September 24–25, 2019 episode dissects Alex Jones’ escalated attacks on Greta Thunberg—falsely calling her a "Hitler Youth" puppet funded by Soros—while debunking his claims about CO₂ levels and Tencent’s $150M Reddit investment. His baseless theories, like Greta’s parents facing Swedish child services (sourced from conspiracy peddler Leo Zagami) or Jefferson Davis being a U.S. president, reveal sloppy research and ideological distortions. Lawsuits against The Young Turks, Brianna Wu, and others hinge on unproven hacking allegations, likely a publicity stunt to revive his fading Sandy Hook case. Jones’ decline into repetitive, traffic-driven propaganda underscores how conspiracy-mongering eclipses even his signature vitriol. [Automatically generated summary]
And when we put out our last episode for Wednesday, we did a present day episode, but we had done it before a lot of the news that's relevant and people are probably interested in Alex's take on had broken.
So today we're staying in the present.
And we are going to be going over September 24th and 25th, which would be what was that, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
But before we get down to any of this business here, we've got to take a little moment to say thank you to some people who have signed up and are supporting the show and make this here podcast possible.
But if you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like this show, I like what these gents do, you can support our show by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button, says support the show, takes you to our Patreon.
You can sign up.
Thank you.
It would be lovely.
So we're going to start on the 24th.
But before we get to that, here is an out-of-context drop from today's show.
Alex spends the first chunk of the show comparing her to Hitler and talking about the Hitler youth.
And to be sure, Greta's age doesn't make her above criticism, but it should really make her off-limits to this style of targeting and demonization, even if you thoroughly detest the message that she's putting out.
Like, I've missed out on some prime dunking opportunities in the course of doing this podcast as it relates to Soph, the racist 14-year-old, or Alex's son, Rex.
But it's just not right to treat youths like that, even if you disagree vehemently about their positions.
Or at least that's my position, and I think that's a pretty decent way to operate.
I mean, because especially if you imagine yourself back when you were 15, 16, some of the things that you said, you probably stand behind, but some of it you wouldn't want to be called fucking Hitler youth for.
We've even talked very little about the Covington kids on this podcast, except in the context of Barnes being their lawyer, like for kind of similar reasons.
And I don't say this because I don't think Greta can't handle it.
You know, I'm not saying that at all.
It's clear that she has a very strong character that I only wish I had a slice of at her age.
And being a part of this younger online generation, I'm sure her skin is thick enough to not care too much about what a loser like Alex Jones says.
It's more that this sort of behavior is the exclusive action of someone who is a monster.
It's the sort of thing that Alex would be deeply ashamed to do were he capable of that emotion.
And the thing that's even sadder is that he's just repeating other people's ideas.
When our Wednesday episode came out, where we went over September 23rd of 2019, I got some responses from listeners wondering why we didn't cover Alex talking about Greta.
If he was complaining about all that climate change stuff through a good part of that episode.
And I probably should have made this more clear.
He didn't really talk about her at all on the 23rd.
It wasn't until Tucker Carlson did a segment about her on the evening of the 23rd that she even really entered Alex's head as a target.
And this opening piece on Alex's show is him just taking Tucker's talking points, escalating them, and repackaging them for an extremist audience.
That's really all that's going on here at the beginning.
It's crazy.
I was listening to the episode and I'm like, wow, we're almost a half hour into this thing and there is nothing happening except that.
When she was saying, we'll be watching you, you know, reflecting that the younger generation is paying attention to what the older generation is doing and how they have every reason to know what they're doing and still failing to act.
I think that's another thing that's sort of lost on Alex is that her target and who she was speaking most condemningly about wasn't people like Alex or even these climate deniers necessarily, but the people who lack the will of conviction to do something.
This is a doomed exercise, partially because his website sucks, and partially because what made the Donald work had a lot to do with the infrastructure of Reddit and how it was designed.
Meme World has a vastly inferior structure, and it lacks the millions of people just sort of casually browsing the site who are the targets of the memes that would come out of the Donald.
Without the unaware audience of millions upon whom you can subject your bullshit to, your bullshit loses any value to anyone.
And I suspect Carpe Donctum is going to learn that lesson the hard way.
And Alex is too, because he is really pitching in with this meme world bullshit.
So I find this really weird because here we see Alex telling his audience that the real issue with climate change is that there are demons who want to stop the world from releasing CO2 into the air because the earth is CO2 deficient and God placed fossil fuel reserves into the ground so humans could find them at just the time, you know, the right time to save the world by burning them and polluting a whole bunch.
But it's also weird because I thought his problem with climate change promoters was that they were just trying to force people to pay carbon taxes that would enrich Al Gore and George Soros while destroying the West.
Now it's a plot by demons to stop God's plan to save the Earth.
As to Alex's claim that CO2 levels are at their lowest ever, that's complete bullshit.
Scientists have been able to use ice core samples to measure the CO2 levels in the air from as far back as 800,000 years, which is a lot longer than Homo sapiens.
