Today, Dan and Jordan check in on the present day of the Alex Jones Show to see what's going on. The gents find Alex dipping his toe deep into the pool of racism, getting weird about Area 51, and vaguely threatening Trump if he doesn't intervene to protect Instagram memes.
And if any of you who are being clustered into this group take offense at that, please feel free to shoot me an email and I will make it up to you with your own drop or something.
I hope there is no offense taken by this, but we need to...
Pick up the pace.
So, Phillip, Lang, and Cornelia, thank you so much.
If you'd like to sign up and support the show, if you appreciate what we do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking that button that says support the show.
So these ideas that there is this grander conspiracy behind all of these world events, taking out the czar in Russia, the global communism, the French Revolution, all of this is being done by the same people, is the belief system espoused by Trump?
The person we talked about on our last episode, David J. Smith.
It does lead me to believe that there may be a little bit more to that idea that maybe his dad was funneling some of these Christian identity beliefs to him at a young age.
And maybe that's a bigger part of the story than we realized.
And, you know, I get, Mr. President, you're 73 and everything, and you don't know how the Internet really works, but I'm going to explain something.
In the last three days, more accounts have been lost on Facebook and Twitter of your bonafide supporters than you have on both of your Twitters, your Instagram, and everything else.
200 million followers.
On major accounts, two of the accounts had 70 million together, 74 million together.
One had 40-something million, one 30 million.
The sites were getting hundreds of millions of views of your damn videos.
You have to pay close attention to the words he's using.
He says that 200 million followers...
Which is different than 200 million people were kicked off.
That could just be one account that has 200 million people following it being shut down.
Now 200 million follows have been lost.
What Alex is doing is trying to over-inflate the scope of this purge from Instagram where some meme accounts got kicked off.
If you want to call it a purge, I'm not entirely sure.
To give you some perspective, if 200 million accounts were kicked off Instagram, that would represent twice the number of people who use Instagram in the United States being kicked off.
That would be them removing approximately one-fifth of their entire subscriber base, which would completely cripple their business.
It's the sort of claim that's Yeah, yeah, of course.
In reality, the number of followers of the affected accounts is probably lower than 200 million, and whatever number anyone can come up with doesn't take into account that there's probably heavy overlap in the followers of these meme accounts.
So the number is exaggerated, overinflated anyway.
So, on Thursday and Friday of last week, approximately 30 meme accounts on Instagram were banned, with a spokesman for the company saying that they were, quote, disabled following multiple violations of our policies, including attempted abuse of our internal processes.
I'm preparing this episode and we're recording, it's not 100% clear exactly what the policy violations are, but given how shady large social media accounts tend to be, I'm willing to suspend judgment for the time being and wait and see what information comes out later before I take a really firm position on this.
Okay.
unidentified
We've seen countless examples of people gaming social media systems for profit, from the people who set up syndicates to make tweets go viral for a fee to the Krasenstein brothers, so it doesn't seem too unbelievable to assume that these accounts that got banned last week may have been up to some shit that Instagram wanted to Yeah, they're just abusing the system like a bunch of assholes.
For some context, in situations like this, it's best to find examples of times that things like this have happened before and why they've happened before.
In late December 2018, Instagram had another purge of accounts that violated their policies.
In that instance, a spokesman for Instagram told the Daily Dot, quote, We've seen behavior on Instagram whereby some usernames, for example, usernames which contain a single word, letter, or number, are stolen or traded.
This behavior violates our policies in a number of ways.
We don't allow people to buy, sell, or trade aspects of their account, including usernames.
We're consistently taking steps to disincentivize and stop this behavior, including removing accounts that violate our policies.
This is part of an ongoing process.
Like, social media companies create new rules to cut down on scamming.
Then the scammers find new ways around that rule and the process just starts over.
Instagram's been working on this since at least 2014 when they banned millions of entirely fake accounts.
When I see something like what happened last week, it's pretty easy for me to see this as probably just another step in the process of fine-tuning their way, like, making it so you can't...
I don't know that these were actually even accounts that were making Trump memes.
Some of them...
Very well may have been.
Sure.
It wasn't like Count Dankulo.
It was in the mix or something.
Anyway.
Also, if Alex Jones cared at all about social media purges and shadow bans and all that shit that he talks about all the time, if he weren't just trying to bring up these topics for completely self-serving positions and his wounded narcissism, by now I would have imagined that he would bring up how sex workers are being pushed off social media spaces at least once.
In the time that I've listened to him, and I've never heard him bring that up.
It's exhausting for him to have to try and keep doing these public stunts in order to keep his name in the public's eye.
but if he doesn't do that his audience is going to slowly dwindle and he's going to go out of business second alex is keenly aware that these syndicates of interconnected meme distributors who are able to create artificial virality are really the best option left for disseminating propaganda on social media if social media companies are starting to address that problem on their platform he knows that his ideas are going to have to compete on a level playing ground with other Yeah, that's not good.
So in this narrative, Alex is misrepresenting the Copyright Alternative and Small Claims Enforcement Act of 2019, or the CASE Act.
The act is designed to make it easier for holders of copyrights to protect their copyrighted protected work without having to subject themselves to lengthy and expensive court proceedings.
