Today, Dan and Jordan take a look at the episodes of The Alex Jones Show on the day of and the day after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. In this installment, a Family Guy episode gets distorted, one of Alex's employee's relatives becomes an essential piece of the conspiracy, and Detective John Munch comes along for the ride.
I'm old enough now, I'm 35. I'm old enough and have a career as someone who has smoked things for long enough to realize that it kind of happens every generation.
There's kind of a little bit of a panic of some kind that we're marketing things to children, and then you restrict everybody's access to fun stuff.
Like when I was, I would call it 1920-ish or so, I smoked cigarettes and Camel came out with a line of cigarettes that would come in a tin.
So, Jordan, today we are getting into the long-awaited and highly anticipated and anxiety-provoking episode of the Alex Jones Show from April 15th and 16th.
We'll be going over today where the Boston Marathon bombing happens.
And we get to see how Alex responds to it in real time.
And I sincerely think that this is one of the grimmer looks at a man.
Along the way, I have a lot of very fine points to make.
And it's one of the things that I think is really the most difficult and most rewarding of doing this podcast.
And that is that whenever there's something like this, the tragedy happens or news breaks, you really get to see how Alex spins his wheels in real time.
And I think deconstructing how the...
The ball moves forward, especially in the immediate point, I think is really revealing.
And then also, I lost respect for someone that I previously had respect for.
So we'll get into all that, and I think there's a lot to learn, a lot to discuss today.
But before we get to that, you've got to take a moment to say thank you to some people who have signed up and made this anxiety-provoking episode possible.
But whatever the case, if you'd like to support our show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
So, we're starting on April 15th, 2013, at 2.49 Eastern Time, a bomb detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Fourteen seconds later, a second bomb, placed 210 yards away, went off.
Three people were killed, but at least 264 were wounded, 14 of whom required amputations.
The high number of injuries was the result of the homemade bombs being packed with nails and ball bearings meant to be shrapnel to hit as many people as possible.
The bombs themselves were very rudimentary, which led authorities to believe that this could easily be the work of amateurs.
Their basic construction of the bombs was just a pressure cooker filled with gunpowder, a little wiring, and the shrapnel.
The gunpowder came from fireworks that were purchased and emptied into the pressure cookers, which is just chilling to think about.
A person with really terrible intentions could do so much damage with pretty easy-to-get materials if they're so motivated and drawn that direction.
When this all happened, I was working a terrible temp job at an insurance company that I had no business being in the underwriting department for.
It was just a very weird circumstance.
They had very little work for me to do, so a lot of my time was spent reading conspiracy message boards to pass the time.
I remember April 15th, 2013 very clearly, and I remember how everyone in the conspiracy world was following Alex Jones' lead.
So many of the narratives that I heard listening back to these episodes were taken as concrete fact on the sites that I was killing time reading, and when posters on those sites would be pushed to provide a source, it was very regularly Infowars links.
I struggled with how to present this episode since everyone listening knows how this plays out, at least in the real world, or at least they know the basics of it.
Our episode today is going to cover exclusively April 15th and 16th, and I kind of feel like if I lay out everything that happens with the...
The aftermath of the bombing and how things progress, that'll leave us with very little to deconstruct and talk about when the later events come around when we cover future episodes.
So I apologize if that's unsatisfying, but I assure you we'll cover all that stuff as it unfolds.
For now, by the time Alex goes off air on the episode on April 16th, no one knows anything about who did the bombing.
No one knows what their motivations could have been or if they were even working with a terrorist group.
Here's all the information that had come out by the 16th.
It was clear very quickly that this was an attack.
Initially, a whole lot of the media coverage was about people who saved each other's lives.
In the absence of any concrete things to report, that seems like the next most important story to tell, reassuring people.
People were embodying that Mr. Rogers spirit of looking for the helpers.
Obama's press conference mirrored this with him highlighting the bright parts of humanity that come out in a tragedy.
The people selflessly helping each other, the runners continuing to run to the hospital to donate blood.
This is something that Alex really doesn't talk about at all over the course of these episodes.
And sincerely, the human aspect of this, both that's inspirational and the part that's tragic, I don't really see Alex being all that interested in any of that stuff.
By the 16th, Obama had given his speech, and he called this an act of terror, but wasn't necessarily calling it strongly a terrorist attack.
And that kind of caused a little bit of weird conversation surrounding, why aren't you calling this a terrorist attack?
Which we'll touch on a little bit down the road on this episode.
The FBI, who was quoted by the BBC, is calling it a, quote, potential terrorist investigation that they were engaged in.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis held a press conference and announced they had no specific intelligence that something like this would happen in advance.
The country, but Boston in particular, was in a very fucked up place.
Something that had such positive connotations, a marathon, had been turned into something terrifying.
Marathons were the sort of thing that you associate with being the culmination of hard work and dedication, with family and friends cheering you on to make it those last steps to get across the finish line.
The bombers had taken those associations and replaced them with blood trails and missing limbs, which is very hard to deal with as a country, even if you're watching it on TV, even if you're away from it.
Particularly for the people immediately associated with what happened, but everybody is reeling to an extent.
And on top of that, the culprits were still on the loose, and there wasn't a lot of clues about who'd done this.
Boston was on high alert, with heightened law enforcement levels on the streets.
No one knew if this person or persons were going to strike again.
No one knew what to expect.
No one knew anything, except that a lot of people got hurt and that it was intentional.
This is an incredibly tense situation.
It's one of elevated anxiety and one where people crave any information to help them make sense of what happened.
It's the kind of situation where someone like Alex Jones is at his most dangerous.
Because no one knew what the story was of what had happened, Alex was free to craft the story all his own.
And no one could really prove that he was wrong.
It was the very definition of that metaphor I always use about Alex needing to act fast.
He needs to act while the concrete is wet.
Until that concrete dries, he can easily put his initials in there forever.
But if he waits too long, he's going to need a jackhammer to make an impression.
I try to approach this show, our podcast, from a position with a bit of objectivity and elevating myself above stuff and not let myself get too mad.
But I can't sit here and pretend that what we're going to go over here today doesn't infuriate me.
For one, my family lived in Boston and Cambridge from just after I was born until I was six years old.
And while I don't remember much of that time too vividly, nor can I really claim any kind of big association with the city, it's still a part of my life.
I've always held a real fondness for Boston, and I was a huge fan of the Mighty Mighty Bostones growing up, but ultimately that has little to do with my anger.
And I'm not trying to personalize this to myself.
What makes me angry is that if you pay attention to Alex during the immediate aftermath of this attack, you can very clearly see that what he's doing is intentional.
We often discuss the stupid versus evil question, and I find his behavior that we're going to look at squarely on the evil side.
I hope by the time we reach the end of this episode you'll see what I'm saying and realize that Alex is making calculated decisions in order to maximize his outcome.
This episode will take us straight through to the 16th, and like I said, by that point the world really doesn't know that much.
We're a full two days away from the FBI releasing photos of the suspects and three days away from an arrest, but those are all things we'll cover on a future episode.
At this point, we know that the bombs were pressure cookers, we know it was an attack, and that's about it.
At least, that's what we know by the 16th.
As Alex's show begins on the 15th, the attack hasn't even happened yet.
He has no idea what's going to happen by the end of the time he's on air, and thus we begin today's show very familiarly, in the sense that the show, you know, it's in a very serious holding pattern, and we hear the familiar things that we've heard over the past couple weeks.
Right.
But knowing what we know, and knowing how his show, before it goes off air, is going to have this giant curveball thrown, it's very surreal to hear the completely normal thing at the beginning.
And it would be very difficult to concretely see it as much in the moment.
Like, back then, if you're listening in 2013, it's much more difficult to see the ways that manipulation is being done.
But now, six years later, looking back...
It's pretty fucking clear, to me at least.
And I hope, you know, I'll present these clips that we have and we'll walk through this and I hope the conclusion isn't that, hey, Dan's way off on this one.