Well, I mean, I remember somebody said that the Triassic period was marked by a massive CO2 explosion expansion, and that's why the plants were so large, which is why dinosaurs were allowed to grow so large.
Quite literally the opposite of what the consensus view of every credible source I can find says.
He's not living in reality.
He's just promoting to his audience a fantasy where the real battle of Armageddon is over regulations on the fossil fuel industry.
And you really got to ask yourself, why would someone do that?
So I should tell you this.
I got to about an hour into this show, and it dawned on me that Alex hadn't even referenced Donald Trump's speech at the UN, where, you know, he said that the future doesn't belong to globalists.
It belongs to Patriots, which is basically him doing Alex's show in front of the UN.
Because Trump gave his remarks at approximately 9:15 a.m. Austin time.
So there's legitimately no way Alex should be unaware of that speech by the time he goes on air at 11.
It just seemed really strange to me that he's wasting his time rambling about Greta Thunberg and talking about like, we're going to have Carpe Donctum on to talk about the Donald.
Like he's just doing nothing related to what everyone else is concerned about.
And they'll come over and say, you know, I'm really kind of a liberal, but my daughter comes home and cries when she drives by and sees a new house being built.
She animals, the bugs, the bunnies are dying.
She feels really guilty and says she wants to die.
And so I kind of hear what you're saying is right now.
And then the daughter comes over and goes, look at my taily turtle.
So let's go ahead and roll the video and the audio of just the brief exchange where Trump comes walking into the UN right after she gives us end-of-the-world rent and says, We are watching you.
You will pay.
Give control to central banks of all oil, all production, tax everything, or you will pay.
This is hurt looking at Trump here this look at that.
The globalists left are all over the place calling for Trump's impeachment and his execution, including the former governor of Massachusetts, Bill Welber.
We're going to play that clip coming up next segment.
So by this point in the show, we're a ways in, probably like an hour, hour and a half into the show, Alex starts talking about the UN speech, but he still doesn't really bring up the globalist patriot thing.
Instead, he has this to say: I get irritated with Trump because I want to fight the globalists harder, and I see how criminal they are and how they've gotten away with it.
Man, no president in 50-something years has given a speech about religious persecution at the UN, and he's put laws in place where churches can talk about their political views.
All you have to do is go back to Obama's final address to the UN in September 2016, and Alex is already wrong.
From that speech, quote, I do not believe progress is possible.
If our desire to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to dehumanize or dominate another group, if our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray.
Obama went on to say, quote, we see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East.
There, so much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs, but by resorting to persecuting political opponents or demonizing other religious sects.
If you do literally any research into this, like literally any, you'll find tons of instances of pretty much every president decrying religious persecution when addressing the UN.
But you hit the nail on the head, Jordan.
Alex isn't talking about decrying religious persecution, especially not as a universal issue that needs to be dealt with.
He's praising Trump for validating his bullshit narratives about his version of right-wing Christianity being under attack.
That's what's going on.
This isn't about having a president who respects religious freedom.
It's about celebrating having a president who's far more interested in the freedom of Christians than in all other religions or non-religious folk.
This honestly couldn't be more transparent, which is why Alex can still feel like he's correct when he says no president has ever talked about religious oppression at the UN.
All those other presidents were talking about all religions, which isn't religious freedom to someone like Alex.
Alex is focusing on this aspect, though, not really even highlighting the fact that basically Trump's repeated Alex's biggest talking points in front of the UN, which, again, I don't understand.
She's very unpopular in Europe, but they force feed her as this youth believing it will make the youth suddenly hate their parents and get in their faces.
And she's got antifa parents.
She's an Antifa member.
They've got the photos and all the admissions.
She's there being run by the Soros organization when she was at the UN.
And Trump shows up while she's sitting there doing a multi-hour-long photo op, ranting hatefully.
In fact, here's video shot literally minutes before Trump arrives in the press junket area and steals the show.
Alex has nothing to substantiate his claim that Greta is being used to make children hate their parents either.
Nothing in her speech would lead a normal person to the conclusion like that, unless, of course, the parent in question was someone working actively against climate change action who contributes to leaving the youth with a disastrous environment.
Then maybe she's encouraging this kid to hate their parents.
unidentified
Dad, Dad, why do you scream all day, every day, about how climate change is a hoax whenever I know for a fact that it's real and we're all going to die soon?
Alex is also doing everything in his power to associate Greta with George Soros, which has been a big mission of a lot of the right-wing who are grasping at straws, trying to attack her.
One thing that's been used in service of this is a picture of her posing with Soros.
But that picture was photoshopped.
It was actually a picture of her with Al Gore that someone just put Soros' head on Al Gore's body.
I'm not sure what bullshit website he picked this up from, but ultimately the source goes back to a QAnon Twitter account called Wide Awake Q Army Swiss Division.
This account posted a collection of images of Greta with what appears to be the same woman, alleged to be Louisa Marie Neubauer, who allegedly works for a company called One Foundation, which has links to Soros.
Even if all these pictures are the same person and Neubauer does work for that foundation, this is still super weak as a connection and doesn't do anything to prove that this is Greta's handler.
