Today, Dan and Jordan retreat to the past to continue their investigation into Alex Jones' path toward Sandy Hook denial. In this installment, something seems to be up, as the gents find Alex beginning to accuse a lot of people of being actors. Alex also warns his audience that the Globalists are trying to get them eaten by coyotes.
I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys.
Knowledge fight.
unidentified
and endure knowledge fight need money stop it andy and kansas andy and kansas it's time to pray andy and kansas you're on the air thanks for holding me I love you.
And if you are listening and you like what we do and you want to support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
So the banks in Cyprus are going through some trouble.
And I was thinking about it, and I'm like, well, I'm not the best at international finance and trying to explain to people it would take a whole lot of time, and then it would be like 40 minutes of this podcast, me explaining how much of the debt was bad Greek.
Now Kim Jong-un, in just a year in power, has a craven look in his face, completely insane, running around saying, nuke everyone, I'm all-powerful, because he's surrounded by a bunch of people drunk on the blood of their fellow humans.
And so I have said that I'm totally anti-war when it's offensive.
But when you are openly running around threatening to attack people, I mean, he's up there doing North Korean artillery drills?
Take him out.
You know, saying, I'm about to attack you and aiming weapons?
Boom, that's it.
I mean, you come to my house, have a gun in your hand, say, I'm about to shoot you?
I'm not going to say anything to you.
I'm going to get a gun as quickly as I can and shoot you.
I think that this is interesting only in as much as Alex is on a pretty militant path as it relates to North Korea.
And that's interesting.
And then the second piece of it is just a tacit understanding that even though free speech is protected in the United States, there are limitations to it.
No, if at any point in time you have no higher order thinking, which is what he's describing, if you are simply overtaken by testosterone and adrenaline, then you're a danger to society.
So this talk of violence ends up sort of Alex bragging about his own violent tendencies, and then it spins out into him ranting about demons and Dianne Feinstein and the space-time continuum.
And then he ends up talking about this other thing that has been developing, and that is that there are people, particularly Michael Moore, has been very public about this, that want the pictures from Sandy Hook to be released because there are tons of people who are saying it's fake.
And the motivation behind the desire to release the pictures, the crime scene photos, is to cut that off.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The accusations of it being fake.
Alex has a slightly different take on why they want to do that.
It is just the things I identify with are actually the victims of this.
It is very much a personalization in the wrong way.
So the situation that unfolded in Rwanda in the early 90s is an intensely complicated one.
There's no one factor that led to the genocide, and there's not one answer of what we as a global community could have done to stop it.
Answering either of these questions involves a lot of possibilities, a lot of missed opportunities to de-escalate the situation, to recognize the warning signs, and ultimately when you look back you see pretty much nothing but tragedy.
I know that Alex's solution to everything, literally, is just everyone should have a gun, but honestly, if you look seriously at the dynamics that were in play in Rwanda, that's just a childish solution to suggest.
Even if every Tutsi had a gun, it probably wouldn't have been able to stop the horrors that transpired.
One of the most indelible images of the Rwandan genocide is that of a machete.
The Hutu militia, the Interhamwe, used machetes as their primary weapon because guns were too expensive for what they had planned.
Machetes were reusable, whereas bullets were not.
There's no reason to assume that the victims of their violence were any more able to afford a gun, whether or not they had access to one.
An important consideration is that as the campaign of genocide began, Tutsi weren't allowed to own anything.
It becomes kind of a dishonest framing to say that they weren't allowed to own guns, since technically they also weren't allowed to own a chair.
But I wanted to get to the bottom of this.
I wanted to understand where the idea that Rwandan Tutsis had their guns confiscated before they were massacred.
I wanted to sort this out, because in all the materials I've ever read about the Rwandan genocide, that's not a detail that comes up.
And yet it comes up very frequently from these gun weirdos.
And they are implying that it happened before things broke out.
Yeah.
unidentified
So that would imply that all of the confiscation of property that happened during the massacres and the campaign of genocide...
I can only find two sources that all of the claims online trace back to on all of these strange, poorly constructed blogs.
The first is references made to the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control, and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa.
This absolutely was a resolution that sought to limit civilian ownership of guns, but only what each participating country decided was illegal civilian ownership of guns.
I have to suspect that this is what Alex is referring to since he's talking about the UN in that clip, which was definitely involved in the Nairobi Protocol.
The Nairobi Protocol was largely targeted at the illicit trade of weapons internationally, and the language is pretty clear about that.
It does contain language about confiscating illegal weapons and registering authorized firearms, so I can understand why gun weirdos would be pretty upset about that.
The problem, though, is that when they try and link this with the genocide in Rwanda, that is a big problem, since the Nairobi Protocol was signed in April 2004, which is after.
The second piece of evidence I can find is a mini-documentary called Innocence Betrayed, which makes the argument basically that all genocides have been preceded by gun control measures, effectively saying that if you're for gun control, you knowingly or unknowingly are going to cause a genocide.
