of the John Bolton of that time.
Similarly, no one ever would want John Bolton to become president.
No one wanted Teddy Roosevelt to become president.
So subsequent investigations, most notably one done by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover in 1974, reached the conclusion that the explosion of the main was the result of unforeseen volatilities in the main's use of a new type of coal.
The ship had previously used anthracite coal, but had just switched to bituminous coal, largely because that type of coal would be able to make ships move faster and sail faster.
Unfortunately, it was also way more caustic and prone to spontaneous combustion.
And this type of coal being present, as well as the significant amounts of pyrite that were found, leads to a strong indication that the ship's Yeah.
The sinking of the main was not a false flag.
It was a horrible accident that was used opportunistically by propagandists looking to turn a profit off delivering stilted news in an emotionally compelling and dishonest way.
I'm not saying that Alex is doing the same thing here and is basically the yellow journalism of the modern era, but I am saying there's probably a reason he'd rather call that a false flag than examine the actual forces that were at play during the time.
You know, the thing that I remember specifically about this, because I read the, I can't remember, the Drums of War or the Fog of War by Barbara Tuchman.
Like Andrew Jackson just walking around just drinking fucking all the blood of the enemies that he's destroyed and you're like, oh yeah, we definitely want him to be president.
Yeah, because it's like, you know, you talk to those people who are like those chicken hawks you're describing and you're like, you point out the hypocrisy of it and it's like, well, alright.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with that, on June 8, 1967, the Israeli Air Force, as well as their Navy, fired on an American ship, the USS Liberty, as it sat in the Mediterranean Sea.
It was in the middle of the Six-Day War, during which the U.S. was a neutral party, and the ship was in international waters, so there was really no justification for their acts.
Israel said that they mistook the ship for an Egyptian warship, but a whole lot of folks don't trust that explanation.
Their arguments largely hinge on complicated conspiracy theories that I'll get into later in this episode.
For now, what I want to stress is that there's no possible reality wherein Israel would have done what they did in order to try and trick the United States into war with Egypt.
Alex believes that Israel's objective was to kill everyone on the liberty, so there's no survivors, and they could just say that Egypt did it.
This doesn't make any sense, since the airships were marked as Israeli.
So if anyone on board the ship survived, or if any of them were able to radio anyone, or if there's any ship nearby that saw what happened, the whole plan would be busted.
If they really were trying to set up Egypt, they could have easily marked their helicopters with Egyptian markers or just not had Israeli ones on them.
One of the survivors testified that he could see the ships were Israeli from 2,000 yards away, which would give them ample time to radio that Israel was attacking them.
Given the technology that existed at the time and each party possessed, it would have been impossible for the signal to be jammed coming out of the boat, and the Liberty was able to send out a distress call.
So they would have been able to blow this false flag up, even if every single person on that boat ended up being killed.
I'm not going to pretend that the Israeli military hasn't definitely used false flags before, like in the case of the 1954 Levon affair, but looking at this case, it doesn't look like Alex's argument makes much sense.
If only I knew where he was getting this information from.
Honestly, though, him being right about this kind of makes things worse.
Here's what I mean.
You would sound crazy and paranoid if you just insisted that everything was fake because you had one example from 55 years ago.
Alex needs to create the appearance of a pattern in order to justify thinking that everything could be a false flag.
And that leads him to believe completely untrue things, like the Lusitania sinking caused us to get into World War I, or that all the men were off the main when it was false flags sunk.
He has to think that those things are false, too, because the reality of the Gulf of Tonkin incident isn't enough for him to justify his stupid way of thinking.
And, you know, no one disputes that the Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't the case of lying to get into war.
But that's unsatisfying to Alex, because everyone already agrees with him.
You're not blowing minds talking about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Books, tons of books are written about it.
The, you know, fucking McNamara's gone on record and been interviewed about it.
That is one of those things that every part of that, like the real history of every part of the Vietnam War is the most disgusting, horrific possibility that you can have.
Like that it was all started based on lies and bullshit that Nixon went behind.
into LBJ's back in order to keep the war going for an extra couple of years so LBJ couldn't be reelected.
Like, that is fucked up.
Yeah.
unidentified
Which is why it's absolutely not possible for anything like that to ever happen again, Dan.
The position that we're in right now is Alex has a bunch of boats that are justifying his, like, you know, they love to do boat false flags, but maybe this is real.
This is an entrenched group that, yes, has a lot of unpopularity in their nation, but a large military in place with a tight grip from the throat of the people.
And Iran might roll the dice and start these provocations, deny them, but then still use it to push into a larger war, activating Hezbollah sleeper cells, which are in every major country and are ready to wreak havoc.
If you think a school shooting wreaks havoc in your town, take a couple of Iranian special ops, The globalists are hyper-compatible.
This is a few days after he got elected and got into office.
Trump told the whole room of the CIA of top people, he said, we're going to tell Saudi Arabia you're going to stop funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda or we'll overthrow you.
I'm not prepared to say that this is a false flag.
But I also think it's very interesting that...
You've got, quote, U.S. officials saying they think it's Iran, and that Iran stands to gain, when many other analysts, and I agree with them, say Iran doesn't.
But the Mullahs are unstable, and they do have a powerful military, and they are crazy.
The closest I can find is, I mean, these are a little close, maybe.
There's an article on Press TV from February 13th, 2019, where Iran vowed revenge against terrorist groups who attacked their guard troops and killed 27 of their soldiers.
And it's from close to the time period Alex is talking about.
I don't know.
The closest other thing I could find to that quote that he's struggling to remember is an article in the Christian Science Monitor that seems pretty in favor of regime change.
The title, the headline is, quote, Why Europe is Again a Battlefield for Iran's Internal Wars.
It's not that close, though, to what Alex is talking about and definitely not what he's describing.
I'm kind of at a loss as to what he's talking about.
And even searching for those terms, like I said, on Infowars itself doesn't pull up an article.
Again, I couldn't find what Alex was talking about.
Even when he clarified his search terms, it didn't really help.
If you search for these words that Alex is expressing, the closest thing I could find is a May 16th, 2019 article in Market Watch, which I do know Alex has cited a bunch of times in the past, so it makes sense that he would have read it.
The headline is, quote, Iran's foreign minister responds to unacceptable sanctions by the United States.
At no point...
In that article, does the Foreign Minister Mohamed Zarif threaten retaliation, nor does he discuss soft targets?
Those words only exist coming out of the mouth of Anwar Gargash, who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates, saying that if civilian targets were hit, their Saudi-led coalition would, quote, retaliate hard against Iran.
Or there's a Reuters article from May 26, 2016 that's reporting on something from Press TV.
The headline is, quote, Iran's Khomeini calls for vigilance against West's soft war.
That article doesn't say a single word about Hezbollah or unleashing terrorists or any of the stuff Alex is talking about.
