In Knowledge Fight’s #335 (March 15-22, 2013), Alex Jones falsely ties the Rwandan genocide to UN gun confiscation via a debunked documentary, claims Chase Bank’s zero-balance glitch was a "Cass Sunstein actor," and accuses coyotes of attacking women in parks due to "globalist programming." He also predicted false flag nukes in Chicago/Dallas but ignored Boston’s bombing, later mocking an Obama supporter as exhibiting "Stockholm Syndrome." Friesen and Holmes expose his pattern of unsourced conspiracy theories, fringe alliances (like Cody Wilson’s Hatreon), and absurd survival advice—revealing how Jones weaponizes fear to sustain his extremist narrative while evading accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
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.
And also, if you don't listen to all of them, then you don't really understand the development and what's behind the rhetoric, which is what I'm most interested in in this.
So we're going over this stretch of a little bit, like about a week of Alex's show.
Yeah.
And I think we might have some big developments.
So it's good that we went ahead and did this.
Also, I should say that during this time, there's something that I've just, I don't have any clips about, but it does bear mentioning that it's happening because Alex is concerned about it.
And that is the 2013 Cypriot financial crisis is coming to a head.
Gotcha.
So the banks in Cyprus are going through some trouble.
And I was thinking about it.
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 loans for the economy and the tax haven status of Cyprus.
So I just decided that, like, Alex's take on it is very standard for any time there's some sort of a money thing.
And that is that the globalists are doing this and they're trying to cause global collapse.
As opposed to looking at it and being like, well, this is some of the lingering effects from the 2008, 2009 situation.
So I just decided that it's in and of itself is an important global event, but for what Alex is doing, it's not that important, except for a couple of ways that it extends into other areas.
And I will talk about those, but we don't have the time to break down this full surface.
Now, Kim Jong, and just a year in power, has a craven look in his face, completely insane, running around saying, nuke, everyone, I'm all powerful, as 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, which is important because Alex protects.
But he, you know, even back in 2013, he has a lot of absolutist ideas about free speech, and it's just incongruous with what he understands to actually be what free speech is about.
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 like demons and Diane 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.
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.
So that would imply that all of the confiscation of property that happened during the massacres and the campaign of genocide isn't what they're talking about.
So I don't know.
I was trying to look into this.
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 that doesn't sound right.
I've seen folks try to link this to Sudan as well, but the war in Darfur started a full year before that Nairobi protocol was signed.
This piece of evidence just doesn't check out from a timeline perspective.
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 Gazette 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 Igazazeta 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 enough time to present it like you weren't a piece of shit.
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 in 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 10 other supposed gun grabbers, all with Israeli flags on their faces.
So, well, 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, firearm ownership.
Yeah, sure.
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 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 those connections.
Anyway, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is responsible for a whole lot of ahistorical propaganda that goes around in patriot gun weirdo circles about gun laws and the severe consequences of their enactment.
And apparently this stuff about Rwanda is just another one.
They have done a lot of pushing of the Hitler took the guns before allowed him to commit the Holocaust.
Sure, sure.
Which I would implore anyone to look into because that's ridiculous.
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.
Right.
I think that this is much closer to the they used actors than saying, you know, they used a Patsy or whatever.
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 debate or debate, 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.
Didn't Feinstein get a wonderful come up from Senator Cruz?
Oh, my.
Well, Senator Feinstein, if the Second Amendment permits the banning of certain guns, then by that logic, does the First Amendment permit the banning of certain books, but others being protected?
And does the Fourth Amendment permit the invasion of some people's privacy, but not other people's privacy?
It's like the guy facing, what is it, five to seven years in prison with a state felony in Florida because he released a couple of heart balloons for his girlfriend when she came out of the house.
And the state police saw it, came over, said, did you release those balloons?
He said, yeah.
Hey, that's environmental damage, a felony.
Man, he's going to get convicted and go to prison.
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.
Yeah, the basic point of it is 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.
She should 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, you know, like, oh, you know, oh, women don't know that coffee's supposed to be hot.
So he complains about that, and this caller has a really good question for him about that situation.
unidentified
What I haven't heard you report on, and I'm very interested in, though, are the number of internal affairs complaints that you and your street team have filed against the various officers in the 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 cracking crime.