In the documentary, there's a section about Rwanda, wherein the narrator says, quote, laws and poverty have kept the victims from getting weapons to defend themselves.
As they're saying this, an image flashes on the screen saying, quote, all offensive and concealable arms are prohibited, with the words are prohibited outside the quotation marks.
So those words are flashed up over an image that seems to be presenting itself as a legal document, but the heading says Gazeti Yaleta, which is the name of a major newspaper in Rwanda, the official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda.
However, the name of it is actually Igazeta Yaleta, which makes me a little bit suspicious of the graphic.
Every time we talk about these documentaries, there are always those little things where it's like, if you had a good point, you would have spent God, you would have spent enough time to present it like you weren't a piece of shit.
You can get away with this Project Veritas.
You can get away with this Alex Jones shitty documentary because people are going to believe it and they don't know any better.
So superimposed over this image of the supposed legislation are just the words Article 15, which is meant to suggest, I believe, that this quote is from Article 15, presumably from the Rwandan Constitution.
Article 15 of Rwanda's Constitution has nothing to do with guns.
It's about people having equality under the eyes of the law.
So it can't be referencing that.
But then again, the current Constitution of Rwanda was put in place in 2003.
So maybe Article 15 of the previous Constitution was about guns.
Nope.
Their 1991 constitution did include an Article 15, and it says, quote, Asylum rights shall be recognized within the conditions defined by law.
Extradition shall be authorized only within the limits prescribed by law.
There's no version of Article 15 that exists in Rwandan law that has anything to do with the ban on, quote, offensive and concealable arms.
So if you're keeping score, we have a misspelled heading of a Rwandan newspaper being used as an image over which a seemingly fake quote about Rwandan gun laws is being presented to argue that restrictive gun laws preceded the outbreak of the genocide with a cryptic reference to an Article 15 which doesn't seem to exist.
From everything I can tell, this is a complete fabrication.
And to my eyes, it seems like a disgusting appropriation of one of the most horrific chapters of modern history, bent to serve as a prop for this gun agenda.
The oldest snapshot of Infowars on the Wayback Machine from May 1999 has a link to their website.
Alex and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership go way back.
The organization was started by a big old gun weirdo named Aaron Zellman and has been exercising absolute extremism on behalf of gun ownership since 1989.
Interestingly, with very little time on Google, I found both Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent associating themselves with Zellman and his group as a rebuttal to accusations that they're anti-Semites.
For Pratt, it was when he was fired from the 1996 Pat Buchanan campaign after it was revealed that he had ties to neo-Nazis and was at the Rocky Mountain Rendezvous.
For Ted Nugent, it was after he got in trouble for posting an image on Facebook asking, quote, So who's really behind gun control?
With pictures of Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and ten other supposed gun grabbers, all with Israeli flags on their faces.
He legitimately might as well have been reposting stuff from Stormfront.
So, while I definitely believe there are Jewish people who are opposed to gun control measures, I absolutely do, and I don't want to demean them or minimize that as an existing group, I'm positive that a large portion of...
Membership within even Jews for the preservation of firearms?
I believe that a vast number of people who are in that group are probably concerned citizens, Jewish or otherwise, who just have feelings about gun issues.
It seems like people like Ted and Larry have a relationship with them that feels too similar to someone saying, I can't be racist because I have a black friend.
The organization itself seems to serve as a crutch to some of these people who have connections with Nazis in order to minimize and distract from Sure,
So, the reason that I find that troubling is that I think that there's still a difference between saying that it was staged and saying that the globalists did it.
And that we haven't really talked about it so much.
Chances are, if he's been following along with the online debate, outside of his show, the online fervor turned to it was entirely fake pretty quickly.
So that he's coming back to it now and saying it was staged most likely means he's relying on more current infospheres.
So, our last clip here from the 15th, Alex has an interview with a guy who got fired from the 1996 Pat Buchanan campaign because it came out that he had links to neo-Nazis.
So I think what he thinks is like this really genius point is that like, ah, there are shades of, there are degrees of the Second Amendment, Dianne Feinstein's saying.
But does that mean there's degrees of the First Amendment?
In the first clip of this episode, Alex said, yes, there are.
There absolutely are.
And there are tons of books that have been banned in U.S. history.
So there seems to be an element to this case that Alex Jones does...
It seems like he's intentionally leaving it out very conspicuously.
In this episode, he just keeps going on and on about this guy who was arrested because he released a bunch of balloons and a romantic gesture for his girlfriend, which is a crime in Florida because of environmental protection laws.
Apparently, it turns out, you can't release more than 10 balloons in a 24-hour period, which is admittedly a very strange limit.
The important variable that Alex is leaving out of this coverage, intentionally, I believe, is that Brassfield is a black man.