In order to gauge the credibility of this source, the QAnon Twitter, I decided to take a look at that account.
And what do you know?
I immediately was faced with multiple retweets of things originally posted by Jordan Sather, one of the big figures in the Q movement.
Anyone who knows what's up will know who that dude is.
This guy doesn't tweet too much, the Swiss division of the Q Army.
And his timeline is crowded with QAnon retweets and retweets of people like Paul Joseph Watson and Charlie Kirk.
I did notice a whole lot of posts that seemed to be suspicious about Greta's hands, though.
Some were about the size of her hands, which I'm not sure why that's a conspiracy.
Others were about how she went sailing and her hands weren't sunburnt.
It's a very strange fascination.
And it reminds me a ton of the obsession that online idiots had after Sandy Hook about earlobe shapes and how earlobes proved that people were crisis actors.
Anyway, the actual thread that this image comes from, the image that was used as the source for sites like Big League Politics to report that Greta Thunberg has a Soros handler, is nuts.
This thread is nuts.
It starts by saying, quote, a quick look at Greta and her Masonic cabal ancestry.
It's weird that you'd include, like, I don't know, tweet number five in a thread when the tweet number one has hashtag QAnon, and also this is her Masonic cabal ancestry.
It seems like that's good, proper context for the rest of the thread.
So the thread goes on to accuse her family of being in the Illuminati because some unsourced list of names this guy found includes both Weiss Hopt and Thunberg.
Then the thread gets into a couple pictures of Greta where she has one of her eyes covered.
In one, it's by a shadow, and in another, what appears to be a coin.
In the online conspiracy world, everyone's convinced that anyone who takes a picture with one of their eyes covered is signaling to other Illuminati members that they're part of the group.
It's one of the older and stupider elements of conspiracy message board shit, and I'm honestly shocked to see that it's still around and anybody takes it seriously.
I'm fine with that conspiracy theory if we're back in the Polaroid days, where it's like pictures have more intent back then when there aren't as many pictures.
Now there's 10 million pictures.
I could pull up my phone and scroll once and I could get 10 million photos of me with one of my eyes covered.
This was one of those self-fulfilling kind of things because people would have pictures with like one eye covered and then they'd be accused of being in the Illuminati.
And then fashion folks and photographers started doing that, almost fucking with people.
It makes total sense that they would be compatriots and possibly become friends and work together.
As for her working for the One Foundation, I found no solid sourcing on that outside of this tweet, which got like 5,000 retweets and served as the basis for all of this right-wing reporting.
One.org has their tax documents available for public review, and Luisa is not a paid employee of their organization.
I can confirm that.
I've reviewed their financial documents, and I see no evidence of Soros' heavy hand in the One Foundation, which isn't even their name, as the tweet referred to them, though.
Why is it that so many stories that become accepted fact within the conservative right-wing circles are based on one asshole tweeting something that isn't true?
In that post, it says that Soros was one of many people who provided funding to create an organization called Data, which was an anti-poverty education campaign.
Within a few years, this group combined with a number of other groups to eventually create one, with the primary funding coming from the Gates Foundation.
There's no reason to assume from this or any other information that I can find that Soros has any involvement other than being an initial funder of an organization that eventually became part of another organization.
There's no indication that he had anything to do with one outside of his involvement in data, which literally could have just been him writing a check one time.
Though this is better proof than that QAnon Twitter account, this is still completely failing to prove that Soros has anything to do with this organization.
Nor does it prove that Louisa has been photographed with Greta because she's a handler working through one foundation.
All that is completely unfounded bullshit.
And it's based on nothing more than an innate hatred of Soros, a couple of out-of-context photos, and an overriding desire to invalidate the words of a 16-year-old girl as not being her own.
It's an intense showing of weakness, to say the least.
It is kind of amazing that the right is still sticking on with all these people, even after watching them debase themselves so pathetically, trying to discredit a 16-year-old girl.
So, anyway, my point largely is that there is no evidence to any of this stuff that's being floated around about Greta and Soros.
If you look into where it comes from, nine times out of ten, it's going to be that QAnon Twitter account.
And the other times, it's going to just be this, it's going to be misrepresentations of one being made up of a bunch of organizations, one of them being data, which Soros gave initial funding to, and that's fucking thin.
And everyone is rejecting her, but the very weakest-minded people.
That's why you go to a lepis event and they look like the Walking Dead and act like the Walking Dead.
Because these are the pathetic followers.
The Cannon Fodder, the useful idiots, the morons, the smucks, the dupes, the marks, the swabs, the fools, the ignorant idiots, the people that bought the con and keep doubling down the con forever.
When I was listening to this, I was like, if I were Alex, I would legitimately feel an obligation to immediately, when I come back from break, explain what I meant.
And if that's the sort of metaphor that you come up with when you're trying to describe anything, it kind of implies that that's something that's like, that's on the tip of your mind.
$150 million definitely sounds like a lot of money.
But considered for a second here, that the most recent evaluation of Reddit placed the site as being worth $3 billion.
