Today, Dan and Jordan check in on the present day of the Alex Jones Show to try to see how he was responding to recent headlines about his Sandy Hook lawsuit. In the process, the gents try to figure out why Alex's lawyer did an interview with Stefan Molyneux.
Because if I went to, I don't know, like, I went to some takeout place, I hadn't called ahead, if I just show up and I'm like, I want this order, it still might take 10 minutes for them to make my food and give it to me.
So Jordan, today we've got an interesting sort of present day episode to go over, but before we get to that, I'd like to take a little moment here to say thank you to some people who have signed up and are supporting the show.
And if you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like what these guys do, you can sign up to support the show on our website, knowledgefight.com.
So, Jordan, today, like I said, we got a mostly present day situation going on because I was looking at things and I was like, well, you know what would be great?
Everyone seems to be interested in all of these headlines that are coming out about Alex Jones losing an appeal in the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
Seeing as we've come to the point in the 2013 investigation where it looks like things are going bad for Alex's coverage of Sandy Hook, we've got to break in the case in the present day, break in the trial.
So everyone probably wants to know what we think about that and Alex's response to this news breaking.
And so I thought, alright, that news broke on September 4th.
So we're going over September 5th today.
Although I lost my patience for this episode pretty quickly.
So Alex has Barnes on to talk about these legal developments, and then what he's talking about there at the end of that clip is he's been threatening for a really long time to sue the Associated Press and media organizations because he believes that the Associated Press said that he wrote that book, No One Died at Sandy Hook, and that he had lost a lawsuit about that book.
However, as we've discussed in the past...
This is erroneous.
This is a different website.
Had that headline and had taken some content from an AP article.
But the AP article was not.
It was all on that other website that had redistributed.
So if Alex tries to sue the Associated Press over that, that's going to get thrown out of court.
As we go to break, I want to just remind listeners, we are only here because of your tutelage, because of your patronage, because of your support, and I salute and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
And I want to unveil a product that I believe, because I've been taking it for several months, you may have noticed my clarity and focus in the last few weeks really tuning up.
Well, Chill Force does that, but with the latest, this is going to be the new rage in the next few years, where it's a system that chills you out, but heightens your awareness.
So, Alex, I'm going to skip this clip because it's just Alex saying that he has new shows coming soon and that he's going to be soon going to a 20-hour live a day broadcast format.
I cut that clip because it's just the same thing as the lawsuits are coming.
It's all the same shit over and over and over again.
Like, you throw in a couple of new novel little pieces of bigotry here and there, some weird defense of something Trump does, and then the rest of it is all just like, it's coming, don't worry about it.
And I should say, there are some instances of Alex saying that he's indicating some desires to get away from Trump.
But what it is, is after the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Trump came out and said, hey, maybe these red flag laws, maybe there's some value to this, some merit.
And Alex, his narrative on that was that that was the rope-a-dope.
Trying to get the globalists to reveal themselves and then give them nothing.
And now it appears that that is not true.
And that Trump might actually, or at least people within the administration, might actually be interested in these red flag type laws.
And Alex is saying that he will call for impeachment if Trump goes down that road.
So we'll see about that.
But I'm less interested in that because there's a bigger issue going on, and that is why he sat down with the fifth in the first place.
I know when listeners hear about Sandy Hook, your eyes glaze over.
So do mine.
But this latest discapade with Sandy Hook disinformation is illustrated of how the corporate media...
Lies in mass towards a certain aim.
So, if I can show the viewers a close shot of this, please.
Another twist in the Sandy Hook family's defamation case against Alex Jones.
That's the Washington Post two months ago.
Got no coverage.
You have to specifically search the headline to even find it.
It's buried.
But there was a special interest case where the Supreme Court came in of Connecticut, took over the case before it ever even went to trial.
Years before I was going to trial, which is incredibly rare, saying that there were anomalies to how I was being treated.
We'll let Barnes, who's an expert on this, describe how important this is.
Notice, you don't see how we're winning there and how they're trying to railroad us, but it's so bad that even Supreme Courts are coming in, not after the case, but before.
So, first things first, that Washington Post article that he's talking about is not buried.
It's literally as easy to find as any other article that's been posted on their website, if you just look for it.
Alex is just trying to present the idea that there's some larger story where he's the good guy getting railroaded, but the media won't cover it.
And that is bullshit.
That Washington Post article and the stuff about the Connecticut Supreme Court, that has nothing to do with Alex's main court case.
That's specifically about the sanctions he was hit with after he drunkenly put out a million-dollar bounty on the opposing counsel, after which he was found to have unknowingly sent them email containing illegal pornography as part of his discovery process.
From the article, quote, The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court's decision sanctioning broadcaster Alex Jones.
From later in the article, quote, Sure.
Sure.
This is all good and well, but from everything that's publicly available, it doesn't appear that this Connecticut Supreme Court appeal has concluded yet.
So I have no idea what that has to do with the current situation and all the headlines that are coming out now.
And certainly it has no indication or bearing on the idea that the larger case has anything to do with the Connecticut Supreme Court or that they think that he's being unfairly treated in that case.
This is narrowly about the sanctions.
And the conversation, as I understand it, is about whether or not the judge can sanction Alex for something he does out of court.
With the question being, does his out-of-court behavior, in as much as he's threatening and trying to intimidate the opposing counsel, does that affect the court proceedings?
The current headlines we're seeing involve the defamation lawsuit he's facing in Texas.
The Texas case was filed against Alex and it was brought by Neil Heslin, the father of a six-year-old child who was killed at Sandy Hook.
As the case got going, Alex tried to have the case dismissed, which did not work.
He then tried to appeal the decision to not dismiss the case, and the news stories popping up now are all related to the Texas Court of Appeals determining that the case can't be dismissed and Alex has to pay all the legal fees incurred by the other side during the appeal.
And he has to produce all the internal documents and emails in that discovery process, which he had been refusing to provide.
All in all, what I see here is an intentional strategy being employed by Alex and his legal team of stalling and sidetracking.
He doesn't want to see the inside of a courtroom actually having to be under oath and talking about this stuff because he knows he fucked up.
Courts are really bad places for con men, but the legal system is also a place where other cons can be run.
So, instead of moving forward with the actual case, you stall.