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 dirt bags, according to them, at Shot 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 because that would be bad for business.
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.
It's just, to me, I think that's so damning.
When a guy calls in and is like, I'd like to ask about, like, did you file internal reports?
And he's 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.
So these databases are really important for obvious reasons.
However, this language was taken out of the final version of the ACA that eventually passed through Congress.
So Alex here is basically just lying about a thing that doesn't even end up being in the bill.
And by this point, he has every reason to know that it's not.
These databases actually already exist.
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.
This caller's paranoid about something, and Alex is like, 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 isn't the first time that he said, first of all, a nuke and 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, like the Chicago.
So, I mean, you got just like really specific predicting going on.
It's getting very specific.
It's gradually becoming more refined to 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 the LZ Bob, Bathelnet, 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 that.
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 read it.
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.
Or the point was 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 because they've got Google's got speech recognitions.
That worked 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.
I'm sorry, just amazing what you just hit me with.
So this guy who's saying this in this local news interview, Alex has decided as an actor.
This is a massive, massive, important jump because it opens up the door to be like, well, if they're using actors to shape the public opinion on this, how far are we away from where we're ending up at?
No, 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 Cypress 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.
And 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 the, 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.
Where he goes out and asks them questions, cash cab and and I don't watch a lot of tv.
I was on vacation a few weeks ago and 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 that they don't tell them what it's going to be, and so it is real questions.
It is real questions, uh.
So it really it is a real game, but the pool is from actors to make sure they can only, you know, shoot once and get well-spoken people, but they don't tell you on the show.
So again, I could instantly look at that and I said, watch this, kids.
I got on my IPad, pulled it up and said yep, actors.
It was admitted that there had been controversy, it was actors and it's the same thing now.
I may be wrong.
My first gut reaction was, that's an actor.
But then there's the extreme of that where everybody says I'm an actor and I'm Bill Hicks, which isn't true.
Well, but when Alex is trying to use like a produced TV show, like it's that's something that if he's using that as an example of every interview in a local news could be fake.
Yeah.
Like it's it's a it's a it's I don't want to use the word slippery slope.
It's a dangerous way to allow your brain to start thinking about these things because it opens up the just diminished credulity that's required to think that everything's fake.
Well, I mean, and even then, even within your bullshit of bullshittery, it's a silly, pointless idea because now you're getting people who need to react instantly.
You've got to pull out a casting call or you have actors fucking on retainer.
Just get somebody in the statue.
Get somebody in the production crew to walk in front and be like, hey, it was fine with it.
I know with the Batman deal, a bunch of the people were actors.
See, the media is 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 has 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've tried 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.
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 a hundred 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 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 gotta ask the question in this case.
He did that one.
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.
Yeah, it's an essential limitation of how we can study Alex.
Right.
In that we can see the stuff on his show, 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.
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 Pieczenik 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.
Well, it could be him taking it from watching their shit.
That is possible.
The other possibility is that there are exchanges going on through email.
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'm going to chomp it all up.
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 have nothing to back it up concretely, but it seems.
It doesn't seem that crazy to assume that something is going on behind the scenes at this point because this is a massive, massive change.
I don't know if 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.
There's been the other stuff, the DARPA, all the other, the mind control San Antonio Air Force doctor.
There's been tons of conspiracies, and that hasn't been one of them.
So when you have that, you have the Chase interview is now an actor, you're running into a good bit of that becoming a piece of rhetoric that's being pushed.
It feels like an intentional push here on this March 19th episode.
I don't know what to make of it, but I guess we'll see.
I mean, it really, at the same time, it could just be like the dumb part of Alex is it could be he was watching a movie a week ago where there were crisis actors in it.
He could have been watching goddamn red dawn, but he goes through that and then it just gets fixated in his brain and it turns into a phase of everything is actors.
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.
It's probably worth mentioning that in 2017, Cody Wilson would go on to launch the Patreon alternative, Hatreon, 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 13 is Christopher Cantwell, the crying Nazi from the Unite the Right rally.
Number 14 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, Hatreon was a service that creators could only set up accounts for by invitation.
Cody Wilson specifically chose these people.
Hatreon 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 there were $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.
So these are the sorts of people that Alex has got hanging around.
So in this next clip, this is just kind of knowing what we now know about Cody Wilson and Alex Jones and what they would look like in 2019, that they're great.
