Today, Dan and Jordan go back to the past to look into how Alex Jones' show operated in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. In this installment, Alex goes on quite a roller-coaster ride as the manhunt for Christopher Dorner comes to a close. Also, Alex reveals that he may think that the Lincoln assassination was a false flag.
Yeah, I remember growing up with a very similar false image.
Like, my parents...
We're incredibly homophobic and really awful about that.
So I always had this, like, they were always giving me this mental picture of just a bunch of dudes with dicks throwing them around, walking down the street going, Bah!
Look at us!
We're allowed to do this because Christian rights are destroying you or whatever.
And so, yeah, it was really nice and so annoying when you do experience it for the first time and you're like, Oh yeah, this is normal.
We are going over the stretch of February 10th to 13th, 2013, in our ongoing investigation of what happened with Alex Jones after Sandy Hook and how his rhetoric evolved.
Honestly, finding out a lot more about other stuff, quite frankly.
But we'll get into that.
And I want to say that I need to try and make a real priority to keep focusing on this 2013 Sandy Hook stuff, even as the present day becomes so crazy and Alex flames out in front of our very eyes.
It's still super important because barring any kind of like really catastrophic event, Alex still is going to have to do this lawsuit coming up.
The Sandy Hook families are still going to have their day in court and even like almost basically a week from when we're recording this, he has to give his deposition in that case.
And I think that there is an incredible amount of value for us to understanding the present as Alex's present becomes closer to the actual lawsuit for us to understand.
This 2013 stretch.
I'm saying this as much to myself as to you and to the audience, that I believe that this is a valuable thing, even if at times it does not feel that way.
Even if at times it feels like, I don't know why I'm doing this.
Every time we get that experience where you do a modern day episode and then the next episode we go into the past and there's a parallel, that's worth ten episodes where there isn't.
Well, I mean, had we not done those episodes in 2009, we wouldn't know Alex's affinity for the Somali Pirates.
So it wouldn't have been strange to, I mean, it would have still been strange to hear this guy responding to the Trump administration's treatment of the children in these camps with the, you know, his response being, the Somali pirates gave me a toothbrush.
But before we get to today's episode, we've got to take a moment to say thank you to some people who have signed up and are supporting the show, and we appreciate it very much.
If you're listening out there and you like this show and you want to support what we do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
And on our last episode, we have the beginning of Alex paying attention to the Christopher Dorner shooting spree that's happening in California, where Dorner has shot a woman who is the daughter of his defense attorney when he was trying to overturn or challenge his termination from the LAPD.
He killed that guy's daughter and her fiancé, and then another cop.
And has been on the lam, running around and terrorizing most of Southern California for a while now.
And Alex does...
You know, on our last episode, he didn't seem all that informed about it.
Let me tell you, you better hope the globalist civil war doesn't start.
You're scared to death that they've got patrol cops off the streets on motorcycles or foot because of one guy in Southern California, a state of 38 million people.
Twenty-something million of them in Southern California.
You start a fight with 160 million gun owners.
You let the global social engineers start this, the Bolshevik collectivists.
You let them get you into this while they sit back.
Do you have any idea what's going to happen if 1% of that one point, if 1% of that 160 million fight back and just go out and go after one person and then disappear and never seen again?
Wait, did he just make the implication that if 1.6 million responsible gun owners were to have their guns taken away, they would instantly, like ninja, kill...
Not sure I want to put that label on these trigger-happy folks.
Sorry about that.
So one of the things that I find really troubling about this February 10th episode is it is a really hard show to listen to.
It's mostly aimless, talking about just about nothing.
And then Alex starts taking phone calls from listeners who he specifically asked to call in, who are people who have family members who are enlisted persons who had committed suicide.
It's at moments like this, the show could be very touching.
And it's kind of a thing where callers are able to honor their loved ones' memories, and I don't want to make fun of that, and I don't even want to really talk about it.
I don't think it's appropriate.
I don't think it's appropriate for his show, and I don't think it's certainly not appropriate for ours.
And the thing is, at other times, the show is really, it feels like Alex is using these callers' loved ones and their memories to help push his narratives.
And even that is something that I don't feel really right.
Christopher Dorner, the first U.S. homeland drone strike victim, current TV saying that, the Al Jazeera and Al Gore-run system.