You refuse to hand over required documents, and then that turns into the judge issuing a side motion.
And before you know it, you're fighting a largely unrelated battle over whether or not you should give the lawyers your emails.
That drags on forever, and on the off chance you win one of these little side quests, you can run around pretending that the whole case is a sham, as proven by the win.
If you lose that little side thing, as Alex did in this Texas case, you end up having a bunch of articles written about how you lost this appeal, and then you can get on your show.
The media's saying I lost the case.
They're all fucking liars.
It's a win-win, and you prolong the day of reckoning when you're actually in court under oath.
Well, and not least of which is if your main court case keeps going and the penalties are millions of dollars, which I imagine we're going to be seeing very high penalties at the very least.
Yeah, it's almost like I would spend all of my money pushing the case back for the rest of my life rather than just lose and still have to give all of my money away.
I don't know what that thing is, but he knows that something about this case exposes him.
If I had to guess, I would say it's either something about the source of his money or something that indicates how editorial decisions are made at InfoWars.
Either of these things would be pretty much incredibly germane to the Sandy Hook lawsuit, so I could obviously see Alex fighting like crazy to stop the discovery process in any way he can.
It turns out that his only real strategy is kind of just to throw temper tantrums that take a while to resolve and slow up the process, which can buy you a little time, like six months in the case of this Texas appeal, but it's not going to work in the end.
He's just delaying the inevitable, and that inevitability is that whatever he doesn't want people to know is going to come out.
Based on how these cases seem to be going and how he's pretty regularly being forced to pay plaintiff's legal fees, I would say that he has every reason to suspect that if these cases proceed, he's going to be bankrupted.
If he thought that he had half a chance to win on the merits, he wouldn't be doing all this weaselly shit to stall the cases.
These feel like his last gap.
Of course not.
I can't get away from this strategy not matching someone who wants to be in court.
Yeah.
unidentified
Like someone who wants to prove themselves innocent wouldn't play these sorts of games.
The billion-dollar company is like, toss this, toss this, let's do everything we can, and then you always read those stories where it's like...
After 10 years of appeals and it's gone all this way, Equifax finally agrees to pay everybody fucking nothing, which they knew they were going to have to do anyways.
If some of the legal theories being pursued are permitted or allowed, then press will no longer be free and speech will no longer be free in the United States.
So these cases will establish the true scope of the First Amendment.
It will probably be the most seminal, foundational, fundamental First Amendment cases in the And by the way, you're not just saying that.
Thomas Jefferson predicted over 240 years ago that when our republic was in trouble in the future, it'd be the farmers that were close to the ground, close to reality, who actually worked for a living that would end up saving the nation.
And today, the communist Chinese have banned all U.S. farming goods a week ago.
You know, after all that, Barnes gives a little bit of a plug for something that I've been a little bit aware of for a bit now, because of listening to these episodes.
But it's something that he's becoming more public about.
And it's actually something that I think deserves a little bit.
It's understandable to see him popping up on other scam-slash-reactionary outlets like the Rubin Report, and doing interviews with Stefan Molyneux.
This is all predictable territory, and where a guy like Robert Barnes can shine.
However, now he's embarking on a project that, no matter how it shakes out, is a really bad sign.
Robert Barnes has launched the Free America Law Center, which he views as the antidote to the liberal stranglehold over the world of law.
The SPLC and ACLU are just shills for the Democrat Party, so the right-wing needs is their own version of these organizations in order to even the play The F-A-L-C!
The ACLU is a non-political entity that does so much goddamn work for people's rights, it would take what's left of Barnes' breath away if he actually gave them a fair look.
Here are some of the cases the ACLU is involved in right now.
James Aaron McKinney was sentenced to death for a murder, but at his trial, the judge didn't take into consideration evidence related to his post-traumatic stress disorder, which could have been seen as a mitigating circumstance in terms of applying capital punishment.
That case has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, but the rights of a human being.
Also, they're defending the kid who was involved in the D.C. sniper attacks, based on the reasoning that he was sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile, which is now prohibited.
Does he deserve a new sentencing?
Should the ruling be retroactive to minors who were sentenced to life without parole prior to the Montgomery v.
Louisiana Supreme Court decision, making that an inappropriate sentence?
This has nothing to do with politics, and the ACLU is on the front lines of stuff like that.
These are just a couple of cases they're currently involved in that involve possibly unpopular stances being taken to defend individual rights.
And there are plenty more examples of apolitical shit in the work they do.
The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, and the issue here is that people like Alex and Barnes have a very specific definition of what civil liberties means.
The ACLU believes the definition includes taking on cases where refugee rights are being trampled on, where LGBTQ folks' rights are being violated, where women's rights are violated, where voting rights are being eroded.
All of these are areas where Alex and his ilk are actively interested in those rights being curtailed.
So of course they think that an organization that specifically exists to defend those rights is a secret globalist outfit trying to crush conservatives.
If their definition of conservatives is not into respecting the rights of non-straight white male naturally born citizens, then I guess the ACLU is the enemy of conservatives.
Yeah, those two organizations, I've always thought that, like, you know, there are those criticisms, the working conditions are terrible and all that stuff, but the main goals of the ACLU and the SPLC have always been, like, you remember all that stuff in the Constitution?
We'd like that to apply to everybody.
We want what America's original goals are, but just for all people.
So my big issue here is with Barnes' plan to set up his own counter ACLU or SPLC based on a completely inaccurate portrait of what either of those groups are or do.
We've discussed many times that the trend on the right wing in the scam community is tended towards lawsuit scams, as their ability to really make much headway on social media spaces has diminished, and along with that, their ability to pull off compelling and profitable publicity stunts has waned.
It could make complete sense that Barnes knows that the future of right-wing scams is likely going to be a series of impotent threats to file lawsuits, which are then used to raise money for the person issuing the threat.
We saw that kind of shit from Laura Loomer not too long ago, and we've seen it from Alex forever.
Like, how long has he been saying he's going to sue the Associated Press that we talked about at the beginning of this episode?
And until he does, he has the ability to tease his audience.
You all hate the mainstream media and I'm just the guy to fight them for you.
So give me money.
I promise the lawsuit is coming any day now.
Schrodinger's lawsuit.
