Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a couple episodes from earlier in the week on The Alex Jones Show. It's the best of times and worst of times, as one day brings Alex Jones basically doing an impression of a Project Camelot episode, and the next, he jumps fully on board with a new dumb video from Project Veritas.
I remember one time on the bus in junior high, a friend of mine, his older sister, they lived down the street from me, so we all took the bus to school together, and she knew me when I was in fourth and fifth grade, and she was like, why are you Dan now?
You're Daniel, and I always felt very shamed by that.
I still remember.
They're like, what was I, trying to be cool by being Dan?
On the last episode, you asked me what my favorite Pride memory was, and I completely dropped the ball because I remember what it actually is.
It was one time I was at Pride, had a few drinks, had a few beers, and I was standing really close to the actual parade on the street.
And who should come down the parade line, walking down the street, other than Rahm Emanuel, by himself, no security whatsoever, walks over to try and shake someone's hand, and the guy just flips him off.
I thought it was amazing that, first of all, Rahm is just out there with everyone yelling at him, completely without security, just on his own, and then also just thinking that he was going to get a good response, and the guy's like, fuck you, man.
So I'd like to thank him, but also I'd like to thank some of the people who make this show possible, some of the donors out there who help us get along.
So here's some shout-outs going out to them before we get into the episode proper.
But what's perfectly right is our feelings about people who support the show.
And if you would like to support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
We would appreciate it.
Please do.
Today, we are back in the present.
We are covering the span of June 23rd and 24th, which is Sunday and Monday of this week.
Yeah, and I alluded to you before the show that this wasn't a pleasant experience for me.
And one of the reasons is not what anyone would expect.
Based on the other stuff that Alex has been doing in the present day, when I say this is unpleasant, you would expect it's something disgusting and awful.
The problem with that is that poached eggs are cooked by cracking eggs into hot but not boiling water and swirling the water around to gently create a pocket of egg white around the yolk.
Another option for preparing a poached egg is using steam.
One way you absolutely cannot do it is by frying.
There are tons of ways to cook an egg and poaching is one of the very few top-tier egg preparations that specifically doesn't involve frying.
Small point.
I think it's impressive that Alex pretty regularly manages to have a hundred decent options to make a metaphor out of, and his stupid brain manages to choose the hundred and first option that is the only wrong one.
So this is an offshoot of the 5G narrative, obviously.
But man, there's something really fun about this.
There's 14,000 square miles where the globalists are heading where it's illegal to use cell phones.
He's got a real head of steam.
He seems to have recently learned that there are parts of the country where cell phone use is illegal, which of course implies that these areas have no cell phone towers.
Naturally, the conclusion he's come to is that the reason for this, it must be that the elites are heading there to guard themselves from the 5G that's going to fry the population like a poached egg.
Unfortunately, as is so often the case, he's making this argument without knowing literally any details about what he's talking about.
There is an area of 13,000 square miles in West Virginia where cell phone use is against the law.
I'm not positive that the elites are moving en masse to West Virginia, and Alex isn't specific about who these elites are, so I'm going to leave that part alone.
Sure.
They didn't ban cell phone usage in that area of West Virginia because of fears about health problems caused by wireless.
The reason they did it is way more interesting.
The 13,000 square mile zone is centered around a town called Green Bank, population 143.
The closer you get to Green Bank, the more restrictive the rules are about wireless usage.
And that is because Green Bank is the home of a gigantic 17 million pound telescope.
The largest steerable telescope in the world.
It's operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
Scientists who work at the telescope and smaller incorporated telescopes in the town are, quote, listening to exploding galaxies at the edge of the universe.
A signal that's so faint that it's about a billionth of a billionth of a millionth of a watt.
In comparison, a cell phone can emit around 3 watts, which would drastically interfere with the very delicate work these researchers are doing.
Even though cell phones didn't exist when the telescope's research started, the location was specifically chosen for exactly that reason.
Power lines, radar, and even spark plugs in cars can cause interference with their work, so the remoteness of Green Bank was essential if they were going to be able to make any progress in this work.
Work began at the site in 1959, so that's probably what Alex is talking about when he says the rules have been in place for 40 years.