And we've got it also out of Reuters, but it's not true because, look at this, meet the North Dakota family of anti-government separatists busted by cops using a Predator drone.
That was two years ago.
They're using drones all the time.
The military industrial complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about, but I guess he's with Al-Qaeda.
So it's important to track Alex's language in that clip because it's very curious.
He's saying that outlets are reporting that Christopher Dorner is the first U.S. person domestically to be the victim of a drone, but he contests the reporting.
It's important to clarify, however, that the part he's saying isn't true is the first U.S. person part, not the part about the completely made-up story about Dorner getting hit by a drone.
Because all I do is listen to Alex Jones, I know why he's contesting this part of the story.
It's because there's a tale of white victimhood to be told here, and Alex is never a man to let that go to waste.
The North Dakota story he's talking about is about a man named Rodney Brossart.
Brossart was a farmer who owned some land, and apparently that included an abandoned missile site, which is irrelevant to the story, but it's an interesting detail.
Well, I mean, I guess kind of it comes into effect because there's some cows that come up, and they did end up at the missile site, from what I understand, from one of the articles I read.
So, one day, six cattle from a neighbor's ranch land wandered away and ended up on Brossard's property.
When the rancher came by and tried to ask Brussert to let him onto the property so he could get his cattle back, Brussert told him he had to pay to get them back, which is kind of like passive-aggressive cow napping.
So the county's sheriff, a deputy, and an inspector from the Stockman's Association responded to Bressert's house, where he was less than accommodating with the task that he had in front of them.
The deputy didn't enjoy that kind of talk, so he tried to arrest Brussert, who predictably resisted arrest, got tasered five times, then was handcuffed and taken in.
Randy was released on bail, but the family would still not allow anyone to come investigate, nor would they even respond to orders to appear in court.
Left with no real options other than a gun battle with a family of assholes, the cops decided to employ a surveillance drone, which gathered enough evidence to prompt a tactical operation where the authorities arrested five members of the family back in November 2011.
Now, here's the thing.
This story is profoundly stupid.
Brussert was found not guilty of stealing that guy's cows, because he didn't really steal them.
He was later found not guilty of terrorizing the police because a jury decided that saying, quote, if you step foot on my land, you'll not be leaving it, didn't constitute a real threat.
Apparently, the jury found it persuasive when Mike Argall, the former captain of the Sheriff's Department, said that this death threat wasn't really a death threat.
This is the story that Alex wants to talk about, this North Dakota story, instead of talking about this story that he's alluding to about Christopher Dorner being taken out by a drone.
Alex is saying that Current TV is reporting that Dorner was the victim of a drone, and here is where we can find a really interesting thing to examine, and that is a specific piece of misinformation from the past.
It's not true that the police were using drones to track Dorner.
And in fact, when the police finally released their full 102-page report on the law enforcement response to Dorner in 2015, the word drone appears exactly once.
Quote, federal and local officials also spent considerable time debunking a rumor that a drone was being used to track Dorner in the mountains.
Ironically, the Department of Homeland Security had provided a piloted aircraft to help search the forest with infrared scanners capable of locating a body in the snowy terrain.
But anyway, from this point, the story got twisted into reports of the drones themselves being weaponized and of Dorner being killed by one, although he wouldn't die, like I said, until two days later.
It would be easy to miss the subtext and be like, hey, this guy's making a pretty good argument for why it would be dangerous for police to try and catch him.
And beyond that, there were also just conspiracy theorists who were launching stuff on YouTube about speculating even more irresponsibly than the New American or Greenwald did.
And all these stories made use of language like, quote, drones targeting Dorner.
And my hunch wasn't based on, like, listening to Alex six years ago or anything like that, but it was how the story played out and how Alex's brain steadfastly refuses to accept complexity.
No one in the media supported Christopher Dorner going on a shooting spree and terrorizing an entire city and area of the country.
There was wall-to-wall denunciation of his actions, and I assure you all of the major figures in media had far more negative positions on Dorner than Alex does, with his this-is-what's-going-to-happen-to-all-of-you-cops-if-you-take-our-guns bullshit.
However, I remember how, as the manhunt went on, information started to come out about why he was doing what he was doing.
And some in the media felt that it was a worthwhile use of time to try and understand the motivations of a high-profile and very scary spree killer.
