Knowledge Fight #352 dissects Alex Jones’ April 17, 2013, Boston Marathon bombing false flag claims—rooted in debunked Family Guy hoaxes, misrepresented FBI statements, and the Punisher logo myth—while exposing his pattern of retroactive "predictions" and hindsight bias. Jones’ conspiracy-fueled rhetoric, amplified by fringe figures like Steve Pieczenik (who equates the attack to a cover-up for Bush/Obama war crimes), risks inciting violence under Section 2385, despite no evidence. The episode reveals how Jones weaponizes tragedy for clicks and ideological warfare, leaving victims and facts in his wake. [Automatically generated summary]
I would strike with people if I were in a situation to.
Like if I were in a job that had strike capability.
Sure.
Or that was the situation we found ourselves in as I would, and I would join a unionization effort if I were in that situation, not as a 17-year-old working for minimum wage at a voluntary.
Like, all the people who were posting screenshots of Alex with llamas, even if you're making fun of him, if you listen to the video of that, he's talking about how this is going to amplify his ratings.
In the middle of having llamas in studio, he's talking about like, I want one of them to spit on me because it'll go mega viral.
Everybody will, you know, it's just, you're all amplifying exactly not you, like, individuals who might have enjoyed the tweets that people are putting out or anything like that.
And I don't know how much of it is really detrimental to mock him for it if you have a high-profile account or whatever.
But you should know that you did exactly what he wanted you to do.
He wanted publicity.
You gave him free publicity.
It's very easy to see how some of these making it go viral, putting it out there, even the memes of him with a llama.
You could fuck around and accidentally give him tens of thousands of dollars of free traffic to his website that could translate into sales.
Whatever he was doing is pathetic and sad.
It's a desperate attempt to get attention, but it worked.
On our last episode, Jordan, we witnessed Alex manufacture and manipulate headlines, comments, and a family guy episode in order to defend his feeling that the media would blame patriots in quotes for the Boston bombing.
And we saw him start to craft this narrative in the literal minutes after he became aware of the tragedy.
As I discussed on that last episode, by the time he went off air on the 16th, there was not a lot of information available about what had happened, other than the obvious.
The FBI and police were following up on leads and investigating.
But in terms of confirmed details, there was very little to go on.
It had been announced that the bombs were pressure cookers.
It had been announced that the reports of a Saudi national who was detained were possibly misleading and that that person was not involved in the bombing.
Beyond that, there wasn't much.
As we begin on the 17th, there's still not a whole lot of credible information that's being reported.
By the end of the day, it was reported that the FBI had an image of a potential suspect who was seen carrying a backpack and dropping it off in the area of the second bomb where it was.
That happens by the end of the day, but they had not released that image.
April 17th is a very important day in the fallout of the bombing.
We had reached now two full days after the attack, and still there was a lack of credible information about who did it, why they did it, and any real indications that the authorities were any closer to making arrests than they were 24 hours prior.
In this environment of outrageous tension, two very critical things happened.
The first was that the silence of information was easily overwhelmed by the growing volume of baseless speculation and bullshit coming out of alternative sources.
While it stopped short of credible outlets repeating internet rumors, people were reaching a point where they needed answers.
And when the mainstream isn't providing them, they started to look elsewhere.
And people got a lot of traffic out of baseless conjecture surrounding this event.
Yeah, and no matter how many times you tell yourself, like, obviously the investigators and detectives who are working on this know more, but they can't put that information out because it might ruin the possibility of them being able to carry through the investigation.
You can't tell yourself, your brain doesn't allow you to accept that because it's unsatisfying.
You want to know the answer.
And when people are willing to give you the wrong answer, you'll gravitate towards that.
Now, that's one element that's happening.
And the noise of the alternative folk on places like Reddit and 4chan putting out these radiohead putting out this bogus nonsense.
It starts to amplify considerably on the 17th.
The second thing is that while the alternative media, like Alex and these dumb-dumb blogs, they were striking while the iron was hot and drawing in massive amounts of attention for people who just needed to hear something, anything, anything at all, in that same time, the mainstream media made critical errors in their drive to be the first to report things.
We'll go over some of that as we go along, but both groups, the alternative media and the mainstream media, were driven by the same impulse to be the first outlet to report important information about a major story.
And the results were disastrous.
By the time Alex gets off air on the 17th, we're no closer to having really any real concrete information.
The FBI has announced by that point that they have a photo of the suspects, like I said, but they still haven't released it.
However, while the real-world public is no closer to knowing what happened at the marathon by this point, the same cannot be said for Alex.
