Today, Dan and Jordan talk about a couple of recent days of episodes of The Alex Jones Show. In this installment, the gents find Alex making peace with one of his worst enemies in hopes of getting a new World War cooking, and they learn that Alex's office responsibilities extend to solving small mysteries
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like what these guys do, I'd like to support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
So, one of the reasons that I needed to get back to the present day, two things.
Yeah.
We're at the front of the...
The sort of cue, as it were.
The first was that Lawrence O'Donnell got on MSNBC the other night and reported that an anonymous source had told him that the Deutsche Bank had co-signed loans.
And people went a little buck wild with that.
And that was kind of unwise, seeing as it was, you know, very explicitly, maybe too good to be true, and one anonymous source, very irresponsible to get on TV and report this.
Now, the other one was that, I believe yesterday as we're recording this, on Wednesday, the Trump, he tweeted that Fox News ain't doing it anymore, and we need to look for a new news outlet.
So we're going to start here on the 28th, and Alex begins his show by explaining that the globalists want to depopulate the planet in order to rid themselves of competition.
And remember, I started the broadcast off yesterday with NBC News cover story, their top story, saying that the age of humans is over and that we will soon be extincted, perhaps in our lifetimes.
Because if the globalists can exterminate 99% of the population, they truly will not have the competition anymore.
And there it is.
Not long after that, Homo sapiens could vanish from Earth entirely in our own lifetimes.
Now, if Hitler wrote that, you'd say he was even more of a madman.
But when?
It's James Lovelock, the transhumanist environmentalist.
It's so sexy.
And where does James Lovelock go?
I looked it up.
James Lovelock has gone and spoken to the Albert Einstein Institute.
And who was the omnibudgment of that for the last 20 years?
So what Alex is talking about here is coverage of a new book that was written by noted futurist James Lovelock called Novasene.
In the book, Lovelock argues that in the future, cyborgs will become the dominant species of being in the universe.
These beings will be so far past us in terms of intelligence that they'd probably not even be interested in what we're doing, kind of how a lot of people interact with plants.
It's all good and well to take issue with a futurist's prediction, but it's an entirely separate thing to pretend that the role of a futurist in society is to unveil the actual future, as if they have some otherworldly psychic gift.
That's how Alex seems to think about futurists, as if they're modern-day soothsayers.
They aren't making predictions about trends they see in technology and culture, but they're telling the world what is and what will definitively be.
In our endgame coverage, we went over a bunch of the failed predictions of Alex's other favorite futurist, Ray Kurzweil, so we don't need to repeat all that over again, but suffice it to say, his batting average is not great.
Most futurists' batting average is not great.
And that can also be said of James Lovelock.
He's most famous for his 1974 Gaia hypothesis, which stated that the Earth itself is a living organism that adjusts itself and has for millennia to make the environment suitable for life.
In the years since the Gaia hypothesis, tons and tons of science has come out to demonstrate how this view of the planet is fairly unsupported, or as the new scientist put it, the idea is, quote, beautiful but flawed.
There are elements of the hypothesis that can be made to fit with understood science inasmuch as ecosystems can recover from some forms of damage that are done to them, and that ecosystems are interdependent, but the larger point he was making doesn't seem like it's grounded.
This is the largest contribution Lovelock had and has made to the culture, and it's an idea that most scientists view as a fun thing to think about, but completely off-base scientifically.
There's no reason to not look at the predictions he's making now, as a 100-year-old man, as equally idealistic and fun to contemplate, but ultimately not that realistic.
So one of the other things that I saw in terms of a criticism of his hypothesis was that When it was refined later, and he had some scientific criticism towards it, then he refined his theory to make it more in line with the scientific understandings.
And once he really laid down what he was saying, people, their response to it was like, well, what's new about this isn't accurate.
And what's accurate about this isn't new.
So there's almost like a non-futuristic aspect to it.
And then the parts that are futuristic aren't really accurate.
And that's not to say anything against James Lovelock.
That's just the nature of this sort of futurist work.
These people are often never actually right about much, but they present a compelling and romanticized version of things to come, and even in their errors, they often still latch onto a metaphorical truth about the times, which is easy to confuse with being right.