When you start to get into what motivated Dorner, a very complicated picture begins to emerge.
Dorner had previously been an officer with the LAPD, but he was fired in January 2009 after he claimed a fellow officer had kicked a homeless man who they were detaining.
Dorner was a rookie, and so he had to go along with a training officer, in this case a woman named Teresa Evans.
When they arrived on a call, they approached Christopher Gettler, who suffered from severe mental illness.
Gettler threw a punch and then he was tasered by Evans and he ended up being detained and then released to his father's custody.
Two weeks later, Dorner reported Evans to his sergeant saying she had kicked Gettler in the chest and face drawing blood in an instance of clear accessibility.
After he was fired, Dorner requested the termination be reviewed.
That prompted hearings with the Office of the Inspector General, then the LA Superior Court, and eventually the California Court of Appeals.
All of them upheld his termination and found no wrongdoing on the part of the LAPD.
However, when you start to get into the details surrounding the case, there's a bit of muddiness that a lot of people have a very difficult time wrestling with.
Richard Gettler, the detained man's father, said that when he returned home, his son told him that a cop had kicked him.
However, Richard also pointed out that his son suffered from severe dementia and was, quote, prone to contradictions.
And his description of the officer who kicked him was a stretch to match with Evans.
Right, right, right, right.
His father said that he couldn't because he wouldn't understand the questions asked nor be able to provide coherent answers.
When he did finally come in for questioning, he was unable to answer questions about his age, what year it was, or even what day it was.
Ultimately, he made a statement that he was struck with a club during the arrest, which is categorically not true.
He's someone who, there is a video of him being interviewed, and he describes being kicked by the police.
And it's almost certainly, based on his other behavior, in terms of questioning and interactions with the police, almost certainly a coached interview.
And, you know, his father Richard did say that his son's face was slightly puffy when he came home.
So there's those details.
I wasn't there.
I don't know.
On the other hand, there were three eyewitnesses to the interaction between Evans and Gettler, and none of them remembered a kicker.
This doesn't prove that it didn't happen, but it doesn't help the argument that it did either.
Dorner's complaint about Evans happened two weeks after the alleged kicking.
But it also happened a day after she told him that her training evaluation of him was possibly going to involve recommendations of areas his performance needed improvement in, which is seen by many as being indicative of him being worried about what was going to come out.
Because whatever you want to pull out of that mud, you can justify it to a certain extent.
Like, if you really want to put steak...
In this Charles Gettler's recorded interview, you could go ahead and do that.
And then if you want to take the word of his dad that he's prone to contradictions and did literally make contradictory claims here, was an unfit witness, you could take that.
So finally, when Dorner was fired, he alleged being the target of a racist police force, which again is an area where the LAPD does have some issues.
The information that was available around the time of the shooting was incredibly inconclusive, and naturally it caused some people to question what had happened.
But here's where there's a very critical distinction.
It's very possible to entertain the possibility that Christopher Dorner was the victim of wrongful termination by the LAPD and still strongly believe that his actions after the fact are abhorrent.
A normal human mind can believe he might have been wronged and simultaneously believe that whatever wrong he suffered in no way justified how he decided to respond to it.
for this level of reflection and complexity.
So when he hears media talk about the possibility that Dorner was wrongfully terminated, he has to insist that that's them showing their cards and expressing support for him and his shooting spree.
On February 11, 2013, the day of this episode, The Guardian reported that the LAPD was reopening an investigation into Dorner's termination, including assistance from the FBI.
But the L.A. police chief was very clear about why he was doing this.
Quote, I do this not to appease a murderer.
I do it to reassure the public that their police department is transparent and fair.
In this circumstance, I think reopening that investigation was 100% the right thing to do.
Because if you did fuck this up, you gotta own it.
And if you didn't fuck this up, you need to restore the public's trust.
I think it's absolutely the right thing for them to do.
And I don't know.
I don't like the way Alex spin it.
So, on June 17, 2013, the LAPD released the report covering their re-examination of Dorner's firing.
If you read this report, it's very hard to believe that Dorner's claims about Teresa Evans are true.
One of my primary reasons for reaching this conclusion is that the event itself involved force.
Evans did taser the guy, and prior to that, Dorner had tackled him into a bush.