Today, Alex is talking about this 6% drop, but it would continue from here, ending April with a 13% drop.
This absolutely feeds into Alex's paranoias that we've been seeing, since he's a propagandist who's syndicated by a company that's also a gold dealer.
But everything he's suggesting about this drop in price is not true.
It's one of those universal features of Alex's worldview that this taps into, and that is selective omnipotence.
The globalists are so overpowered that they have complete control over all commodity prices and push them up or down to suit their whims.
They're suppressing the price of gold, according to Alex, which explains why the value isn't through the roof, but one day they're going to stop suppressing it, so you better buy your gold from Midas Resources now before it's too late.
So in reality, if you consult more grounded, data-driven sources like the International Business Times or Forbes, the picture is really clear what's going on and post-mortems that were done after the fact into 2014.
The first variable is that gold mining companies were having a particularly bad year around this point, which is an indicator to investors.
These companies took out expenditures and loans to establish new mines like Nova Gold did in Alaska and they were not coming through.
The picture looked like a lot of these companies that provide a lot of the supply of gold were in trouble and that's a bad sign downstream.
The second factor was automated commodities trading.
Tons of trading entities had set up algorithms, but they also set them up with very similar or the same buy and sell points.
So when the market veered in one direction, you had a number of groups who were following the same pattern.
This wouldn't have had too much of an effect on the larger price of gold if it were just one or two entities automatically buying and selling.
But as commodities analyst Jeffrey Christian told the International Business Times, quote, it was more than 1,000 entities trading in a 10-minute period, which has a severe impact.
Michael Lewis wrote a book about the automation and how the larger banks are trying to set up their servers as close as possible because even an inch of...
Fucking fiber optic cable means a 1 trillionth of a second faster.
And since all of this stuff is automated, that means that you win 1 trillionth of a cent more than your competitors.
But maybe he thought, like, eh, it'll course correct, and now it hasn't.
So he's talking about it.
I'll say that he kind of gets distracted by something a little later in this episode.
It doesn't factor too much into the coverage of the bombing, but I wanted to bring this up here and make a point out of it, because I have a strong suspicion it's going to get incorporated into his narratives moving forward, because it does not stop.
Gold has a bad year in 2013.
But a particularly bad April.
That's when things really start to dive.
And it does make sense from all of his hustle narrative.
Those motivations.
It makes sense that that would be a factor in a precipitous drop downwards in his life.
So Alex spins his wheels and he's yelling about this.
There's the financial side of things.
There's the...
You know, all of the same, like, they're going to take your kids, the globalists are trying to get the veterans, all this.
He's yelling, and he reaches a despondent state.
And he starts talking about how he doesn't know what to do.
How's my daughter supposed to protect herself against the globalists?
And I honestly think that this is one of the more, like, irresponsible things for him to do.
And second of all, I just really think that the escalation in his rhetoric that we've seen over the past couple weeks of his show, where it's really very seriously getting to the point of, like, we are fucked.
They're going to destroy us imminently and all this stuff.
When Alex has moments where he's getting really emotional and saying, I don't know what to do, you are derelict in your duty.
You have riled your audience up into a frenzy, and you're saying, look, I know I'm the captain, but I don't know how to steer this fucking thing.
I do like finding out more and more of his unique theology in that, like, my mom is very innocent, even though she's intelligent, where you're like, you're taking the whole fruit of the knowledge of good and evil tree a little too literally.
Yeah, but there's not teaching people how to kill themselves.
Then I started watching some more Kesha videos.
I'm like, hey, Alex, why don't you talk about Your Love Is My Drug?
Why don't you talk about some of these real uplifting, fun, great pop songs that you put out?
Be that as it may, on a recent episode, we heard Alex talking about how he stayed up late at night because that's when they played the hardcore rock and roll.
I guarantee that I can craft a narrative that I will present to you and show as universal agreement that we should be putting in camps.
Dude, that is not how this works.
You can't allow yourself to pretend that that's reporting or means anything.
I think that that clip is trivial in many ways.
But I think it's important because what we're about to witness with his coverage of the bombing, that clip is him very clearly saying, Mark Dice did such a great job.
He created amazing perception here with this video.
I'm going to go out and create my own perception as well.
When you see the way that he crafts a narrative out of this bombing, you see before the bombing even happened, he was talking about doing a very similar thing around another topic.
So Alex's rhetoric and narratives have really ramped up over the preceding few weeks, as I brought up a couple times, and this leads Alex to really get mad.
about how Glenn Beck is a dick.
Yeah.
unidentified
And he starts screaming about how his job isn't fun because all this stuff is real.
All the egomaniacs and narcissists out there that think they're patriots?
All they do is infight and stuff all day.
This is a life and death situation.
This isn't a game.
And they're going to fire first by blowing stuff up and saying we did it.
That's why we've got to expose who really does the fast and furious.
And of course they did Aurora.
And of course they're up to their eyeballs.
I mean, shooters in the same outfit from nearby hostage team, SWAT teams from a nearby federal special unit, local police who were federal special event police, caught in the woods.
It wasn't just one.
It wasn't just two.
There were three of them seen, one of them arrested.
And then they tried to cover it up and say it didn't exist, even though it was confirmed in the police reports and we have chopper video.
So yeah, all that stuff was the Sandy Hook conspiracy stuff that he's screaming about there at the end.
And so his saying that they're going to blow stuff up and blame us, on the day that there is a bombing, he will deem that to be like, I said it earlier in the show!
But as people who listen to his show regularly, you know that he says this all the time.
Well, in this time period specifically, he has been talking about nuking Chicago.
But more to the point, no matter when you look at Alex's show, He's going to say that there's about to be something.
It's a very standard feature of his broadcast style, and so I don't ascribe too much meaning to that.
Because I'm a guy who, in a past relationship of mine, one of the things that we did a lot was watch tons of Law& Order Special Victims Unit get real high.
But I imagine, just like all those other conservative guys, he'd say one thing, and then people would be like, ah, you're a bad guy, and he'd be like, lean into it.
Look, if you want to pull that shit, if you want to use something not working for you, old man, then just say, like, my abacus stopped working and now we're talking about the banks doing it because you can't break an abacus.
The Spotlight is the publication with the strange editorial habit of Holocaust denial run by the Liberty Lobby.
It's the same place that Big Jim Tucker, Alex's chief Bilderberg source, worked at.
It's a trash publication.
It doesn't exist anymore.
As for this lawsuit, Richard Belzer is playing fast and loose with the details.
Spotlight had just published that E. Howard Hunt had been in Dallas on the day of the JFK assassination, and as Hunt said that he was in D.C. at the time, he decided to sue them for libel.
The question of his involvement in the assassination was a matter that wasn't germane to the case and in no way was decided by this case at all.
The first lawsuit over this, Hunt won, and he was awarded $650,000 in damage.
But that verdict was overturned due to the jury getting incomplete instructions on how to give their verdict.
In 1983, the case was retried, and in this instance, the Liberty Lobby was able to win.
But it's important to consider what winning this case means.
Or, perhaps more importantly, what winning this case doesn't mean.
Being cleared of libel doesn't mean that the thing that you wrote is true, which is to say that this jury trial doesn't even establish in court that Hunt was in fact in Dallas.
All that's necessary for this to be deemed not libel is that Spotlight had to have reason to believe this was true at the time of publication, which is what the jury decided was the case.
A lot of this was probably based on the Liberty Lobby building up a good case that doesn't prove that Hunt was in Dallas, but that they weren't just making it up.
That's not the hardest thing to show in court, sometimes even if you're just making stuff up, which is why it's important for these libel laws to be pretty lenient towards the media.
The fact that Belzer doesn't understand this is a massive red flag, and it makes me care very little about any other information that he's putting forth.
All other information that puts Hunt in Dallas that day either traces back to Soviet propaganda campaigns or the alleged deathbed confession Hunt made to two of his sons.
Although, it's important to point out that Hunt's widow and their other children say this was a hoax and that the sons coached Hunt to say what they wanted so they could profit off of it.