If Barnes is smart, then this Freedom Law Center, this Free America Law Center, is him setting up a corporate entity so he can make these idle legal threats seem credible and then take a cut off the top.
Which, if that's it, then I respect the hustle and I tip my hat to him scamming these racist idiots.
However, Jordan, there's a possibility that this is something far more nefarious.
I'd like to tell you a little story about a man named Kirk David Lyons, a man whose footsteps Robert Barnes may be following in.
Kirk Lyons grew up in Texas, and according to a bio of him from Baylor University, quote, from a young age, Lyons was confronted with the issue of racial equality.
Beam was brought to Lyons by a mutual acquaintance and had set up the meeting because he was afraid he was about to get arrested and he wanted to secure counsel.
Now, why this mutual friend would think, hey, I know a guy who would be really interested in getting in on the ground floor of the Louis Beam legal team, that's anyone's guess.
I would imagine it's probably because Lyons gave off that old telltale cool with Nazis vibe.
So, Beam was on trial along with Richard Snell and David Lane, who were members of white supremacist groups who had already carried out murders, as well as the founder of the Aryan Nations, Richard Butler.
A white supremacist named Glenn Miller agreed to testify against the other men in exchange for a reduced sentence on a ton of other charges, including making bombs.
He served three years in prison thanks to his cooperation.
Yeah.
In 2014, Glenn Miller carried out two shootings at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and Village Shalom, the second of which is a retirement home.
He killed three people.
Ironically, since his attack was clearly based on his anti-Semitism, none of the people he killed were Jewish.
At the community center, he killed a 14-year-old and his grandfather, who were just there visiting.
That guy could have been in prison for a lot longer than three years, but he'd agreed to testify in the Fort Smith sedition trial, so he got a lesser sentence.
Unfortunately, his assistance in the case was pointless.
All of the defendants were acquitted due to lack of evidence, which is exactly the sort of outcome you'd expect in a case like that.
It's insanely hard to prove a conspiracy, particularly one to actually overthrow the government, when it's perfectly acceptable as a defense to say that you're constant screaming about how the government has been taken over by malevolent demons is just criticism of the...
That's such one of those fucking things where you're like, I get it, and I know I shouldn't be one making the decision, but everybody knows that Colin Kaepernick should be in the fucking NFL, and it's a goddamn conspiracy to keep him out of the NFL, but you go into courtroom and they're like, well, you can't prove that, and it's like, no, of course you can!
He marched with the Klan and Nazis in 1989 in Tennessee.
He was a member of the National Alliance, a group run by William Luther Pierce, the author of the Turner Diaries.
He was definitely, definitely a member of these groups, as proven by correspondences written by Pierce, identifying lines as a lawyer within their ranks.
To give you some idea how deep in the mix Lyons was, when he got married in 1990, the ceremony took place at the Aryan Nations compound.
In 1988, Lyons was invited to give a speech at the Aryan Nations World Congress, where he discussed ideas about setting up a foundation which could operate like the SPLC, but protect people who were white supremacist leaders, who were like those white supremacist leaders who he represented.
People who he thought were just patriots and dissidents, in quotes.
This took shape in the form of the Patriots Defense Foundation.
In soliciting donations for the PDF, William Luther Pierce told his followers in a newsletter, quote, Man, that sure seems like a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
The PDF would change its name in 1991 and would henceforth be known as CAUSE, which stands for Canada, Australia, US, South Africa, and Europe, reflecting the areas in the world people were being attacked right to them right right right right they built themselves as quote america's only pro-white law firm and put out ads in all the places you would expect soldier of fortune storm front yeah all the all the normal Normal.
From there, he started courting all the right-wing monsters he could to take on his clients, from Holocaust deniers to your run-of-the-mill militia guys who might have killed someone because they didn't like them existing.
Kirk Lyons was an attendee of the Rocky Mountain Rendezvous, the meeting held by Christian identity preacher Pete Peters, which brought together all the luminaries in the world of white bigotry.
He was there with Larry Pratt, head of Gun Owners for America, and early Alex Jones sponsor.
Pratt ended up having to resign from Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign because it came out that he was at that meeting.
But the other reason he had to step down is it was revealed that Gun Owners of America had given cause...
The white supremacist law organization tens of thousands of dollars.
Then, as the case was for everyone in the right-wing patriot militia world, the Oklahoma City bombing fucked everything up.
It came out that Kirk was close associates with Andreas Strasmeier, and it actually introduced him to people at Elohim City, which looked really bad when rumors started flying around that Strasmeier might have had something to do with the plan or inspiration for the bombing.
A lot of the militia community thought that Strassmeyer was working for the government, so that association was toxic there.
Ironically, it was the same white supremacist Yeah, of course.
Oh, man.
Now, the problem is that the sane world also, you know, they saw Strassmeyer as potentially a really dangerous extremist who played some undefined role in a deeply traumatic terrorist attack.
So his association with him was toxic to that world, too.
Kirk Lyons had had his fun with the overt white supremacy world, but it looked like his good time was over.
So he's defending Southern heritage from what he called, quote, an ethnic cleansing of Dixie.
This was proto-demographic replacement shit.
It was the early versions of this.
He's consistently advanced a theory that, quote, Confederate Southern Americans are a distinct race, and thus deserve a distinction as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
Whenever this theory has been brought out in court, it has not gone well, but it appears it did way better on the soliciting donations from racist circuit.
The right wing, particularly the white identity faction of the right wing, has a pretty deep tradition of presenting their arguments duplicitously.
Attempting to masquerade violent bigotry as a civil right, and plotting terrorist acts against the government they feel is Zionist-occupied as free speech.
This is a scam that's been done before.
I mean, you know, it may be that Robert Barnes isn't trying to get into this hustle, but I don't believe that.
He's using the same language about the SPLC, only helping his enemies.
And he's got his own Fort Smith sedition trial here in the form of Alex's Sandy Hook case.
This looks like history repeating itself.
And one of the main reasons I feel that way is because there's already plenty of groups that do exactly what Barnes is pretending doesn't exist.
There's already the American Civil Rights Union, which is very active and has filed tons of briefs defending Trump's Muslim ban, supporting voter ID laws and trying to help with Republican redistricting and gerrymandering.
There's also the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which just serves the purpose of a legal center for conservative causes.