He's a little off on that specific stat, but it's close enough to feel like how he misinterprets things.
A 2015 article about the town and CNN provides a really interesting glimpse into what a piece of shit Alex is.
That clip that we just heard is part of Alex opening his show talking about how buying up land in these areas where there is no wireless allowed is going to be the next giant gold rush growth industry.
He's suggesting to his audience that once 5G goes out, everyone in the normal world is going to get sick, and that if you buy up this land now, you're going to be safe and get fucking rich.
That CNN article from 2015 ends by talking to 90-year-old resident Harold Crist, who ran afoul of the authorities in the Green Bank region.
It turns out that his doorbell was interfering with the telescope research.
But he didn't get arrested.
The researchers just took the doorbell and retrofitted it so it would work but not interfere with the telescope anymore.
Sounds like such a hassle of a way to live, right?
Wrong.
Quote, far from complaining about their circumstances, residents of these parts fear that their secret will get out, that vacation spots will pop up advertising this refuge from connectivity.
They've already seen an influx of about a dozen electrosensitives, people who believe electromagnetic frequencies are the source of their illnesses.
The main fear expressed by the area's residents is exactly what Alex is working toward bringing about, by appealing to the same community of electrosensitives.
Of course, he isn't trying to fuck with these people in Green Bank or anything, it's just a great example of how his stupid rhetoric has real-world consequences for people he doesn't give a fuck about, it doesn't care to understand at all.
Everything about the way he's telling this story and will go on to tell the story is dishonest.
And the end result is only going to be that the people of this town will have their lifestyles completely disrupted.
And if I know anything about the kind of people that Alex would inspire to head out there, they're exactly the sort of people that would start fighting back against the telescope, intentionally interfering with its operations, and ironically cripple it from being able to help humanity get to the stars, which is supposed to be Alex's goal to begin.
So, in this next clip, Alex claims that there's ten places in the country that are like this, but does not name any of them, and is specifically responding to an article about Green Bank.
Don't bring Zog into this, because it means something completely different in this context.
So, in this next clip...
We get to get a sense of why Alex is telling his audience about this, and it's not because, like, the benign version of it is buy-up property in West Virginia.
Hypothetical triggering event of it being okay to murder the globalists is great legally for Alex, maybe, but it doesn't work for me in terms of this being an ethically okay thing to do.
So the land where the internet ends, Green Bank, West Virginia, a few weeks ago I drove, this is Pagan Kennedy, who's a photographer, and Damon Winter, contributing opinion writer.
A few weeks ago I drove down a back road in West Virginia and into a parallel reality.
Oh, your kids don't die brain tumors?
50 years ago, it was an article for kids to have cancer.
So the article that Alex is basing this whole West Virginia is the redoubt of the globalist because there's no wireless signals there narrative.
It was published in the New York Times on June 21st, 2019.
The CNN article I read from about this very same town, the very same details about the lack of wireless was posted five years prior.
And it's far from the only article about Green Bank.
Yet here's Alex just stumbling across this story as if it's just now come to the surface.
The New York Times piece is an editorial.
Right, right, right.
Coexisting with the phones is probably a necessity of modern life, but there's something deep down that calls out for these places where they don't exist, and there's value in preserving those places.
Especially for people who really resonate with that.
The article says nothing, even close to what Alex is talking about.
So in this next clip, he editorializes a little bit more and tries to pretend that this satellite is somehow, or not satellite, telescope, is much more nefarious than it actually is.
The closest it comes is when the author brings up a reservation in central Idaho where artificial light isn't allowed.
It's a place where you can protect people's ability to enjoy the stars unencumbered by the light of the cities.
As someone who loves to camp, I definitely think that's super cool and a very worthwhile initiative to undertake.
It has nothing to do with creating special communities where people are safe from 5G.
It has to do with saving unmonetizable things that business interests would never protect on their own, like silence, stillness, and the ability to see the universe with the naked eye.
In short, Alex is fucking stupid.
How stupid?
So stupid that he just decided to forget about this line in the article he's covering.
Quote, Huh.
That's under Obama's term.