It's the LAPD procedure that anytime any force is used in an arrest, a supervising officer has to be notified, and it triggers an automatic force investigation.
That happened in this instance.
When that supervisor, who's specifically required to not be involved, which is to say that they're neither Dorner nor Evans' supervisor, when that guy arrived, he interviewed Dorner and everyone involved, and no kick was mentioned.
They examined Gettler, and he did have a scratch on his face, but that was consistent with Dorner previously tackling him face-first into a bush.
The LAPD has a shitty history, and it's one where they have a history of having a code of silence, where whistleblowers have been the targets of retaliation, and it's hard to engage with this story without being somewhat swayed by that bias.
And I will admit, as I dug deeper into the story, I felt myself countering each new indication that Dorner was clearly lying, with thoughts like, well, maybe it's all a huge cover-up.
I kept having that instinct to be like, well, I mean, but what if?
Ultimately, if you look at the evidence in this report, there's a mountain of evidence indicating that he made this up, and countless holes in his story.
Right.
Obviously, police departments are not entities that you want to side with, if you're cool.
And it's always good to take allegations of excessive force seriously.
But from what I can tell...
The LAPD was absolutely right to fire Christopher Dorman.
I want to go to one of the big tracks so they can really get going fast because it was in the Travis County Convention Center and they really couldn't get going.
It wasn't what I'd seen online.
It was still okay, but it wasn't like, you know, double backflips and stuff and people dying.
A, this is a staged government event, and I should just out of hand say it staged.
And B, no, Chris Dorner is a hero.
Yeah, I mean, if he's behind this, which a lot of evidence points towards it, then yeah, killing people that you don't even know or shooting people's daughters just to get at them.
I would not be fighting as hard if we just had an old-fashioned corruption where some corrupt interests wanted to run things but weren't so incredibly predatory.
They are engaging in an organized economy designed to impoverish us, and that's not even a tool of their endgame.
That's just to get us to the endgame.
They want us poor under their control so they can then carry out the orderly eugenics operations.
If you want to know the mindset of the globalist, I watched 12 Monkeys with Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis last night with my wife.
And when you see the top biologist slash biochemist in there working on zoological viruses and one of his lab techs, who is a eugenicist, gets the weapon.
And goes and basically releases it and kills 99% of the world population.
You have to understand, movies like that are based on what they're really planning.
That Forbes list is nothing, ladies and gentlemen.
There are families leveraging, it's been estimated, the Russian press estimated when they arrested a bunch of oligarchs, the Rothschilds have leveraged, this was a decade ago, 300...
It's really interesting to hear that Alex is citing the Russian media as a source for his claims that the Rothschild family has over $300 trillion leveraged.
The first thing that I have a problem with about this is the imprecision of the claim.
What does the Rothschild family even mean?
Like, their dynasty traces back to Mayor Amschel Rothschild, but he was alive in the late 1700s.
He fucking died over 200 years ago.
Mayor Rothschild had 10 children.
And even just in one generation, the family already is getting pretty spread thin.
Pretty spread out.
You got 10 kids.
The folks who are alive today, and by that I mean the ones who were born in, like, the 1940s, they're in the sixth or seventh generation of the family traced back from Mayor Amschel.
So, like, during that time, wealth and the dynasty thinned out.
Just a little bit, maybe?
Not to say that a lot of the members of the family aren't real rich and in positions of high status in society, but it's important to point out that one thing conspiracy theorists never really discuss is how many Rothschilds there are, and how it's a real stupid way to look at the world to imagine that they're all working together, or in some sort of a bloodline-based global domination conspiracy, and yet none of them have come out and talked about it, none of them are...
David Mayer de Rothschild is the one family member Alex has ever had on his show, and we did an episode about it.
David tried really hard to be polite to Alex, but Alex kept being a complete asshole to him for no reason.
Consider this.
David's great-grandfather was Leopold de Rothschild, whose great-grandfather himself, his own, his great-grandfather's great-grandfather was Mayor Amschel Rothschild.
Whatever animus Alex has towards David based on lies about what his family did six or seven generations back really only makes sense when you view it in the context of thinking that Alex believes that there's something evil in their blood and that all members of the family are intrinsically up to something.
Generally speaking, it's really hard to hear blanket condemnations of, quote, the Rothschilds as anything other than poorly disguised anti-Semitism.