Alex is so desperate to present himself as correct about his theories that his enemies are trying to kill off the population that this is the sort of evidence he's willing to present, which should tell you how flimsy his shit is.
Now, it's important to point out that the other stuff he's talking about, there's more than one Albert Einstein Institute in the United States.
One of them is a non-profit that bills itself as being dedicated to supporting non-violent resolutions of international crises, though it has been criticized by many as actually supporting efforts for U.S.-backed regime change and sanctions.
I'm not entirely sure if that's an accurate criticism without looking too deeply into it, but whatever the case is, it exists as a foreign policy entity that focuses on international conflict resolution.
Well, they did that because the guy who started it was inspired by Albert Einstein's non-violence ideology.
Whatever.
I looked into this.
I can't find any real concrete connections between Epstein or either of these institutes, nor can I find any concrete connection between Lovelock and either of them.
If I had to guess, I would say that the most likely possibility here is that Lovelock might have given a lecture at the science one, and that Epstein might have donated to the political one.
What I can tell you with certainty is that Jeffrey Epstein was not the omnibudsman of either of them for the last 20 years, partially because it's ombudsman and partially because he wasn't the ombudsman of either of those institutes.
It's really, really easy to believe that Alex wouldn't realize there are multiple Albert Einstein institutes.
And he would just be so desperate to create the appearance of connections that don't exist in order to support his dumb arguments that he would do this.
Until I see some actual evidence...
You know, something that Alex in no way provides at all.
Now, I said yesterday that I was going to come in today with all these exhibits and do most of the show on the bottom of the rabbit hole, where the globalists are taking us.
It's not the top of a pyramid.
It's really the bottom of a rat hole.
And I'm going to do some of that today, but really, I need to do more preparation.
Stolen backpack and half hour phone call completely derails your ability to prove your argument about depopulation that you've been screaming about for over a decade?
Well, if it's like a backpack that is full of footage of things that invalidate his narratives, or a recording of a business meeting where they're discussing their supplement scam openly, or financial information that he doesn't want to get out.
If it's a backpack full of that, then I understand.
But the way you're presenting it, and the way he presents it is, it was an employee's backpack.
Who gives a shit?
Also, how did that happen?
You have snipers on your roof, Alex, according to your version of the story.
So, Adam and Eve, the story of Adam and Eve, you know, like, he seems to think that when Eve ate that apple, original sin was created, and that original sin is globalism.
Without descending too far into this, I want to point out the one gigantic flaw in Alex's interpretation.
He seems to be suggesting that the knowledge of good is the knowledge of how to set up good systems that encourage humanity, and the knowledge of evil is the knowledge of how to set up parasitic, anti-human systems.
Where he loses me...
Is that the whole thing that God didn't forbid Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge of evil.
It was knowledge of both good and evil that was forbidden.
Genesis 2 verse 16 clearly says, And the Lord God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
For when you eat from that tree, you will certainly die.
It's the knowledge of both good and evil that God tells Adam he's not allowed to possess.
So if Alex's dumb interpretation of the Bible is to hold, then God must explicitly not want humans to possess knowledge of how to create good, human-empowering systems.
This is an inescapable conclusion from the literal text of the Bible, and Alex's expressed which is a problem for Alex.
Now If Alex wants to say that the globalists are creating a bad anti-human system, which is the offshoot of possessing the Edenic knowledge of evil, And that's why he's against them?
He's just as evil, according to the Bible, because he's very clear that he's trying to create a good human empowering system which relies on the knowledge of good, which is equally forbidden for man to possess by God.
Yeah, but in his conception of God, it makes sense for me because the way he conceives God, I don't think that guy has any idea how to create good social systems to advance humankind.
And this gets to a point that I think is really important, and that is that I have never heard of anybody, literally, who interprets Genesis like this.
I feel like I'm a little bit worried about Alex's relationship with Scripture, because it's so full of eisegesis, which is the practice of letting your own subjective beliefs and ideas seep into the text itself.
As opposed to exegesis, where you take the text and you approach it from an objective perspective.
He seems to really want to use the texts to support his worldview, so he injects them into it and then interprets them, which is sloppy at best and malicious at worst.