But if he's a big old globalist, why would he allow the funding to be slashed for his super-secret getaway base in the middle of West Virginia to be, ooh, taken down 40%?
Does Alex not realize that as soon as that telescope facility runs out of funding and has to shut down, there is no reason for the wireless signals to be banned there.
So this little line kind of punctures the entire premise of the conspiracy, that the globalists are somehow running...
It's ludicrous.
Drives me crazy.
The debunking of his own shit is in the article he's covering.
You know, you have those moments sometimes, like in the past of doing stand-up where someone has a terrible set and they come off and they're like, that was pretty good.
I was dreading getting back into present-day Alex Jones shit in the preparation for this episode, and to my surprise, I found something that was fun on Sunday, in the form of Alex thinking that this long public super telescope was somehow the refuge that the globalists would go to to survive the rollout of 5G.
Kind of fun.
Outside of the whole I'm telling you this so you know where to find him and kill them aspect of that rhetoric, that's kind of the Alex Jones I can stomach pretty easily.
It's kind of fun.
So, of course, the next day he was going to become completely overwhelmed by one of my least favorite types of Alex, the Alex who's buying super hard into yet another Project Veritas stunt.
I watched the entire 25-minute Veritas video, and once again, it's very clear that it's based on deceptive editing and willful misunderstandings about the topic it's covering.
In it, intrepid reporter James O 'Keefe talks to an anonymous whistleblower from within Google whose big scoop seems to be just that Google doesn't randomly produce search results and that some level of curation needs to be done.
Right, right, right.
I'm not sure what the alternative is, but I would imagine it would be a completely non-functional search engine.
But whatever.
The argument hinges on them deprioritizing content that's bullshit, which is a real big problem for people whose life's work is monetizing bullshit.
And so here we are.
Honestly, there's no smoking gun in this video, no real cogent point, just rampant insinuation of evil doing by Google, which is run by SJWs who have it out for Trump.
James O 'Keefe is such a longtime con man that I really just can't take anything he produces too seriously.
I would think that anyone who had any actual scoop about anything in the real world would know better than to call him when there's plenty of nonpartisan investigative reporters ready and willing to take on issues related to big tech.
You don't call James O 'Keefe when you have a scoop.
You call him when you have an idea for a stunt.
That said, I want to point out a couple things that are hilarious in this video.
Most of it is just James O 'Keefe interviewing this whistleblower whose voice is altered and is physically covered in shadows to obscure his identity.
That said, even though he's covered in a shadow and his voice is altered, one of the first things this supposed whistleblower says in the video is, quote, I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Which is something that takes brass balls for an anonymous guy talking to James O 'Keefe to spit out.
You know, that whole Google culture of the tech startup where it's like, we don't have cubicles, everything's open, here's some pinball games over there.
Also, we take meetings in Masonic temples from time to time.
I mean, I worked at Groupon for quite a while, and they have the same thing with, like, we got video games and bouncy balls to sit on, but they still have fucking...
So then the whistleblower goes on to list off YouTube channels who have been held down by Google's meddling.
One of his examples is Tim Pool.
And Tim Pool had an interesting response to that on Twitter when he said, quote, my channel is absolutely not being suppressed.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my views are up over 3,500% from last year.
An hour later, he tweeted, quote, this is not true for my channel.
Recommendations are up, views are up, revenue is up.
Wonder how this super insider whistleblower could have gotten that wrong.
Kind of feels like he was just choosing cool names in the free speech grift community and one of them didn't realize that now is not the time to be honest.
So the whistleblower says two things at the end of the video that are a little bit discrediting, I think.
The first is kind of hilarious.
When he's describing why he's coming forward, he says he doesn't like that the people at Google are working in the shadows, while he's literally talking through a voice box sitting in a shadow.
So, the other big piece of this video is secretly recorded footage of an alleged high-level Google executive named Jen Janai, who is where they get a soundbite that they're going to run with, and Alex doesn't talk about how Google is trying to stop another, quote, Trump situation from happening.
One message she received said, quote, your ideology will be shredded to pieces just moments before you get executed for treason.
You're living a lended time.
Enjoy till then.
The video includes complete misrepresentations of what Jani is involved in at Google intentionally, because the message is more important than the truth.