However, there is an article from May 19th in Reuters where Ayatollah Khomeini says, quote, There won't be any war.
The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance.
We don't seek a war, and they don't either.
They know it's not in their interests.
But that doesn't seem to be in line with what Alex is reporting, and I still do not know what he's talking about.
So, the article that Alex is talking about here is from April 22, 2019, and he's leaving out a really important part of the statement that Iran put out.
They said specifically that they would close the Strait of Hormuz if they were prevented from using it.
It's a conditional statement.
An absurdly high amount of the world's oil traffic runs through Hormuz, and Iran does control a large portion of that water area.
Oman controls a fair amount of it on the other side of the strait.
But if Iran were to be prevented from using their own waterway, it does make some sense that they would shut down their part of it.
Alex is later going to say that this threat they made to close the Strait of Hormuz was like, they threatened to blow up boats in order to fit what's going on in the present, but that wasn't what they threatened.
They threatened to shut down block traffic in the Strait.
To the point where a lot of analysts have called it a reflexive move.
I would say that given the Trump administration's clear strategy of antagonizing people, this might be a time that they would follow through with it, but they haven't done that yet, and this instance of this tanker is not...
That's not an indication of closing the straight.
So whatever Alex is trying to present about, like, they threatened to do this a month ago, now they're doing it, which is going to be the thesis that he starts running with, is not accurate at all.
When I woke up this morning and heard that one ship had been torpedoed, one bombed, in the Gulf, right off the coast of Iran, I said, are they really that crazy?
Because so many wars get started with a false flag where a country will attack its own ship to blame the nation they want to attack or invade.
There's many historical examples of that.
I'll go into some.
I was watching ABC News, CNN, Fox News, and they were unsure.
And then some U.S. officials started coming out from the Trump administration saying, we believe it's Iran, but not giving any evidence.
And then I was sitting here, creaking on air earlier.
The Iranians took credit for this four months ago, two months ago, and about a month ago, and my crew was able to pull up the articles you heard me mention on air from memory.
So let me just tell you right now, Iran is the main suspect, and Iran stands to gain from this, and Iran...
Thinks that they can push Trump into backing off sanctions or they'll continue to sabotage ships in the Gulf and then claim that Trump is staging it so that if Trump strikes back, they look like the victim.
What he's talking about in terms of controlling the choices, it's like you've created a position where no matter what the choices, you come out looking.
It does include some vague insinuations that there would be trouble if Trump makes a decision to label the IRCG a terrorist organization, but you really have to look at it in the big picture.
The IRCG is a branch of Iran's armed forces, so labeling them as a recognized terrorist group is really close to declaring war on them.
It would be like if France decided to declare the U.S. Navy an enemy of their country.
It's kind of baiting.
And also, that article doesn't say that they're going to sink boats or activate sleeper cells if Trump labeled them a terrorist organization.
It's specifically about putting an urgent motion through the government to label the U.S. military personnel as blacklisted terrorists.
Like the headline says, reciprocal actions.
This first article that Alex is bringing up does nothing to prove his points.
It's all just misrepresented, and you know how sloppy he is by him saying it's a press TV article instead of an independent.
He packs a lot in at the beginning of this June 13th episode.
But it's very important to recognize that as he came out of the gate, what he did over the course of the first hour of his program was talk himself into getting to the point where he's doing, like you said, a wrestling promo at the Mullas of Iran and saying they admitted that they did this in advance.
He's talked himself into that position.
Now that is not to say that that's where he stays.
But that is something that he is broadcasting, and he is reinforcing, defending, and that's his stated line for now.
This is our generational difference between you and I. The three years difference.
Yeah.
And I'm older.
So one of the reasons I'm not going to respond to that clip is because it's rank nonsense.
The Google document thing, the stuff we've talked about before, it's him misrepresenting some emails that got released and prove in any way that, quote-unquote, the left, these non-specific terms, the left, is working with Hezbollah and MS-13.
Not necessary to respond to, especially because in this next clip, Alex explains what he's talking about and the specifics of how this works, and it's crazy.
It's nice to see Alex resist that easy path that's very much in his wheelhouse in favor of a much more challenging narrative of Obama sent out Hezbollah kill teams to murder obscure state senators who weren't even in office anymore as a trial run before moving on to the main target, Alex Jones' audience.
Yeah, it's much more of a layup, a direct path as opposed to...
Alright, got a lot to prove in that statement you're making, Alex.
So, the state senator from Arkansas, Linda Collins, was found dead in her home on June 4th.
Police put a gag order on details on the case, other than to say it was a murder, which isn't all that suspicious, considering she's a former state senator.
She lost the 2018 primary, so at that point of her death, she was just a private citizen.
But extending that courtesy to her is something that I think is appropriate for a police department to do, and I don't think there's anything weird about that at all.
Last week, 48-year-old Rebecca Lynn O'Donnell was arrested for Collins' murder.
She was an active volunteer for Collins' campaign, and the two appear to have had a friendly relationship.
I'll wait until more information comes out on this to make a full decision, but it appears that this might be a State Senate Selena-type situation.
Either that or Hezbollah and MS-13 are employing white grandmothers to do their dirty work.
But the police, even though they did say that he died from a gunshot wound, they have not been specific in labeling it a murder.
Instead, they've said that they're handling it as a, quote, death investigation.
It's really sad, and I feel bad for everyone involved, their families and the community, but we don't know anything about what happened here.
Nichols could very well have committed suicide, for all we know, and until there's more details known, it's really abusive to these people's memory to use their death as a prop, which is exactly what Alex is doing.
But then, once you do it, you then deny it so that you can get the U.S. to attack you and make yourself the victim, like they've already been doing with their patrol boats in international water, grabbing our troops, our sailors, our Marines, our SEALs.
Yeah, the evidence is overwhelming, he has no doubt.
Now, you responded to that they're grabbing troops up, and Alex is clearly talking about Iran detaining ten Marines back in January 2016, but he's implying like it's something that's happening now, and somehow part of his argument that Iran did this attack last Thursday.
This is completely dishonest, manipulative, and the only reason someone would act that way is if you're trying to saber-rattle.
There is no other reason to bring this into a modern conversation about what is happening unless you are trying to sway people into supporting war in Iran.
In 2016, those U.S. troops that Iran detained, they weren't in international waters.
They had fucked up their navigation and entered Iranian territory, so they were detained.
And guess what?
John Kerry called up his Iranian counterpart, talked it out with a little bit of diplomacy, and the sailors were released 15 hours later, unharmed.
This was a situation where our troops made a little mistake and it was a faux pas that could have easily spiraled into something ugly.
But because calmer heads were at the helm, everyone was able to talk it over and recognize there was no harm, no foul.