If you want to go a little bit more libertarian with things, you could go with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has been operating since 1973 and whose priorities literally completely overlap with what Alex pretends to care about.
Private property, free speech, free association, due process, all that shit.
If you want one that's religious in nature and pretty cool with you being anti-LGBTQ, you could mess around with the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Or if you want one that's super-Christian and kind of unclear about whether they have a problem with you being anti-LGBTQ, you could consult the American Center for Law and Justice.
For fuck's sake, there's already an organization called the American Freedom Law Center that is specifically about protecting vague ideas about Judeo-Christian heritage.
There are so many of these fucking groups already, and many of them are very prominent, and they all address the exact issues that Robert Barnes is pretending no one addresses, thus his need for the Free America Law Center.
His reason for starting the group is bullshit, and thus, I have to suspect there are other reasons.
It could just be a scam, you know, and he's trying to fleece some racist idiots.
But my gut says that you wouldn't take this all the way to the starting a foundation level if that was your goal, just fleecing people.
This feels ideological.
When you look at Robert Barnes and you see his past actions, his past client list, particularly of late, and the way he carries himself, nothing seems right.
His past clients include Charles Johnson, a Holocaust denier who's kicked off Twitter for, quote, soliciting support to take out DeRay McKesson, who, as you know, is a civil rights leader and activist.
That case was thrown out of court, but not before Barnes had a chance to frame the whole thing as censorship and anti-social media, all those good narratives.
When a fine, upstanding white man with a long history of anti-everything-but-white people threatens to kill a man and makes a detailed plan about it, you guys are all up in arms.
Then he represented Cassandra Fairbanks when she sued a reporter at Fusion for saying that her making the OK hand signal along with Mike Cernovich in a picture taken at the White House was a white power sign.
That case also got thrown out, but not before Barnes had a chance to frame it as a critical First Amendment and anti-media narrative.
And again, he did really well in the right-wing circuit with that.
His latest hustle outside Alex is representing the Covington kids.
And by representing them, I mean he's going around threatening to sue everyone in the media, plus Elizabeth Warren and apparently Ilhan Omar, because they spoke ill of these fantastic white boys.
In a particularly dramatic move, back in January, he gave the people who spoke ill of the kids 48 hours to retract their slanderous words or face the wrath of his lawsuits, which, as we've seen, seem to get thrown out of court a lot.
After he'd made his very serious and very real threat, he was the target of another very serious and totally real threat when someone sent him a bomb threat.
To be clear, I don't think that anyone should ever even jokingly threaten someone, so I do still think that the person who sent this message is a piece of shit and probably should have some consequences.
But it's hilarious that Barnes decided to take it seriously and take to the right-wing media to proclaim his victimhood about this.
He made a mistake by sending a screenshot of this email that he received to media outlets.
Two, this threat came in from a form submission on his website, Barnes Law, which he runs through Squarespace, which is a little sad for someone in Barnes' position.
I use Squarespace, for fuck's sake.
He's supposed to be a big-time, high-end lawyer, and he's got a goddamn $20-a-month website going?
He received that message at 10.45am on January 23rd, and the Epoch Times article was published on January 24th.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that he has thousands of messages he can't get through all of them, but somehow he saw this one and created a media blitz out of it in under 24 hours.
It's even harder to believe when you realize that the Epoch Times was late to the game on this story.
The Gateway Pundit had an article up before 5 p.m. on the 23rd.
And now, here with Alex, Barnes has the perfect opportunity to parlay this case into pretty much a limitless self-promotion.
He's representing a guy with a media empire that's not doing great financially.
He needs a lawyer.
You need publicity.
It's perfect.
It works out perfectly.
But publicity wasn't about his own practice.
Or even getting his own show and usurping Alex, as we've joked about.
I suspect that it was about this all along.
And it looks like now the transition is beginning.
Barnes is openly promoting the Free America Law Center on Alex's show, and Alex has to tell his listeners to donate to this cause.
I mean, if you go to Barnes' website, Barnes Law, his law firm, in the cases section, Alex isn't in there.
You go to the Free America Law Center, cases, Alex is in there.
He's moving this stuff over there in order to build up a more robust...
of a lot of these organizations, the ones that do exist don't have scam histories to them.
Right.
unidentified
Like these conservative or libertarian public law organizations don't have like, huh, we're going to fucking just support these grifter assholes and their publicity stunts and see what we can do.
I was a bit concerned about this Free America Law Center.
Because I think that it could bode very terribly.
It could turn into a form where Barnes is able to provide legal cover for a lot of these shithead propagandists, racial agitators, anti-LGBTQ activists, some of the more fringe, dangerous people within the right-wing media.
It's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain here with Robert Barnes, caped superhero extraordinaire of the legal system, who has put together a website and an approach that I think it's fair to say is designed to help with some of the challenges of, you know, if you're not on the left or if you criticize the left and you've been in the public eye for more than 8 to 12 minutes at a time, then the tsunami of lies and falsehoods and slander and libel just comes pouring at you like some hell-sense tsunami.
And then you say, oh, well, I'm sure this can be easily corrected, given that lying about people and harming their reputation seems to be not good in the legal system.
And then you run straight into these problems of having to prove actual malice and all these other kinds of things, especially if you're a public figure, of course.
So the recourse in America, I think, tips a little bit more towards the First Amendment rather than reputational protection.
But you're, I think, taking an approach that is very interesting.
So I wonder if you could...
Get us up to speed on your lawsuits and the approach that you're taking.
Later, Stefan is complaining about, like, you know, because of all these big tech companies, you know, there's no good things about certain people out there.
So the goal was we needed a legal institution that was sort of a counterpart to the Southern Poverty Law Center, sort of the antidote to the Southern Poverty Law Center, sort of the equivalent of the ACLU, but the equivalent of it for all people, not just people on the left, not just causes on the left, not just cause celebs on the left, which unfortunately is what the ACLU has mostly done these days.
We needed something like that for people on the political right, for libertarians, for independent people, for people who aren't part of the cultural cachet of the left.
And he doesn't really want to bring into the conversation that a real sane and even slightly insane version of what he talks about already exists and has for decades.
Because, yeah, if you're trying to create an antidote on the right to the ACLU and you're really going for it, you're going to wind up creating the ACLU.
You know, you're just going to do the same thing that they do.