All this is to say that Richard Belzer thinks that that court case determined that E. Howard Hunt was involved in the assassination, which means to me that he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
His first instinct, not even knowing any information about it, thinking that, eh, maybe it's a gas leak explosion or something like that, because he doesn't have all the information.
He doesn't know anything.
His first instinct is to guess who they'll blame, and the people that he thinks they're going to blame are Iran, the Patriots, or a veteran.
I convinced the show I'm on, Law& Order Special Victims Unit, to do an episode about a vet who had PTSD and they tried to disparage him on the stand because he was having flashbacks and stuff.
But he gathered himself and helped us convict someone.
That's a great story, and I'm happy for him, but the only reason to pull this story out and tell it now is to reinforce the idea that everyone wants to make veterans look bad, which is in service of Alex's narratives that he's been building up for weeks and months of, they're going to blame the patriots and veterans, blah, blah, blah, which is not good, because they don't know that.
They don't have any information that anyone is pointing the finger at anybody.
There's a whole process underway right now, but the reality of the situation is it is almost impossible to protect an event, especially one that is over a protracted space as a marathon is.
And, you know, I hate to say it, but these are the times that we live in.
This is information that CNN already had that Alex wasn't aware of.
So when he went to them in the first place and he's like, oh, they're already calling it an attack as if they didn't have some reason to be looking at the situation that way.
That's only based on his own ignorance.
Within a minute, he's like, oh, that's why.
He needs to calm down.
That's really the bottom line when you look at a lot of this stuff.
Yeah, I mean, he's uniquely in a position to fuck up crisis reporting in a way that, you know, when you're so unfiltered as a job, I guess, like his entire job is to react with certainty.
That level of crisis reporting, then, is almost impossible for him.
It is.
Because he can't wait.
He can't wait for a second.
He cannot say, like, oh, we're going to wait until more information's out.
So the only, like I said, the only real substance that's going on between Belzer and Alex for a good stretch is that they're just sort of guessing who's going to be blamed for it, which I don't feel is very productive.
So they've been building up this, like, insinuation of, like, who's going to be to blame?
And a lot of it has been steering towards them being like, well, it's probably going to be, especially Alex, steering towards it's going to be the new enemy of the Patriots.
There's a whole lot of that.
Then, in mid-sentence, Alex realizes one way that he can best hang his hat on that.
I think that that clip fully displays how Alex is not spitballing.
On this episode, he's actively trying to come up with any piece of information he can find to make it look like this fits the demonize the Patriots narrative.
It's crystal clear how excited he is about this realization that it's Patriots Day in Massachusetts.
Patriots Day was not celebrated nationally on April 19th.
It used to be on April 19th, but since 1897 it's always been the third Monday of April.
And the Boston Marathon has always been on that day.
They're basically the same thing.
In Boston, especially.
More importantly, though, there are a lot of other things that could have been attacked if this were somehow Patriot-related.
There's a lot of reenactments.
There's the standing tradition of the Red Sox playing at home on that day.
I think it's even Fenway's opening day every year, or most years.
This is a tenuous connection, but it's one that feels super important to Alex because he's engaging in a behavior known as motivated reasoning.
Alex has a predetermined conclusion that he needs to arrive at.
Namely that the globalists are blaming this bombing on the Patriots.
He needs to get there because for months he's been warning of a big attack coming meant to demonize the Patriots, and this is a huge attack.
He knows he's probably not going to get a better chance to validate his narratives and rhetoric, and in the process make a bunch of money, so he knows he needs to get to work at crafting this and make it make sense.
The behavior you see from Alex is exactly what you would expect from someone who is not interested in reality, but interested solely in manufacturing a perception.
It's been consistent since the news of the bombing broke out.
It's all been an attack on media coverage, but it's not an attack that's based on substance.
It's based on instinct.
You have Alex shitting on CNN for assuming it was an attack, when they only did that because video they knew about that Alex didn't know about.
He doesn't have any information about the attack itself, nor the media coverage of it, and yet here he sits with goddamn John Munch rambling about who they think the globalists are going to blame.
Alex doesn't want to guess who they're going to blame.
He wants to establish, first of all, that someone is going to be erroneously blamed, and secondly, that no matter who actually gets blamed, this is all about getting at his dumb fuck gun buddies.
I didn't know exactly what I would find looking at this episode, and on one level, none of this is surprising, but on another level, like I mentioned at the beginning, this is making me a lot more angry than I expected.
As Alex is grasping at straws to find a way to make this tragedy about himself and his show's worldview, people are fucking bleeding on the street.
Other people are putting themselves in danger to help their fellow citizens.
People are scared.
Some people don't know where their loved ones are.
This is a disgrace, and it's very transparent, and it's willful, and it's an affront to the pain that the people of Boston were going through at the exact time he's on air spreading this bullshit.
This is a perfect encapsulation of Alex Jones, brainstorming ways to spin a tragedy into being profitable for him while the victims of the tragedy bleed.
One of the viewpoints that I take to try and understand this kind of, I don't know, idiocy and lack of empathy as something other than just, this guy's a psychopath, is the size of the states.
The size of the United States is such that if you are living in fucking Belgium and a bombing happens in Paris, that's a different country.
And so you don't treat it as though this is an attack on Belgians also.
Do you know what I'm saying?
In the same way...
Belgium is a lot closer to France than Texas is to Boston.
So, functionally, I do think that Alex believes he lives in a different country, obviously.
He lives in Texas, which is, in his mind, the only country.
Transparent bullshit of just like, well, I don't have time right now to come up with a complete story, but you guys give me a bunch of ideas and I'll cherry pick some to put into the narrative later.
And again, this could be the start of a whole bunch of this stuff, okay?
Because they're saying, the libertarians will start bombing everything, and then if it starts happening and they blame it on us, if it comes out and they say it's a libertarian group, folks, we are in deep crap.
It means they're going ahead with it.
If they say it's Iran, there is no way Iran would pull something like this knowing that they're going to get clobbered.
Right here, we have perhaps the most dangerous way possible for Alex to frame a conditional statement.
If they blame libertarian patriot groups, that means we're in big trouble and they're moving ahead with it.
Alex is injecting a classic if-then statement and expecting his audience to accept this assessment as reality.
So, if you see blaming of patriot-libertarian groups, then it necessarily follows that the globalists are making their move and there will be bombings all over the place and the march to the FEMA camps is imminent.
This is a pure logical statement that he's putting forth.
The problem with this is, when you frame an argument this way, you need to be pretty careful about how you present what the media is saying.
Yeah, yeah, One of the essential elements of formal logic is that truth cannot lead to falsity.
If you have a valid argument and the premises are true, then your conclusion cannot be false.
The actual form of the argument that Alex is making is this.
Premise 1. If the media blames the Patriots, then they're moving ahead with it.
Premise 2. The media is blaming the Patriots.
Conclusion.
Therefore, they're moving ahead with it.
In this clip, we're seeing the first premise and the conclusion introduced, which is why this is super dangerous.
Alex still needs premise 2 in order to have this construction of an argument work, and if we see him...
Manipulating things in order to establish premise two, that the media is blaming the patriots, then what you're really seeing is him lying and manipulating to justify the conclusion that they're moving ahead with it and there's going to be bombings everywhere.
This is pretty basic deception stuff, and Alex does variations of this kind of thing all the time.
I just felt like pointing this one out was particularly important because it's very glaring.
And when we get through some more of this stuff, you'll see why this is very important.
That is the thing that when you deconstruct and break down his argument that he's trying to make, it makes it so much clearer these actions are in service of propping up the flimsy part of his argument in order to make it all look real.
So one thing that's important to remember, Jordan, is that marathon running is a big sport and that the Boston Marathon is one of the biggest annual marathons in the world.
Some one-off events have been way bigger in terms of number of runners, but the Boston Marathon is huge and it's been run since 1897, making it the world's oldest annual marathon.
Like, the marathon got brought back to the Olympics in 1896.
The next year after that, the Boston Marathon started.