And if O 'Keefe has to completely terrorize Jen Jani in order to push that message, so be it.
Honestly, the irony here is that O 'Keefe thinks this video proves his victimhood, when in reality all it does is demonstrate the exact danger that exists when you allow people like him to operate freely.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is furthering two important goals, this Project Veritas piece.
One, right-wing propagandists desperately trying to present the consequences of their actions as noble victimhood.
Repackaging that is a very important goal that this furthers.
And two, creating a preemptive narrative for why Trump really won in 2020, even if he loses the election.
Yeah, they're setting up a Trump doesn't have to leave.
You know, I think, and I could be wrong about this, but couldn't that place still charge James O 'Keefe and his Project Veritas buddies for coming into the federal building?
But, I mean, if other people want to sue him, they can.
And actually, it's interesting, because Alex brings up that, the idea of him being sued in this next clip, while he's trying to present the idea that this 25-minute video isn't edited.
My God, when you watch this video that goes on for 25 minutes, because they always put out the unedited so they can't claim it's edited, they've won federal court cases where they claim they doctored video and Veritas won.
So one thing that should be pointed out is that Project Veritas may be one of the things that's getting sued right now more than Alex Jones.
One of the few things that has more lawsuits.
As far as I can tell, they have multiple active lawsuits against them, which they've tried to have thrown out of court unsuccessfully.
It appears that there's at least five active cases against O 'Keefe and Veritas in the books right now.
Then there's the case that we discussed in the past where James tried to sneak into Representative Mary Landrieu's office pretending he was a phone repairman, which ended up with him pleading guilty and being sentenced to three years probation and 100 hours of community service.
Then there was Juan Vera, an Acorn employee who sued O 'Keefe after his bullshit pimp video came out.
O'Keefe didn't have permission to record their private conversation, so O'Keefe tried to argue that the conversation wasn't private.
The judge didn't agree, so O'Keefe quickly settled the case, paying Vera $100,000.
I can find no evidence that O 'Keefe has won cases in court about the way he manipulatively edits videos.
But he has had cases against him dismissed on the grounds of things like he can record someone at a bar without their consent because there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy at a bar.
This is why all of his videos are shot in bars.
There's no way that what he's doing would be legal if he weren't intentionally trying to secretly record private conversations in very public places.
That's how he fucked up at Acorn.
That's why that guy got $100,000.
It's because that took place in an office, not in a bar.
Well, I mean, that's another thing that Jen Jenai was talking about in her post about it.
I hope that by talking about this and explaining, people will be more careful about accepting meetings from people who might be trying to fuck with you.
I admire Michael Jordan, but on a scale of 1 to 10, Michael Jordan's like a 2. Project Veritas is like a 9. Trump's like a 9. Firefighter that goes in a house, he knows he's collapsing to get kids out, gets burned to death.
Alex's criticism isn't that Tim Cook is running suicide factories in China.
It's that he's running suicide factories in China and no one except Alex calls him out on it because everyone else is blinded by Tim Cook's sexuality.
This is an important distinction because Alex doesn't give a shit about people working in unsafe conditions.
He's staunchly anti-union, and his favorite politician, Ron Paul, frequently introduced bills to eliminate OSHA.
The things that eliminated here many of the terrible parts of the conditions in Chinese factories are things that Alex is explicitly and actively against.
So his complaints about the plight of workers in China seems really hollow to me.
I want to be clear about something.
And that is that I support the workers of China, and nothing I'm about to say here should be interpreted as minimizing the difficult and exploitative situation that many of them are in.
What I'm going to say here is specifically about how little Alex Jones knows about China and Apple.
Every single time Alex talks about China and Apple, he brings up suicide nets.
That's the only frame of reference he has for the story, and I understand why.
It's a horrifying image.
People killing themselves at their workplace.
It's bleak.
It's relatable.
And it's very resonant with the audience of people who may not totally love their jobs.
For some context, though...
This story about nets is from 2011, and Alex is specifically leaving out the part of that story where, in addition to installing that net, Foxconn also responded to a rash of suicides by raising the wages of employees, which was one of the motivations ascribed to the people who jumped off the roof previously.