Yeah, because if you're caring about reality and you give a shit about, yeah, absolutely, you actually have principles, then you wind up realizing, oh shit, yeah, I care more about...
Doing things the right way or the legal way than I do about lying about it.
It's very imaginable that a conservative and a liberal could come together on the discussion about whether or not the kid in the D.C. sniper case deserves a new trial based on the Supreme Court decision.
Yeah, and that's because I would hazard a guess that if you are going to actually give a shit and you're going to litigate these cases and you want them to go to trial, then that means in order to win your case, you have to accept a shared reality.
Both sides agree on what the facts are.
And so then you find out so much of ideology and all that shit doesn't apply because it's actually not real.
Like so many of these grifter cases, they're fundamentally imaginary.
And the centers that do side with the ACLU, of course they're not going to draw in those same level of donations because sometimes they do things that the propaganda says are wrong.
The second thing the left does well is because virtue signaling matters so much to donors and contributors on the left, they're willing to fund, crowdfund liberal causes in ways that generally conservatives just haven't.
Most conservatives want some value for what they give their money for.
Well, that makes it difficult to be able to crowdfund for lawsuits where the only value is knowing that the lawsuit's going to move forward.
So the goal was to create a legal organization that serves the needs and meets the interests of people all across the political spectrum to fight the three Ds, deplatforming, defamation, deep state whistleblowing, to equalize and democratize access for all of those people.
So we created Free America Law Center, which people can look up, find out more online about at freeamericalawcenter.com.
And the goal was to not make it as donor-driven or as contributor-driven, but to make it membership-driven, so to make it subscription-driven.
So people sign up for a monthly subscription at a very affordable, accessible rate, $17.76 a month to recognize our great American patriotic history.
I love the inverted reality of people thinking that all the causes that we donate to have no value, and yet they would donate to fucking Barnes because they want to get something for their money.
So people that are monthly subscribers get to vote on what kind of cases get pursued.
They also get weekly podcasts where only members get to ask questions of lawyers and legal experts to answer those in Q&A podcasts.
They get weekly books that are going to be a Bill of Rights bookly series.
They'll be issued at least monthly to people that are self-educated or self-armored in the law can better protect their own rights and defend their rights.
So we're giving them tangible value that's personal to them.
While at the same time trying to create a law center that can equalize and democratize access to the law against big media and big tech.
And what's happening is big tech and big media are colluding in ways to suppress and censor dissident voices using their superior lawfare and their superior legal acumen and talent on their side of the aisle because of their ceaseless bench and endless progress.
This is exactly what Kirk Lyons told the Aryan Nations World Congress in 1988.
They're against us in our dissident voices, the patriots.
It's exactly the same rhetoric that is being used as a justification for starting the Patriots Defense Foundation.
Similarly, what you have in William Luther Pierce's letter about Kirk Lyons, he's going to help us create something to help us in the same way the Jews have done for our enemies.
You have that same thing.
We need something that will do for us what the left has done for the people we're against.
he's not saying the same things, but the structure is the same.
The argument is the same.
unidentified
And a lot of the people that seem to be adjacent to the worlds that Barnes is swimming in are fucked up.
I mean, I would, you know, to get back to our earlier conversation, though, Lions was dealing with the founder of the Aryan Nation, and Barnes is dealing with Cassandra Fairbanks and Alex Jones.
The media just seems out of control in their reputational attack.
And, you know, the left used to be like, well, you know, the David versus Goliath stuff will always side with David because Goliath has so much power.
But now you see the left really siding with the giant corporations in tech, with the giant corporations in media against the little guys who don't seem to have any particular capacity to push back against.
That what's happening in defamation and deplatforming is also happening with Antifa, which is sort of a violent mechanism of trying to enforce orthodoxy in speech, limit what people can say, limit, scare people into self-censorship.
I mean, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.
And so if you can get people afraid of, man, if I say that, I might get sued.
I might lose my job.
I mean, there was a guy representing the Pre-American Law Center that was going to support that was just working at a gas station.
And he got fired just because he asserted political beliefs related to Trump.
Because some other customer created a storm about it.
The only cases listed there are the Covington kids, a former FBI agent he's representing, and Alex Jones.
Like I said, Alex is not listed on the current roster of cases on Facebook.
But we'll see.
I'm guessing.
The client that he's discussing here is the guy who worked at a gas station in Naperville, just outside of Chicago, who was not just fired for supporting Trump.
This guy was caught on video questioning the citizenship status of a customer and then telling her that people needed to, quote, go back to their country.
He tells the woman, quote, you're in the wrong country, and as she's leaving, threatens her, quote, ice will come, which is a real cool indication that normal folks are keenly aware that ice is basically a racial stormtrooper force.
The real incident is a blatantly racist and offensive interaction that's beyond the pale, regardless of a person's political beliefs.
I've managed retail outlets, and if someone was acting even close to the way that guy did towards a customer, they'd be fucking gone.
Even if it wasn't about race, even if it wasn't about her citizenship status, you don't get into fights with customers pure and simple.
If you're a clerk at a gas station, I regret to say this, and I speak as someone who worked at multiple gas stations in my life, you are insanely replaceable, and no business should feel any need to keep a guy who likes to argue with customers on the payroll.
That's bad business.
I'm not sure if this is the case that Barnes is talking about, but I would kind of bet that it is, based on the details that he provides, and because video of the exchange between the clerk and customer went around on social media, so it plays into that part of Barnes' platform.
This is not a case of someone who was fired for supporting Trump, but that's how racism and being a shitty employee are whitewashed.
If this really is the case that Barnes is talking about, it clearly shows what his intentions and strategies are.
You take people like this who do blatantly intimidating racist things, and then you reframe it, repackage it as some sort of a violation of the offender's rights.
And by virtue of that, you hope to gum up the process.
Or intimidate people out of, you know, dealing with these sort of outbursts rationally.
Well, I obviously have somewhat of a personal motive in supporting somebody or a group who's out there trying to balance things like the SPLC, which to me has become a completely ideologically driven institution that lists people like PragerU and me and other people who are just making arguments and doesn't list Antifa.
I mean, this is just crazy.
And I think there is this general sense, you know the rule, right?