Alex is intentionally leaving this out of the story because he wants the angle to be that environmental protection laws are just a Trojan horse to bring into the police state.
The last thing he wants is for his audience to consider for a second that maybe what's actually going on here is that this is maybe an instance of harsh over-policing of minorities, which is probably a more realistic way to look at the story based on the reporting I saw on it.
Corporations were cutting costs wherever and whenever they could to the detriment and pain of everybody around them, and they'd already been warned not to do it.
Absolutely.
They should have been sued way before this.
And it's just an infuriating thing, because every time you look at this, these are turned into these shorthand, like, oh, women don't know that coffee's supposed to be hot.
And this caller has a really good question for him about that situation.
unidentified
What I haven't heard you report on and am very interested in, though, are the number of internal affairs complaints that you and your street team have filed against the various officers in these various departments.
It is important to file these, even if you don't think you'll get a satisfactory outcome, because at the very least, you're getting these reports on record, just like if you're tracking crime.
No, no, you're right, and I always say we should be tougher with people.
I myself have a soft heart and don't even want to get them in trouble, because I know the dirtbags, according to them, at South by Southwest ordered it.
So, this is so damn indicative of what's wrong with Alex's approach toward the supposed tyranny he imagines he's fighting against.
He complains that he was a victim of Gestapo jackboot tactics while he was out just trying to give out free magazines during South by Southwest.
The story has now become embellished to involve not only the actual police trying to intimidate him, but also hired goons threatening his street team, which is a pretty seriously fucked up thing to happen, if it were true at all.
Alex's inaction proves to me that this story is most likely fiction.
Because it clearly demonstrates that what he says is the problem, tyrannical police, is not something he's at all interested in solving.
He wants attention out of this.
He wants to create the appearance that he's having his rights trampled on.
He wants the opportunity to turn this into a sales pitch.
But what he doesn't want is to use this as an opening to help bring about real change in the system he makes money by railing against.
I mean, if your only reason to exist as a business is to scream about out-of-control government and police oppression, why would you ever try to decrease the level of out-of-control government and police oppression?
Why would you ever go through the painful and difficult process of advocating for real change and pursuing it through the proper channels when just creating a fictional version of your own struggle and yelling about them on the radio is a much more profitable strategy?
Alex's excuse that he has too good of a heart to file internal complaints is such a cowardly cop-out.
If he saw a dollar sign in it, he'd be filing those reports.
And honestly, him filing internal reports really only works against his interests.
If he's making all this stuff up, which he almost certainly is, then he could get in trouble for filing false complaints against people.
Conversely, if he's not making it up, genuine departmental reform is completely counter to his agenda.
If the police start operating in ways he's all in favor of, he'll have nothing to yell about.
To me, I think that's so damning.
When a guy calls in and is like, I'd like to ask about, did you file internal reports?
And I was like, well, I don't want to get people in trouble.
Why would you not want to get Gestapo jackboot thugs in trouble?
However, there was language in the early House versions of the bill that really got dum-dums on the right all worked up, particularly ones with preoccupations about the end times and the hashtag mark of the beast.
The provisions of the early draft were related to creating a database for the Department of Health and Human Services of people who had things like pacemakers and replacement body parts.
Their reasoning was that if there was a centralized database for these sorts of things, they could more easily study the efficacy of implantable devices and probably more importantly, they could inform consumers way more quickly about any future recalls of medical products of this sort, which is really important.
The FDA, for instance, which is housed under the DHHS, keeps a registry of people who have implantable medical devices because without that, they'd be unable to appropriately respond to consumer complaints.
While there's obviously benefits to expanding the data available to provide people with better care...
This complaint that Alex is making isn't a real thing at all.
It got taken out of the bill.
Alex is just yelling at shadows and misleading his caller.
His caller's paranoid about something, and Alex is like, yeah, yeah.
No, I mean, the kernel of the argument is built on, like, okay, so they make it okay for you to keep a registry of people who have implantable devices in them.
Because the CFR likes to brag, and they've said in three different reports, Dallas, Cleveland, Chicago, and Denver.
They've also said Denver.
And they just keep saying that, and then over the weekend they had a radiation alert on the subway trains in Illinois and freaked out, had another one in another place, and helicopters flying around.
And I've seen it in movies and film, and they just always tell you what they're going to do before they do it.
So Alex's prediction, this is not the first time that he's said, first of all, a nuke in Chicago.
He's being very clear that this is the prediction he's making without saying they're going to nuke Chicago specifically because he knows that's not going to happen, and it's a shit prediction.
And all of his reasoning is real shoddy.
So when the Boston bombing does happen, he's going to take credit for predicting it.
But if you look at the actual predictions, first of all, Cleveland, Chicago...
So, I mean, you got just, like, really specific predicting going on.
It's getting very specific.
It's gradually becoming more refined.
They're going to nuke Chicago.