No, well, what I think he is saying is that God would have been cool if you only ate from the capitalist apple, but then they ate from the goddamn commie apple, too, and that's the devil, and that's how we know the difference.
Anyway, a large portion of this show, because he didn't prepare his, I don't know, collegiate level course on the bottom of the rat hole, he spends a lot of time complaining about Taylor Swift.
Sure, sure.
Taylor Swift, I guess she got a video music award.
And in her acceptance speech, she pointed out that at the end of her music video, there's a petition for LGBTQ rights.
They know that that type of lifestyle, when it gets all into the craziness, destroys cultures, does every time in cycles, and so they'll put you in jail for it.
I think, well, I think what he thinks he's doing is criticizing them as like, see, look, they're locking people up just for their non-conformative actions, whereas you're criticizing the Trump administration, and all we want to do is make sure no more of you happen.
Like, it's...
He's creating a difference of degree that I can only describe as the slightest.
Like, look, you hate Trump and the neo-Nazis, but I mean, you know, what we know, like everybody knows, is that the more Jews there are, the more civilizations are going to collapse.
And, you know, Hitler, he would have killed them all.
But even if that's the case, even if Count Dankula's paying 50 bucks for him to play this meme during commercial break, that means that no one will pay Alex $51 to advertise a product.
So it didn't surprise me at all that Alex descended into a very desperate sales pitch here on this August 28th episode.
He spends a really long time outlining the new special, which is if you buy some product for 50% off, you get a giant bottle of another product for free.
Whatever you do, if you're listening to an AM or FM station, or you're watching us on a local TV station, call the local UHF, VHA, or cable.
Thank them.
Call their sponsors and thank them.
Become a sponsor.
Cable's very inexpensive.
Local TV's inexpensive.
Advertise your steakhouse, your Mexican food place, your laundry place, your church, whatever, on that station, because we have great active listeners.
Because I can guarantee you, that local radio station, whether it's WBCR and places like Tennessee or you name it, is doing a lot more for the Lord's work and fighting for the unborn and the already born.
than any of these so-called churches.
There are some good churches, but not many.
They all want to hide out, do whatever.
They don't say no word about the Antichrist, the Mark of the B. It is just as important to support your local TV and radio stations as it is to support the mothership broadcast.
So I'm thanking you for the support, but I'm asking you humbly, please.
I've heard him say stuff like this before, but not with that kind of desperation that I feel coming from him.
Like I said, it's coming off a really long sales pitch for this new special, and all I can hear is this, like, ratings are not good at the local stations.
No one wants to buy ads on those stations.
All I hear is Alex signaling that he is in jeopardy of losing some of these stations unless people who are pulling for him step in and buy ads.
Not as a sound financial decision, but as an ideological move to support him.
It makes sense why he would think that's a reasonable thing for people to do.
I mean, after all, he did get his first radio gig because his dad promised the station's program director that he would buy commercial time on the show.
It makes sense that he would just assume this is how things...
All of his support will be living in those types of presentations, I guess.
There's a part of me that feels like maybe that is all that ever really was there.
Behind the glitz, the slickness, the overproduced shit, the artificial traffic.
Maybe that's all that ever was there behind a facade of bullshit.
And all the Johnny-come-latelys who get seduced in with fun conspiracies and stick around for a little while and then get disenchanted and either go to the hardcore stuff or come to their senses.
Like, once that in-and-out flow disappears, and you're left just with who's actually interested in what you're doing, I think you've just got a lot of, like you said, GeoCities ass pages.
And it's something that I'm a little bit more worried about than I was before, based on Alex's rhetoric.
unidentified
So what's going to happen when Trump is not around?
Because we know Trump's going to win in a landslide.
He's waking up a lot of people, and a lot of things are happening because of him.
But my biggest fear, Alex, is what's going to happen when we don't have You know, our commander-in-chief, you know, and what's going to happen after Trump comes in.
I think there is a part of it that could be getting ahead of ourselves a little bit.
Making a lot of really grim predictions about something that may or may not happen.
But...
When you tune into Alex's show and you hear it just being bandied about between Alex and consistent callers, this idea that it's an inevitable conclusion that Trump is going to win in a landslide.
And so if the reality that comes about doesn't match that, we've already decided it's a stolen election.