It's been going ever since.
It's a huge deal in the international running community, so people come in from all over to take part in this event.
The second winner ever in 1898 was a Canadian.
In 1907, a Canadian member of the First Nations named Thomas Longboat won the race.
It has a very rich history.
It was mostly Americans and Canadians until the late 40s, and then you see the list come to life with winners from South Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Sweden, Finland.
And then in recent years, a lot of Kenyans.
Only one American won the marathon between 1946 and 1967.
The only American to win in that time span was named John Kelly, which happened to be the same name and same spelling as the last American to win it in 1945.
There's some bad aspects, but also some good ones.
Yeah.
Wheelchair division and record holders and everything.
Like, it's awesome.
When you see that line of flags at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, that's not a UN station or anything like that.
It's a recognition that this thing that could just be people running a long way is so much more than that.
It's a celebration that crosses cultures and communities and brings people together.
According to the Boston Marathon's official Facebook page, quote, Alex is taking a physical representation of cross-cultural celebration and togetherness, and he's using it to create suspicion around the bombing by just making shit up to attach it to one of his big bad guys, the UN.
This is shameful shit.
And really, if you get down to the bottom of it, all Alex is saying...
Is that he views any kind of multicultural unity as a UN plot.
You know, it is almost like he is taking, let's call it the strength of the Boston Marathon, which is a cross-cultural event celebrating how, regardless of where you're from, we are all people and we all care and we are all humans and we are all empathetic.
And I think people are beginning to understand, the crew's completely freaked out, because I walked in here the day before Sandy Hook, and I said, something bad's about to happen.
And I only do this, and today I said, I'm physically sick.
They're getting ready to, I said on air, they're getting ready to blow stuff up.
And I said, they're going to do their own shot heard around the world to blame it on us, so like Lexington and Concord, and this is the day it happened at that place.
Now, first of all, for someone who does a show like Alex does, he really should be worried about revealing that his news director's dad is in the FBI and his brother-in-law is high-level military intelligence.
That's the sort of thing that really makes conspiracy theorists suspicious.
Personally, I don't really believe these credentials, or at least I think they're intentionally exaggerated in order to create the appearance of proximity to legitimate information.
Alex does this all the time.
It's why he believes Steve Pachenik's fake resume.
It's why he calls Christopher Monkton Lord.
And it's why he pretends that Leo Zagami isn't a raving lunatic.
It's all just what works best for the brand, and the brand is deception.
I'm inclined to believe, considering that Rob and Alex offer no evidence to the contrary, that Rob's brother-in-law did legitimately have signs of dehydration.
April 15, 2013 was a fairly cool day in Boston, with temperatures around 48 degrees, which under normal conditions would lead you to think that a person in good shape would have no real trouble finishing a marathon.
Generally, the finish rate is pretty high for the Boston Marathon, with about 95% of entrants completing the marathon in 2018.
However, if you have over 20,000 entrants, that's at least 1,000 people who, for one reason or another, don't pass the finish line.
And a pretty good number of those people, you kind of have to assume, didn't finish because of medical reasons.
It seems unlikely that they would train, go through the steps to qualify, plan ahead, register, and show up for the marathon, only to realize halfway through they had a meeting they'd forgotten about.
One thing that makes the dehydration or exhaustion story a lot more possible to me is that it's pretty common for enlisted persons to sign up for these marathons but run them in honor of their fallen brothers in the service.
They do this symbolically by participating in what's known as the Tough Ruck, which involves them doing the marathon in full uniform and carrying a military backpack that weighs about 40 pounds.
That added variable could make it far more likely that someone would have a difficult time finishing the full marathon.
Now, I have no idea if Rob Dew's brother-in-law was doing the tough ruck, but there definitely were enlisted persons doing that at the 2013 Boston Marathon.
It's literally impossible for me to figure out if any concrete information exists on this, since the guy, you know, it would be Rob Dew's sister's husband, or whatever, so Dew isn't even his last name.
I have no way of tracking down any information.
And they don't offer any, because of course they don't.
All this is to say that there's possible explanations for him being advised to leave the marathon that have nothing to do with conspiratorial paranoia.
The best thing I can say for this is that Dew's information doesn't prove anything.
The worst I can say is that Dew is allowing Alex to use his brother-in-law's medical situation to be used as part of his attempt to hijack and capitalize on the deaths of three people and injuries of 250-plus others, which I find to be an immoral act.
And the globalists always train police and others for the narrative they're going to carry out.
Whether it's staged events, provocateur, or organic, which are very rare, These terror attacks are rare, period.
The system will use this to roll out TSA in the malls on the streets of America and basically a rationing up of the overall martial law type atmosphere.
Before I went live, Obama spoke.
We're going to find that clip.
It was about 30 minutes ago.
I watched his press conference.
It's Obama's new press conference.
It's up at WhiteHouse.gov.
He was wearing a really ugly tie.
Black and white speckled tie, people that want to be able to find which one of the fear-mongering press conferences it was.
Obama thinks the bombings could be related to tax day.
Axelrod's comments were regarding the fact that Obama didn't immediately call this an act of terrorism, explaining that, quote, the word has taken on a different meaning since 9-11.
He went on to say, quote, you use those words and it means something very specific in people's minds.
And I'm sure what was going through the mind of the president is, well, we don't really know who did this.
It was tax day.
Someone who was pro, you know, you just don't know.
And I think that his attitude is, let's not put any inference into this.
It's really tough to parse exactly what Axelrod was saying there.
A possible reading of it is that Axelrod thinks that Obama might think that tax day had something to do with the bombing, but another reading of it is that Axelrod himself just thinks that.
Another reading is that the fact that it was tax day was just an example Axelrod came up with to express that there are a ton of motives that could be behind the bombing, and at that point no one really knew what the situation was.
I'm inclined to err towards that last one, since he also says, quote, let's not put any inference into this, which seems to indicate he's trying to avoid putting inference into it.
Literally, his main, like, that's almost the worst example of having to use an example.
You know, like, he can't just say, oh, well, we don't know who did it, because everybody'd lose their shit, and they'd be like, this is a terrible interview.
So he has to give, like, an explanation for why.
We're not just going to come out and say, oh, this is Islam.
We're going to say, it could be, it could be...
Islam, it could be blah, it could be blah, it could be anything, but because the first one is like, oh, it's tax day, then the right wing gets to go crazy.
But no matter what it is, it's not blaming someone with a tax motivation.
Of course.
It's not concrete in any way.
On a scale of total bullshit to they're blaming the Tea Party, I'm going to give this a one or a two.
It's easy to see how it could be spun to say that they're pointing the finger at tax protesters, but it's entirely unconvincing to me and only works if you take it completely out of context.
Alex is convinced this is a false flag by the 16th.
He is very certain of that.
And he has something that runs through this entire episode, which is he believes that media, like Media Matters, Mediaite, these sorts of places, are attacking him for saying that they're going to blame right-wingers, and then they go on to blame right-wingers, thereby proving Alex right for the thing that they demonized him for saying.
And, of course, Media Matters, which isn't actually run by the White House, for saying, hey, they're going to blame it on the Tea Party.
And then minutes later, they did in those very publications.
I mean, this is the magnitude of, I say, watch, they're going to blame us, or they're going to try to, and then they go, look, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist, but yes, we are going to try to blame you.
But you're wrong because you're right, and you're crazy because you're right.
So I searched everything posted on Media Matters from the time of the bombing to the point Alex is on air now, and I think I might have a sense of what he's talking about.
On the morning of the 16th, Matt Gertz published an article titled, quote, the worst conservative reactions to the Boston bombings.
The first entry was Alex, with a screenshot of his Twitter, rest in peace, saying, quote, our hearts go out to those that are hurt or killed, hashtag Boston Marathon, but this thing stinks to high heaven, hashtag false flag.
There's nothing about criticizing Alex for saying that they were going to blame the Patriots or anything like that.