And I guess Alex's way around this, once the Boston bombing does happen, is be like, well, they heard me say that they were going to nuke Chicago, so they changed their plans.
He is the spirit of Beelzebub, Bethelmet, Leviathan, the devil.
He is the devil.
Barack Obama is the devil.
And any of you that turn yourselves over willingly to deception and willingly to lies and willingly to hurt the innocent, you are of the devil and you are Antichrist.
I mean, based on the level of information that traces back to these groups, like the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership or Gun Owners for America, there's so much stuff that he's clearly getting second, third hand from them.
It's just fun for me whenever all of a sudden he uses something like that, and he uses it correctly, where you're like, somebody else had to have written that for you.
That guy looks exactly like an actor, and the way he does it and everything he does, when I played that clip just now, I was looking at it thinking the same thing.
The point was is that I've seen that guy somewhere.
That guy is an actor I've seen on TV and movies.
And I didn't want to say anything because I wanted to try to go find it with you because Google's got facial recognition picture searches that work pretty good on faces.
And I was going to tell my guys quietly and actually break it once it happened.
I believe that guy's an actor.
In fact, I believe that guy or someone who looks just like him is a Cass Sunstein cognitive infiltrator that actually attacks me online that I've seen.
Just, I'm sorry, just amazing what you just hit me with.
I think it's an interesting thought that he arrived on because of this caller's suspicion, and now he's adding a lot of little bushes to increase the background of this picture.
And you know what, though?
It's really interesting to me.
And that's why I think it's important to point out that the Cyprus situation is happening, though I don't feel it's worthwhile to deconstruct how his financial lies are always the same and it's all just panic and you should buy gold.
I think it's important because it does live in the background of what's making him suspicious about this Chase situation.
And those suspicions about this Chase glitch make him suspicious of the news report about it.
I don't know if that's entirely what's motivating him to say that this guy in the news story about the chase glitch is an actor, but it's a piece of it.
And it could definitely be part of the feedback loop.
If he's watching all of these, or if he's not necessarily watching, but all of these patriot bullshit is coming about Sandy Hook being staged and fake.
Staged and fake is in his mind all the time now, and it's constantly.
So if he gets something like this, this is a perfect opportunity for his brain to go like, It's fake!
What's the cab driver show where he goes out and asks him questions?
Cash cab?
And I don't watch a lot of TV, but I was on vacation a few weeks ago, and so I was looking for something the kids could watch, and I said, okay, this looks good, and I immediately could tell it was actors.
I immediately could tell it was actors, and I went, sure enough, everybody else could tell that, and they have actors show up to an open screening.
Now, they don't tell them what it's going to be, and so it is real questions.
It is real questions.
So it is a real game, but the pool is from actors to make sure they can only shoot once and get well-spoken people.
Well, but when Alex is trying to use a produced TV show, that's something that, if he's using that as an example of every interview in a local news could be fake, it's a...
I know with the Batman deal, a bunch of the people were actors.
See, the media's like, why are there theories that Sandy Hook is actors?
Well, because Don Salazar himself found instances of movie actors being victims and then talking about how they survived, who just so happened to be in the Aurora shooting, supposedly.
And it was at least two moderate TV-slash-movie actors.
So I've never, up to this point, heard Alex say that there were crisis actors used in the Aurora shooting.
He said that James Holmes was a mind-control killer and all that shit.
We've gone over in detail already, but I have not heard him make this accusation that some of the victims of the shooting were actors.
This is a huge departure in his rhetoric.
I'm trying to trace down the particular people he's talking about, but I can't really find any good resources about what's going on here.
And even if I could, I feel like naming the people he's accusing of being actors does more harm than good at this point, even if it's in service of deconstructing his lies.
And if that's what he's talking about, then that's weak.
Yeah.
But I think if I had to guess, based on the distinguishing characteristics Alex provides, I think I kind of know who he's talking about.
There's one African-American guy who posted a video on YouTube describing his experience being in the theater when the shooting happened, and this guy was immediately attacked by conspiracy theorists as being an actor.
I assume that this is one of the people that Alex is talking about, since he fits Alex's description perfectly.
There's no evidence whatsoever outside of completely unfounded accusations on conspiracy message boards that he was an actor, though.
The second person, I suspect, is a Hispanic man who was interviewed on Good Morning America after the shooting.
He'd survived the shooting and described his experiences, but was gesticulating a lot while being interviewed, which led conspiracy sleuths online to suggest he was an actor.
I really don't think that people understand how adrenaline can really fuck with you in high-pressure situations.
Like, if anybody thinks that talking with your hands a lot is a strange behavior for someone who's being interviewed on national television for the first time, I really think that they've never tried public speaking.
I would predict that if they had to get up in front of a room of like 100 people and say something substantial or possibly emotionally resonant, they would find their delivery might not be totally natural or casual either.