Alex has been repeating this story as if it's current for eight years.
Meanwhile, from 2012 to the present, four employees have killed themselves at the Foxconn factory that Alex is talking about, which is four too many, but let's try and put this in perspective.
For one, the Foxconn factory is not like most factories that we imagine.
It's fucking gigantic, with a staff that's ten times the size of the largest factory in the United States.
According to Business Insider, they employ about 350,000 people, which is approximately 40,000 more people than live in St. Louis.
In 2017, 43 people killed themselves in St. Louis.
In 2016, 291 people killed themselves at the workplace in the United States.
While China has a whole lot of work to do in terms of working conditions, we have our own problems at home that we should be addressing, too.
And I've never heard Alex bring up U.S. workplace suicides, ever.
Similarly, I've never heard him talk about France Telecom, which had more than 60 employees commit suicide between 2008 and 2011.
That's far more than the number of people who killed themselves at the Foxconn plant, and Telecom has a way smaller workforce of employees, so the rate is substantially higher.
Alex doesn't talk about that either, not because he's covering it up, but because he doesn't care.
He has no reason to attack a French phone company.
It's not in his interests.
Alex has an evocative image from eight years ago, and he uses it daily as a weapon to attack the people he perceives as his enemies, demanding they solve an issue he doesn't care about and knows that the only real solution to is government-regulating business, which he's super against.
It's a trick.
He's playing a trick on his audience by appealing to the emotion that very reasonably and rightfully should be evoked by the idea of a factory putting up nets to stop people from killing themselves.
So when I see Alex behaving this way and wearing the costume of someone who cares about the working conditions of Chinese factory employees, I don't believe him.
It's just an easy way for him to attack Google.
And, you know, it's definitely not the reason why he's attacking Google.
It's not his motivation.
When you hear him make the argument that no one will criticize Tim Cook for the Chinese factories because he's gay, that is an attack on Tim Cook specifically because he's gay.
He's basically saying that his being gay gives him an elevated status that wouldn't be afforded to a heterosexual CEO, and that's complete shit.
And it's important to point this sort of thing out while still being very clear that Foxconn and everybody else needs to do a better job for their workers.
You can accept that as a true thing and still call this sort of bullshit out.
And here's why that's important.
Jordan, did you know that Tim Cook is literally the first Fortune 500 CEO to be openly gay?
Fortune 500 has been published since 1955, and Tim Cook became CEO in 2011 and didn't come out until 2014.
That's a good, I don't know, 69 years where representation didn't exist for young, aspiring LGBTQ business folks.
There was no one to point to and think, I could belong in that boardroom.
And I'm not just assuming that's the case.
That's the reason he came out in 2014.
In an interview with CNN, Cook describes how there had been rumors about his sexuality, but he kept his life private until he started to receive letters from youth who had been bullied because of their orientation.
And he realized that it would be, quote, selfish for him to keep quiet when being public could help those people.
Despite the problems with Apple, and there are many to choose from, this is what Alex is attacking about Tim Cook.
In the same way that young LGBTQ kids could be moved by seeing their identity reflected in the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, Alex sees that too, and he's threatened by it.
So ultimately, what I'm saying is, fuck Alex Jones.
He's a small-minded bigot, completely obsessed with his petty battles.
I should also point out that the InfoWars app was never number one.
It was number one in the trending category the day after he got kicked off all the social media platforms.
When you're used to being the protected class with the highest status, seeing any other class raised up makes these people feel like stuff is being taken away from them.
White nationalist homophobic bullshit is always going to dehumanize any achievement to, you know, the old saying, I don't know, not old saying, but in the Reconstruction era South, one of the operating philosophies was as long as the poorest, most worthless white person feels like they're better than the richest, most successful black person, then we will always win.
Like, that kind of thing.
So, for Alex, as long as he's, you know, as long as the gayest CEO or the most successful gay CEO in history is worse than any straight person, he can act with impunity.
So Alex is making a mountain out of a molehill here about the other stuff.
The supposed beef between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Holocaust Museum.
They didn't really denounce her comments as much as they reaffirmed their long-standing position that the museum does not like people.