There's another post from the 16th titled, quote, Alex Jones and his enablers, but this too doesn't seem to be critiquing him for saying that the globalists are going to blame the patriots for the bombing.
It just seems to be people rightfully and rightly responding with disgust to how quickly Alex tried to turn a tragedy into a narrative by calling it a false flag.
That article probably had him more worried, though, since it was discussing the people who validate Alex, despite him being consistently wrong and a disgrace.
That article specifically calls out Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Lou Dobbs, Judge Napolitano, Belzer, and all the other supposedly credible mainstream people who willingly or unwittingly elevate Alex's stature.
If I were Alex, I would probably see that as an attack.
But it still doesn't fit with what Alex is describing.
I really can't find any evidence that Media Matters was condemning him for saying that they were going to blame the bombing on Patriots.
I think they were just kind of offended that he called it a false flag within minutes with no information.
Salon kind of wrote an article like that, but if you actually read it, it's more just an article that's like, look at this asshole.
And he actually wrote an article there saying, quote, Obviously it's possible that perpetrators will turn out to be Muslim, just like it's possible they'll turn out to be the extremist right or right-wing activists.
or left-wing agitators or Muslim-fearing Anders Breivik types or lone individuals driven by apolitical mental illness.
He even calls out a few Democrats on Twitter who made suggestions it was a right-winger, along with calling out Islamophobes, insisting it must be a Muslim.
His take on it was pretty even-handed, and no way suggests that it was a right-winger.
Jank on The Young Turks had a conversation on his show about different reactions people might have depending on who the bomber was, saying that if it was a Muslim, people will call for war, but if it's a right-winger, those same people will say it's just a crazy guy.
The conversation's pretty speculative, but it's not at all saying that the bomber was a right-winger or pointing the finger.
It's hypothetical in nature.
Looking over the mainstream reporting in the immediate aftermath, the day and the day after, I didn't really see a lot of people blaming right-wing extremists at all.
There's some suggestion that some such group could be a suspect, based on the timing and amateurish nature of the bomb, but all those suggestions were accompanied by disclaimers that we have no idea who is behind this and it's too early to say.
Alex's rhetoric does not seem to match up with the media, which to me is an indication that, like I keep bringing up, he's trying to build premise two of his argument in service of proving his conclusion that the globalists are about to bring this whole thing down.
Panic, everybody.
He needs premise two, so even if the media doesn't do what he's predicted they will, he's going to go out of his way to make it look how he needs it to.
On a very basic level, this is purely designed to cause panic and fear and put his audience in a near-apocalyptic state.
And it's disgusting to see someone respond to a legitimate tragedy like this, because it's very unhealthy.
And to see him use this, like, these...
These outlets are responding to what I did, like humans might, saying, this guy's a fucking asshole.
And then they blame the patriots.
Adding that wrinkle into it to sort of invalidate other people's correct criticism of you, it's just even worse.
All this is just a psychodrama he's forcing on his audience.
What always kind of weirds me out about these idiots...
Whenever they're talking about, like, oh, it's Muslim terrorism or anything like that, is then they just try and inspire more fear in their audience, which that's the whole point of a terrorist attack, is to make people afraid.
You can see in this next clip that what he's doing is using all of the narratives that he had built up over the past couple months and applying them to the current situation.
You see, none of us are allowed to be involved in the narrative.
None of us are allowed to speculate, ask questions like, gee, it's Patriots Day in Boston.
Gee, do you think they're going to try to blame a right-wing group?
They were only putting out Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL memos last month saying domestic terror attacks are imminent.
We warned you right before the Oklahoma City bombing.
We warned Bill Clinton.
And now we're warning you, Obama, the attacks are imminent.
You can look that up.
And you've got all these dramas and sitcoms and movies with propaganda placement saying the Tea Party is going to bomb people at public events and they're the new enemy, not Al-Qaeda.
And then you have this happen where the country started, where the Revolutionary War, where 1776 started in 1775, Lexington, Concord, Boston.
Patriots Day, April 15th, in Boston.
The real Patriots Day is the 19th.
Stuart Rhodes is on his way there, driving right now.
He's going to be joining us later in the broadcast of Oath Keepers.
What you see there is a fine-tuning of the old narratives that Alex had been building.
Now that the payoff has come, he chisels them down.
Instead of they're going to nuke Chicago in order to blame us, they've been saying that veterans and patriots are going to put IEDs everywhere.
You take whatever is functional out of the myths and the narratives that you've built and apply them to the present situation and pretend all the other shit never happened, all the other dumb bullshit you've been talking about.
So I have this clip, which is kind of off base a little bit, you know, like it's kind of not really related to the primary stuff that's going on, but I found it very interesting because it's something that Alex does not believe just two years later, and it's weird to hear this.
Putin's been caught, 99 planting bombs in a fourth building.
When they got caught, the FSB, Federal Security Bureau, by local Moscow police, suburb of Moscow, they said, oh, it's part of a drill, let us out of jail.
Ollie Stevenson, the marathon coach, University of Mobile's cross-country coach, who was near the finish line of the Boston Marathon when a series of explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines.
They kept making announcements to the participants, don't worry, it's just a training exercise.
Now, our own Dan Badondi, said Ollie Stevenson on Local 15, that is nowhere in the national news.
Unless it's the alternative news of InfoWars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, PrisonPlanet.tv.
I remember this being parroted very heavily in the days right after the bombing.
And what it was was they turned it into a perception that there were announcements just before the explosions or in the aftermath that this is a drill.
That's how the story gets twisted.
And that's sort of the way Alex is presenting it.
And like I said, whenever he wants to portray something as a false flag, the only arrow in his quiver he chooses, the one he feels is like unassailable evidence, is to argue that there was a drill going on at the same time as the event, meant to provide cover for the actual attack.
If you look throughout his career, it's almost universal.
It's part of almost every conspiracy he's ever promoted.
And generally speaking, what he does is he finds something that seems a little weird, but only weird because there was a tragedy, and he ascribes greater significance to it than is merited.
In this case, he's taken a local Boston news article about a runner saying that there were bombs sniffing dogs at the race.
This is meaningless evidence, as is his supposed pictures of people on roofs and hoodies.
None of that proves a damn thing.
It's just titillating bullshit.
I consulted some running forums to see what kind of chatter there was there in the aftermath of the bombing, and I found a lot of accounts of people who claimed to have been there.
Granted, these are just posts on message boards, but they do seem pretty consistent.
The situation is that they were told not to pet these dogs, and that there were dogs that were there for training purposes.
The dogs were being trained, which might seem slightly weird, but that's only because there was a bombing.
If it hadn't happened, you'd just look at that and say, well, I guess it makes sense to get the dogs acclimated to a setting where there's a lot of bustle and noise, tons of people around, and tons of stuff that could distract them.
That seems like a tough environment to artificially create, and honestly, I don't think there's any reason to assume that the dogs were there for bomb-sniffing training purposes, more for huge crowd desensitization purposes.
I don't understand all the ins and outs of training police dogs, but I can imagine how this might go.
Pretty universally, this was the position of people on running forums.
The people who were there and actually heard the announcement, it was an announcement not to pet the dogs.
Be calm around the dogs.
Don't startle the dogs.
It wasn't be calm while there's a bomb going off.
Even after surviving the bombing, like these people are reporting this, they didn't think it was anything weird.
Alex makes this narrative out of there were announcements that this is a drill and you need to stay calm.
And before we break down even a little bit more about this, I want to talk about why this is stupid on its face.
Alex is trying to argue that the bombing was a drill that went live, and he's arguing that a piece of evidence is that someone announced on the speakers for people to stay calm it was just a drill.
This would tend to imply that the person making the announcement was involved in the drill since they knew or believed it to be a drill.
If they were actually running a drill, they would be doing so to gauge police preparedness or response strategies.
And in order to accurately gauge those things, it's important that people act as if the drill were actually real.
It would 100% ruin the drill if someone were to convince everyone to stay calm as it would completely alter the crowd's reaction to what was happening.