It would mostly involve creating small claims court mechanisms to simplify the process and expedite it and make it so you don't have to exert tons.
Because that does disincentivize people from Protecting what is theirs.
People are allowed to get away with it because most of the time the copyright holders know it's more hassle than it's worth to go after someone who's illegally breaching their copyright.
The Case Act doesn't make anything illegal that was previously legal.
It really is just about making it easier for people to protect their own intellectual property.
And for Alex, someone who's super into property rights, it doesn't make sense for him to be opposed to people being able to defend their property.
Obviously, this kind of legislation could have a huge impact on memes, but I find it very difficult to imagine that even if the Case Act does succeed in going through, they would have much of an effect on how individual users of social media platforms used memes.
I think it would just make it easier to sue people with large platforms who profit off using copyrighted material and defend themselves by saying, it's just a meme.
It's hard to hear Alex misrepresenting the story and not think about how he just had to pay Matt Fury, the creator of Pepe the Frog, $15,000 for using his copyrighted material in a poster that Infowars sold on their website.
The case act, had it been in place, would have been a big problem for Alex's legal strategy in that case.
Immediately after Fury and Alex reached their settlement, Alex had his lawyer Robert Barnes on his show to discuss the case.
Their angle on it was crystal clear, and it was basically boiled down to, if you want to spend a ton of money suing Alex and then win $15,000, go ahead.
They weren't defending their innocence or saying that they were right.
They were clearly signaling that their legal strategy was to create circumstances where it is way too costly for anyone to fight Alex in court, so they give up.
Or they don't even bring the suit in the first place.
Yeah, it's very similar to what debt collectors, like there are so many people who will buy debt from credit card companies and then they'll take you to court.
If the case act goes through, Alex is far more vulnerable on matters of copyright.
I can't say for sure it would lead to any actual suits being filed, but the number of potential suits have to be something that really fucking worries him.
I suspect that this is what's motivating him to misrepresent this story as if it's the end of the world.
Also, to his point that the Case Act is being discussed now because it's like he's presenting it as like the globalists are making their move and it's a way to take out Trump to take over the Internet.
So I kind of also find it funny that Alex brings up how this is the same as what was passed in Europe last year, partially because it was passed in March 2019 and because the EU rules.
That's not lies here.
Also, because the EU rules that were passed are a completely different thing than what Alex is talking about, or even what the Case Act is.
He's trying to present the idea that in Europe, if you post a meme, you're getting a fine, and that's absurd.
For one, again, this is a rule that the EU passed to aid in copyright enforcement in the new age of technology.
Second, I'm going to read to you about this rule from an article in Wired.
The most controversial part of the copyright directive makes platforms like Google and Facebook responsible for copyright violations in material posted by their users.
But it creates an incentive for Facebook and Google to protect the copyrighted material that's being misused by their users as opposed to all the consequences falling on the individual user.
And if they don't, then they're complicit in the misuse of this intellectual property.
And also, don't worry, that EU rule didn't infringe on member states' sovereignty.
Each state was specifically left to their own devices to write their own laws and come up with how they would implement practices to protect copyrights through Europe.
Nothing that Alex says in this at all is real.
It's all just blustery bullshit.
He's hoping he'll add up to enough incitement to get Trump to somehow force Facebook or Twitter to let him back on the platform.
Because you can hear that he's directing this to Trump.
Because let me tell you, if he goes down, I'm going to have to leave the country, because they are coming after me, they're coming after you, and these global crooks.
And I've been watching Trump closely, and I've been talking to his advisors, and finally some of my people have gotten meetings with this head campaign guy in Florida, and they're finally getting it some, but not quick enough.
So you've got to get those meme accounts back on, because the memes...
So, look, I think Alex is making his panic a little too clear here.
I think that Alex knows that he's gotten himself into a no-win situation, largely because connecting himself so closely to Trump and his policies, like, by doing that, Alex has radicalized himself past the point of no return, and his audience has gone down the same road with him.
Like, what does he do if Trump loses in 2020?
Legitimately, what can he do?
He's made the argument that this guy becoming president is America's last shot against the globalists who want to destroy America and kill your families.
What's he going to do?
Is he going to tell his audience to gear up for the 2020 midterms?
Try and start a big impeachment campaign when the system is already, by definition, controlled by the globalists?
His audience is so far past that shit.
With Alex's bullshit that he's spread about demons and child sacrifice being so defining of these enemies, If Alex tried to pivot back to being an opposition voice to the party in power by advocating for anything short of armed insurrection, his audience would abandon him so fast his bank account would spin.
Simultaneously, Alex is in a huge problem if Trump wins, and Alex's personal situation doesn't improve.
How long can Alex argue that Trump is in a death battle with the very same globalist enemies that Alex is against without Trump doing anything at all to help Alex?
If they were actually allies in anything more than lip service level bullshit, you'd think that Trump would want to protect and support his most public supporter and the only voice in the media who really gets it.
The more and more Alex has to pay the consequences for his actions, and the longer it goes where Trump doesn't seem to give a fuck about Alex, the harder it is for Alex to create the impression that he's anything other than a useful idiot for an aspiring authoritarian who he'd hoped would help him advance his own personality.