The right-wing media, desperate to protect these camps where children are being abused, reported that as some kind of a takedown by the Holocaust Museum.
Hannity ran the headline, quote, But the statement isn't really rare.
They put out a press release in December 2018 saying the exact same thing.
Dig a little bit into the topic and you'll find plenty of representatives of the museum as well as other scholars in the field of the Holocaust that are strongly against people making analogies between anything from the past or the present as being compared to what happened in the Holocaust.
It's partially that and partially just like it's disrespectful to the lived experience of the people who died to use it as a tool to compare something that you don't like to.
I mean, you couldn't get better descriptors for the names of the departments if you went to Orwell or the protagonist, Winston, in 1984, who edits out...
Remember that movie where he edits out all the newspapers?
This supposed whistleblower released to Project Veritas about 120 pages of internal documents.
And I've looked over them.
I don't see anything groundbreaking or even shocking.
Basically, it all just boils down to something along the lines of, we didn't realize that our platform was so easily exploitable by people looking to profit off weaponized lying, and now that we do, we should probably do something about it.
That's a lot of it that James O 'Keefe would be responding to.
And the other stuff is what we'll get into here in a minute.
One image seems to be James O 'Keefe's coup de gras, and it shows a flowchart representing the process of how unconscious bias can affect our decisions and how data is classified.
It's what he was just reading.
What he just quoted is a string of a flowchart.
It's not a list of things.
It's the steps in a flowchart.
The last node on the flowchart says, quote, people like us are programmed, which O 'Keefe presents as that being supposed to reflect Google's goal.
In context, this isn't a flowchart that shows Google's brainwashing plans.
It's a slide in a PowerPoint presentation about the interaction between human input and AI in terms of algorithm creation.
Just after this slide in the presentation, there's a slide that says, quote, And unfortunately, we humans have a history of making product design decisions that are in line with defaults and not with the needs of everyone.
The we get programmed thing isn't the result.
It's discussing a problem that arises from unconsciously accepting default ideas that are dangerous.
It's because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what's fair and what's equitable, so we're like, we're a big company, we're going to say it.
So what Janai is saying is, don't bust us up, Elizabeth Warren.
She does talk about that in the manipulatively edited and captured video.
But what she's talking about is, like...
So when you take what she's talking about, the Trump situation, to not be Trump running, it be the interference and manipulation of algorithms and gaming the system.
When she's saying that, like, you shouldn't break us up, it would be a bad idea.
Because then you have a bunch of smaller companies that are less able to deal with that sort of thing, the manipulation.
So when he's also discussing that Janai said that no one was drawing a line in the sand, and that's, you know, Google's a big company, so why not them?
He's completely misrepresenting what she's clearly talking about.
A lot of this becomes totally clear if you actually read the documents that Project Veritas released along with this video.
A lot of the information in there actually debunks everything that James O 'Keefe is saying.
What she means that no one's drawing a line in the sand is that if left to its own devices, a lot of AI and machine learning is going to go horribly astray.
This was seen in how searches for, quote, CEO brought up all-male images.
Or wedding.
If you searched for wedding, it would bring up exclusively white couples.
There's a bias that could come from data when it's left unmanaged.
These are bad.
Like, they're bad.
Those examples.
But there are instances where this phenomenon became profoundly much more offensive.
In 2015, a black man uploaded a photo of himself and a friend at a concert, and the AI labeled the image gorillas.
In 2013, a researcher found that if you searched for the term black girls, the results were disproportionately more likely to be pornography.
A study in 2015 found that ads for high-salary jobs placed on the Times of India website were being shown specifically to male users.
These are the sort of instances of unfairness that people like Jen Jenai were discussing and working to resolve.
You can find an article on The Standard from December of last year where she's discussing this, particularly in reference to a study from a Harvard researcher who found that, quote, when you searched black-sounding names, arrest-related ads were more likely to show up than when you searched white-sounding names.
The fairness extends to all other parts of Google's product line.
For instance, Janai specifically was working on projects related to speech recognition.
How could someone with an accent get full use of speech recognition products?
How about someone with a speech impediment or a stutter?