Any organization that's not specifically anti-left gets progressively more left over time as the activists get in to enact their collectivist, anti-free market, anti-freedom agenda.
And so I really like the idea, you know, the SPLC to me is beyond reforming, but having a counterweight to it I think is really important because it really is such a one-sided battle at the moment.
So, therefore, it's a terrible organization taken over by globalist leftists and collectivist agenda and far-left activists, blah, blah, blah, ba-do, ba-do.
It's the same thing with SPLC.
You have, like, they watch out and, like...
They cover extremists on the right.
They're one of the forces that actually takes the time and researches a lot of these people who are really dangerous.
And people like Stefan Molyneux don't get a pass from them.
Morris Dees is called a Klan lawyer because in 1962 he represented a Klansman named Claude Henley who was on trial for attacking the Freedom Riders.
He was 26 years old at the time and less than two years out of law school and has been very publicly clear that he regrets taking that case.
His subsequent legal history does seem to indicate that sometime after the trial he had a bit of a change of heart.
As reflected by the cases that he took on and the fact that he supported George Wallace's campaign in 1958, but by 1972 he was backing George McGovern.
Dees is a gigantic target for the right wing because he's completely destroyed a lot of white supremacist groups.
He's won large settlements against the white Aryan resistance, the United Clans of America, and the Aryan Nations.
People on the really fucked up parts of the right wing know they can't complain about him on the merits, which is to say they can't just come out and say that they hate that he financially crippled white supremacist groups.
So they have to take the alternate approach.
You try to taint his motives.
You try to say, like, well, he was originally a Klan lawyer, all that stuff, etc.
It's all an attempt to attack without revealing why you're mad at him.
But I think his political work is very important.
It should be pointed out that Dees himself might not have been all that great a guy.
And he was fired by the SPLC earlier this year.
And many have suggested that it stemmed from internal harassment complaints.
It certainly isn't from Barnes or Alex or any of these right-wing truth-tellers.
It's from the fucking New York Times, the bastion of liberal media, the world where you dare not criticize the darlings of the left, a world where the SPLC runs the show.
employee complaints.
Meanwhile, all I hear from these right-wing dicks is the same, his civil rights work is invalid, claptrap.
It's all bullshit.
Like, there are valid complaints to be made about Maurice Dees as a human, and even the, like we talked about earlier, the institution of the SPLC.
But the complaints that I hear out of these people is never that.
Talk about the legitimate complaints, because out of one side they'd be like, see, look at how bad this guy is, and the other side of the mouth they're like, employers should be able to do whatever they want to their employees, and so on and so forth.
He claims that 90% of the people listed on the SPLC's Hate Watch are just, quote, different dissident voices that are often within the political mainstream on the political right.
Here are some of the most recent headlines on Hate Watch.
There's an article about the power struggle that's going on in the leadership of the anti-government militia, the Three Percenters.
There's an article about Beth Van Duyen, a woman running for Congress who's really into calling groups of Muslims, quote, hotbeds of Sharia.
There's an article about how many of the accelerationist elements in the white supremacist communities were responding to the El Paso shooting by emphasizing the need to kill important people instead of random folks at Walmart.
There's an article about how a member of an Arkansas white nationalist group who was arrested for beating up a gay man because he was gay also had previous hate crime convictions in the past.
Legitimately.
If you look at these articles and you think, well, that's basically mainstream right-wing dissident voices, you're identifying the same problem I am, but you don't think it's a problem.
We could go through that list one by one and discuss how a lot of these people are either literal murderers who killed people for white supremacist causes or how a lot of them are outright Nazis.
But instead, what I would like to do is, I'd like to ask who Barnes thinks exactly are these 90% of people who are in the political mainstream on the right.
That's the sort of thing that's really fun to say.
And it plays really well with the right-wing persecution complex.
But if he actually means what he's saying, then he's tacitly saying that the mainstream of the right-wing has been...
Maybe that is what he's saying.
After all, he's talking to a guy who went to Poland to become a white nationalist.
It also reminds me of what I studied when I was a scholarship student at Yale.
Which was studying cultural phenomenon in the 60s and 70s, where particular groups tended to be demonized within the popular media.
And back then, the target was interesting was you had both African Americans and poor whites from certain parts of the country tended to be portrayed disproportionately in dangerous and frightening ways.
And what the theory that I came up with that seemed to be an overlap...
Is that the big cultural institutions tended to try to demonize those communities and constituencies that had a counter-narrative to whatever the establishment narrative of the day was.
And so if you came from a community that reflected that, that community tended to be demonized in the popular cultural representation.
In the last 15 years, that has shifted heavily towards white men in general, but also at religious people.
There's a disproportionate targeting, even like a show like Big Little Lies on HBO.
Would represent this bad maternal character as being a religious figure.
Okay, just because, you know, there are other religions out there that, despite having some negative beliefs in general, are almost universally portrayed with rapturous positivity, like somebody's either a cult member or a groupie.
It was really a sub-motivation taking place in the Covington case.
The message was, what are these institutions that are successful at resisting sort of the elite cultural liberal institutions of entertainment and education that are almost monopolized by the identitarian left?
Well, that is places like religious schools and Catholic schools.
They're one of the last repositories of independent education, which will challenge the establishment narrative in a wide range of cultural contexts.
So by trying to demonize Catholic schools, by trying to scare parents, saying, man, if your kid goes to a Catholic school, someday maybe the New York Times will ruin your life just because he really goes to a Catholic school.
That was really, in fact, there were writers for the New York Times who were planning on follow-up hit pieces against Catholic schools.
The presentation of religious schools are the only place that give you a counter-narrative to the mainstream that is essentially trying to brainwash you and create a collectivist dystopia where conservatives aren't allowed to say anything.
This is extremist shit.
Just presented in a lackadaisical kind of like matter of fact way that makes it seem like it's not as extreme as it is.
Deliverance, you're kind of redneck clichés about the South because the South is pretty Christian.
Why is it that the coastal elites that generally are leftists or atheists or at least not Christians, why do they hate flyover countries so much?
Because that's where the churches are.
And when you sort of see this seething resentment towards Christianity, and of course Christianity historically has stood between the leftist collectivists.
And their thirst for state power.
I mean, that's straight out of the French Revolution.
First thing they did was kill the priests, kill the nuns, or rape and kill the nuns, and so on.