Well, I honestly think that Alex kind of realizes that he's painted himself into a bad corner, but unless something very specific happens, his days are numbered.
Not in the sense that his life is in danger or anything like that, but that what he does doesn't serve any purpose anymore.
Because he's become so entwined with Trump, as things escalate in our country, he has to escalate along with it and be party to that escalation.
He can't recede.
He can't give an inch.
Because the audience he's cultivated in the last few years won't allow it.
If Alex gives an inch, it's not him just trying to moderate and be less extreme or be reasonable.
It's ceding ground to literal demons and child murderers.
And that's a bad position to be in.
Any negotiation, any compromise is compromise with the devil.
The only two positive outcomes for Alex right now are for Trump to become an authoritarian ruler, rounding up his enemies with the army, imposing restrictions on businesses he doesn't like, and ruthlessly suppressing the press.
Or Trump loses and there's a civil war.
Peace in any form is not a marketable option for Alex anymore.
Even in 2016, 2017, 2018, like all along the way, someone with the gifts that Alex has just in terms of pure talent, you would ignore a whole lot of the other terrible things about him if he was offering a right wing critique.
Alex could have done something like that, and he's so much better at...
Being a liar than Glenn Beck is.
He's not nearly...
I mean, he's embarrassing, but he's not...
Just on a pure competence level, he's better than Glenn Beck.
And I think he could have made so much money in that space.
He could have gotten left people over to his side again.
He could have done all that shit that he was doing during the Ron Paul times.
There were so many news stories that have come out and every single thing that falls in line with all of Alex's old narratives about Rex 84 and Posse Commentatus.
He could have made so much money off that.
He could have been just banking.
Yeah, I think about it.
It sucks that he's so awful now.
He's a really awful pile of shit.
But you could take some comfort in knowing that he's only such an awful pile of shit right now because he's dealing with the worst decision he's ever made and he's spiraling the drain.
So there's some cold comfort in that.
Like, that he could have flown under the radar with all of this awful white nationalist, white identity bullshit.
Like, he could have very easily Trojan-horsed himself closer to the mainstream if he hadn't made this decision.
So, Alex gets back now to the Instagram narrative, and I think this clip is important because he's really saying that 200 million people got kicked off Instagram.
They've been cheating all along, and now Google and all of them are 200 million accounts on Facebook and Instagram that supported the president, all annihilated.
In California and Illinois and Maryland and everywhere the Democrats are in control, people are losing their student loan financial aid because the unions and the lawyers are stealing all of it.
Just like Detroit fell, the most prosperous area of our country, now the poorest.
80,000 California students lose financial aid thanks to Teachers Union.
I don't need that clip anymore, guys.
I don't need that clip anymore.
Can we just have a document cam shot?
Thanks.
So again, 80,000 California students lose financial aid thanks to Teachers Union state government.
I guess the lesson here is to never underestimate how much he and his intellectual ancestors hate the idea of workers being able to have any control over their destiny and how they'll take any opportunity possible to malign labor.
The regulation had to do with states being required to have a system in place for in-state residents who take classes remotely from out-of-state institutions, with the rule including that if...
If there weren't a process in place for dealing with these students' concerns, then recipients of federal student aid, like Pell Grants, would lose access to said aid.
It was a measure to protect students, and although it's a little bit complicated, there are absolutely consumer protection-related issues and reasons for a rule like this to be in place.
Naturally, since Trump and his administration hate anything Obama did, they fought the implementation of this rule.
It didn't go into effect until July 1, 2018, and even then, Trump's people were trying to delay having to enforce it.
Just this April, a judge ruled that they couldn't postpone enforcing the rule any longer, so they started accepting that this rule was an actual rule on July 22, 2019.
That judge also ruled that Education Secretary Betsy Davos had illegally delayed the rules implementation.
Alex is blaming unions for this because the National Education Association and the California Teachers Association are the ones who sued Betsy DeVos to get the rule implemented.
California is the state that's most affected by this very immediate shift in the rule being real because they're the only state that's not part of the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements, called SARA, which basically is just a series of agreements that the states recognize each other's protections for students.
California doesn't belong to that because they feel that the body does not offer strong enough consumer protections for the students.
Now, they probably should have had something in place to deal with the rule long before Devos' lawsuit came to an end.
But I think that if you just look at what's going on in the world, they had every reason to think that this rule would never be implemented.
And until it was, they weren't out of compliance with the rule.
And they had...
Some systems in place just that weren't up to that rule.
Now, the bigger issue is that as soon as California learned that the rule was in place and that it was enforceable, the California Department of Consumer Affairs immediately created a complaint system for students.
So they met all the requirements of the regulation.
And just like that, all of the students who were at risk of losing their financial aid were no longer at risk of losing their financial aid.
By the time Alex got on air on July 28th, this problem was already resolved.
He's misrepresenting the story that the students lost their financial aid when they were only at risk of losing it if California wasn't in compliance with a federal regulation.
He's lying about the union involvement in the situation and completely whitewashing Betsy Devos' role.