I mean, that's the kind of situation that could easily spiral out of control if people aren't able to discuss things, if people aren't treating each other with respect and understanding that, like, look, I'm sorry, I know that's your water and we're not allowed to be there.
And I totally get that you detained him, because if you didn't, that would have fucked up our whole mutually assured fight to the death kind of situation.
What we have working for us is the utter and clear incompetence of the current administration combined with the fact that I'm pretty sure most Americans are like, dude, we've played this song before, man.
The United States, you can bet your bottom dollar, is going to back a Saudi Arabian attack on Iranian shipping lanes and Iranian military targets, and you'll have a bunch of stealth bombers at 80,000 feet fly over and drop 2,000-pound bombs all over Iran.
Five minutes later, Iranian sleeper cells in every major U.S. city and Shiite sleeper cells in Iran and Shiite sleeper cells in Iraq and Shiite sleeper cells in any other country that backs what Trump does are going to have soft targets hit.
They're just decoys that'll get some of the blame when they send Hezbollah and MS-13 hit squads to people's houses.
Oh, and they'll go after the Senate Majority Leader.
They'll go after Republicans that think they're safe because the Democrats want decapitation of the U.S. And they're getting ready to make their move with Iran.
And our military can take out the Iranian mullahs very, very quickly.
Except they have stay-behind networks or terror cells in every major western city.
Mullahs in April and May all warned that if Trump put sanctions on them, on their Revolutionary Guard that is the government, they are the Praetorian Guard.
They are the mullahs.
They are the Shiite aristocracy, the royalty, genetically related to Muhammad.
They have their Shiite groups everywhere, paramilitary prepared for major terror attacks.
They bragged they were going to bomb ships.
And close the Strait of Hormuz in national television announcements.
And I believe that this point here, that clip, is the point where Alex's narrative takes a turn towards genocide.
All this stuff about the saber-rattling for war with Iran is fucked up and completely opposed to everything Alex has ever pretended to stand for.
And I have some criticism of that, for sure.
However, in that clip, what he's presenting is another level of unacceptable.
See, as he sees it, it would be no big thing for Trump to take out the mullahs in Iran and win the war.
He kind of sounds exactly like the neocons before heading into Afghanistan and Iraq.
So it would be easy.
It would be an easy thing for Trump to go ahead and win that war.
But there's a problem.
Iran has secret Hezbollah terror cells in literally every western city that will respond to an attack on Iran by gassing everyone and burning down buildings.
So I guess what you'd have to do is preemptively lock up all the Iranians just to be safe.
And just like that, Alex has talked himself into the exact logic that led to one of the more disgraceful chapters in our history when we put Japanese people in camps because we were afraid of them.
One of the reasons it's so important to respond to things like this in a way that some might criticize me for being overly cautious, I accept that as a criticism, that I'm making a leap in logic, but I think it's important to understand how easy it is for this rhetoric to make that jump.
If Iran is wantonly attacking us and it would be easy for us to win the war if it weren't for the case that Iranian Hezbollah sleeper cells are in all of our cities, it follows that the solution Alex would propose is rounding up all Iranians in these western cities so their sleeper cells would be neutralized.
And they've got Shiites from every country in the world that have all purposely immigrated.
To the great Satan, so when the great day of judgment comes and the great war comes, and they think Iran gets nuked during it, that's okay, because they're going to burn all of our cities down.
Then I've got communists all around the country winning office saying they're preparing a violent overthrow and to link up with Iran, MS-13, and others by any means necessary.
She didn't say anything about a violent overthrow or anything about putting people in camps or about working with Hezbollah.
There's a clip of her talking about how capitalism is failing and we need to do something.
and the thing that she believes in is community ownership of land, resources, labor, etc.
If Alex wants to make a cogent argument against that position, fine, I'll listen to him.
But as long as his response to anything This is going to lead to gulags?
I don't have the energy to respond to that dumb shit.
That being said, as long as Alex is bringing up that Candy wants to put people in camps, it should be pointed out that the Daily Beast reported last week that Trump was planning on housing 1,400 detained immigrant children at Fort Sill in Oklahoma.
That's pretty shocking and offensive to people, particularly older Japanese Americans, because Fort Sill is one of the camps where they were held during World War II.
I know that every day brings a new Alex Jones-related horror, and every day there's something new that directly contradicts one of his long-standing positions, but this is profoundly disgusting.
All he ever did in his career was yell about how the federal government was locking up him and his gun buddies because they were a threat to the New World Order.
Now we have a federal government locking up children, and he's fucking silent, and when he does say anything, he supports it.
I remember back when we were covering the 2009 episodes, Alex made a huge deal out of the idea that Obama was reopening a camp where Japanese Americans were held during World War II, and how this was the next step towards gun weirdos being rounded up.
Back then, Obama was opening that camp as a museum, as a memorial, to remind us what this country did when we let fear overwhelm us.
Today, that reminder is dead.
Trump is doing exactly what Alex lied about Obama doing, and Alex doesn't say shit.
But oh, the democratic socialist who thinks that capitalism is necessarily exploitative.
She's the one who wants to put you in a camp, not Alex's fucking hero, who's literally doing that right now.
What kind of overcompensation would you need to do to go around Denver, wandering around for a city council position and be like, now, by the way, knock, knock, knock.
Oh, hello, citizen.
I'm going to work with MS-13 and Hezbollah by any means necessary to violently overthrow the country.
Every time we see something where Alex flips on one of his old positions and stuff, it's like, you know...
Yeah, of course.
You don't mean anything.
You're a hypocrite.
You're just like a real pile of shit.
But something like this is like, well, I would only know that Alex yelled about Obama opening these camps as museums if I had gone back and listened to all of this.
And I know what you did, Alex.
Now you have Trump opening up.
Or, you know, using these places where Japanese Americans were held to house immigrants that are being detained.
Like, what is the difference?
Why would you yell about Obama doing it and not now?
I think what would be a fascinating thesis is, if you were going for a historical PhD, I would wonder...
How much of the right wing's characterization of Obama being a horrible dictator who is destroying your lives actually wound up getting the right wing comfortable with their actually being?
But, ladies and gentlemen, it's got to be covered if we're going to protect the children and future generations in this nation.
Throughout history, there have been cults that form inside different civilizations during their declines that are obsessed with sex with children and obsessed with sacrificing children.
You can go to any archaeological site in the world.
From ancient China to ancient Africa to ancient Europe to ancient Mesoamerica, and you will find a priest class having sex with children at first, and then killing them.
Because if you're saying that, like, these priest classes that have led to the downfall of the Aztecs and the Inca and all sorts of civilizations, the vehicle for exactly that cultural degradation is the LGBTQ community.
I mean, what are you doing?
Like, what are you saying?
I mean, would you, if you were an Aztec back then and had a chance?
To save Aztec civilization from falling?