So those who seek power have a great deal of issue, and the Church and the cross and Christianity stands in the way of their thirst for power, which is to me, as Ann Coulter has characterized it, is pretty damn demonic, and it's kind of hard to argue against that.
And so once people process just how much hostility there is, not just towards Christians, but to those with an anti-status mentality, there's Christians, libertarians, and so on, and me and others, and once you kind of understand that, there are people who are forming a human chain between the predators and the power they seek.
Of course they're going to aim at people like us.
They can't take us on intellectually, so all they can do is create this fiery mode of negative language and hope that scares enough people away that we become irrelevant.
But we don't need to sit here and spend a lot of time, Jordan, rehashing how Christianity served as an excuse and a moral rationalization for colonialism, and the period where countless indigenous peoples were massacred and had their lands taken from them and their resources stolen, creating ripple effects that still plague much of the world to this day.
I don't know how Stefan defines tyranny or oppression, but if it doesn't include that experience, he's talking about something else.
When you look around the world and you try and figure out who some of the major not-good folks are who are running governments, you kind of get the sense that Stefan's notion that Christianity is somehow resistant to state oppression is, like, that's complete bullshit.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is a Christian, though he's been a little bit wishy-washy about the religious stuff lately.
Duterte in the Philippines has identified as Christian.
These guys complain all day about South Africa, but their president, Cyril Ramaphosa, is a Christian.
Slobodan Milosa!
against humanity at the hague yeah there are plenty of world leaders who are up to no good who are christian but beating up on christianity isn't the point there are leaders of all religious persuasions who do bad things and can lead their countries down tyrannical roads it's not exclusive to any religion or sect when you completely ignore that this is an unrelated variable and continue to lionize christianity and demean other religions based on that falsehood it really demonstrates that you're not Really into the avoiding tyranny part of things.
It's more that you're soft-pitching a social theocracy.
They're trying to replicate that model, which is get involved, like control human relations and advertising departments as part of your popular front.
Infiltrate those institutions to help reshape people's thought prospects.
And as you look at all of that, they've mostly been wildly successful, the left has, at taking over almost every form of education that exists in the United States.
Almost other than religious parochial schools.
Taking control over almost all of TV and Hollywood and major books and almost all of the news industry.
With the sole exception really being the church as the last repository of traditional beliefs against their status.
It's a revolutionary mindset that's a dangerous mindset.
It's one that attacks tradition, attacks ideas simply because of their associations with either the past or with religious traditions, particularly Christian religious traditions, because they see them as their biggest obstacle to thought control.
The left really thinks if we could get rid of churches like the communists were able to do in the 1930s in places like Russia, though they weren't able to fully succeed, but partially succeed, that that's the best way to be able to have Complete thought control over how people think and perceive the world.
There has been a great deal of focus on Hollywood.
Now, I would argue that one of the reasons that the Hollywood stuff has been a little bit more difficult, Is that people who come from the same places as Robert Barnes, maybe write for similar publications, have turned that into a weird satanic panic thing.
There's a lot of distractions with the Pizzagate stuff and all of that world that is taken away from any kind of real...
Focus on this, and it creates distractions, and it creates expectations that can't be lived up to.
It creates a false version that makes it look like real investigations or cover-ups.
And that isn't the media's fault.
That's your side's fault.
That's Alex and his associates' fault.
That is something that you will never be able to achieve.
The idea that everybody is involved in a massive...
Blood drinking, child sacrifice party.
That is not something you're going to ever prove.
And because you can't, you'll always look at it as like, well, they never really got to the bottom of it.
And you know what they do with the Catholic Church?
If you want it to make less sense, Robert Barnes here has an example of something that shows the distinction between how people react to Hollywood and to the priests in the Catholic Church.
And I would say this is one of the more ludicrous comparisons I've ever heard.
Try to reinstate people like the director, James Gunn, who got put back in, even though he made comedic jokes that normally would have been totally inappropriate if he had been a Catholic priest.
So the amazing dynamic of the inconsistency and hypocrisy and duplicity revealed that their true agenda was not the protection of children.
Also, show me not just the Catholic priest who fucked up and tweeted something weird, but the Catholic priest who fucked up and tweeted something ten years ago that was unearthed by a right-wing fucking lunatic asshole trying to take him down specifically as a goddamn troll operation, then blown out of proportion.
Big media and big tech platforms using that power.
of those platforms to target certain people really solely because of their belief systems, to suppress and censor speech, thought, and ideas, and mostly not to prevent me or you from talking as preventing the audience from hearing this.
That's what free speech is really all about, is protecting the audience's rights and respecting the audience's rational capacity to make good decisions and good judgments, their moral capacity to make good decisions and good judgments.
That's what the left doesn't trust.
It doesn't trust the ordinary person, the ordinary human being's ability of thought and conscience to process information to make good and wise decisions.
That's why they have to suppress and censor speech.
And the other problem that I have is this idea of, like, you know, they don't trust the audience to make a decision, hear these things and make a decision.
Like, you know, the classic example of, like, the limitation of free speech is you can't yell fire in a crowded building.
Because if you get in trouble for yelling fire in a crowded building, what you're doing is you're not trusting the other people in that building to make a sound moral decision about whether or not there's a fire.
And also the fire in a crowded theater thing is a really interesting analogy when you actually apply it to what he's saying.
In a way, I don't trust these people's instant reaction to this guy screaming fire.
That guy could be a bad actor.
He could be a bad faith actor.
And in a split second, he is influencing your emotional behavior, bypassing your rational thought processes, and influencing you to act in a way that is detrimental to your own benefit.
So, at this point, they get into talking about Alex and his specific suit.
And Barnes has some real stupid things to say about it.
His main argument seems to be that this is like a focused attack and using Alex as an example because what they're doing is they're deplatforming him and then also defaming him.
And when they defame him, he's not able to respond to the defamation because he's been deplatformed.
This is silly.
And I know it's silly because of the examples that he uses.
If I remember rightly, correct me where I go astray, of course, but there were unopened emails in defunct or unchecked email accounts, and if I understand it correctly, they were turned over as part of discovery, but this was not as it was portrayed.
But as you point out, he can't really fight back because he's been silenced.