Okay, so if this investment even involves any kind of control over company decisions, buying in for $150 million would be approximately a 5% ownership of the company, which is nowhere near enough to unilaterally direct their actions.
They have done studies, though, that show that only 5% of the electorate needs to be sufficiently motivated in order to instigate great change over time.
Also, the dumb-dumb Alex Jones spent on this fails to explain that in the same round of funding where Tencent bought in, Reddit also received an additional $150 million in investments from firms like Sequoia and Fidelity and the rapper Snoop Dogg.
He also doesn't bring up that the majority shareholder in Reddit is Advanced Publications, and they have been for a long time.
Advanced Publications is the parent company of Condonast, who bought Reddit in 2006, though in 2011, Reddit just became a subsidiary of Advanced Publications.
The whole time that Alex has loved and praised Reddit, the entire time the Donalds was spreading its toxic shit, their parent company was the same company that owned the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, GQT and Vogue, and Wired.
For real, Advanced Publications is a gigantic media conglomerate.
They own tons of local papers around the country, from Michigan to Alabama to New Jersey.
They own Pitchfork, which recently gave Landa Del Rey's new album a 9.4.
Yeah, every time you explain every time you explain corporations and what they own and how interconnected it all is, you're like, oh, yeah, that's right.
Capitalism is super bad.
No, no, I don't want any of this.
Wait, so you're saying that one group also owns this group, but that group owns a subset of other groups that are their own independent thing all under the umbrella of this group over here.
I could rest easy now, knowing that instead they were talking about the Norse god Odin.
This would probably come off as quirky bullshit, where Alex is just trying to flex his completely surface-level knowledge about some arcane subject to impress his audience into thinking he's a religious studies scholar.
And honestly, that is probably what's going on, if I'm going to be completely honest.
However, I should point out that increasingly, the religion of choice among white supremacists is centered around Norse gods and is often called Odinism.
According to a 2017 report from Public Radio International, there were at least six cases where white supremacists who identified as Odinists were convicted of domestic terror attacks or attempted domestic terror attacks since 2001.
In his trial, Anders Breivik announced that he was a longtime Odinist, which brought a whole lot of attention to the ideology from really fucked up white identity communities.
Fun fact, Anders Breivik named his rifle after Odin's spear, his handgun after Thor's hammer, and his car after Odin's horse.
Anyway, my point here isn't that Alex is talking about Odin because he's an Odinist.
I'm saying that Alex Jones runs a completely explicitly white identity-focused radio show where one of his regular guests is a guy who reveres Anders Breivik, which is sort of the place where you might find references to Odin suspicious.
In other contexts, this comes off as a little bit of trivia.
In this context, it kind of sounds like it might be a knowing wink, but it's probably just Alex being a blowhard.
Honestly, I don't think that he's signaling to this community, but it doesn't look great.
So Alex gets back to talking about how Reddit's owned by the Chinese.
And I only play this clip here because it's sort of similar to things he's already said, but it's important because you need to nail down what he's really trying to say.
Did you know that a communist Chinese-controlled tech company invested millions of dollars in February of this year in Reddit, and within just a month, the site was frozen and put in quarantine and now has essentially been shut down.
He's doing that in order to try and get any remnant that he has of that sort of meme-y crowd to move over to Carpe Donctum's stuff because Alex is associated with Carpe Donctum and that makes him have more adjacency to where this meme stuff would be happening.
And one of the reasons that I think this is never going to work out is very well encapsulated by this next clip where Carpe Donctum starts talking about who's creating content for Meme World.
So it's a win-win-win, but I did get myself in a position where we sell at such small margins and people wait for sales that it's putting me into a pickle.
So the plan is next year, we're not going to do but 40% off as our best sales, and the prices are going to say the same, but I just can't do it anymore.
So he's talking about the sales that they'll have next year, which implies that they'll be around next year and that they will have product to sell next year.
Also, I don't know how good an idea this is to be like, we're going to be around, but hey, our sales are not going to be as good.
It's no coincidence that within a month or so of their investment that suddenly a sub that has been under attack for four years suddenly just gets quarantined.
And I know that it's not true, so I haven't really gone into it, but I've just decided, what the fuck, let's talk about it.
So this is a headline for the Washington Post, and Alex wants the headline to be, quote, Xi must crush Trump, because Alex wants the perception to be that the mainstream media is begging a foreign leader to destroy Trump.
And then you writing another opinion that's like, blah, And Alex's role in that is on its own a brazen act of manipulation or a sign that Alex legitimately doesn't understand the difference between journalism and commentary.
The editorial in question is making the argument that Xi needs to learn how to use soft power if he's going to maximize his success as a world leader.
Note, a leader, not the leader.
That's important.
It runs through how dealing with India, internal dissent, and Hong Kong are all examples that make his leadership style not one that makes China really qualified to be a government that the world looks on with much esteem.
And that's probably a fair point.
The stuff about Trump is towards the end of the editorial.
And honestly, I think the headline is a bit poorly chosen to reflect the actual article itself.
The argument here is that Xi is holding all the cards as it relates to Trump.