If you knew what to do, just take out that priest class.
I mean, isn't that kind of implied in there?
Be a hero for the Western civilization that's going to be destroyed.
When I was walking across the street just to go to a restaurant, I mean, folks, you don't take kids to a gay pride parade.
We have to cut most of the stuff we film at these out because it can't go out over broadcast television, including scantily glad five- and six-year-old girls and boys twerking their asses to men and women.
So the article that Alex is covering is, of course, an InfoWars article.
It's using an Austin American Statesman article as a jump-off point to complain that the Austin Independent School District is using some funds to, quote, boost student involvement and pride.
The Statesman article does bring that up, but it's a much broader story than Alex is really interested in.
What it comes down to is that the school district rents out some of its properties to churches who hold their services there.
It's a really common thing in a lot of parts of the country, and honestly, I don't think that's even really a big deal.
The comedy club in Columbia, Missouri, that I used to perform at, rented out their space to a church on Sundays to make ends meet, and I think it's the sort of thing that could be a really mutually beneficial agreement and arrangement in a lot of cases.
In this case, however, one of the churches who rented out the Performing Arts Center in Austin was a church called the Celebration Church, which preached a pretty anti-LGBTQ version of the faith.
They liken homosexuality to bestiality, inasmuch as they're abominations that God has forbidden.
Naturally, LGBTQ activists were not super thrilled at this church renting out school district space and protested them to be disallowed the space.
The Texas Attorney General pointed out that it would be against the First Amendment for the school district, a government entity, to discriminate against the church based on their religion, so it would be a very complicated thing for the district to stop renting the space to them, but still rent space to other people.
In an attempt to find a solution everyone can live with, LGBTQ advocates suggested that the church, if it was going to remain able to use school district space, then some of that money raised should be redirected towards initiatives that supported LGBTQ students and staff.
The school board said, oh yeah, for sure, that's a great solution.
So here's why it is a great solution.
Since September, the school district has raised $182,000 from renting out their spaces, and they're setting aside $10,000 for LGBTQ spaces.
It's really a win-win solution for everyone, including the Celebration Church.
Everybody wins.
Nothing in this story mentions anything about the ages of the students involved in being bused to Pride or any of that stuff.
Austin Independent School District includes schools covering pre-K to high school, so it could just be high schoolers.
But because it's a school district, even if it's anybody, they can't do shit without parental permission slips.
In the case of younger students, their parents probably have to come along with them.
It's not like you're luring 4th graders, 10-year-olds to Pride on their own without parental permission.
Guardians.
And part of that $10,000 is protection.
It's like, you know, you can't take kids to the St. Patrick's Day parade for a school thing without chaperones and security.
This is an Austin school district realizing that they made money off renting out a space to a group that's offensive to the LGBTQ community, but is also a group they can't kick out without causing a huge legal battle.
So they decided to make a symbolic gesture of support to make it easier for students and staff to participate in pride.
If anything, the headline here is Austin ISD has good intentions, it doesn't do enough.
There's a lot of defensiveness on his part in the present day.
So, whatever, we'll leave that aside.
That was just a little bit of...
I don't, look, I mean, look, okay, so if I did something offensive and I was really bad at it, I wouldn't insist on continuing to do it just because people were offended by it.
And it's amazing, and I promise I'm only running it until next Friday because we think we'll probably sell half of our Ultra 12. We won't get more in for three, four months, and I want to be able to keep it at regular price until that point.
So thank you all who bought Ultra 12. Thank you.
But here's other people's chances to get it for free.
Everywhere in the news, and we're getting calls, and we're getting messages, and people are like, why are you saying you think Iran did it?
You know, you're the false flag guy.
No, I always just question, could this be staged?
Because I have a stack of historical documents where we and others have staged attacks on ships to get us into Vietnam, to get us into World War I, to get us into the Spanish-American War.
But that doesn't mean this is staged, because the mullah said, you cut off our money two months ago, we're going to blow up ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
They did it!
Now, of course, they're denying it because they want us to strike first.
But when you say you're going to do something and then you do it, the Pentagon says, we believe they're about to do it a week ago and it happens.
I tend to side with the Pentagon on this because you're not like the whole Pentagon's back.
So leaving aside the fact that Alex is misrepresenting what Iran said that they would do in response to sanctions and labeling their armed forces a terrorist organization, Alex Jones has really just accidentally backed himself into a corner that, if he's not careful, this is going to undo most of his career.
If you're listening to his justification for why he believes that this was a real attack and not a false flag, it all boils down to the fact that Iran said they were going to do X action, then X action happened.
That's all good and well, and generally speaking, what he's talking about is a threat.
If someone threatens to do something and then that thing happens, it's generally a good idea to start your investigation by checking on the person who made that threat.
But Alex isn't starting his investigation there.
He's ending his investigation there.
They said they were going to do it, therefore it's not a false flag.
If you apply that logic to the broader spectrum of the things Alex has covered in his career, literally everything falls apart.
One of the biggest career-making issues for him was the argument that 9/11 was a false flag, but if you use this investigative technique that he's currently using about Iran, he should have immediately come to the conclusion that bin Laden had carried out that attack.
I could go on and on with how slippery the way Alex is behaving is, but I think you get the point.
If all it takes for Alex to be satisfied that an attack on a ship in the Gulf of Oman is not a false flag, and Iran definitely did it, is his impression that they said they were going to do something like this, then his process is completely shattered.
I know that I've been bringing this up a lot, but I think it's essential to understand.
Accusations of false flags are almost never sincere.
False flag has become a rhetorical weapon.
Accusations of false flags.
It's a weapon that can be wielded, both offensively and defensively.
Obviously, we know that Alex uses it-was-staged type arguments to deny that people like him could possibly ever commit a crime.
But the alternative, this one wasn't staged, is used as an offensive weapon against people Alex wants targeted.
Anytime a Muslim or immigrant hurts somebody, that's definitely not a false flag, because Alex wants his audience to fear and hate those people.
So, their crimes are all definitely real.
They definitely happened.
In this case with Iran, Alex's meal ticket, Trump wants to attack Iran, so he knows that he needs to find a way to fall in line with that, and this is probably his best bet as a justification.
It was a false flag is not a good argument.
It's not something that you can just kind of feel out.
It's not something that you can determine for one or two coincidental details.
That shows a deep disrespect for reality and research.
False flags definitely do exist, but my sense is that they're exceedingly rare.
And it's not just an explanation for everything that's inconvenient for your worldview.
The mythology of the false flag is something that allows a certain subset of bad thinkers and bad actors to hijack reality.
They latch on to the fact that, yes, some false flags have existed in the history of the world and extrapolate that out to imply that it means that everything is possibly fake.
Once you internalize that idea, events are no longer events.