Part of this is naturally because, throughout history, a lot of the people who attacked the Rothschilds weren't so interested in making their real intentions mysterious.
A 1909 pamphlet that circulated about the evils of the Rothschild family included the proclamation, It's only after, I don't know, let's say 1945, that people in most polite society felt the need to make it seem like their attacks on the Rothschilds weren't totally due to the fact that they're rich and Jewish.
You've got to find a way to code this a little bit.
And when you consider the Russia part of it.
Russia and the Rothschild family have a really complicated history, dating back to the pogroms of the early 1900s, and the Rothschild's refusal to issue loans to a czar who was sanctioning and facilitating anti-Jewish riots.
While I don't think that the modern state of Russia really hates the Rothschilds or anything like that, I do believe that there's a lineage of anti-Rothschild sentiment in some parts of Russian culture that still lingers.
And I believe that Alex might be taking his cues from that point as opposed to real history.
Yeah, it is the same tactic that has been at the heart of most genocides.
So everybody kind of knows that if it's effective enough to get you to mass murder people for no reason other than whatever characteristic that you want to describe as different, then...
It doesn't even matter what you hate.
Just the mere fact that you're doing it expresses anti-Semitism and racism and bigotry and misogyny and the whole thing.
Most of the show is just tons of Alex rambling nonsensically about the globalists and their plans, just sort of freestyle riffing.
So now we move on to the 12th.
So, in this next clip, Alex is just trying to make the argument here that Ron Paul isn't a hypocrite, but in the process, what he does is literally define being a hypocrite.
They say, oh, Ron Paul votes against earmarks but then takes them.
Well, yeah, if the money, he votes against the federal money and doing it and votes to cut taxes, but then once the money's already there, then he has it deployed to his district.
In most schools, the school nurse is not someone who has the ability to prescribe medications to people, even if their educational level and licensing might legally allow them to do that.
Further, the National Association of School Nurses is very clear in their guidelines that they don't even administer prescription medication that a student is on without a, quote, written medication form signed by the authorized prescriber and parent with the name of the student, the drug, the dose, approximate time it's to be taken, and the diagnosis or reason the medication is needed.
There's paperwork that needs to go into just administering.
This is just way outside the budget for pretty much all but the richest schools imaginable.
Seriously, think for one second about what Alex is describing and you just see like, oh, that's stupid.
Most school nurses are required to keep epinephrine, albuterol, diazepam, and glucagon on hand because those are emergency medications that could literally be needed to save a kid's life.
Maybe that was where, like, She kept people, they asked people to keep their Adderall in there so they could, when they needed it, like they weren't just walking around with...
If Alex is talking about anything that's real at all, what he's describing is that he saw the school nurse dispensing medication that these students' primary care physicians had prescribed for them, and he's created a nefarious backstory to fit that into his stupid worldview.
If I had to guess why Alex might sort of change these memories into something more salacious.
If he, as an adult, believes that to be a real memory, why he experienced that as a child, it's because ADHD was named as a condition in 1987.
And along with that, an increased understanding of the condition was coming into consciousness.
And because of that, treatment of it with Ritalin became way more prevalent in the early 90s, right around the time Alex would have been in high school.
We already know that his dad and grandfather were both completely insane paranoiacs.
When Alex was growing up, so it kind of makes sense that some of that insanity would be funneled in this, they're giving all the kids medication direction, and Alex sees the school nurse handing out prescribed meds, and he writes a book about it.
But it's also worth pointing out that a month before this appearance, David Icke posted an article on his own website with the headline, quote, Sandy Hook was a blatantly staged event with endless inconsistencies and countless contradictions.
Chris Kyle had claimed that Jesse Ventura was drunk and running his mouth off at a bar about the Marines, and then Chris Kyle beat him up, and then Jesse Ventura sued him, and then Chris Kyle died.
Alex sort of believes that the globalists killed Chris Kyle because they had set him up to take down Jesse Ventura.
I also am certain that if any of these things that Alex was suggesting, like, why don't we give other soldiers funeral processions, I'm positive if any of that ever actually happened, Alex would be like, why is the I-35 shut down?
So in that situation, you can either adjust your sense of reality to what is real, or you can feel every day like you're losing your mind a little bit.