The only move Trump realistically has, or has even tried in terms of their relation, is threatening a trade war.
And Xi doesn't really care about that nearly as much as Trump does.
From the article, quote, the Chinese people, 60% of whom spend less than $10 a day, are far more accustomed to economic pain than Trump's Americans.
And they have no meaningful right to vote.
So Xi can probably afford to absorb some economic pain necessary to push the trade war past election day.
It's all presented as the choice between soft and hard power.
The hard power route would be to crush Trump and force his hand with a trade war that would likely lead to a recession and diminish Trump's chances of being re-elected.
The soft power route is to make some token concessions that Trump could parade around and act like he's a master negotiator forgetting.
And as the article says, quote, graciously spring Trump from the trap he's stepped in.
This would ultimately weaken our ability to negotiate further, but gives Trump an artificial win, hence, save Trump and weaken America.
The editorial is not a call for Xi to crush Trump, and you'd only think that if you hadn't read the article, or you have, and you know your audience isn't going to.
Either way, Alex is just completely lying about this shit in order to malign the Washington Post and his mainstream media rivals.
unidentified
Yeah, you know, I really love the people who write headlines.
Christopher Monckton is the doubt of everybody out there, even Mark Moreno, who's advised Congress, of course, on the fraud of the carbon tax and all of it, and they're screeching and squawking and abuse of the children, trying to tell them the world's ending.
So we get to the end of it, and Alex doesn't, the 24th, and Alex doesn't really talk in any substantial way about Trump saying that the globalist Patriots thing at the UN.
He's deflected a little bit in other episodes about Ukraine stuff and it's just bullshit.
But not the newer developments of it.
I just was listening to this.
That was an unsubstantial show.
He got the memo that he needs to talk about Greta Thunberg.
So he corrected his climate coverage from the 23rd by bringing her into the conversation.
And then he just yelled with Carpe Doncton about the Chinese buying Reddit.
It's a very weird show.
I was like, that is unsatisfying for anyone.
If you're expecting to hear Alex's take on these big news items, you did not get it on the 24th.
For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.
We have a new giant hoax with the total proof, with the declassified transcript of the phone call, that President Trump did not offer pro quo quo for someone something so you get something back.
He said, I want you to buy U.S. weapons and do us a favor in the 30-minute conversation.
And later, he says, man, I heard about Biden and how he brags on television that he ordered them not to investigate his son or he'd take a million dollars away.
So, Jordan, look, there are red flags, and then there are red flags.
When a supposed scholar on U.S. history thinks that the three presidents who have been impeached or had proceedings opened up on them are Clinton, Trump, and Jefferson Davis, you have a real severe problem on your hands.
Like, for one, the list is actually Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton for those who have been impeached.
For two, even that list is leaving off James Buchanan, who had an inquiry opened but was never impeached.
But most importantly, Jefferson Davis was not a president of the United States.
Considering the time when Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson and Jefferson Davis were contemporaries, so it kind of seems, it kind of seems obvious which one he.
Jesus Christ.
Oh, my God.
He thinks that America during the time of Jefferson Davis was an illegitimate America and thus shouldn't count in our fucking history.
So he doesn't seem to even recognize that he said that Jefferson Davis was the president of the United States who got impeached, which is really fucking troubling.
According to 538, Trump's numbers did appear to make a little tick upwards in the recent days, but he's still looking at a net 10 negative approval rating, which is not ideal.
The deep state is making its move right now against our free society.
This is a major quickening.
And you saw that incredible speech at the United Nations yesterday by the president.
We're going to be going over today.
That's why the system's coming after him, because multinational corporations got control of the U.S. and parlayed our military and economic power into building their corporate world government.
But before we get to that, Alex, so recently there was a bit of news about people, a warning that there might be a shooting at the premiere of the Joker movie.
You've got a president in with a beach head who's getting the economy back, getting the love of the nation back, stabilizing things, and they are desperate to crash the economy openly and desperate to start a civil war.
And now the Pentagon issues an emergency alert showing up on Infowars.com right now that they believe incel Antifa is going to do mass shootings at theaters and that Joker is designed to do it.
I know one of them is a non-existent, loosely affiliated group of people that are demonized by the right, and then the other one is a bunch of racist fuckwits.
So obviously, I hope there are never, ever shootings anywhere.
That said, I particularly hope that there aren't any shootings and any screenings of the Joker, because if there are, Alex is going to lose it and declare himself a prophet.
The Army did release a warning to service people that they had picked up chatter from the dark web about shooting and screening of the Joker relating to incel communities.
A spokesman who spoke to Gizmodo said that these sorts of alerts are a pretty common thing, and that it was basically just an email that got sent out, not any kind of dire warning or any specific threat that anyone could take action on.
They just advised vigilance.
There's nothing in that Army's email or FBI's statement on the dark web chatter that would lead anyone to believe that this has anything to do with anti-fascists.
This is specifically about incel groups.
But what Alex is doing is he's trying to make a compound epithet in order to associate incels with Antifa in his audience's mind.