They're pieces of a story that's being told, and everything needs to fit with that story that you believe is being told.
Alex believes the government is evil and militia patriots are always good.
So when Timothy McVeigh blows up the Murrah building, it's imperative to find a way to make what happened fit the story you're already telling.
This event is too threatening to the narrative, so you rewrite it as in being a patsy.
And before you know it, everything fits.
You have now made the story fit.
The government looks even more evil, and the militia patriots look even more good.
This is all false flags mean to Alex.
They're a crutch that he uses to hobble his broken-down narratives along, but they're a crutch that's packaged in the sexiest of wrapping paper.
The wrapping paper that just says, what if, over and over and over and over again.
So what I'm saying is this.
This is my point.
Be skeptical of things, obviously.
Absolutely.
Be skeptical.
Ask the questions that you want answers to, but for your sake and the sake of public sanity, don't start out from a position of thinking most things are probably fake and then trying to work backwards and try and justify your suspicions.
That is the psychosis that Alex discussed having in those Sandy Hook depositions that everyone took out of context.
But that is what leads to that kind of trap.
The longer and longer we do this and the more I read and the more I understand things, the more it just becomes clear that this is not a sincere belief system.
It's not a sincere worldview.
It's a tactical...
And I don't know how conscious that is on Alex's part.
I think there may be a piece of it that is.
But I think it might just be he's done it for so long it's ingrained in me.
Well, I mean, after it happens, you're like, holy shit, I'm on record saying this is going to happen.
How do you not try and make the most out of it?
And I think the predicting it is obviously a ripping off of Bill Cooper, who he idolized.
I don't know.
I think it still fits.
I think the broad picture of using false flags as a rhetorical weapon, both offensively and defensively, to protect your worldview and the narratives that you wish to tell, I think it makes total sense.
9-11, slight outlier, but that's why I think it still fits.
So we get done with the 13th, and Alex is left with a very clear perspective that Iran did this shit.
What's going to happen is Trump's going to bomb them and then we're all fucked.
I want to get into the latest on the sinking of the ships and the push for full war with Iran that would probably lead to a wider regional war and possibly a new world war.
There are just unbelievable developments on that front.
And I am normally able to suss out who's behind what.
But this is really cloudy and really foggy for me.
This show actually is super interesting in terms of what he does with the Iran narrative.
It's so demonstrative of how stupid he is and how bad he is at this job.
We'll talk about it.
But first, now that Alex has waffled a little bit, folded like a taco, he now gets off the Iran picture and gets back to justifying...
That boats were false flags in the past.
And I told you we'd get a little bit more into the USS Liberty, and that's because he brings it back up here, and we specifically find out where he got some of this information from.
The fact that he was in that position at that time, the fact that he was the chief of naval operations for most of the Vietnam War, all of it should really put him squarely in the box of villains in Alex's world.
But weirdly, he's not.
You know, he could be used by Alex to reference about how the USS Liberty was a false flag, but mysteriously doesn't seem to have anything to say about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Thomas Moore was the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974, and he has a resume full of impressive titles on paper.
However, if Alex interviewed him right before he died, he would have been 91 years old.
And even assuming his brain was all there, the best-case scenario for someone in failing health who was born in 1912 is generally not so great.
At the time of the USS Liberty attack, Moorer was just beginning his three-year stint as the Chief of Naval Operations after having already served 34 years in the services.
It was three years past the Gulf of Tonkin incident at that point.
He had been a pilot in World War II, and he had received a Purple Heart as the result of his plane being shot down by a Japanese attack.
He survived the crash and was rescued by an Australian ship, which was then sunk by the Japanese.
As he tried to survive in a lifeboat, he was being shot at in the water.
Later in life, he had testified before Congress about the need to provide troops with adequate machinery, since the cause of his crash was that a bullet hit the unarmored fuel tank in his plane.
He replied to suggestions that providing extra protection was a waste of money, saying, that perspective, quote, is great until you're in the sea and someone is shooting at you.
Now, this is very interesting, because this is a piece of Moore's personal life story that matches the story that's told by conspiracy theorists about the sinking of the USS Liberty that they claim proves that it was a deliberate, prolonged attack.
They say that the Israeli forces were shooting at the crew as they tried to leave the ship on lifeboats, which is matching Thomas Moore's life.
The problem is that the investigations and sworn testimony of the crew and the survivors of the Liberty and all of that, that sort of thing isn't mentioned once.
In fact, Captain McGonagall testified that he had ordered some crew members who were lowering lifeboats into the water to stop, not because they would end up getting shot at, but because there was no danger that the boat would sink.
Yeah, and all he did was take five points away from Gryffindor.
So none of the accusations of shooting at lifeboats are found in the sworn testimony of the survivors or the investigations about the event.
They only begin to pop up later when some of the crew members begin making media appearances and start directly contradicting their prior sworn statements.
It would probably be impossible to prove this, but some might say that this change in perspective might be the product of anti-Zionist sentiment becoming much more popular in the United States through the 70s and 80s, with the term Zionist-Occupied Government, or Zog, being coined by neo-Nazi Eric Thompson in 1976.
Two years later, the term would be featured in William Luther Pierce's book, The Turner Diaries, which would go on to inspire countless white supremacists and anti-Semites, including Timothy McVeigh.
The book also inspired the white supremacist outlaw group The Order, who helped bring the term to a much wider audience in 1984 when members of the group murdered prominent Jewish radio host Alan Berg.
In the late 70s and early 80s, the sentiment that Israel controlled the U.S. government began to creep out of the sewer of just plain old white supremacist groups into slightly more mainstream consciousness, and as it grew, it sought justification.
The attack on the USS Liberty is a prime example of an event that was recast to fit the mold of a U.S. government bending over backwards to allow Israel to attack us, then going out of our way to cover it up for them so no one finds out that the government is really a zog.
The subsequent investigations of the Liberty event have found that it was a mistake, and a series of miscommunications were responsible for how things played out.
His findings have been roundly criticized by people who have reviewed the court records and transcripts of communications from that day back in 1967 as being in opposition with the facts.
And from everything I can tell, they're not wrong.
His investigation was shit.
More is said to have remarked, quote, I've never seen a president.
I don't care who he is.
Stand up to them.
It boggles the mind.
They always get what they want.
The Israelis know what's going on all the time.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, They would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.
So I don't know what his full intentions were in his life, or if it's just something where he's been co-opted by these anti-Semites and real fuckheads, but whatever the case, he is someone who is a big figure in justifying their worldview.
What I'm getting at is that if someone presented me with some sort of evidence that Admiral Moore was a huge anti-Semite and that was motivating his conspiracy theories about the U.S. liberty, I don't think I would be surprised.
I don't have that evidence, and I'm not going to say that that's the case.