It's so awesome to see every single time there's someone in there that he needs to, I guess to use his term, vampirically suck the attention economy that they're getting.
Certainly not for stretches longer than 30 seconds, because that's how long this clip is, and I think it's self-contradictory.
unidentified
The fact that he felt the need to message me shows that he's bothered enough to know that what he's doing is wrong, and I feel like he's so deep into the rabbit hole of supporting red flag laws that when he gets called out, he has to try to insult somebody to maybe...
I guess silence them.
I don't know if he was trying to silence me or if he was just trying to make me feel bad for calling him a rhino.
I don't know.
But what he doesn't understand is I've been through so much.
I don't believe it at all, because certain things that he uses as examples of, like, we already have laws in place, first of all, they don't work.
Second of all, like, is there any circumstance wherein Alex wouldn't scream about how this person was being oppressed until after the fact of them committing...
Like, even if someone beat their wife, or there's domestic violence, he would still be like, that doesn't mean that they're denied the God-given right to protect themselves.
So when the El Paso and Dayton shootings happened, Trump came out and signaled that he was interested in better background checks and possibly these red flag laws.
So then they revealed that they wanted to take away everyone's guns and they'd been caught in a trap because Donald Trump had exposed them as being the gun grabbers that they are and they walk away with nothing.
You know, again, listeners have been really angry about the red flag stuff, and I told you if they pass it or try to pass it, I'll get really mad.
I've been told by NRA board members, not one but two, that have met with Trump that he said, watch, I'll tell them, because it's all emotional, that okay, we'll do something, and then they'll ask for everything and won't get it.
To cover the protests, he sent these employees over there, but could not remember the third person's name, and I'm thrilled to report that he still doesn't.
Okay, let's go ahead and go next to California and Adam.
Adam, thanks for calling and thanks for holding her on the air.
unidentified
Alex, this is Adam with nomorenews.org.
I've been one of your biggest fans for 10 years and perfect topic today to talk about treason in China because ever since the rise of Trump, I really studied it deep and realized that all the accusations and rumors about you being a Zionist.
Apologists, propagandists are all right, and Trump is a completely Zionist agent, owned by Adelson, APAC, ZOA, bailed out by the Rothschilds in the early 90s for billions of dollars with Wilbur Ross, who's now our Commerce Secretary.
He got the top Zionist award in 1983 from the JNF, the Jewish National Fund founded by Theodore Herzl.
I don't believe that necessarily that needs to be true.
I could see a situation where someone who holds the beliefs that this guy does could compose himself in order to confront Alex in the way that he is on that call.
Yes.
And Alex has received this criticism enough that he could have a sort of boilerplate way he responds to it after the call is done.
What is weird to me is the way that Alex allows him to speak for over a minute uninterrupted and then at the end says, can I talk?
Can I make my point?
That is weird to me.
That is inorganic and is a choice Alex is making.
I don't know why he's making that choice.
It seems very weird.
I don't think it means that he's fucking supported by Israel or he's funded by Israel or a shill for the Zionists and he wants to deflect this criticism or whatever.
I don't know what it is.
My working theory in the past, because I've heard this behavior from him before, that's very out of line with how he interacts with callers.
My working theory is that he wants accusations and criticisms of him to look like this.
Ilhan Omar demands United Nations take over America's border crisis.
So we see this all over the place.
We see them announcing it's the UN that supposedly runs this, and a lot of us are like, it's incredible, Jones, you're right.
How did you know this?
How did it come true?
Because it is the international and world government law that the UN will use giant third world populations that they first stage in regional camps for six months to a year, literal brainwashing facilities.
They then organize them, and they then flood...
The borders of the Western nations where then UN camps are set up to receive them.
Then they are deployed to certain regions and to leftist political parties who then sign them up for welfare and jobs and then keep them as a sub-slave class and they skim off the top their wages and their welfare and then give them IDs, driver's license, unionize them, and then weaponize them.
You're telling me that the UN is setting up refugee camps for six months to a year to brainwash people, and then they're going to move them to different camps on the border, and then they're going to leave them on the border for a while, and then they're going to be deployed to the leftists, and then the leftists are going to take them and give them welfare and jobs, which I thought you would be for them getting jobs, not being on welfare, because if they have jobs, then they're going to be able to join society.