Put simply, Alex is a liar and a really lazy dude who's on air misrepresenting news that's already outdated just to make it look like unions are bad and blue states are evil.
I mean, everybody had every reason to assume that they were going to create more legal hurdles or just make it so like, okay, the court said that the rule is in place, but it's not.
Because it's the same thing as what we were talking about earlier with it's just too much trouble to sue somebody for not enough gain where it's like...
If Trump just stops following all of these rules, nobody knows which ones to put their energy into making him follow.
I think we're saying the same things just slightly differently.
So Alex responds to this by appealing to that video that we discussed on a recent episode where he created a completely artificial appearance of these camps by combining Candace Owens' video from a year ago.
I'm going to play these clips, and they're a little bit tough, just in terms of the lack of humanity that Alex is showing.
But I wanted to really drive home the point that Alex is really making a meal out of making fun of this anchor having an emotional reaction to Trump using...
Dehumanizing language consistently towards non-white people.
So real quick before we get to Alex's response, I think it's really important to point out that the part of Victor Blackwell's piece...
That people were posting and got pretty popular online.
I saw it all over the place.
The important context that Alex is cutting out of the beginning of this clip is he's explaining that it hurts to hear the President of the United States use consistently dehumanizing language about non-white people.
He points out in this segment that Alex, I don't know how he decided where to cut this, but he includes...
A discussion of that in all of Trump's 43,000 tweets, he only uses the word infested to describe a place that's predominantly non-white and to attack non-white legislators that he is beefing with.
And that there are instances of white legislators that he has gotten into fights with and he doesn't use that same sort of language when he does.
So that is the conversation and that is what Victor Blackwell's piece is about.
Alex deprives it of that context in order to make fun of just the fact that Blackwell gets emotional, which is really gross.
unidentified
The president says about Congressman Cummings' district...
No, it's absolutely impossible for these people to understand the interconnectedness of problems and the way that if you pull one lever here, it will change something oftentimes unexpected.
I want to hear what this jackass has done, and who lives there, and I want to hear what you gave, and what you, like Obama, almost like, we live in a car, we'd like a house.
So when we see stuff like this, this behavior is indicative of things that are threatening to Alex.
The mocking of it, the constant repetition, going back and doing the fake crying over it, and this is brainwashing.
That is the behavior that Alex employs towards things that are pretty prevalent.
There's no denying that this clip went all over the place.
People are reposting it.
It's something that you would assume that his audience would have access to, or they might come in contact with.
And it's making an argument that is threatening to Alex.
Because it does point out, I mean, Alex doesn't play the part that says this, but it does discuss, Victor Blackwell does clearly discuss the idea that Trump uses these sorts of language and these linguistic terms, specifically in situations when he's attacking non-white people.
And it is hard to hear.
It's something that has an effect on people.
And if that were allowed to be seen as a legitimate perspective that someone has, it runs the risk of opening up his audience's eyes to an empathic position and understanding how other people...
Later, on one of these other episodes, I believe on the Monday episode, he plays a clip of Marianne Williamson hosting an apology session where white people apologize to black people.
And he doesn't need to mock that.
Because he has created an environment where that looks like an absurd spectacle.
So he can just play that and not interrupt it.
There's very different ways that Alex uses other media.
And it's important to understand that this strategy is employed when something is a threat to him.
I believe that that is definitely the case.
So, Alex earlier said that he was going to take Trump to the woodshed because of this meme shit.
First of all, he thinks he's talking directly to the president.
Crazy.
Second, if he thinks he's talking to the president, he has to think that the president is as stupid as one of his listeners, which may or may not be true.
The EU admits, the big tech giants admit that memes are more powerful than all cable news combined now.
It's how America communicates.
And the fact that you've let them do this to thousands of other prominent conservatives and nationalists and haven't taken action yet, other than criticizing it, has greenlit the purges to now be exponential.
This is your distribution network that was getting your speeches and your statements and your administration's truth out.
To counter the establishment lives.
And they're just being annihilated on a daily basis.
I've been slow playing them for a long time, but here we are.
So, in this next clip, which is still from his address to the president, he just implies, again, that 200 million people gone, which, again, ludicrous.
Because nothing is being done by your administration.
We've heard a bunch of talk about antitrust.
We've heard a bunch of talk about injunctions.
This is election meddling.
Imagine.
If hundreds and hundreds of millions of people following Democrat sites and Democrat news organizations were suddenly being deleted in a coordinated fashion, there would be an outcry the likes of which the world's never seen.
And damn it, I care about you, and my fate's tied to you, and I'm pissed, buddy!
If you keep sitting there and taking this crap, I'm not going to put up with it anymore!
Because it doesn't matter how good your agenda is and how many other great things you do.
If you sit there and let these out-of-control criminals walk in here and steal our First Amendment and steal this damn election, then I don't know what I'm going to be forced to do, but let me tell you, watching you let these bastards pull this off makes me sick.
But so often in the fight to keep this operation going, I forget to remind viewers and remind listeners that without you and word of mouth telling people about the show and how to find it, without you sharing the audio and the videos that we post to Infowars.com, the globalists are going to be able to carry out their plan, too.