These are the sorts of concerns for her career as it relates to fairness.
And anyone who did a cursory amount of research into this would know that that's what James O 'Keefe is trying to misrepresent.
It's clear as day.
When you read the documents that he released, you do a little bit of looking into, huh, other than the last 24 hours, what imprint does Jen Jenai have on the internet?
Find what she was working on before.
Find out what context clues you can have for this casual conversation that you've surreptitiously recorded.
What might she bring to that conversation that you're not allowing to exist in your footage?
And it's this sort of thing.
And I think it's an admirable goal, that idea that you shouldn't have an algorithm that when you search for black girls, it's all pornography.
And so if you have to analyze that for one second, if you have to add that into your calculus of life, how could you not extrapolate from that so much?
Just like the idea, just for you to say for one second, wait, if I was a black girl and I searched just black girl and all I got was porn, think about how that limits my life.
And I mean, even the Google documents that Project Veritas released, when discussing that women are 47% more likely to be injured in a car accident because of the design of seatbelts, because of crash test dummies being modeled after men.
There's even a slide in there that's like...
Now, were those people who designed the crash test dummies hating women?
The same thing is true for so many medications that aren't, like, if it's not specifically made for women, the testing is almost overwhelmingly done on men.
Women are sex slaves in Somalia and have no rights, but I'm going to come here and tell you how good Islam is and how America sucks and shake my finger at you and wear my little get-up.
Damn, she's so ugly.
I'm glad she wears that hood over her head.
Like an ugly donkey.
She got this donkey literally pissing in our face all day.
Give me a break.
I mean, my God!
You come here, you get elected to Congress in ten years, you sucked off welfare the whole time, you pig!
You America-hating pig!
And then you get here and tell us how much we suck all day.
So he plays, like, maybe three seconds of a clip of her, but he's so mad that he has to interrupt the clip before it even plays the part he wants, because he's got to yell about her more.
And maybe it would be better served by, like, we do an episode just about Sunday.
Right, right, right.
There's no development of narratives.
There's nothing that's like, okay, I talked about the 5G West Virginia shit on Sunday.
Now there's more news.
There's nothing.
It's just like, all right, we're going to spin this plate.
Oh, it's already falling over.
Let's start another one.
Oh, it's falling over.
It's kind of desperate and really tough.
Now, the other thing about it, though, is I'm noticing, and I probably have pointed this out, but it always bears mentioning.
Alex is almost every day trying to get someone hurt.
This wasn't the case before.
And granted, he was irresponsible and reckless with his language.
We see in 2013 him being a real stupid, dumb prick.
But the consistency and the regularity with which he seems to be saying things specifically trying to get people hurt, whether it's the targeting of Jen Jenai, that he's tag-teaming with James O 'Keefe, this is dangerous.
This is dangerous to her safety.
Or the people of this quiet West Virginia town saying that this is where you can go hunt globalists once the shit goes down.
Like, every single day there is somebody that is being put in danger by Alex's show.
I don't know if it rises to the level of, like...
Jam is signal.
I don't think it does.
I don't know what that would require.
But this trend is something that is important for people to be aware of.
Like, when Alex Jones pleads his victimhood status, it's important to know that pretty much every day, something has the potential to go so wrong.
There's just nothing there but him trying to insult her in any way he possibly can without coming out and just saying, I don't like a brown woman in charge.
Yeah, or why do I not want to learn anything more about the policies and try and argue them as opposed to, she's a donkey pissing on you and she's also dumb.
Thinking about it, I find the Tim Cook stuff more offensive because he's hiding it behind something that is a legitimate criticism and turning a legitimate criticism...
I mean, that Business Insider, I don't know how much you can really universalize this, but there's a Business Insider article about going to that factory in 2018, and they talked to a ton of the employees, and not under, like, you know...
So, like, I'm not saying that the working conditions are all good everywhere.
Right.
The specific complaint that he has is so much more relevant in the past, and it's not been updated to deal with the current conditions that are there, because he doesn't give a fuck.
But also, this stuff with Tim Cook probably would be presented differently if he didn't have the narrative from seven years ago that he knows the muscle memory of how to tell.