So a lot of this information that Alex is getting about the USS Liberty being fake is coming from this guy who, you know, his personal life story is a piece of what's co-opted and put into the story of the USS Liberty attack that doesn't match up with the historical record of it, which I find very suspicious.
I think that that is something that's pretty tough to get around.
Yeah, it's like if you were watching the Home Shopping Network at 2 a.m. and they're like, we have these amazing knives for you.
They will chop anything.
Just so you know, the government is going to come and find all of your knives, take them away from you and destroy them unless you buy this knife right now to protect yourself.
You know, his dad was a famous congressman who actually got the lands of Alaska signed over to the people, so they killed him.
His brother was a U.S. senator.
He's kind of dialed in.
He normally hosts Friday's fourth hour.
We're preempting 30 minutes of him because we've had an attempt to criminally set up InfoWars.
And we have the proof.
And I've had my lawyer fly down here, quick notice, from Connecticut to tell you about this because I want you to know the stakes and what the system is willing to do.
To take this operation down, because they know, folks, this is the real deal.
Watching, listening to you in real time in your house.
And they introduced it a month and a half ago, saying, we'll use Alex Jones as the first hate figure, and then we can use it as a stick to tell all the other people, you better watch what you do.
Because we've got everybody else's devices under our control.
We've got everybody else's cameras.
You go, well, how does anybody?
It's computers.
It's AI.
It's portal in your house.
And it's building a politically correct database on you to threaten your banking, your job.
But don't worry.
They say they're going to give you an opportunity.
So, I mean, I can't tell how much of it is what he thinks is being funny, because obviously there's embellishing of the call with his transphobic riffing that he does.
But it becomes, like, I can't even enjoy those moments too much because he says things like in this next clip that is really, really towing the line with, I think, genocide.
He's saying that, like, ah, you know, I don't think we should have a race-specific bioweapon that kills all Muslims and Arabs, but I know they want to destroy me, they want to take me out, and, you know, I just think that killing them all, God wouldn't be thrilled with that, but I also think that's the way the world's going.
I think it's inevitable we're gonna have to commit genocide against these people.
And it's one of the worst imaginable aggressions that could be put forth towards people.
So yeah, I mean, no matter what, any time you have this, like, eh, they just gave you an accent sucker on your ding-dong, turned you into a liberal at college, like, that sort of comical nonsense mixed in with, eh, we might end up having to kill all Muslims.
And here is a clip of Alex introducing Joel Skousen about...
And I only play this clip.
We're not going to listen to any clips of the two of them.
I'll just explain what happens with them.
But this is an important clip because it indicates that from a very early age, Alex Jones' dad lived in an environment of rabid, rampant anti-communist sentiment.
You know, we've got one of the best geopolitical analysts out there, Joel Skousen, and his family is the gold standard, the platinum standard.
We're not bragging.
He doesn't like to be bragged about.
Of anti-communism.
When I was growing up, five years old, my grandfather, who was this super John Wayne American World War II vet, sitting around the table, and he was talking to my dad.
I was five years old, reading The Naked Capitalist.
He's like, and it's not just the commies, the big banks.
Playing the game to investigate the public.
We've got to stop them, and you've got to get in there and do it.
And I'm sitting there listening to this, and I'm like five years old.
My dad's like, we weren't working on it.
We're trying to, whatever they were up to.
Because my dad had been fighting communists since he was about 14 years old.
Like, if you had to, I would love to go buck wild with this and be like, all right, are there any unsolved crimes in the Dallas Rockwall area in 1979 of some sort of, like, you know, I don't know.
Well, it's probably because Alex's references are 20 years old.
So on the show, like I said, he has these guests.
He has Joel Skousen, who comes on second, and Matt Bracken, who comes on before him.
Matt Bracken, when he's on, he's there to argue that the people who were caught on video in the boat coming up to the tanker, they were clearly retrieving their limpet mine, and Iran did it.
No two ways about it.
It is absolutely Iran.
They couldn't have got that mine out of the boat unless they knew about the mine ahead of time and knew how to defuse it.
Otherwise, it would have blown up on them.
Matt Bracken, it is Iran.
Alex Jones completely agrees with him and is like, oh my god, absolutely.
And I know that this is Alex's version of what he thinks is looking at both sides.
In the end, all it achieves is it demands that his audience see both of these men as valid, credible sources of information who are saying completely different things with complete confidence and pretend authority.
It's one thing for a news program to talk to both of them.
Like I could see a credible news program talking to Matt Bracken and Joel Skousen back to back.
It's a totally different thing for this news person, this hypothetical news person, to talk to both of them and have the audience witness them within a span of 10-15 minutes be convinced of contradictory things.
It's jarring to an audience.
And it leaves you with the position of like, I trust Alex.
I think Alex is a good gauge of information while he has just willed a contradiction.
Starring if, like you and I, you are uncomfortable and repelled by cognitive dissonance, whereas if you are basically living cognitive dissonance on a minute-by-minute basis, I doubt they would be affected by that too much.
And I almost, in the fourth hour, don't want to tell you what they're up to, because it has scared some employees off, okay?
And I really haven't told people what's going on.
They harass my employees' families.
They harass my family.
They run psyops.
They try to have women, beautiful women.
You know, in grocery stores, and of course, like, you know, I mean, it's bad, folks, okay?
And I'm not complaining.
I'm just saying it's because we're doing something very important.
And the fact that I'm working 16 hours a day and don't do all this stuff, my only problem is drinking, and I've cut back on that.
The fact that I'm not a worldly person when it comes to stuff, they can't get me.
They are so pissed, and they've really tried to set us up, and we've reported to the FBI, and they say we're the victim, but they're coming for me, folks.
And I'm not a victim.
I just want to...
Keep going if I can, but if I have to finish strong, they kill me, whatever, I'm going to go all the way.
So you can already see this preemptively being set up.
Even before anyone listening has any information as to what he's talking about, he's trying to use this to get money for himself from the audience, which I find suspicious.
When he was holding it together before, like, stupid shit, he was saying.
Absolutely.
But just a completely, completely different.
To the point where Owen Schreuer is in there trying to deliver his report about having gone out to the Drag Queen Storytime, which is one of their marquee issues that they're trying to make propaganda about.
And Alex won't let him talk.
He keeps trying to talk and Alex will just scream something at him and fake fight him to the point where I think that they had a conversation and Alex had to leave the studio.
And then you find out that here in Austin, a church was renting out an independent school district performing arts center.
Now, that independent school district performing arts center is going to take $10,000 of those dollars to send kids to a gay pride parade.
Now, when I asked why they were going to be doing this, they said there was a little outrage over the fact that this church stood against homosexuality because of their Christian values.
But when I called and inquired, I was told that there is an LGBTQ initiative in Austin with the kids.
So, why is there an LGBTQ initiative with the kids?
Ask yourself this.