That's why it's important for you to please watch the short presentation at the end of the show today that breaks down things we can personally do for our bodies and support the broadcast at the same time.
And I'll see you more willing back tomorrow, 11 a.m. Central, with the Monday edition of the Alex Jones Show.
I've got family calling me saying they've lost their Instagrams, and they're not even political.
If they see American flags, if they see you're Christian, they're coming after you in an attempt to scare other Christians and other Americans to pull down the American flags, to stop talking about Jesus, to stop even calling yourselves Christian, just like all the big ecumenical movements have done.
There's so many things in Alex's world that I just have to be like...
Nope.
And that is one of them.
Because it's such a service of an already false narrative.
The 200 million people getting kicked off Instagram is the narrative that's being built on by my family members are calling me and saying they're being kicked off Instagram.
So if the bedrock is a lie, I have to assume that this garnish is a lie too.
I don't know.
And I don't care.
So in this next clip, we get an introduction of a guest who's going to show up later, but Alex is really excited to have him on.
We have a retired state police officer whose brother is a friend of the show, Joe Bannister's brother, will be popping in at the bottom of the middle of the next hour, and he will be getting into the inside scoop on what happened at the Garlic Festival.
Where several people were shot and killed, including a six-year-old boy.
More than, what is it, 14 people now wounded in the gun-free zone.
I've already gotten into the fact that Trump's removing the head of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the 17 agencies and putting a bulldog in there that will really go after him, Congressman John Ratcliffe of Texas, former federal prosecutor.
That's sending alarm bells throughout the deep state.
Alex, that might not be the best example of it, but he is all about it.
He's very supportive of this.
And it's hilarious how craven and spineless and full of shit Alex Jones is.
If you need an example of how little he gives a fuck about anything he pretends to stand for, look no further than his support of Trump's nomination of John Ratcliffe as his director of national intelligence.
For one thing, John Ratcliffe is not qualified at all for the position of DNI.
He was the mayor of Heath, Texas, population approximately 6,000 for eight years.
During that time, George W. Bush appointed him U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, a position he was mysteriously only in for a year before returning to public life.
In 2014, he primaried the sitting Republican in Texas' 4th District in the House of Representatives.
He was running against a 17-term incumbent in his opponent, Ralph Hall, who was 91 years old at that time.
When Ralph Hall entered government in the Texas Senate, JFK was still alive.
This was an old, old man he ran against.
You could make your campaign slogan, he's 91, and probably win.
Ratcliffe still only ended up winning with a narrow margin in the primary, but that district is so conservative that no Democrat even bothered to run, so he won his seat in Congress.
In 2016, again, he ran against no Democrat candidate, guaranteeing an easy win.
The position of DNI is a non-partisan position, specifically.
It's very important that the person who occupies that position not be someone who's invested in party politics, because should that person in charge of all of the country's intelligence agencies be someone beholden to a political party, you can very easily imagine the sort of things they could do to help their political party of choice.
Previous to Trump being elected, no one who occupied this position came from a background as a member of Congress.
These were career diplomats or intelligence professionals.
But when Trump got in, he appointed Dan Coats, who had 16 years in a career as a Republican senator from Indiana behind him, as well as an eight-year career in the House of Representatives.
The politicization of this position is exceedingly dangerous.
We're seeing that happen.
Even if there were a presumption of impartiality to it, our intelligence community is a dangerous thing to have exist.
When you introduce partisan politics into it, you have a recipe for real trouble.
And it's definitely the kind of thing you see in authoritarian states.
Okay, so what you're saying is that were we to have a partisan director of national intelligence, somebody who can direct intelligence agencies to do things...
And those things maybe are beholden to a hard-right Republican lunatic who thinks that everybody's out to get him and wants to use intelligence services to further his own agenda.
You think him appointing somebody who would do that is a bad idea?
It's also worth pointing out that John Ratcliffe has a 100% conservative score from Heritage Action and ranks as one of the most conservative members in all of Congress.
Yeah, and he was on the short list for Trump's attorney general possibilities when Sessions stepped down.
He's in the team.
To give you some context, Ted Cruz only has a 98% score.
Louie Gohmert only has a 96% score, as does Steve King.
Ratcliffe is more conservative than those dudes.
I have literally zero faith that he would be able to separate his political leanings from the job of being DNI, but I also think that's why Trump nominated him.
All that shit is disqualifying, but I know that Alex doesn't really care about any of that stuff.
And here's something, though, that he should care about.
In 2009, Ratcliffe became a partner at the law firm of Ashcroft Sutton Ratcliffe.
Who is that Ashcroft, you ask?
None other than John Ashcroft, George W. Bush's attorney general who Alex believed helped cover up 9-11.
Ratcliffe is involved in the Bush administration as a U.S. attorney, then afterwards became partners in a law firm with one of Alex's huge bad guys.
Endorsing this guy to lead all of the country's spy shit is essentially Alex admitting he didn't really mean all the stuff he used to say.
This is seriously disqualifying stuff here, all in the name of trying to defend the nomination of a guy who probably doesn't stand a chance of being approved by Congress.