That second guy doesn't as closely fit Alex's description, but he's another person who survived the Aurora shooting who was accused of being an actor.
I've gone through a bit of this stuff, digging around, and I've found literally nothing that I find to be compelling evidence.
Nothing rises above the level of insinuation, and yet here we have Alex Jones reporting on his show that there were crisis actors at the Aurora shooting.
I think that this highlights an under-recognized aspect of Alex's propaganda.
He needs to use crutches.
He just can't say that the victims of Sandy Hook were actors, because as we've heard him say himself, that would be an insanely disrespectful thing to say about grieving parents.
He knows that the accusations aren't based in reality, and to peddle in that level of bullshit demonstrates an inhuman level of cruelty.
In order to justify that leap, he needs there to be another event where it's established that crisis actors were used in a shooting, and thus it's sensible to assume that they might have in Sandy Hook as well.
We saw him do this from the beginning with Sandy Hook, but surrounding the question of whether or not it was a false flag.
He justified arguing that the globalists probably did Sandy Hook by saying that they definitely did Aurora.
We saw him constantly use that as his justification.
It's like, well, they did Aurora.
We've got to ask the question in this case.
They did that one, so we're justified to assume that it's likely they did this one, too.
He established and normalized that rhetoric, and now it's perfectly acceptable for him to apply that same leap to crisis actors.
But I think the thing that's interesting is that he hasn't established in the past that actors were used in Aurora.
That's new.
He's trying to rewrite the narrative about Aurora to include that element in order to justify saying that there were actors in the Sandy Hook shooting, which I feel he's very close to doing.
And we can see, okay, there's a change happening here.
But it doesn't necessarily allow us, unless he says on his show what he's doing off hours, we can't really know what is caused this possibly behind the scenes.
Who he might be talking to.
And I think that that's a limitation that it is appropriate for us to own up to.
That said, in the present day, Alex, when he's talking about the crisis actor stuff, as it relates to Sandy Hook, he will say that people like James Tracy and Wolfgang Halbig had told him a bunch of stuff that he deemed credible.
James Tracy was on the show once, and Paul Joseph Watson talked to him.
Alex has not talked to him on the show.
Wolfgang Halbig has not shown up at all.
Steve Pchenik even hasn't shown up on Alex's show at all.
There don't appear to be any influences outside of Alex's own mind on his show that are leading him down this road.
It seems entirely organic if you are listening to his show.
But if he's referencing those guys as being people who gave him some bad information, it's entirely possible we're considering them giving it to him firsthand as opposed to him just watching something they were on.
The other possibility is that there are exchanges going on through email.
Sure.
And that's one of the things that I think is really important about the Sandy Hook lawsuits that are happening, is some of that can come to light through discovery that the parents and the people suing Alex have requested.
I think that a lot of that information is best served being investigated in that context.
And when that information is available, I am going to...
It almost seems like it winds up being something so simple as them just doing a quick fine search of just like, hey, how do you want to lie about Sandy Hook?
I don't know if, like, the day of the Aurora shooting, Alex said there were actors, but I've listened to months of his show, and it is not something he has ever applied in that conspiracy.
Yeah, he's a guy who I should tell you is an anarchist and believes that the best way to deteriorate the power of the state is to make it so everybody can have guns.
He even acknowledges how incredibly fucked up this would be because you'd have completely undetectable guns.
Wilson has been working with 3D printing, and he's been saying that he's been able to print a functional gun, which he was doing specifically to demonstrate that gun laws are pointless.
As soon as there are undetectable guns pretty much everywhere, there would be no point in the state trying to control their flow.
And thus, Alex's fantasy nightmare of everyone walking around armed to the teeth could come into reality.
This is the fantasy that they're putting forth.
Of course.
So, like I mentioned, Cody is explicitly an anarchist.
He says as much in the interview, and he's against the state completely, which Alex should not be on board with.
Without the state, some of the things he holds most dear, everything he loves about the quote-unquote West, completely disappear.
But Cody's super into guns, and maybe the solution to gun regulation, so Alex just skips over that part.
It's probably worth mentioning that in 2017, Cody Wilson would go on to launch the Patreon alternative, Hatryon, which was specifically designed to be a place where white supremacists who'd been kicked off Patreon could raise money.
Because of his platform, Richard Spencer was able to pull in a monthly income, and Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer was able to raise his income by about $8,000 a month.
Number thirteen is Christopher Cantwell, the crying Nazi from the Unite the Right rally.
Number fourteen is Don Black, the founder of Stormfront.
Looking through the list, I really don't know if you can find anyone who isn't a racist, fascist propagandist.
And a lot of them are people who've been very closely tied to white supremacist violence in the past few years.
And make no mistake about this.
Initially, Patreon was a service that creators could only set up accounts for by invitation.
Cody Wilson specifically chose these people.
Patreon sold itself as the censorship-free version of Patreon, but you can easily see what that means in practice.