I guess that could be a good drill if you're trying to test police response to a group of people who don't believe an attack is actually happening, but I feel like that scenario isn't very useful to prepare for in the real world.
The idea that someone got on a PA system and told people not to panic is actually some incredibly strong evidence that this was a real bombing, if it did happen, which I don't think it did.
It could have been misguided advice, but the sort of thing you would expect a well-meaning person trying to help in a crisis to say, like, everyone calm.
It would still be hard to explain if someone did make that announcement, why they said it was a drill.
And like I said, I don't think I need to explain that since I don't think it happened.
If you read the actual post in the Local 15 News out of Boston, it does interview University of Mobile coach Ali Stevenson, and he says that there were announcements that this was a training exercise.
However, there's literally no indication from the text or anything Stevenson says that these announcements happened after the bombs went off or just before or anything.
If you read his words and compare them to other accounts of people who were there, he's just describing the announcements not to pet the dogs in a more suspicious way than other people might have chosen to.
There were something like 20,000 people running in that marathon.
And all of the claims about an announcement that there was a drill or to stay calm all come from paranoid conspiratorial interpretations of comments of this one guy, Ali Stevenson.
It's very hard to take this too seriously when there's tons of videos people captured on their phones and this announcement doesn't show up in any of them.
When there are literally tens of thousands of witnesses and no one has put forth an account that backs this up other than ones that are like, don't startle this.
I don't know this to be the case from listening to his episodes, but I remember that he finds a piece of information that proves to him drill stuff, and it's far, far more complicated, but we will get to that in the future.
There's literally no context, even if you're talking about a Family Guy episode, that I can think of that makes it even close to acceptable behavior.
And I describe that as monstrous.
Alex is talking about an episode of Family Guy that had been released on March 17, 2013, called Turban Cowboy.
In the episode, Peter has a skydiving accident and meets a guy named Mahmoud in the hospital.
Small point.
Peter Griffin is not a tea party guy.
So much so that they actually made an episode that aired on May 13, 2012, called Tea Peter, where the whole joke is that Peter joined the Tea Party and succeeded in shutting down the government.
The whole point of that episode was that the Tea Party is an astroturf movement funded by big corporate interests who want to get rid of regulation.
Peter gets roped into a plan to blow up the Quahog Bridge, but tries to back out.
The plot gets disrupted, but as the episode is ending, Peter uses a cell phone to call the drunken clam to have them get his table ready, which seems weird because it's just a fucking bar.
But the phone is rigged, and it causes the bridge to blow up.
The sort of weird muddiness of some of the messages.
What's important is the claim that Alex is making.
He's saying that this episode predicted the Boston bombing.
Saying that Peter used the cell phone to blow up bombs at the finish line of the race.
And that is absolutely not true.
The cell phone was linked to bombs at the Quahog Bridge.
What Alex is doing is combining the end of the episode, where bombs are triggered by cell phone, with a cutaway joke from the beginning of the episode.
When Peter is skydiving before he has his accident...
He says, I haven't felt a rush like this since I won that marathon.
And it cuts to him driving through a crowd of people in the Boston Marathon with his car.
It's unclear if it was someone at Infowars or even Alex himself who did it.
But someone edited together the clip of this cutaway joke from the beginning of the episode and the cell phone gag from the end of the episode to make it look like Peter used cell phone triggered bombs to attack the Boston Marathon.
It may have been created in-house, might have been, might not have been, but even if it wasn't, InfoWars was the first outlet to widely circulate this, and it's a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
The only reason someone would push something like this is if they're desperate to create a counter-reality to the one the rest of the world is experiencing.
It's an abusive act of media, and Alex should be profoundly ashamed of this.
misrepresentation about this Family Guy episode was accurate, he still at this point has literally no idea how the bombs were detonated.
The initial theories were that they were on a timer.
But by the end of April, the House Intelligence Committee had determined that they were triggered by a remote control similar to one you'd use for a toy car.
It's really important to look at stuff like this because Alex has already decided that this absolutely was a false flag.
And the defense he's giving of his theories are really weak.
If you look at them, you find consistent, intentional misrepresentations.
Misrepresentations that would only be made to try and steer people towards the conclusion that it was a false flag, which Alex has decided already.
When you have to resort to that kind of an approach to make your argument that is a bad Bad sign.
I halfway think on the 15th, whenever he got the news that it happened, and everybody's freaking out, and they tell him that he said that there was going to be an explosion, and he was like, Oh my god, I did!
I halfway think in his head he's like...
The coverage that we're going to do is going to win us the first Pulitzer that InfoWars has ever had.
So I think he does give his audience one good piece of advice based on sort of a fictional reality, and that is that you should never be involved at all in bombing drills.
And now that our own Dan Badondi in two different press conferences with the police chief, the mayor, and the governor, our own East Coast reporter Dan Badondi...
Made national news, just asking real questions about, hey, now there's the Huffington Post.
Boston Marathon bombing brings out conspiracy theories.
That means people that are willing to go, hey, there was a drill, and the police say, no, there wasn't a drill.
Well, that's why I hired you, is because you are fearless.
And I know you get homesick, you go up to see your son and your family, everybody back in Rhode Island, but as an East Coast reporter, the reports you follow every week are just phenomenal, and we're hiring more editors.
Coming up and down at the start line, and Melanie said there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the finish line, but they kept making announcements saying to the participants, do not worry, this is just a training exercise.
Well, evidently I don't believe they were just having a training exercise.
I think they must have known.
They must have had some kind of threats of physicians called in.
So I do think this is really interesting how excited he is about Dan Badandi, particularly considering, like I said, in the present day, he's really trying to distance himself from this dude.
And I wanted to, like, I went back and I watched a little bit of Alex's Sandy Hook deposition video in prep for this episode, because I remember that Badandi comes up in the questioning about that, that day.
And I think I noticed something really interesting.
The opposing counsel shows Alex a picture of Dan Badandi, and Alex's first response is to get a huge smile across his face and laugh.
He very quickly realizes that this is a strange response, and he regains his serious composure really fast.
But there's a good ten seconds where Alex is looking at this picture of Dan Badandi, and there's a sense of nostalgia in his smile.
A feeling of wistfulness for the days gone by.
Better times when he could make buckets of cash just sending pro wrestler to go yell at people and disrupt events.
I might be reading more into that than I need to or is appropriate, but his big laugh and smile that quickly recedes as he realizes Badandi absolutely did harass the citizens of Newtown.
It's a pretty evocative image for me, that transition of, ha ha, oh yeah, oh.
Particularly in the context of him congratulating Badandi on this episode for harassing the people of Boston.
This image is really, it has a meaning to me whether or not I can prove That my reading of it is accurate.
While Badandi was in Boston doing all the reporting that he's doing that Alex is talking about here on this episode, he had an InfoWars microphone that he used for his reports, and in at least one video I can find, he has a laminated press pass, which I can't zoom in on enough to confirm, but you kind of got to assume he got that through InfoWars.
He's there in an official capacity, not just as some guy whose videos Alex covered.
So Alex's big narrative on this episode about Badandi is that he got two press conferences shut down by asking the hard questions that the media and the establishment couldn't handle.
So I've read a bunch of articles about Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's press conference, which Badandi asked the first question in, but none of them say that the conference ended abruptly after his question.
I found video of it, and Badandi asks his rambling, is this a false flag question?
And Patrick just replies, quote, no, next question.
The next question that's asked isn't a question that Patrick can answer.
It's about whether or not there are specific leads or suspects.
After the question is asked, Patrick steps aside and lets the police representative field the question.
If you edit the footage just right, though, it kind of looks like Patrick is leaving the press conference after Badandi asks his question.
And that's absolute bullshit.
Also, it's kind of surreal because as Badandi is prattling on, the camera pans across the stage and Elizabeth Warren is there.
I strongly suspect that this whole thing is about trying to create the perception that the powers that be are afraid of the words false flag being uttered.
And saying them in their presence is the equivalent of telling a judge, Duble Kane.