He does this regularly in order to demonize groups that he's opposed to, most notably with his attempts to make the LGBTQP thing work, you know, trying to reflect his completely erroneous claim that the LGBTQ community had adopted pedophilia into their ranks.
This is the level of shit that Alex is working with these days, just trying to create epithets to demonize groups, just linguistically.
It's really pathetic.
It's a sign of not really having much gas left in the tank.
So Alex finally, after, I don't know, I would say probably about a half hour or so, realizes that he said that Jefferson Davis was president of the United States.
It was a completely muscle memory reaction that I have deeply internalized the president of the Confederacy as being part of the lineage of the United States presidents.
So, Alex's conspiracy theory here is that Trump was playing games trying to get this whistleblower to testify, which would open the door to talk about the Biden family's involvement in Ukraine and Joe Biden's involvement in the firing of Ukraine's former chief prosecutor, Victor Shokin.
The main problem with this theory is that all that information is already very public.
James Ryson wrote a story about Joe's son, Hunter, being involved in a sketchy business in Ukraine in 2015 in the New York Times.
And in May 2019, right-wing sites were already aggressively circulating the accusation that Joe had gotten the prosecutor fired in order to bail out Hunter, who was involved in a sketchy business in Ukraine.
The idea that Trump needs a whistleblower to testify in order to get this information into the open is fucking absurd.
It just makes no sense.
Alex's main piece of evidence that he plays to back up this claim that this is secretly all about Biden is Koopa Biden saying that he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid if they didn't fire Shokin.
And that is a real clip.
However, what's missing is context.
Here are the parts of this story that are true.
Joe Biden did work to get Victor Shokin fired, and Hunter Biden was involved in a sketchy business in Ukraine.
The rest of this is a right-wing narrative that is completely fabricated.
Joe Biden is many things, most of them not good.
But in this case, anti-corruption experts agree that he was in the right to threaten to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired.
Since Shokin was deeply corrupt and was using his office to stall and avert prosecution on very serious cases, one of the big prosecutions that Shokin was stymieing was that of Mykola Zoshevsky, who ran Ukraine's biggest independent gas company, Burisma.
This was a bit of a mess since Zoshevsky was also Yanukovych's environment and natural resource minister, which you can imagine could introduce some prime opportunities for corrupt dealings.
So Shokin would not investigate or prosecute cases like that, which is what Biden demanded in exchange for the delivery of this aid.
So now the story of the right-wing media is that Biden got Shokin fired in order to protect his son Hunter, who, like I may have mentioned, was involved in a sketchy business in Ukraine.
I should probably tell you that the sketchy business in Ukraine that Joe's son was involved in was none other than Burisma, the very company that Joe was insisting Shokin be fired for not investigating.
The narrative completely falls apart when you realize the actual pieces that were in play, the factors that were involved.
Now, many people have theorized that Burisma's hiring of Joe, I'm sorry, Hunter Biden, might have been an attempt to shield the company from possible anti-corruption crackdowns, but there's no evidence that that's how things played out in the real world.
So to sum things up, I'll quote from an article in The Intercept, again, written by Ryzen, where he interviewed Daria Kalunik, who is the founder of Ukraine's anti-corruption action center.
Quote, what I'm pissed off about is that Shokin, who is totally corrupt, who undermined the reform of prosecution and reformers, and who didn't want to investigate Zoshevsky, now appears in this New York Times article as the hero who wanted to investigate Zoshevsky and Burisma and who suffered because Joe Biden demanded to dismiss him because of his willingness to investigate Burisma, which is absolute nonsense.
Trump absolutely did not set up Democrats or Biden.
And if I had any faith left in the process, I would say he's in very serious trouble.
And this weak shit is the only spin that they have left.
Yep.
Because you got a lot of really bad-looking variables.
But I've been, you know, we've done this too many times over the course of the last two years for me to be like, ha ha!
Now, anytime somebody, I'm done with people who are like, this would take down any normal president.
And it's like, no, this would take down a president.
This cannot take down the fucking criminal terrorist enterprise that the GOP has turned into.
The president has nothing to do with how corrupt and all.
Well, I mean, yeah, yeah.
But he's just the manifestation of all of the depths to which the GOP has fallen.
But what's amazing about this is that for the first time, I think this one in particular, what's changed for me is I think there are at least a few very smart people in the GOP power structure who read that transcript and heard that memo and did the whole thing and were like, oh no.
We tricked ourselves.
Fuck, now we believe the shit Fox News says?
No, we were using that to trick the dumb poor people.
And what's in there matches up with reporting that had come out that prior to the phone call that Trump had with the Ukrainian president, that he had specifically put a hold on aid prior to this phone call.
And clearly, there's messaging that he wants an investigation of Biden and his son and this bullshit.
So, like, all of these things, a reasonable person would look at them and be like, this needs, like, I don't want to draw a conclusion, but there's enough here that really needs to be sorted out.
It's the sign that every other country thinks Trump is what we all should if we don't already, which is a fucking pathetic, weak-willed, tiny little baby who, if you stroke his ego for two seconds, will do whatever you want.