Why is there no heterosexual initiative with the kids?
I'm just going to skip this next one because it's just Alex expressing that he thinks it's a good thing that he simultaneously believes that Iran did this and it was a false flag by the globalists.
He's talking about you could take clips from the last two days' shows and you could edit them and have me saying whichever you wanted.
And I'm like, yes, that's bad.
That's bad.
That means you don't know what you're talking about at at least one of those points.
And maybe both.
He seems to think it's some sort of virtue and they're like, we're having an intelligent conversation.
Owen Schreier just said if it weren't for heterosexual people, we wouldn't have homosexual people, which implies if you hate gays that much, what you should really be doing is killing straight people.
Well, see, now that's you using as bad a logic as Owen did.
As Alex screamed at the end there, big announcement coming up after the break, and that is that Alex's other lawyer, Norm Pattis, has been flown in from Connecticut to appear on the show.
And YouTube's famous for dialing it down and not paying you the advertising.
The word is just like probably 60 mil on there.
I've had films on Google video before they took it down with 100 mil.
Okay, so I'm the king daddy, okay?
And I'm here to tell the little pimps, the Senator Murphy's and the prosecutor, the Obama-appointed prosecutor that's doing all this, bitch, I don't need to talk about poor dead kids to have listeners.
He knows that Alex is a blowhard and king daddy of this.
So I guess it's time to get into it.
Alex is going to lay out what this attack on Infowars is in this next clip.
It's three minutes long because I wanted Alex to be able to present the situation as he sees it and then see how quickly he takes it to the conclusion that he wants to take it to.
And when the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney demanded out of 9.6 emails, 9.6 million emails in the last seven years in Sandy Hook, Metadata, which meant tracking the emails and where they went.
Well, we fought it in court.
The judge ordered for us to release a large number of those emails.
That's Chris Matty that got that done.
A very interesting individual at the firm of Koskoff and Koskoff, run by Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal, that say for America to survive, quote, I must be taken off the air.
So they're very naked about what they stand for.
So, you know, I had them try to set me up with the Russians.
And I reported to the FBI, and that kind of freaked them out a lot.
And so we learned in just the last few days that when they wanted these hundreds of thousands of emails out of the 9.6 million, that they had attachments to them that no one would know what they were.
We hadn't opened this.
The FBI has come out and said, I'm the victim.
And a statement's coming out officially.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut.
But what's interesting is we checked with real IT people, because we're not IT folks.
We made some calls, and they said, no, you wouldn't know what was in attachments, and you wouldn't know what they linked to, because the FBI looked at it.
They said, we're the victim.
It was hidden in Sandy Hook emails threatening us.
That was child porn.
So, it's on record.
We were sent child porn.
We're not involved in child porn.
But the fact is, It's not a needle in a haystack.
It's fields of haystacks.
And they get these emails a few weeks ago, and they go right to the FBI and say, we've got him with child porn.
The FBI says he never opened it, and he didn't send it.
And then they act like, oh, they're our friends.
They're not going to do anything with this.
Go to hell.
I wasn't born yesterday.
I was born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.
Whatever's going on, I'm offering a $100,000 reward, not $10,000.
A $100,000 reward for the arrest and prosecution.
And I've had $115,000 bonuses and contests before, so I pay $100,000.
We're going to release the metadata in the next few days on Infowars.com.
From the email address, the company and the folks at the company are going to track it back and they're going to find out.
And we're going to pay the $100,000 and you're going to go to prison.
So, first of all, I want to say immediately that I don't believe, based on the information that's currently available, that Alex is lying.
This kind of accusation?
Pretty serious stuff, and it does seem entirely plausible to me that someone could have sent him some malicious files.
If more information comes out, I reserve the right to update my position.
But for now, I have no tolerance for people saying this proves he's guilty, if anything.
I understand that it's my lot in life to be overly fair to Alex, but I don't think that this is an example of that.
I think it's seeing that this is one of the few instances where it does make sense that someone would do that to him, and things have played out this way, it makes...
I see it as a possibility.
And if that is the reality, I think it's very unwise to play into Alex's ability to make propaganda out of his own victimhood.
From the way he's talking, I can barely track what he's saying happened.
It seems all over the place.
But it seems to me that he's saying that someone sent him threatening emails about Sandy Hook that contained attachments that included illegal pornography.
His team didn't see him, didn't notice them until they were handed over as part of a batch of emails that were deemed relevant to his lawsuit in Connecticut.
From there, the FBI has said that Infowars isn't under suspicion.
That seems to be what he's saying as his narrative.
Admittedly, it's all coming from him, so there's a grain of salt aspect to it.
But honestly, it seems plausible as a series of events.
That's not to say it is what happened.
Shit.
I'm not even certain that any of this exists.
It could be a PR stunt.
But the position I'm coming from is very much one where I think it's wise to exercise caution.
Now, Alex's narrative about this that's going to develop over the next couple of clips is that he believes that the people who are suing him in Sandy Hook sent them.
When in reality, that is a really shitty assumption.
Because any kind of data analysis firm would be able to run scripts on large amounts of data.
There are people that specialize in this sort of thing.
It would not be something that would be a needle in a haystack.
It would be if you were manually searching through emails.
But because of algorithms and programs that people can run, it is the sort of thing where you could look for suspicious things.
And I don't believe for a second that you wouldn't be able to find that.
Even if you had a million...
And emails.
The idea of being able to process it through in, like, a week, I think that's very doable.
So that falls apart a little bit.
Now, all this being said, this contest seems like a weird move.
And probably it's only something you would do if you didn't think this was a real thing.
For one, Alex can't afford to make this kind of a payout.
Secondly, if the FBI is on the case, I think they got this shit covered.
You don't need to crowdsource an investigation when the actual investigators are investigating it.
If this were real, I would really, really think that the FBI would say, don't comment on an active investigation.
Seems like it would get in the way.
Now, whether or not this is real or not, I think what he's doing is super irresponsible.
Assuming that he does release some of this metadata or whatever he has, what's going to happen?
If one of his listeners could figure out whose IP address it came from, the FBI already knows who that is.
Assuming any of the stuff Alex releases actually leads back to a person, which it may or may not, all he's doing is increasing the possibility that that person is hurt and this matter is not dealt with lawfully.
There's legitimately no reason to do what he's doing right now.
But I don't think that it's some kind of guilty conscience.
I don't think that that's a fair assumption to make.
I don't think he's trying to cover up anything.
I think it feels more attention-hungry than anything else.
So I don't know what the reality of the situation is, but the fact that he's making a contest out of it strikes me as he's not too worried about whatever it is and doesn't seem all that...
Worried about the consequences of him doing something like this.
So in this next clip, he talks about how people who have threatened him in the past have gone to prison.
And then things really spiral completely out of control.