There's already indications that the Republicans aren't thrilled with this.
It's real embarrassing shit from Alex here.
You really hate to see this kind of shithead behavior, even from someone you hate.
Like, the idea that this guy who is a partner in a law firm with John Ashcroft...
Where gangs of racist black people target white people, old people, young people, and beat them, in some cases kill them, and then there's no news coverage of it, but there's news coverage everywhere about record numbers of whites targeting minorities, and then there isn't any evidence of that.
The first thing we can tell here from Alex's coverage of the whole Trump-Elijah Cummings thing is that Alex has never seen The Wire, which honestly doesn't surprise me.
He's also apparently never read Homicide, A Year on the Killing Streets, which also doesn't surprise me because it's a book.
Obviously, there's a very complicated situation and a lot of issues at play in terms of a city like Baltimore, and like I said earlier, far be it from me to pretend that I actually can explain all of it to you or even advocate for what the right solution is, I am not.
It's outside of my lane to try and pretend I have that kind of expertise.
And I'm going to get into the incredible level of brainwashing that white people are inherently evil and are inherently bad by white academics and others who are being financed by the Bill of Millennials.
So first of all, I'm excited to hear about this big story he's got about Bill and Melinda Gates brainwashing everyone against white people.
I'm thrilled to find out if there's any truth to that.
Spoiler alert, there's not.
But also, if this is true, what Alex is saying.
No, no, no, not that part.
It's not true.
But if it's true that Alex has had all these people digging around in his finances trying to find out who funds him, and it turns out it's just the American people.
Alex, why are you fighting so hard to make sure that they don't get access?
Alex, if all of your money does come from a really successful, amazing supplement sale and books and water filtration business, let's see those numbers, baby!
I want to tip my hat to you.
I want to congratulate you on a business well run.
Why do you make all this so secretive to the point where in depositions, people like your head of HR, your father, other people who are involved in the business say, I have no idea what the fuck's going on.
I've been watching this Area 51 situation, and my original thoughts three weeks ago are dead on, and I'm sure you have the same thoughts, but let me just explain something, and I'm sure you all know this.
Anyone that's had a Facebook page the last few years knows that you have to pay money, basically, to have one now.
I would argue an alternative explanation, and that is that conservative members of Congress are not very interesting, and a joke meme event like this is pretty funny.
You know, like, he has another comment about Area 51, like, an hour later in the show.
I was thinking about this, like, why don't I organize the episode into, like, this is the topic he's talking about, and here are all the things he says on it.
They know how to sell us out and ship drugs into our cities.
They know how to break up our families so we can be more easily managed because we're such uppity Americans.
Instead of you were a real elite, you would have promoted Americana that's so powerful, and then we would have ruled the planet through ideology and free market, and you could have sat on top of it, but you had needle ding-a-ling syndrome.
I call it the chicken SH-T dimension, and you're from it.
So we already heard earlier in the episode Alex saying that his big main gripe with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is they're brainwashing people against whites earlier.
I also think that now, after having that episode about the British Israelism and Christian identity ideas, it's tough to hear that sort of, you know, you could have had world dominion.
followed up with quote in this way we shall create a blind mighty force which will never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents uh set at its head by our as leaders of the mob the people will submit to this regime because it will know uh that upon these leaders will depend its earnings gratifications and the receipt of all kinds of benefits so i mean what he's describing about the plan to destroy the family in order to make us less able to
to have our political will and dumb us down directly from the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Also, it doesn't trace back to the protocols, but this accusation that Jews are responsible for international drug trade, I mean, Alex isn't making that accusation, but it is an accusation that's been fairly popular in deeply anti-Semitic communities.
In 2012, the Iranian vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, gave a speech where he said that Zionists ran the drug trade and, quote, the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict.
They do not exist.
This is proof of their involvement in the drugs trade.
Ooh.
A European diplomat told the Irish Times under the condition of anonymity, quote, this was definitely one of the worst speeches I've ever heard in my life.
And even an Iranian Shia cleric was like, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
So, like, you have this, like, this idea of destroying the families for the specific purpose that Alex is talking about, which is a direct parallel to the protocols.
And they're bringing drugs in, which is, you know, that is also mirroring anti-Semitic propaganda that has existed over the years.
So I think it's just important to bring that up whenever he's just being very clearly...
White supremacist.
Well, mirroring.
So Alex, in this next clip, kind of thinks that he's already gotten to the news about Bill and Melinda Gates.
And I said I'd get to have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a huge detailed report from Daily Caller News Foundation found that it's all being funded.
By the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
That's the main funding group of all this Black Lives Matter, race riot, kill the cops, white people are inherently evil.
I was going to cover that, but I guess I already did, kind of, didn't I?
You want to hear this, professor?
You want to hear all these so-called authors being paid $12,000 a pop to go brainwash your kids and tell how whites are inherently bad?
So he's talking about this being like a $12,000 pop example.
Professors, he said, you want to hear this professor?
He mentioned the Daily Caller.
So I went and read this article that Alex is basing his narrative on in the Daily Caller.
And I don't know if I see the same thing as he sees here.