This is an absolute stated world government-admitted plan to bring down Western nations and to bring in 600 million refugees by 2050 to the U.S. That is the stated goal, the past resolution by the U.N., 600 million.
That's three times our population who will be totally kept.
So what he's doing here is he's just lying about a 2001 UN report titled, Replacement Migration, Is It a Solution to Declining in Aging Populations?
If you notice, you look closely, that title, it's a question.
The report is exploring hypothetical scenarios and looking at ways migration could be helpful in solving those problems in ways that it might not.
Sort of a report.
The 600 million figure comes from an extreme example in one of the hypothetical scenarios raised in the report where low birth rates would require large numbers of migrants to come in to stabilize the workforce among other population-based societal considerations.
There were other scenarios with lower numbers, but Alex chose this one because it's the highest and it makes his point more sensationally.
At no point is this report recommending anything.
At no point is it laying out a plan.
It's just a report looking at population-based hypothetical scenarios that goes on to look at whether or not migration could be part of a solution to those problems in those situations.
Alex is a complete liar, but he knows that the image of 600 million non-white people would really scare his white identity-obsessed audience, so he pitches the story that way.
The goal is to create animosity towards immigrants and even dehumanize them so his audience doesn't even see them as people with their own motivations anymore, but as weapons of the globalists trying to take down the white Western civilization.
In that way, his narrative is not only deeply manipulative and based on lies and misrepresentation, it's also deeply racist.
All of that, you realize all of that is what some Simpsons writer wrote in 2010.
Like, not literally, but the idea that Boris Johnson, a shitty, pointless columnist, eventually took over the fucking UK government and successfully ended democracy in Britain?
Bottom line, that we are now in the middle of a global civil war between nation states and free people and multinational corporations allied with authoritarian regimes like China.
It's lining up along the same battle lines of World War II.
unidentified
You notice the Queen just suspended Parliament and got behind Brexit.
So, it's a little misleading to say that the Queen suspended Parliament.
It's more the case that Boris Johnson requested Parliament be suspended and the Queen said, okay.
That's kind of her role, though, as a ceremonial monarch.
If she began to legitimately meddle in the affairs of government directly, it could be a real problem.
The monarch has roles like appointing the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean that the Queen just gets to choose whoever she wants as Prime Minister.
That would be fucked up.
The accepting of Johnson's request will probably lead to a greater likelihood of a no-deal Brexit and disastrous outcomes for the British economy.
But it also would have been way out of line for her to not accept it.
Because he's the head of state.
Experts consulted by the BBC said, quote, it would have been impossible for the Queen to turn down the Prime Minister's request.
Like, literally, for her to have rejected the request would have led to a whole different conversation about the return of monarchical rule and would have set a horrible precedent.
Because from my position, I'm looking at this, and I'm seeing that in the very recent past, Alex has said very clearly that the Queen and her entire lineage are Transylvanian vampires and literal demons who are the heads of a decade-long plan to install a one-world government.
They're legitimately evil incarnate to him, and every single thing he said about the British royal family...
Has been over the top and cartoonishly scathing.
To see him now be like, the Queen is on the side of the Patriots.
It's an absurd narrative shift that should tell anyone paying attention that Alex doesn't mean a goddamn word he says.
But he does get back to it a little bit later, but he gets sidetracked.
So he first needs to...
See, like I said at the beginning of this episode...
I wanted to see if Alex's behavior was changed at all or if anything was notable after Trump insulted Fox News and made an indication that we need a new outlet.
So I don't see him being all that interested in the actual conversation that's happening about Trump and Fox News, which seems to me almost like the best ploy.
Like, don't even get into the muck of that fight.
Just say, like, oh, Fox News, who gives a fuck about them?
And again, they're largely united against this migration invasion, which is subverting their society.
There was a quote from one protester there who said, quote, they drain our resources from healthcare to education and are diluting our culture, making it increasingly pro.
Beijing, which is what we see happening in the West with this mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.
So they have many of the same concerns that their society is being subverted, diluted, and the power that they once held is being transferred to China as a result of this mass migration weapon.