In concept, you're imagining that it'll be a place where the free exchange of ideas can take place and everybody can be themselves without the pressure of having to walk on eggshells to avoid the wrath of SJWs.
In reality, you just end up with a place where white supremacists can fund their operations, and Cody Wilson gets to take his cut off the top.
Naturally, because this is just literally a conduit for people to fund hate speech, Visa terminated their involvement with the site as a payment processor, and there weren't many other options left for them to try, because other places like Stripe and PayPal had already kicked all these other places off, so the site basically just fell apart at that point.
Yeah, it's not a bad grift if you're Wilson, or if you're just creating, you know, you see all these right-wing hate guys get kicked off Patreon, and you're like, well, Patreon has a good model of taking a little off the top.
It's not that hard for me to code a website, so of course I'll make one.
Also, in December 2018, Cody Wilson was indicted by the state of Texas for, quote, sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, and indecency with a child by exposure.
He had met a 16-year-old girl on a sugar daddy website and paid her $500 to have sex with her, which is very illegal.
When he found out the police were looking into him, he allegedly fled to Taiwan, but was ultimately returned back to the United States.
His defense argued that the child had lied about her age, but an Austin police commander said, quote, Detectives have interviewed and spoken with this victim, and in their opinion, if someone mistakes her age, it would be because they think she's younger, not older, than the 16-year-old that she is.
Even if she had misled Cody about her age, Texas law requires the adult to confirm that someone is above the age of consent and puts no legal burden on a child victim, which I think is probably the best way for the system to operate, seeing as the alternative would be fucking nuts.
But I know that people that think like him, people with that founders fund mentality and the idea that libertarian corporations are the future, are looking at companies like Coinbase and that they want to fund them.
It's funny to hear Alex so worried about Peter Thiel back in 2013.
He's suspicious about Bitcoin as a free and open marketplace.
And the only real specific he gives in his interview is that he believes Peter Thiel is involved.
And good for him!
Peter Thiel's involvement in something is a bit of a red flag.
In October 2016, the New York Times reported that Teal donated $1.25 million to Trump's presidential campaign and, not surprisingly, was an important advisor for Trump during the transition after the election.
By that point and continuing to the present, Alex has been a strong Teal advocate, which is also not surprising.
Having some, at least absolutely some, indications of a Russo-positive worldview.
Taking Russia's line on certain geopolitical issues that there might be some question about whose angle on it is correct.
Now, one of the things that I find very interesting is that in 2015, one of the features of Alex's Positive Russia angle was that Putin kicked out the oligarchs.
See, they never really got privatization in Russia.
They took the Duma-controlled Communist Party system, controlled by a few hundred guys, and they all left the Duma and put their puppets in, like Putin, and went, you know, and they're total drugged out of his mind, Yeltsin, who couldn't even talk.
They put him up there.
Well, they all then went and took over the nickel, the iron, the steel production, the oil, the natural gas.
It's all just big mafia combines, and it's truly, truly, truly disgusting.
Alex is creating this conspiracy surrounding this chase glitch, and it's in service of reinforcing, I guess...
What probably is more primary is the, or at least what will probably become more primary, is the idea that this guy in the TV interview was an actor who was there to dissuade people from thinking it was any kind of nefarious thing.
That is an interesting, incredibly impossible-to-hide ever conspiracy, though, that idea that some bank like Chase would, in a second...
In a flash second, take all this money from all these accounts, invest it instantly, see the stock rise by one penny, and then take it all out after selling all those shares and putting all of that money back into your account.
So they would make money and you wouldn't even notice because it all happens in a microsecond.
That's a fun conspiracy theory that could be instantly and easily found out and would be the most illegal possible thing that could ever fucking happen.
So Alex on this episode has an interview with Rosa Corey.
If you don't recall, she is the lady who is super into Agenda 21 and goes and disrupts local meetings that people are having and accuses any kind of...
Environmentalism, any kind of civic planning, building parks as being part of Strong Cities Initiative and Agenda 21. Also known for being great at parties.
Their interview is just exactly the same as the last time we talked about her.
It's not worth getting into again, except for this that she says that Alex doesn't bat an eyelash at.
We saw him practicing on real people up at the G20 when Rob Doe got arrested.
The famous footage of guys in military uniforms with no patches, jumping out of police sedans, unmarked, and just snatching innocent press and dragging them in.
And then we later learned, we said, oh, that's U.S. National Guard.
And we got a call from G20, global security.
With that number from the security forum, because our articles got picked up everywhere and said, that is national security authorized private security.
And we just want you to know that we have been instructed to tell you that was not the National Guard.
And then they hung up on Rob Jacobson.
They called his number.
I call them back and they go, you've been giving your answer?
And that is it.
And hung up.
And it was the field security number.
So I called other numbers and they wouldn't talk to us after that.
They just called up to say, that is our private security.