Like, offering a million dollars to people who can search stuff in databases or the dark web or whatever, that doesn't help in any investigative capacity that the official FBI could do or couldn't do.
Like, any outcome other than this person getting hurt is not achieved by whatever you're doing.
But these clips going on back and the preemptive sales pitch on this, I don't want to rely on my feelings or my ability to intuit whatever it is Alex did or didn't do, but...
I've heard him lie 10 billion times on this show.
And it doesn't sound like this.
And, God, this is such a bummer.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was overjoyed when the FBI found this shit.
So he's trying to explain to him, you've tainted a witness.
If you give out money, you can't have them testify.
Whatever information they find is probably tainted, too, because you have paid for it.
Yeah, he's trying to be like, you should have fucking...
This is stupid.
So all it really achieves is even, like his lawyer is very clearly pointing out, even the best case scenario, you get to the bottom of it through this route.
You've probably ruined your case against them.
Let the professionals deal with this.
So Norm is really trying to set Alex straight, but Alex is drunk and angry, and so he just won't listen to it.
He brought his lawyer in, he flew him in specifically for this, and he won't let him talk.
The point is that somebody directed child pornography into your email accounts, hoping that you would open it, so that when you opened it, there would be direct evidence that you had viewed knowingly and possessed child porn.
So what he did there is he had the document cam zoom in on a picture on a printed out piece of paper of this guy, Chris Maddy, and then he slammed his fist on his face.
Him saying, not anybody else, God's vengeance, that doesn't preclude from all the times, lately especially, we've heard him talking about how, yes, vengeance is God's, but sometimes you're a tool of God's vengeance.
So even him saying, like, nobody else's God's vengeance should be brought upon you, that doesn't mean that he's not hoping that someone hurts this guy.
So in this next clip, he's pushing really hard about the idea that these people who are working against him in the Sandy Hook lawsuit are the ones responsible.
Chris Maddy is your adversary in this litigation, just as I am the adversary of the people that have sued you, and it is my responsibility to take their case apart if I can, and he will attack you.
I think that he felt that he was going to be able to win that on a free speech ground.
Right.
That's the sense that I get.
And he's sitting here, and Alex is jeopardizing.
A lot of this.
Because if he, I don't know, sends people to attack the other counsel in the case, that could be seen as somehow intimidation or tampering or something along those lines.
He could really be hurting his case here.
I'm sure that Norm didn't think that this was what he was showing up for.
So I think that you have a guy who is supposed to, at least on some level, be there to protect Alex, actually showing up and being a little bit protective.
Yeah.
unidentified
And I can appreciate that, even if it's protecting someone who I think sucks.
So far, based on the different lawsuits and how they've shaken out with different lawyers, I would say Norm is actually trying to win a case, and Barnes is trying to get publicity and then settle.
Whereas Barnes wants the publicity of just being a controversial lightning pole of whatever.
So in this next clip, Norm is trying to explain to Alex that it's good to be mad, but you have to be mad at the right person, at the right time, in the right degree.
Like, Norm is trying to address the issues and the real situation that Alex finds himself in, which leads me to believe that it probably is a real thing.
But the fact that Norm is talking about it, saying he's been in touch with prosecutors, the FBI, it does lead me to believe that this would be a much larger and weirder publicity stunt if he was getting his lawyer in.
I mean, if it weren't making light kind of a very serious thing, the trafficking of illegal pornography and the victimization that is implied in that, if it wasn't using that as kind of a prop for his own publicity.
And so if they want war, you know, it's not a threat.
It's just like an ACDC song.
If you want blood, you got it.
Blood on the streets, man.
I mean...
I am not going to sit here in my life and have these dirtbags say that I've done these things I haven't done and then know where to go and weasel in and find this perfect thing.
It's ridiculous how obvious it is.
Did you think I'd roll over and spray crap out my ass and show my belly and piss on myself to bow down to you?
You just summoned war.
So get ready.
And I'm just asking the Pentagon and the patriots that are left, and 4chan and 8chan.
I understand the sort of investigative power, I guess, of people in 4chan and 8chan being able to dig into stuff that might be on the legally dicey side for you or I to do it.
Because we don't traffic in those sorts of worlds.
I mean, what he's doing is only introducing his blood on the streets desires, his bounty, into a world full of people that have a tradition, let's say, of causing innocent blood on the streets.
And it's pretty hard to imagine that Alex isn't aware of that dynamic.
So I'm torn between two things.
I'm torn between the idea of the exploitative attention PR stuff.
Because I think that's a real valid motive.
And it definitely fits with Alex's MO.
And then the other side of me is torn towards...
Alex has lately been really...
Towing the line about inciting violence.
He has been using a lot of rhetoric that gets very close to what you might call targeted.
These people should be fucking taken care of.
And so when I hear stuff like this and he's banging on a picture of Chris Maddy and not listening to his lawyer tell him, hey, we don't know that this is the person.
And he's like, no, of course it's them.
How could it possibly be anybody else?
A million dollars, blood on the streets, there's a bound.
How are you going to sleep tonight?
I find it hard not to hear that and think, well, if someone were to attack that guy, I think Alex would be thrilled.
It's hard not to hear that.
I don't know what his primary motivation is, and I'm not sure he does, even.
Yeah, I kind of, after reading the stuff, because I was sent as much of it as you were, man, it really seems like people not us shouldn't be allowed to cover Alex at all.
Like, it should be...
Everybody should just stop and call us before you do a fucking thing about that.
Doing all this shit, it's easy to be like, well, he's just screaming.
He's just blustery.
He doesn't realize what kind of danger he's putting.
There's a guy whose picture he's shown on screen.
It banged on his picture.
It said, obviously, it's him.
He's a white shoe boy.
He's trying to destroy the country.
And obviously, he's setting me up because they've got to take me down.
You know, you could pretend he's naive to that.
But then this last clip, the last 15 seconds of his episode, as the outro music is playing, Alex addresses the idea that people would think he's sending people after people.
The whole time Norm is just sitting there like, oh damn it, why did I get on that plane?
But you wouldn't...
I want legal and lawful action.
You said I sent people.
I didn't send anybody.
You wouldn't say that sort of thing unless it was a legitimate concern that your listeners might take that as what you were asking them to do or what you hope someone might do.
Now, Alex is in a pretty great position because, you know, he said that this is a bounty that only gets paid when they're arrested and then charged.
You getting sent child pornography is not something that the law is going to take lightly.
Just because everyone hates you doesn't mean they will be like, ah, who cares about this case?
Oh, no.
It's easy, maybe not easy, but pretty easy to track down who this person is.
There are digital footprints that are left, and the FBI is in a very capable position to figure out what is going on there, take care of it, find the evidence, preserve the evidence, and charge the person who did this to you.
The only thing that is sensible to do in this situation is allow the process to go as...