There are a number of instances of this throughout the episode, their coverage of the Hong Kong stuff.
It's like, oh yeah, you saw that video of the protesters cutting down the facial recognition tower, and that's just like us getting kicked off Facebook.
There's instances like that.
But I think that this is the clearest cut one where you can see the duplicitousness and the manipulation.
The people in Hong Kong have complained about people from mainland China coming to Hong Kong and eroding their political autonomy.
Alex and Paul Joseph Watson scream all day about the UN paying invading masses of third world refugees to come to the United States in order to brainwash them so they'll alter the racial and ethnic demographics in the country, which will lead to more people voting against Alex's preferred political positions.
It doesn't take too much examination to see the massive chasm between those two arguments.
They're close enough that if you blur the edges, you can create a narrative out of it.
I mean, they're basically just trying to take vague similarities.
And try and turn it into, like, ah, aha, the Hong Kong protesters are info warriors.
And, yeah, so that's basically how they're covering it, which is one of the reasons why, like, even if you support the protests in Hong Kong, you still can't side with Alex.
And the fact that the Queen of England has weighed in, looking at how the breaks are happening, like in a game of pool or billiards, over in the UK, if you call it billiards, tells us a lot.
And you know who in the last two configurations of this sided with the US and with England, and that's the Russians.
And Trump knows that and has been trying to get the Russians to side with us in this.
And the globalists through the CHICOM has been working through our media to say, Trump's a Russian agent so that in this new world war that's here, that's economic, cultural, and military, that Russia will sit on the sidelines.
Also worth noting, Alex believes that both World War I and World War II, where he's appealing to the UK siding with the United States, were orchestrated by people from both of those countries in order to create the League of Nations and then the UN.
I don't know why he wouldn't, based on every other thing he's ever said in his fucking life, he wouldn't think that another world war was also orchestrated in order to create something on the other end of it.
So the question of how long it's been since something like this has happened depends on how you define what's happening in the UK.
Technically, Parliament is disbanded basically every year for a break, and Boris Johnson is arguing that that's all this is.
That's clearly a lie, but that's the argument that's being taken up by the pro-no-deal Brexit supporters.
That's, you know, it's just business as usual.
Even if the break that's being discussed is the longest Parliament would have had since 1945, which you might recall is at the end of World War II.
What's interesting is Alex is using the anti-Brexit people's position in terms of when this happened last.
But he's also wrong about it being 400 years ago.
Alex is referring to what happened back in 1629 when King Charles I dismissed Parliament, that he shouldn't be using that as an example of what's going on now, since it totally works against his argument.
Charles dismissed Parliament because he believed that he had to divide Yeah, I mean, even without that historical context...
unidentified
He should see this as a coup that is trying to destroy...
But if your position and conception of this is this demonic creature who sucks blood of children and is creating a one-world repressive system is all of a sudden pretty cool with me, that should make you question what you're doing.
Because if you're going to say it's important that it's 400, that's because he means that a big round number means there's some sort of providence in God behind it.
I don't even know what to say about someone who's putting forth positions that are not just advocating for a world war, but being excited about the prospect of it.
So she says, I'm suspending Parliament for five weeks so that the government can really negotiate a deal with the EU that actually gives us the power to vote on our sovereignty because 93% of UK laws...
So, I mean, the idea that this is like a queen decree.
It's a clear indication that he's not grasping the situation.
And then the presentation of it is they did this to have more time to negotiate this Brexit deal is also completely out of line with every reading I've had about this.
Every person who's...
No one is presenting this as, oh, this is so we'll free up more time and we can resolve this smoother.
So, like, just bouncing back and forth from our political alignments, they are co-opting...
A protest against an oppressive authoritarian regime to prop up their preferred oppressive authoritarian regime supporting protesters ostensibly while at the same time supporting a return to a monarchy.
And then also if you watch the video of the commercial, it's the same thing with that clip of him drinking the bone broth where he looks disgusted by it.
It sounds exactly like a Japanese commercial that John Travolta would have starred in right before he made his comeback in Pulp Fiction.
You know, whenever it was like, you're losing your hair, you're not going to make it, go to Japan, do a couple commercials, get a quick cash out, and then come back and Tarantino will revive your career.