Literally, the only connection any of this has to the Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation is that they are listed as one of the clients that has hired the person that this hit piece article is about.
The entire thrust of this article here seems to be that she charges $12,000 for a speaking appearance and that somehow that invalidates her scholarship and all of her work because she's white.
$12,000 for a speaking engagement is not really that high of a rate for a person, particularly a leader in their field, for that to be the rate they charge.
A simple search of talent booking websites will tell you that.
For instance, Ben Shapiro charges between $50,000 and $100,000 for a speech.
Jordan Peterson asks for $100,000 to $200,000, as does Sean Hannity.
Alex's buddy Candace Owens charges between $20,000 and $30,000.
James O 'Keefe is right in the same ballpark as Miss D 'Angelo with a price range of $10,000 to $20,000 per speech.
Bill O 'Reilly charges $100,000 to $200,000.
John Ashcroft requires $50,000 to $100,000 to take a break from running a law firm with Alex's preferred choice for Director of National Intelligence.
Alex's buddy and noted pervert Ted Nugent charges $50,000 to $100,000 for a speech.
I think you get the point.
For people who are not in the fields of either being an in-demand lecturer or booking in-demand lecturers, $12,000 for a booking might sound really high.
But ultimately, it's not.
When you look at the larger picture of the industry, it's kind of on the lower end of an in-demand speaker.
This is a cheap trick that propagandists can use to paint someone who gives lectures about social justice or economic equality as a hypocrite.
And then they get to feel entitled to just ignore the entire message.
It's a pathetic strategy of self-defense.
And honestly, in this situation, it goes a long way towards proving that Robin DiAngelo deserves that speaking rate.
Yeah, because they're manifesting what she's talking about.
Her big thing is the concept of white fragility.
And now you have the Daily Caller founded by noted white nationalist Tucker Carlson crying bloody murder about her charging a reasonable rate for her services, largely because they're afraid of the topic she's lecturing.
on.
unidentified
Literally, this is white fragility on full display.
So there's nothing here that's really involved with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, except that they're listed as one of the people who have paid for her services, paid for her speech.
Because the globalists are the remnants of the robber barons and the royalty and all the corrupt groups that are out there.
They're planning something even bigger to bring in planetary control because all these advanced technologies are coming forward now.
And they want control of those because there's about to be breakaway technologies that have already been discovered where we'll be multi-planetary so fast, we'll be interstellar so fast, we'll be intergalactic, we'll be interdimensional so fast it'll make your head spin.
I love the shifting goalposts of why the globalists are doing what they're doing.
It's changed so much over the course of his career, and I love that now, in the present day, his excuse is, they need to make a one-world government because we're about to go to space, and they want to be in control of Mars, or whatever.
Although, I have seen G Gundam, and in that situation, what happens is every country colonizes different places in space and then creates very racist robots to fight on Earth.
So, this is the point of the episode where Alex gets into the Marianne Williamson video, and he plays it, and he's just sort of like...
Making fun of her, but not interrupting it because he wants it to be presented.
So she's leading these people and apologizing for the horrors of slavery in our country's history.
Alex refuses to engage with the ideas that the lingering effects economically, sociologically, politically that have rippled down from the times of slavery do still impact people today.
He doesn't really want to talk about that.
He wants to talk about how...
He shouldn't feel guilty about slavery.
He didn't do it.
No one did it.
Almost nobody did it.
Now, much like him saying that the Chinese are racist except for his Korean sister, Alex starts off on this clip being like, I refuse to feel guilty about slavery.
It's insane to me that he's trying to argue against him needing to feel guilty about slavery, and immediately where his mind goes is a repressive white supremacist apartheid government that was the remnant of a brutal colonial system that was put in place.
So Alex is a little bit more racist in this clip, and also he points out that some churches are putting out the donation tray, but they're not taking that money and giving it to God.
Because they know America has this Christian, moral, loving, love your brother.
They exploit it.
The left does.
And so now all the Methodist church, all the big churches, our first Methodist church here in Austin, Texas takes up collection plates for Bill and Melinda Gates.
I have family that used to go there.
I've sat there and heard it.
My family finally quit going there.
It's a family winter.
I mean, you talk about satanic.
When we come back, I'm going to show you the Bill and Melinda Gates funding, what they're teaching.
White devils coming and teaching racism.
Because whites rejected racism, they teach it to black people now and brown people.
So Alex and his cohorts love to freely just pick and choose from the New and Old Testaments in order to make their cases for what Christianity should be and what they ascribe to Jesus.
So I feel like I should be able to play that game every now and again, too.
Yeah, have fun.
As long as Alex wants a biblical basis for the economy.
Like, we should maybe go all the way and reintroduce the Law of Jubilee as laid out in Leviticus 25. She shoots fireworks out of her...
The Law of Jubilee lays out that every 50 years, property, even property that's been bought and sold in the intervening years, is to revert back to the original owner.
And that if you bought some land you were living on, you're to return to your family's original property.
It's laid out that if you sell someone land closer to the year of Jubilee, you have to charge less for it, since that person is going to have less time on this land.