So this, like, them relishing in this idea that people think that they're fucked up, dangerous people.
It's one of those things.
Like, you look back at this six years in the past, and you have to ask the question, I would love to show them this and be like, maybe everyone was right.
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.
Peter Thiel's involvement in something is a bit of a red flag.
In October 2016, the New York Times reported that Thiel 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.
So we jump to the 20th, and we start with something really interesting.
Because in 2015, when we were looking at that period of time where Alex makes peace with Trump and decides to support his candidacy, one of the things that was in the background that we discovered was that Alex loved Russia.
Right.
And there was perhaps some suspicion or some feeling that when we initially started looking at it, that these two things were related in some way.
And as we learned more, it appeared, no, they were not related.
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 in their 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.
Having the Stockholm syndrome, loving your abusers, giving into it, doing what it says, is going to destroy you.
And if you buy into this false reality they're spewing, we're going to have the total implosion of our society and an authoritarian nightmare that is going to look pale, insignificant.
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.
We saw him practicing on real people up at the G20 when Rob Dew got arrested.
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 given 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.
I don't believe Alex's story about how he got this information for a couple reasons.
Mainly that he always lies.
Right.
He's Alex.
Second, that is just an unbelievable chain of events, 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, 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 this Andy 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 were 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 RawStory.
Quote: The individuals involved in the 92409 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 a safe.
These weren't military members, despite their camo.
They were alleged, 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.
And 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, like free associative, like 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 a 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 on some level, a bit of that could possibly be explained by when he had James Tracy on to talk to Paul Joseph Watson, a big part of it was a recognition that there was 10 million views of this video that they put out.
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.
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 this.
I can give you some possibilities, 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.
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.
I think it's yeah, I don't think it's possible for us ever to know because I don't think that there's any way that Alex concretely knows.
We would need some because it's not like we could do an interview with Alex like 20 years from now when he's not on the air and he's got nothing to lose.
We can't trust a thing, he says, because there's no way that he'll A, remember it or B, bother to tell the truth.
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.
If they're going for it all, we're going for it all.
And that is not good because you're creating a fictional version of what the enemy is doing in order to justify the very real things that you are doing.
So, I mean, you're bringing up war crimes, and it is somewhat relevant because, as we discussed at the beginning of this episode, Alex is making predictions about what the globalists are going to do.
It's a repetition of they're going to set off a nuke and blame the Patriots.
He's listed the cities that he thinks are the targets, Chicago primarily.
Whether or not he, again, he says there's going to be a false flag all the time.
So when there is an actual terrorist attack, as the Boston bombing is, it doesn't lend him any more credibility that he said there was something coming.
Especially when you look back and see, like, he's specifically predicting something completely different.
People run, and then it's so much fun because they were taught they fall down and then the coyotes come and they just roll around while the coyotes eat them.
I mean, if you went, ah, the coyotes would run in fear.
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.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The big takeaways of the study seem to be the following.
One, coyotes generally attack when they're cornered.
With the elimination of wildlands 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 seem 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.
I don't think this three-year-old watched them, though.
They can walk.
I don't think that's.
can walk i don't i don't i think that it's showed him a lot of roger corvin I think it's dubious to suggest that.
The other instance was in 2009.
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 clearly 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.
I mean, wolves have been like the target of real maligned perception.
And coyotes, similarly, there have been kill-offs of them based on perceptions of their like they're just predators out to get you livestock of that kind of stuff.
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.
If America gets its instinct going and goes, ooh, the government's been taken over and is arming against you, they're not going to be able to detonate an atomic weapon in Chicago.
You know, I just keep saying Chicago.
Like I said, they'll blow up the World Trade Center and blame it on Bin Laden.
Two months before it happened, I even named the targets.
Dallas, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, places like that.
You knew this podcast was eventually going to be that.
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?
I think that this may be a better way to frame these 2013 and the investigation episodes.
I have such a tendency to get down into the weeds about learning about every piece of Alex's narrative.
Whereas we are trying to understand the Sandy Hook stuff, it may not be in our best interest to learn every little thing about what Alex is up to in this period.
So, hopefully, I'm going to try as best as I can to, when we do these investigations in the future, cover larger chunks of time as opposed to just one day from the past.