But again, like I was saying, I look at all the available evidence and I see like real uh-oh.
A real uh-oh kind of feeling.
Dark.
So, but you know what?
We have a lot of feelings about this, and a lot of the indications that are coming out aren't good and make it look like there's probably a real bad thing here.
Oh, there's a shit crime.
But Alex is pretty confident that everything's cool.
The government has an entire like they have, it's not even, it's a routine now for them to listen in a conversation and be like, ooh, shit, there's a lot of crimes.
And all this is, is projecting onto Trump the crimes that Biden committed so that they could deflect from the fact that he committed those crimes and try and take out Trump.
So if you want to know who the enemy is, it's those sycophantic people like Richard N. Haas and the other sitting up there preening, all kissing each other's ass while they preside over the gang rape of America.
Constitutional lawyer, criminal lawyer, First Amendment lawyer, Robert Barnes is with us.
In studio, next hour, then he's going to host the fourth hour.
We filed suit on the young Turks and others today.
That's very important that we all go on the offense and we had to do it, but it's got to kind of take a little bit of a backseat to the attempted impeachment, that epic speech.
I mean, this is the real fight for the heart and soul of America.
So I need to say this really quick just off the top.
On the off chance any influential media people listen to our show, which they do not, need to say this.
Please do not cover these lawsuits.
As someone who has a pretty good handle on Alex's current situation in life, it's hard not to see these as an attempt at a grand publicity stunt and further as an attempt to obfuscate his main Sandy Hook lawsuit.
It's my feeling that people would be wise to leave these cases alone, let them run their course, and not give Alex exactly what he wants, which is tons of coverage of these cases, even if the coverage is mocking him.
He needs an inflow of people to his site in order to be potential customers.
No matter how he gets that inflow, he doesn't give a shit.
And this stuff reeks.
Alex sued the young Turks, Brianna Wu and Andrew Kimmel on Wednesday.
And I've read the complaint.
And my first thought is, man, this thing was written by Robert Barnes.
Generally, when I read legal filings for this show, they're very dry, really formal, and by the book.
One essential problem with this filing is that Barnes' argument relies on a conspiracy theory.
From the filing, quote, parents of a school shooting sued Jones' employer and Jones.
After the suit was brought, hackers and cyber criminals ideologically aligned with the defendants tried to plant child porn on computers of Jones' employer during a time period designed to be unwittingly quote-unquote discovered by lawyers involved in the case by using terms in the emails that had been ordered produced by court-ordered discovery.
It's very clear that Barnes is heavily implying coordination between the people who sent Alex the porn and people suing Alex about Sandy Hook.
I mean, he put the word discovered in quotes as if to say there wasn't a real discovery, and that the lawyers knew what they'd find because the hackers were their ideological allies.
All these people, shadowy band of hackers, they got together, they snuck child porn onto the computers at the behest of, and I'm not going to say who, but there happens to be another group of people suing Alex involved.
I'm not saying it's them.
I'm just saying they're involved, and it was at their behest.
And that implication doesn't just pop up once in the filing.
Quote, during the litigation period, InfoWars corporate email accounts were attacked by online cyber criminals ideologically aligned with the defendants, with spyware and malware claiming to be Sandy Hook-related emails by including Sandy Hook terms in the emails.
Hidden and embedded in the emails the hackers sent to various InfoWars email addresses were images and videos of child pornography.
The emails were never opened by anyone at InfoWars.
The court in the Sandy Hook case required Infowars to turn over any and all emails that included any references to Sandy Hook.
It appears the hackers who tried to plant the emails on InfoWars servers were aware of this discovery process and deliberately used Sandy Hook terms and emails to create a false controversy.
This seems incredibly speculative as information to be included in your legal filing.
The basis for framing Alex as a pitiable victim is being laid out as an implication that there's an awareness that this setup existed between the plaintiff's counsel and the hackers, whether formal or not.
There's this idea that's being presented here, and it's just pure speculation that's meant to obfuscate the case.
As always, I'm no lawyer, but this seems deeply irresponsible as a way to frame your legal complaint.
So now that it's established that Alex is the victim here, what these folks are being sued over is headlines and statements that Alex Jones sent child porn to Sandy Hook families.
On a purely technical level, that statement doesn't seem to be inaccurate.
However, Barnes' big move on page three of the filing is to argue that Alex didn't send anything.
His employer, InfoWars, turned over emails to the plaintiff's lawyers, to which I say turned over is the same thing as sent, and Alex Jones is the owner of InfoWars.
So I feel like that argument might be a little thin.
The only exhibit in the document as evidence is a screenshot of a tweet from the Young Turks linking to a video titled, quote, Alex Jones sent child porn to Sandy Hook parents.
There are no screenshots of anything related to Brianna Wu nor Andrew Kimmel, but I think there might be another thing in this document that is a gigantic red flag.
One thing I find particularly troubling is that the defendants listed in the case are the Young Turks, Brianna Wu, and Andrew Kimmel.
However, in the nature of the action section of the filing, the specific details about the Young Turks and Brianna Wu, what they did, it's explained.