And it turned out those weren't real people.
They were arresting thousands of real people for no reason.
They were randomly snatching and grabbing and throwing people into sedans and unmarked vans as a PSYOP to see what the media would do.
They would go to the media area, the authorized media throng, and grab someone.
And I called it.
I said, that guy is laughing after he's thrown in the back of the police car and doesn't look concerned, that reporter.
Calling these people and then they're like, you got your answer.
And then Alex doesn't ever do investigative work.
So the idea that he would track down other phone numbers is laughable.
But like I said, and I'm trying to be pretty clear about this.
I'm seeing a trend developing of Alex incorporating crisis actors into his narratives in ways that he has not up till this point.
I've been listening to every single minute of his show from the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, and I can say with no hesitation that this is not normal.
We've already seen Alex add actors to the conspiracy about the Aurora shooting.
And now people arrested at the 2009 G20 meeting in Pittsburgh where actors engaged in a psyop run by the state, presumably at the behest of globalists, so they could gauge how the media would respond to the thing.
Let's leave aside for a moment how stupid this is, if you believe, as Alex does, that the globalists already control the media.
What's more important is how Alex is missing out on a real instance of state oppression in service of using it to create a different conspiracy.
On a very basic level, it's in Alex's best interest to delegitimize the G20 protests.
He wants to yell about the G20, but the people who are actually protesting them are largely anti-capitalists.
The people who are willing to put their bodies on the line are not people who think three people voted in the Federal Reserve into existence.
They're people who want to dismantle the power of capital.
That's a threat to the power structure, but it's also a threat to Alex.
So of course he would have propaganda narratives in order to delegitimize instances of the police arresting these people.
That said, even though it makes sense for him to undercut the anti-capitalist protests, I've never heard him argue that the people arrested at the 2009 G20 meeting were actors.
And the problem is that they absolutely were not.
The specific arrest Alex is talking about was the subject of a video that went 2009 viral.
It was a video of a car pulling up on protesters, men in camo coming out and grabbing a guy and tossing them into their car.
Immediately the internet went wild with theories that the arrest was fake because the camo outfits the men were wearing weren't right.
They were like a different form of camo than the National Guard was wearing.
I can count on one hand the number of times I believe they may have sent someone an email to check on a story.
What Alex is probably referring to is the boilerplate response that the G20 Joint Information Center sent to journalists inquiring about the arrest, which I found published verbatim on both Mediaite and Raw Story.
The individuals involved in the 9-2409 arrest, which has appeared online, are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team.
It's not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflage and fatigues.
The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.
This is pretty close to what Alex is saying the Army told him, so I'm going to assume he probably just read this response and decided to pretend he reached out to them himself, knowing that that's the response he would get if he did reach out so it's safe.
These weren't military members, despite their camo.
And they alleged that they had observed the individual they arrested vandalizing a business and decided to intervene the way they did due to the, quote, hostile nature of the crowd.
I think that's all kind of bullshit, and the arrest absolutely...
I would describe as overkill in the methods that they're using.
But Alex lying about it doesn't help the actual problem get solved.
The larger issue here for our purposes, though, is that this was a real arrest, and Alex has zero evidence to support his claim that it was an actor who was arrested as part of a PSYOP.
That's a completely unfounded belief he's decided to present as truth, and I believe it's part of a growing pattern.
More and more things are being called fake and alleged to be involving actors on his show.
This is the third example in a week's worth of Alex's program, and I don't think it means nothing.
It's important to note, too, like I mentioned earlier, that Alex has not had Wolfgang Halbig on his show up to this point.
He's had James Tracy on, but Alex didn't even talk to him.
If this is, in fact, where we jump off into the Sandy Hook actor's narrative, Alex can't really make a compelling argument.
He tries to, that he heard both sides.
He can't blame James Tracy or Wolfgang Halbig.
He's doing this himself.
If there's something behind the scenes, That convinced him of that, and it's Wolfgang Halbig's fault?
Man, I'm going back and forth now, because originally I was thinking that it was some sort of outside influence of some kind, but then, you know, now to put this in there for no reason, really.
Like, there's no point in throwing this there other than you giving him possible credit for setting the groundwork for being able to call...
Sandy Hook, a completely staged event with crisis actors.
But it also sounds like that call whenever he was just having that fun, free associative, all of a sudden, yeah, these guys are actors too.
I'm going to throw that in there.
Now it's kind of sounding like he's just excited to call everything fake.
He just likes having people think that he's so smart he figured out that this is fake and all this shit is fake.
And that this is a pretty lucrative, fertile space for conspiracy to grow in.
So I think that it's a possibility.
I'm not saying it is the case, but it is a possibility.
That what they've seen is that there is market viability in calling these things fake, and Alex is allowing himself to dip into that pool.
That's possible.
Another possibility is Alex is aware that he is working towards saying Sandy Hook is fake, and that it was all actors.