If you're complaining about people misunderstanding the story that was correctly reported in the New York Times and Washington Post, then I don't know what to do.
I don't know what to do for you.
Your complaint is that people on Twitter are dumb.
All right?
Yes, that is the case.
But if you're trying to, as Stefan is doing, and as Robert Barnes is presenting, they're presenting the idea that the media lied about this situation.
And that is not true.
I've read a bunch of articles about that situation because we had to cover it on this show, and all of them were clear about the circumstances.
They were clear that the FBI had been involved and had said that it does not appear that Alex was aware of it.
These were unopened.
There was no culpability that was assigned to Alex Jones.
At best.
I don't even know if this was in any of the articles or just what I took away from it.
The criticism that could be launched is, how the fuck did he not look at what he was turning over to Discovery?
That is the sort of criticism that could be made.
This is a sloppy handling of a legal case.
That is what could be taken from it.
If you want to talk about the interpretations that people could have of whatever someone might walk away from it if they didn't read the whole article, well, then you're just talking about Alex's business model.
I love the such, like, it's so stupid for him to be like, and no, there's no way for this information to get out that he didn't actually, the media controls him and they've silenced him, so there's no way that anybody could get that information out.
Okay, so it's, let me repeat back to you exactly what I read.
So the thing about Alex losing a lawsuit and writing the book No One Died at Sandy Hook was a complete fuck-up by, I think it was Market Watch, I believe it was the website.
We've discussed this already, and Alex would be right to get in touch with them and insist that they retract and apologize.
However, as we've seen, Alex pretends that it was the AP who put that headline out and has said over and over again he's contacted the AP and they stand by it.
They won't retract it.
And this is because they didn't write it and didn't publish it.
A completely different website did.
This is what Alex is grandstanding about suing the Associated Press about earlier in the episode, which is never going to fly, and Barnes fucking knows that.
This is a publicity stunt, and you can tell because there's a clear problem that is real, and they're attacking the straw man.
The problem is super easy to resolve.
All you have to do is contact Market Watch, and if they refuse to correct it, then you sue them.
If all you do is focus on the Associated Press, you're not interested in the correction.
You're not interested in the real problem.
You're interested in pretending that the largest news outlet in the United States is slandering you.
And the real reason to do that is to elevate and exaggerate your own victimhood.
Mark my words, that lawsuit will never happen.
Because any lawyer Alex could possibly have would know that it would be thrown out immediately and possibly even open up avenues for fines for a frivolous or malicious filing of a suit.
As for the white shoe boy thing, I was always against the reading of Alex's words as Jew boy.
But also, Alex was really drunk when he said that, and he was talking super unclearly in that rant.
I can totally understand how someone could hear Jew boy in there, but I think if you're familiar enough with Alex's career and style, you would know he wouldn't throw around stuff like that.
He has decades under his belt of walking a very fine line, and even he's aware that calling someone Jew boy is going to raise more questions about his rhetoric than he wants asked.
Sure, but there's a difference between that, like going in autopilot or whatever, the performance state, and then dealing with chaos while you're performing.
Like, if you started getting heckled, you might end up, the drunkenness might come back.
And so, I don't know if that works as well as it might feel like it for Alex's drunken ranting, but I still, even in his intoxicated state, I still think he knows better.
Like, he's very used to knowing where approximate lines are.
He tests those lines before he crosses them a lot of the time.
Like, we're seeing in 2013...
There's a lot of calling everybody else actors before he jumps in and starts doing the Sandy Hook actor stuff.
That's testing a line.
That's like towing up to it and seeing how it feels before he commits to it.
He would never just drunkenly yell, this guy's a Jew boy.
I just don't feel like it's in his character, even if there is a ton of anti-Semitism in his worldview.
The transcripts that the plaintiffs made of that rant did say Jew Boy, but even critics of Alex like Will Summer tweeted that that wasn't what he said.
My overall feeling about this is that the transcription folks were incorrect, but I don't think it came from a place of malice or trying to defame Alex.
I think Alex was fucking wasted, screaming about the plaintiff's lawyer and putting a million-dollar bounty on his head, and it would be easy to make the mistake in the transcription if you're not really all that familiar with Alex.
Especially considering white shoe boy isn't a super well-known term.
I love this idea that, like, they're trying to, like, package Alex as this, like, just rogue, independent media guy who's, like, get the fuck out of here.
It's a word that Barnes uses a lot, and I've noticed from listening to a bit of him that he's also one of these guys who likes to speak in alliteration and rhymes.
We're going to be bringing legal actions of all kinds to assert his free speech and free press rights, and his audience has been behind him.
But his cases will likely shape the future of free speech and free press in America.
Ultimately, some of them will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and that's why it's so important that he have the best representation, the best legal arguments made, the best offenses presented, because ultimately, we are Alex Jones.
Because that's how the law is going to treat us.
And that's how big tech and big media will try to treat us in the future.
If I directly inspire harassment to go on for years and years and years, I think I'd be fine if somebody was like, yeah, you're going to need to be punished for that.
It's entirely possible that he believes that these other conservative, libertarian, Christian public law offerings are not catered to the specific needs that he has.
And if he presented his argument as these things do exist, but they're not worth...
Working in the direction I want them to, so we want to create our own niche thing.
I would find that argument a little bit more honest.
Since he's not presenting it like that, and all of this is just, we don't have anything in the SPLC and ACLU running over us, that duplicitous framing of it makes me really worried about what the real intentions are.
So, all I can do is take the pieces of information that are available to me and try and make sense of them.
He's proud and privileged to be interviewed by Stefan Molyneux, someone who is a creep of the highest order and a self-described empiricist who supports white nationalism.
So I just don't see a way around looking at this in the context that...
Barnes is offering me.
I'm not trying to malign him in any way.
I'm looking at his actions, comparing them to someone who did very similar things in the past, and also looking at the ways in which he sees fit to publicize his venture.
He's willing to, you know, he promotes it on Alex's show, but we'll sit down with Stefan Molyneux and talk about it for an hour in a way that drifts Deeply into Christian identity and white identity ideas.
I would say, so far, every feel and interaction and every time I've heard anything about him and every time I've heard his voice, Barnes creeps me out.
And he is...
He's running something on someone always.
I don't think he's ever...
I've never heard him in any situation where I feel like he was genuine.