It's purely an attempt to convince his audience that all these people have something to hide.
And that thing is the truth that Alex is disseminating.
Alex wouldn't do stuff like this if he were making a real argument.
This is pageantry.
This is manipulation to trick his audience into accepting a fraudulent version of reality.
And it's not something you'd accidentally do.
It's intentional.
Because that press conference didn't end after Badandi's question.
If he made that argument, it would be closer to real, but he doesn't.
He just makes a false version of it that it ended after Badandi brought the truth.
So here's another Alex talking about that Family Guy episode.
And I'm going to play some things that are a little bit repetitive, but one of the things I want to nail down in people and really drive home is that he's being repetitive.
Because it's intentional.
Like, constantly reinforcing the same talking points in order to get this in your head.
And Family Guy apparently is a big piece of evidence they have.
Now, up on Infowars.com, the Family Guy, and this aired Sunday, first aired back in March, where the Boston Marathon is bombed with not one but two bombs by the Family Guy, the Tea Party Guy, at the Boston Marathon at the finish with two bombs.
So it's essential to lie about multiple things about this in order to make it fit Alex's narratives.
Peter Griffin has to be a Tea Party guy in order for him to satisfy his narrative that the media is telling you the Tea Party people are going to turn into Islamic terrorists.
That is satisfied by lying about the character.
He has this fucking crazily edited video in order to prove his...
The bombing was in the TV show before.
It's layers of manipulation that he's using this for.
And then Stuart Rose, who's actually driving on his way to Boston right now for the Oath Keepers event on the 19th, the law enforcement and police military organization that swears to uphold the Bill of Rights and Constitution that they swore an oath to.
How incredibly evil that the media has been demonizing and claiming might be involved in terrorism.
Need I remind Alex of Matthew Fairfield, the Cleveland Oath Keeper who was arrested in April 2010 when police found a napalm bomb in his house?
Or what about Charles Dyer, who was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a seven-year-old and was found to be in possession of a fucking grenade launcher?
There's plenty of evidence that the Oath Keepers are not just some troop of do-gooders out there trying to uphold the Constitution.
Absolutely not.
Maybe some of them are.
Certainly, just these actions of these couple people isn't demonstrative of everybody in the group, but their ranks definitely have included people who seem to have been plotting or actually doing some horrible shit.
So he's referring to here an interview on CNN that Jake Tapper did with security analyst Peter Bergen.
Allow me to read to you from a Mediaite article that Alex has referenced.
Quote, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen told host Jake Tapper on Monday that the explosions in Boston could be the work of al-Qaeda terrorists as much as they could have been a planned assault by right-wing extremists.
That is not blaming right-wing extremists.
That is saying that either of those sorts of terrorism were possibilities and the situation is still unfolding.
Legitimately, listen to this.
Quote, Bergen said that a hydrogen peroxide device would signal that foreign-based terrorist groups are behind the attack.
However, if there was another explosive used, that may signal right-wing terrorists were involved.
Quote, we've seen a number of failed bombing attempts by al-Qaeda, Bergen cautioned, but we've also seen other extremist groups.
Right-wing groups trying to attack, for instance, trying to attack the Martin Luther King parade in Oregon in 2010.
He said that he thinks that hydrogen peroxide bomb was more likely used here, signaling that Bergen believes that foreign-based terror groups are more likely behind this.
So even this article and this interview that the CNN analyst said...
Based on what he believes the bomb to be, he believes that foreign actors are more likely.
But that actual article that Alex is talking about there, which he's presenting as the media blaming the Patriots and the Tea Party, comes to the conclusion that foreign-based terror groups are more likely behind the attack than right-wingers.
His source literally and completely contradicts his narrative, but it doesn't matter.
Bergen entertained the possibility that Alex's militia weirdo buddies might be suspects, and any insinuation that right-wing terrorism exists is really just a plot to demonize the good guy patriots in an attempt to start a civil war or something.
There's a number of possibilities, and without knowing...
His own brain, I couldn't tell you, but it really does feel like there's at least, there's a non-zero chance that Alex probably thinks that it could be a right winger.
So this article in The Independent is just explaining why some people have theorized on Twitter and online that the bombing was either Islamic or right-wing terrorism.
It doesn't say that it's either.
It's really just what you might call an explainer for possibly non-U.S.
readers of the dynamics involved that have led some people to think one of the two groups could be behind the attack.
On the right-wing side, they point out that it was the anniversary of the Waco standoff, as well as Patriots Day and Tax Day.
On the Islamic side, they also point out that it's the 65th anniversary of the independence of Israel, so that date also holds significance for groups all over the place.
Honestly, a fair reading of this article would lead you to think that they were making the point that Islamic terror is more likely.
The part about the possibility of right-wing groups being behind the attack is just informational.
It's just a list of facts, like this date may be.
means this.
Whereas the possibility that it was Islamic terrorism includes an interview with a professor of security studies from King's College and references to someone at the Boston Globe, speculation There's a bit more weight behind the section about that than the right-wing possibility.
Alex, again, I sound like a broken record, but this article is not blaming right-wing extremists at all.
But again, to Alex, anyone pointing out that right-wing extremist groups exist, that in and of itself is basically a crime.
This is as close to fair as Alex is going to get, and it's still a long way from being what you might call good work.
The Examiner headline is, quote, FBI following up on a variety of leads to Boston bombing, and then it discusses some of those leads.
They reference a counterterrorism expert named Richard Barrett who says that, quote, the incident had hints of a right-wing attack, but he also says, quote, It was too early to say who was to blame for the marathon blasts.
The article isn't about who did the attack, really, or even pointing blame.
It's about how the FBI is getting a ton of tips and working through them.
Inasmuch as the article does contain an expert saying it was too early to say who did it, but he suspects it could be right-wing extremists, fine.
If Alex wants to base this conspiracy of patriot demonization on a bunch of shit he's lying about in an article in the Irish Examiner...
And also, the problem I have with it the most is that every expert, that everybody, every reporter that went for a quote, every one of them is looking for you to speculate.
Because it's going to be so much better for your article than writing another article.
Still don't know what's going on.
You want an article that says this, such and such expert, and then whenever they tell you, well, it could be this or it could be that, then you say, well.
All of that is the same thing from that Mediaite article where the guy said that based on the hydrogen peroxide bomb that I believe it to be, foreign terror is more likely.
So he's used that three times in this list of articles.
They all are about the same interview with Jake Tapper on CNN.
This is how he does this.
This is how he creates the illusion of there being tons of people saying that the patriots are to blame.
When three are the same source that doesn't say that.
It's a monolithic, unstoppable force of reinforcement, just because they can always create that feedback loop.
One guy on CNN says something one time, Town Hall, fucking Fox News, Breitbart, fucking name it.
They'll all write a story about it, and then they'll all reference how so many people are writing stories that it must be a bunch of different things going on.
It's brilliant and evil and going to end the world.
You gotta give it up to the Somali pirates on that one.
And all of this is to reinforce premise two in the argument.
That's all this is doing.
And I know that I probably sound like I'm making too big of a point of the construction of this argument, but it's how Alex set things up in the immediate minutes and maybe like half hour after news of the bomb broke.
He established it almost as a thesis.
And in this next clip, he reiterates it after he's already done this manipulative Disingenuous work to establish premise B, or premise 2. He now gets back to trying to reframe the argument now that he has the second premise with him.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, they are setting up to have these all over the country.
If we accept this, get into the fear, the media's hyping it, this is the whole paradigm shift to go into total martial law to stop the Tea Party bombing everybody and to get Republicans to apologize for what the Tea Party's done.
If they blame it on the Tea Party and Republicans apologize, it's over.
Total communist takeover run by foreign offshore banks.
I want my weirdo extremist friends to be more ascendant within the GOP.
I want them to be accepted, and if they are not accepted, and they allow this demonization that I'm imagining is happening to stand, then it's all over.
Let's go to Eddie in Texas, as his friend is a Fed, has intel.
Eddie, you're on the air.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Hey, Alex.