Because we do know that that is where he ends up.
And if he knows that that's the conclusion you're getting to, it makes sense to build up to that.
Have the groundwork laid.
And the way that he's incorporating it into these other things, the way that it's pretty consistently coming up, accusations of things involving actors, it doesn't seem organic to me.
With the available information that I have, I can't tell you exactly how it plays out yet, and I also may never be able to tell you the exact why of it.
But I don't know, outside of Alex confessing, or this lawsuit revealing emails that showed machinations behind the scenes, I'm not sure that I would ever be able to give you the why.
And that's deeply frustrating to me.
But I can tell you that this does not appear to me.
From my time studying Alex Jones to be a coincidence.
Some insightful person who used to work at Infowars, if freed from their non-disclosure agreement, possibly could explain the dynamics that were going on at the time.
The journal Human-Wildlife Interactions released a study in 2017 of the phenomenon of humans being attacked by coyotes, compiling all available data between the years of 1970 and 2015.
Between 1977 and 2015, there were 367 instances of humans being attacked by coyotes.
And when you eliminate rabies as a variable, because any rabid animal is going to attack people, the big takeaways of the study seem to be the following.
One, coyotes generally attack when they're cornered.
With the elimination of wild lands where they can roam free, they're being introduced into environments that are foreign to them, and that's causing some disruption.
They have the behavioral plasticity to live in urban environments, but it causes some confusion.
Two, the vast majority of attacks occurred in California due to natural coyote population distributions.
The attacks also seemed to follow a pattern where they increased around the times when coyotes would be either pregnant or nursing their pups, and thus they'd be in a position of food stress.
This isn't to say that they were attacking humans to eat them, but that over time they've lost their fear of humans.
They've also begun to associate humans with food.
Environments that humans live in are resource-rich environments for coyotes.
Think of, like, campsites at national parks.
And when you start to think about that, it's easy to see how the very basic association could be made between the presence of humans and the availability of food.
It's theorized that this association has been made by the coyote populations who have come to exist in more urban areas, and that many of the attacks we've seen have been out of food panic.
They believe that attacking humans will open up food resources.
The phenomenon of wild animals becoming habituated to living around humans has been pretty extensively studied, and generally when things like rabies aren't in play, once they are habituated and don't see humans as a threat, they mostly don't attack people without a reason, like being cornered or if there's a drop-off in available food, often as precipitated by a decreasing in the population of a species that's their prey.
It's a byproduct of the interconnectedness of nature, something that we are a part of, as much as Alex might want to pretend otherwise.
Also, only two of the 367 coyote interactions studied in this report led to deaths.
One was back in 1981, and the victim was a three-year-old child, which is incredibly tragic.
But I can guarantee that the child did not watch a ton of horror movies and then decide running away from the coyote would be fun.
It was a 19-year-old folk singer who was killed by coyotes in Nova Scotia, so that wasn't even in the United States.
Again, this is a real tragic situation, and I'm not minimizing it at all, but experts who have discussed that situation theorize that the most likely situation is that she was hiking alone and probably encountered a group of coyotes who were hunting as a pack, and that they were likely protecting a deer they'd killed.
Whatever the specific details, her situation doesn't mirror Alex's bullshit either, and the coyotes didn't eat her.
People came to her aid and scared off the coyotes, called for help, and then she died from her injuries at the hospital.
I know this might seem like a minor weird thing to focus on, but I think it's a really good example of how authoritatively Alex speaks about topics he knows nothing about.
This is complete bullshit, and yet he's delivering this bit of information as if he'd studied the topic in depth.
It's important to highlight these examples sometimes because they illustrate what a con man he is and show how little self-reflection he's capable of.
He just rambles and rants about notions and things he's making up that feel right to him, and then he presents them as if they're well-researched facts.
When you recognize that he does this about coyotes eating people regularly because the globalists have trained them not to fight back, it opens the door to recognizing that he does this about everything.
He's never read a study on coyote attacks, just like he's never read anything.
This is all bullshit.
Everything is bullshit.
And coyote murder eating people is such a good doorway into understanding that.
And just so people don't think that I'm just taking a little clip of this and being like, he's actually saying that coyotes are killing people, here's some more of it.
Leaving the wolves aside, what we have here when you really get down to it is Alex trying to make his audience scared about a completely made-up thing.
Which is to say this plague of women being eaten by coyotes.
And then trying to make them scared about how the globalists trained them to be unable to defend themselves from being eaten by these coyotes.
You knew this podcast was eventually going to happen.
He knew it was going to be there.
It's likely.
Yeah, I guess the only question that remains, really, since we know the ultimate end of the road is saying that these victims of the shooting were actors.
The question is, is it before the Boston bombing or because of it?
Like, I don't have some advance information that I'm like, hey, isn't it going to be great when it does happen on the next episode and I look like a psychic?