Like, every day for him is the feeling of being gaslit all the time.
So I imagine him saying, like, the media controls the story, or the media is the story, or whatever, is his way of kind of, like, wiggling out through that gaslighting, trying to create a sanity there.
Because the only other way that you can feel gaslit all day, every day, is to just fucking, I guess, succumb, quit, you know?
Well, Christopher Dorner went out Waco style, and I know the establishment is not happy because there wasn't 28 children, 17 of them under the age of 10, many of them newborn babies or toddlers.
If you've listened to Alex for a long period of time, that will trigger in you a sense of like, oh, man, Janet Reno really fucked those good people over.
The infantry tactic of using the armored vehicle to ram it on the walls and set it on fire just reminds me of Waco.
It makes me so angry.
It's one thing to kill this guy.
You can debate that all day, but man, I tell you, those little kids and how the system lied about that, really despicable and shows you what the system will do, have ordered.
So Alex starts talking at this point about how Obama and his administration are a bunch of mafia.
Sure.
And then he makes his only real comment about Sandy Hook in this episode, or this stretch of episodes, which, again, since we're trying to understand that path, is deeply disappointing.
So at least we have, I mean, the one thing that is a through line that we can say absolutely is that Alex does not believe that Adam Lanza shot those kids.
You know, I think I would probably hear in 2013, they'd be like, yeah, that's a good point.
Good on you.
But now, in 2019, we know this is stupid.
unidentified
And then last night, a bunch of us were watching, you know, the president and, of course, Gerald Salente, my other hero next to you, was tweeting back and forth with some of us on Facebook and things.
And all I kept thinking is, if, before Hitler could have gotten his hands on anybody, if we would have had the system we have now to get information out, it probably wouldn't have happened.
But I'm afraid if Obama gets the Internet control, we will lose this battle very quickly.
Because the report wouldn't have been out by then.
But the answer is very simple.
You just don't know it now.
So it's again, it comes back to the concrete, if you wait until it dries, the idea that they found his ID will not be suspicious.
Because everyone will know that it was because it was under his body.
If, while the concrete is wet, you inject the idea that it's suspicious that his ID is there, it will not be affected by the time that information gets out, because by that point, people will have internalized it and used it to build the conspiracy up higher.
It'll be built upon by that point, and by that point, it's too threatening to accept this contradictory piece of information, because then your whole fucking tower falls over.
But Alex does, right after all this stuff, after comparing the Dorner situation to Waco over and over again, mischaracterizing the events of Dorner's death, taking a bunch of idiot callers who say profoundly stupid things, Alex then has one of his sponsors on as a guest.
And he's very clear to point out in his introduction, yeah, he's a sponsor, which I appreciate him calling that out, but then he's like, but that's not why he's on, which is complete bullshit.
If every one of them had a year's supply of food for their family in their homes, they could stay in their homes and...
The only ones that would be rioting out there are the ones that are dependent and have to go and say, please, somebody else take care of me.
The victims are the only ones that are out there having problems.
You know, one of the principles that you and I have talked about several times is...
If you're prepared, you can turn a disaster into an adventure.
Now, I'm not saying that this thing with Dormer out there is a potential adventure, but the mob psychology, the fear and the anxiety, and the running hither and yon, just deciding to do something, shows lack of planning, lack of preparedness.
He's saying that, hey, you know, you got a crazy on the loose and it's scary to go out.
But you know what?
You wouldn't have to worry if you had food in the home.
If you had emergency food in the home, you wouldn't have to worry about rampaging crazies out there shooting people because you don't have to leave the house.
That's insane levels of exploitation and manipulation.
So we started this episode on the 10th of February with Alex talking about how if 1% of us gone weirdos decide to start killing cops, you'll all be dead.
And this is how he ends the show on February 13th.
I find this very interesting because you do see, over this span of time, an evolution of Alex's position on Dorner.
But it's not really a full evolution.
It's like a quarter turn that he's making.
And I'm very interested to see how it plays out because I know that the fact that he died, the fact that Dorner killed himself in that cabin, didn't stop people from...
I know that it's a story for a bit after this.
And I'll be interested to see how Alex tries to take ownership of the post-mortem of it.
The story as the threat is gone, as the fear, the terror, the people we're living in in California, once that is removed from the equation, how does he move forward with the narrative?