Yeah, I was just sitting here, and a buddy of mine, he has a federal job, and he told me, I've got to stop by your shop.
And I said, sure, why not?
So he comes over here, and he tells me, you know, we talk about the bombing and whatnot, and then he tells me, okay, there's reasons I can't give you, but I'd feel bad if I didn't give you a warning.
Buy as much ammo as you can.
The only thing I can tell you is buy as much ammo as you can.
His friend in the Pentagon, he will not give me any critical information as to why, but he just told me buy as much ammo as you can.
Wow, so you talked to your source, and he said his friend at the Pentagon just said, get as much ammo as you can.
unidentified
That's exactly what he said, and I told him, did they declare martial law in Boston?
He said, no, they declared a state of emergency.
It's different.
And I said, well, you know, I heard different things, and he said, all I'm going to tell you and all I'm authorized to tell you is the same thing I've been telling you.
A caller claims he's in the Marines and has important info, and it's that this person's number is 1979 and it has something to do with Margaret Thatcher and the Iranian hostage crisis?
You could almost make a pretty cogent argument that people constantly calling things false flags only allows the government more easily to commit a false flag.
Like, he's not just making up some abstract possibility.
He's imagining a cop telling that kid, who specifically did die in this bombing, to sit on a duffel bag in order to kill them so they can use him for publicity.
That's what Alex is fantasizing about.
I imagine this is what they do.
That's fucking insanely disrespectful to the parents, to the child, to everyone.
This is disgusting shit.
He should be deeply ashamed of himself.
This isn't asking questions.
This isn't journalism.
This isn't exposing truth.
This is a monstrous person hurting people more.
There's no value to this.
It's disgusting.
I don't know how to put it any more concretely, but this is why this stuff infuriates me more than...
I expect it to.
It's because you hear shit like that.
And that's not the only time he uses this flight of fancy.
So he has Doug Hagman on, and in this intro that he's giving for him, we get a little glimpse at somebody who should also be ashamed of themselves for enabling Alex's bullshit.
This is one of the reasons and one of the things about that show is so fun and fanciful with all of its paranormal talk, but it has a dangerous place that it also occupies.
And it's by mainstreaming, by platforming, by helping disseminate the messages of someone like Alex Jones the day after the Boston bombing when all of his rhetoric is counterfeit.
I want to say, in fairness to Alex, which isn't even in fairness to him, he does constantly evoke past acts, like the 7-7 bombing in Oklahoma City, the Aurora shooting, and a lot of that is evidence, in quotes, that he's presenting to reinforce his arguments, but a lot of it's stuff we've gone over in the past, or it would require Way too much time to get into.
But I discount a lot of that.
Because I think that's the forest for the trees kind of stuff.
But I know that if Alex were to listen to this, he'd be like, they don't even bring up that I talked about 7-7.
But Doug, the most devastating evidence is that Rob Dew, my news director, constantly argues with his defense intelligence brother-in-law, who is actually pretty high up in it, and he's on the Army Marathon team, and he can run 24 miles in his sleep.
He was running, he was pretty much fine, and they came over and said, you're dehydrated, we're pulling you out, because he was up towards the front, coming up to the finish line right before all this happened.
I don't even know if that's true, but Alex says it.
So Doug Hagman says something that I think, if there's anything to take away from this episode, I think it's this mentality that Doug Hagman is expressing.
You know, with all of the accusations of saying, well, you can't really say this is a false flag attack or you can't really conclude anything, while that might be a true statement today, are we wrong to be a little bit jaded or a little bit gun-shy about what we're seeing here with respect to this incident?
That's the biggest fucking loser cop-out I've ever heard in my life.
What he's saying is, sure, we don't have any idea what we're talking about, but come on, we should be able to jump to conclusions because we've built up a worldview that makes that okay.
Alex pretends he has high-level sources, and one of them is Doug fucking Hagman.
These two dipshits are sitting on this show that pretends itself to be...
They don't present this show as like it's just commentary-based.
It's just one man's opinion.
They do not present it that way.
When they spread their shit...
They have an expectation that their audience believes them.
So they have a responsibility to not fall back on excuses like, how can we not just assume the bombing was a government plot to make our friends look bad when it feels like that to me?
So Hagman gets down to his high-level sources that he has and tells the people what to expect.
unidentified
Again, based on my source, I think the most important, if I can say nothing else today for today's broadcast, is expect more and look at these as diversions.
And that's pretty frightening as far as I'm concerned.
So I told you earlier that Skousen said that Alex's caller sounds like someone making stuff up, and Alex turned heel on his listeners and was like, oh, some of these calls are clearly people fucking with us, you know, that sort of thing.
And so now Alex gets into the idea that there's misinformation being spread online.
Because that's the only place that a lot of stuff is getting theorized and posted as if it's real.
So I think, if I had to guess, I would say that this is an attempt for Alex to claim authority in that space.
By critiquing some of the theories that he hasn't disseminated, he will be able to elevate his own theories above the muck.
He starts reading it and he finds himself agreeing with the troll post that he is already indicating as like, this is the sort of shit that's getting posted.
Well, but other people have also, like, there have been a lot of indications, like, immediately after the bombing, Saudi National was reported to have been arrested.
According to all reliable sources, no bombing ever carried out by the Weathermen was an attack on humans.
It was always property.
There were some copycat attacks that were carried out by unaffiliated groups that did kill or hurt people, and the right-wing types, you know, they're pretty consistent in going ahead and blaming the Weathermen for those, too.
Leaving that aside, even if the Boston bombing was anywhere near the M.O. of the Weathermen, At the time of the bombing, they hadn't been a group for a full 36 years.
I do like the idea now, though, of the Weathermen aging, are all old dogs like Tim Allen, and they're like, let's get the bandit back together for one last ride, or whatever.
So, that's the last clip of Alex from the show, but I have two more clips, because I want to demonstrate to you that everyone at InfoWars is complicit.
Everyone.
That I can see.
If you are there, and you're witnessing this clear misrepresentation that's going on, Of all these sorts of things, and you're allowing this to happen, you don't walk out, I don't give a fuck about you anymore.
He gets aligned in that episode with an Islamic terrorist.
unidentified
He's a Tea Party guy.
So that all feeds into the narrative that they've been trying to get you on because they keep saying, There are talking points at Infowars, and it's very clear because one of them is that Peter Griffin is a Tea Party guy.
And you see what Alex is doing when you take a second to deconstruct it.
And you take a second to see, like...
Okay, this source doesn't say what he says it says.
Why is he misrepresenting that?
It all fits into the same pattern of forming that argument, and then once established, changing the argument to be, if the GOP turns its back on my extremist friends, then civil war is coming.
And that is kind of, I think, while I have some other issues with certainly Adam Carolla's late career, and maybe in hindsight some of that earlier part of the career, but I think that that's such a good model for how to be ethical and stewards of the public airway, in a sense.
You have a responsibility when you have...
An audience and you're a daily live radio show.
You can't take the day off or whatever.
You have to come in and do something.
You have to care and nurture people because if you don't, you're disrupting a process.
And Alex is deeply disrupting a process here.
And the only motivations can be nefariously political or nefariously personal.
And I don't respect either of those.
I honestly think there are a bunch of episodes that keep re-upping my hatred of him.
It's interesting because I fall into a lull of these episodes will come up where he's like...
Trying to get people to move to West Virginia because there's no 5G there.
It's like, this is goofy.
I'm going to buy Greenland.
This is bullshit.
You lose track of the villain aspect of it.
But then there's episodes like the Anders Breivik episode, like this.
There's a number of them along the way.
But they really reinforce to me, there's intent here.
There is absolute, clear...
It's not an accident.
He's not stupid, what he's doing.
Some of the stuff that is being done and is being said is stupid.
But he's not just Mr. Magoo fumbling around propaganda.
So, we're done here, Jordan, and we've gotten through the 16th, and I hate this already, and I really dread the next, like, week of his show, because this doesn't resolve well.