Also, if you want to go New Testament and Jesus' actual words, in Matthew 6, 19 through 21, he says, quote, Do not store up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
But store up for yourself treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Or there's that whole passage in Luke 6 where Jesus tells people to lend other people money with no expectation of being repaid.
And to be merciful, quote, just as your father is merciful.
There's a lot of folks who try to make the argument that Jesus would have been on their side and supported their ideology if he were around today, and I'm equally suspicious of all of them.
There's so much in the Bible that you can really pick and choose a lot to make a whole lot of seemingly contradictory arguments.
That being said, Jesus was into free market capitalism is maybe one of the bigger stretches you could make.
I'm not going to play all of what this witch has to say, but when we come back, I can show you hours of just the latest racial attacks on whites being killed, being beaten by hordes, by packs of racist black people.
I'll never forget a moment of standing beside a black man leading a workshop on race.
And a white woman said to him, I don't see color.
He said, well, then how are you going to see racism?
Because I am black.
I do think you know that.
And I have a different experience than you do.
And you're not going to be able to understand that.
And you're not going to be able to support the parts of that experience that are really painful and problematic if you refuse to acknowledge my reality.
So he gathers himself, and he realizes, because he's listened to part of this club, but I'm positive he didn't listen to before the show, based on his reaction.
And they're hyping up and winding the minorities up, who are the majority worldwide, into a fiendish group of zombies, hell-bent on conquering the West, and everyone's going to cheer when the bioweapons are released in the future.
And 2 billion, 3 billion, 4 billion people die.
Race-specific bioweapons.
HIV was only a test.
It's killed hundreds of millions of Africans.
And even though the Africans are being wound up into an army to come over here and slit my throat, you can show the video of the mother and child being thrown crossing the tracks because they were white in Berlin, and the left says it's good, they're white.
But you see, it's a setup.
They send an army to kill you, and then they're going to kill that army.
As far as I can tell, Alex is completely making up huge elements of the story about that train situation.
It's a story about a woman and her child who were pushed in front of a train, as Alex is saying in Berlin.
The child died.
He talks about it a lot on this episode.
It comes up a bunch.
The story is real in as much as it did happen.
It's a horrible tragedy, but all the extra details he's adding aren't supported by any actual reporting on the story.
Also, it wasn't in Berlin.
It was in Frankfurt.
According to articles about the event from The Independent, The Guardian, BBC, as well as some German outlets and even some less reputable sources, the perpetrator was in police custody but refused to speak with authorities and no motive had been established for his attack.
Whatever the reality of this ends up being, it's completely baseless for Alex to report that he was racially motivated, that the man pushed them onto the tracks because they were white.
He has nothing to back that up, no evidence, no source for it, no justification for his claim, other than the fact that the media reported that the man was from Eritrea.
That is all Alex needs to claim concretely, confidently, and absolutely that this was an out-of-control minority killing white people because they were white.
I can't be clearer about this.
It doesn't matter what the end result of the German investigation into this case is.
It may very well end up being that this individual did attack this woman because he hated white people.
That could be.
That could end up being true.
And even if it is, what Alex is doing is completely racist.
He feels like this is a racially motivated attack.
And that's enough for him to report it as if it is.
And then extrapolate that into being proof that all whites are under attack and Africans are being wound up as an army to attack Western civilization, which we know is code for white people.
Someone who wasn't invested in promoting racism and white identity would not do this.
They would rely on actual facts to guide their reporting as opposed to, well, to put it simply, white fragility.
I've never heard Alex ever report on any of the many instances of white people pushing non-white people onto train tracks from the past few years.
There are a number of them.
He could have.
Alex chooses his stories and tailors his narratives with an explicit purpose in mind, and that is to make his white audience afraid of people unlike him, and to make them confident that they're always in the right, even if it takes lying or just making shit up to craft that narrative.
There's no other way for me to put this, really.
Alex Jones' show in the present day is racist trash that is trending towards increasingly violent imagery and incitement.
He has nowhere left to go but to get more extreme, and I do not think that bodes well for the future.
It is weird to watch him try and create a whataboutism in real time.
What he's doing here is, well, like we discussed at the very beginning, as far as giving people talking points, if somebody goes to one of his listeners and says, What about all of the white supremacist terrorism that you're not acknowledging and ignoring?
They'll be like, well, what about the Eritrean man pushed a woman into a train?
It's a strategy to never have to deal with the issues.
Just to distract and be like, bop, boop, ba-doop, da, boop.
I'm scatting a lot.
Yeah, I mean, this show sucks.
It really, really does suck.
And it's scary, the potential that it has, in terms of people's reaction to it.
Because you have Alex saying things in that last clip, like, they're winding up the Africans to be an army against the West, which, again, we know he's talking about white people.
Saying that Africans are being an army that are going to come slit his throat, his personal throat.
that you can talk like that without having a reasonable expectation that some of your audience is not going to deal with that subtly.
Right.
unidentified
Your audience might think that, hey, I should view all people of expertise It's enforcing and encouraging racism to a violent degree, or a potentially violent degree.
So, until we come back for another episode, I should tell you that Robin DiAngelo, the professor who charges $12,000 for a lecture, she has never killed anybody.
But one guy who technically probably has is Alex Jones.