But there's nothing about Andrew Kimmel.
There's instead a complaint about Mark Fulman from Mother Jones, who's not listed as a defendant.
One gets the sense that Barnes didn't edit this thing, or maybe he meant Mother Jones to be a defendant, or he forgot to put in that part what Andrew Kimmel did.
Yeah, there is, in a certain sense, his reputation so low among the rest of the world, it could only be raised by actually being the guy who sent child porn to these people amongst the people who follow him.
And the second thing, in terms of the specific statement, quote, Alex Jones sent porn to child, sorry, to Sandy Hook parents, like, if you accept that Infowars is owned by Alex and the lawyers worked for Sandy Hook parents, I don't think that's technically a false statement.
Like whatever they, like, the Young Turks headline, like, it doesn't necessarily imply that Alex knew what was being said.
It doesn't imply intention.
And I think they're going to have a really hard time arguing that this is a defamatory statement, even if it really feels defamatory to Alex.
And third, when we covered this story, it was my position that saying Alex sent this porn was a bit of a sensational headline.
I thought it was arguably probably technically true.
It still probably didn't capture the reality of the story.
I took the position that it wasn't a good headline, since there's a broader story, and that was probably kind of clickbait behavior.
But I don't think you can sue someone for that.
And if you can, Alex better go scrub literally all the content off InfoWars because something he does quite often is post sensational, unprovable headlines about people that are meant to damage their reputations.
Consider his big piece that we talked about earlier, comparing Greta Thunberg to Hitler.
That's just one example.
I think that if he wins these suits, which he almost certainly will not, they won't even make it to the courtroom.
So it's my feeling that this is a gigantic attempt at a publicity stunt meant to get Alex more attention and hopefully raise funds for InfoWars.
Because the suits are probably going to be inevitably thrown out of court or he'll withdraw them.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
Further, it really feels like this is an attempt to portray Alex as a sympathetic figure in the context of something related to Sandy Hook in order to sway public opinion before his actual trial begins on that issue.
I recommend actual media outlets leave this thing alone and let it play out its course.
As much as it might feel really fun to dogpile and jump in and make fun of him, I do think that that's his goal.
It does seem like Barnes is trying to live out this reality TV show star life where he's like, he got some attention and then all of a sudden he got addicted to the attention and now he fucking loves it.
That is trouble if you still believe that you know when somebody's BSing, especially after you haven't let Pachenek, you've noticeably left Pachenek off your show for a long time.
We're doing this for everybody's free speech and everybody to be protected and for conservatives, Christians, and nationalists and pro-gun folks to stand up and let the left know, the deranged left, that it's not open season on us anymore.
That said, Robert Barnes is doing this at cost for the filings and things, but he intends to depose these people.
He intends to fly around on airplanes and do all this with his team.
I've seen him do it myself with what he's doing.
We weren't going to be able to continue on with the legal fees that we had at the level we're at right now.
We'd have to cut back if Barnes hadn't come in and helped us cut back on some things and really streamline things.
But I got to tell you, you need to go to freeamericanlawcenter.com and become a member.
I think it's pretty clear from statements that have been made and the pattern that we're seeing that, you know, maybe Barnes had ideas to get this off the ground.
He knew that Alex has a big media empire with tons of listeners.
It's a great place to try and cultivate support for it.
So there's big news in Alex's Sandy Hook case, also, that they talk about for a second.
And that is that the Connecticut Supreme Court was hearing the arguments about his he appealed the punishment that he got for going on air drunk and trying to intimidate the opposing counsel.
And so the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear that small section of the case.
Well, I mean, yeah, if they do end up taking away those sanctions, it does seem to imply that Alex can do stuff like that on air if he wants to, and the punishments won't come.
They're looking in the mirror and they're projecting onto others that which they see in themselves, particularly fearing that the deepest, most problematic aspects of their institutional power will now be exposed for the whole world to see.
No, but I mean, we see this all the time in various different permutations.
Them just describing the other side doing exactly what they're doing, even down to saying that the other side is saying that they're doing what the other side is doing.
Like, it's just intended to confuse and disorient people.
And when you see the way that the cover for the Biden stuff or the cover for the Trump stuff in it pointing to Biden and all this, you see the exact same behavior.
God, you know, Barnes could absolutely insult Alex to his face for an hour if he just started it with, I know this globalist, and then went on a laundry list of the things that Alex is.
So when I come to the end of all this, one of the things that I come away with is a sense of like, there's a lot of really big shit going on in the real world.
And you expect Alex to have either some kind of a freak out or something or have a decently interesting angle on any of it.
And you really don't.
You really don't.
It's ultimately very disappointing listening to these episodes.
Like, it makes me think he is sober, quite frankly.
He's not drinking because his response to this kind of high-level shit, even six months ago, would have been explosive.
And as it is, you look at his show and it's just yelling about Biden, Greta Thunberg's Hitler.
But even if this is kind of uninspired and weak propaganda that could just easily be done by anybody else, it's still worth it to go over this for the revelation that Alex thinks that Jefferson Davis was a U.S. president.