In this episode, we'll see him take his certainty that the bombing was a false flag, which he determined in seconds.
And over the course of this broadcast, he'll transform it into so much more.
He'll find the people he decides are the culprits.
He'll point out private citizens he's decided are the Patsys who the globalists are going to pin the bombing on.
He'll discover the motive for the bombing, and in the process, he's likely party to the commission of a federal offense on air.
Every day in the stretch of 2013 that we're on right now is not good.
I thought that the bombing would be the worst of it, and I was shocked at how much of a monster Alex was on the 15th and 16th.
But I'm very comfortable saying that he outdoes himself by a considerable margin on the 17th.
He's legitimately the worst.
I can think of very few things he could be doing at this point that would be worse than what he's consciously and willingly doing on this episode.
At the beginning of the episode, Alex is sort of laying it out that, hey, the media is telling you these things because they think they're talking to idiots.
After Opie and Anthony fell apart, he set up his own studio and all that, and then he also did the fourth hour with Alex.
So that kind of makes sense.
Everything tracks.
But it should be pointed out that at that point were a very popular radio show that ostensibly was just like, hey, we're talking to comics about edgy shit.
Everything about this, the preconditioning, the rollout, all of it, just screams, branding, branding, branding, demonize the Patriots, flip Homeland Security against libertarian gun owners, conservatives.
I mean, I've been telling you every day.
And bare minimum, they've provocatered some mentally ill person.
They're now coming out and saying, yes, we now believe it'll be a domestic group and a right-winger.
Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, Shallon.
Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white person.
Officials, Boston bombing likely carried out by domestic terrorists, not Al-Qaeda.
And then see when, of course, that comes out.
They'll all be, see, we predicted it.
Southern Poverty Law Center a month before said a new Oklahoma city is imminent.
It's the same thing we went over on the last episode, so we don't need to go into that.
But this salon article is new that he brought up.
The one that let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.
That is a real headline.
Yeah, I remember that.
However, Alex is not engaging with the content of that article at all.
What?
That piece was written by David Sirota, and his overarching point is that the identity of the perpetrator of the bombing will likely dictate how the American government responds to it.
And the best case scenario for world peace is that it turns out to be a white American.
From the article, quote, in the context of terrorist attacks, such white male privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed as representative of not of whole groups and ideologies, but as lone wolf threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters.
Meanwhile, non-white or developing world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies, and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats.
The kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
Sorota goes on to argue that, quote, regardless of your political party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist.
Why?
Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
I mean, I think that attempts, I don't know about takeover, but I know that even internally, attempts have been made to put that focus on the actual threat that exists.
So after that article was published in Salon, it became a big talking point on right-wing media.
O'Reilly did a segment about it, as did every Fox contributor.
They were all talking about it on all the Talkin' Head shows.
And it's something that Alex is up in arms about.
In response, Sirota wrote a follow-up titled, quote, I still hope the bomber is a white American, where he pointed out that even when complaining about his Salon article, O'Reilly expressed the exact same premise that the article did, that if it turns out to be a Muslim terrorist, then the reaction would be severe.
But if it turns out to be a white American terrorist, then it will just, quote, be another stain on American history.
That's from O'Reilly, not from you.
This is really basic stuff.
Sirota wasn't saying it was a white domestic terrorist.
He was just pointing out that the double standard exists about how the public and the government responds to tragedies like this.
And how, if the bomber is white, quote, the double standard may prevent an overreaction to the heinous attacks in Boston.
You could make a pretty decent argument that this article could come off a little insensitive considering the timing.
But publishing it, you know, publishing it on the 17th, it seems like maybe it's like, I don't know.
Well, you know, well, a lot of folks then are still in a state of shock and grief.
I would be willing to hear those criticisms.
And I don't know how correct they are, but I think they're a valid complaint.
However, I don't think that I can find too much in the substance of his point that I can take issue with.
Ultimately, big picture, and most importantly, this article in no way strengthens Alex's argument that the media is blaming right-wing quote-unquote patriots for the bombing.
The way he's using this is absolutely out of line with what the article actually is.
In the article, Paul quotes Richard Deslaurius, who was in the Boston FBI office, and I'm certainly mispronouncing his name.
Deslaurius was talking about a video they had of the suspect and said, quote, the person who did this was someone's friend, neighbor, and co-worker, which Paul says is, quote, ruling out the possibility that the attack was carried out by foreigners who entered the U.S.
My response to that is to say that that in no way rules out that the attack was carried out by a foreign group.
It might rule out the idea that the terrorists just showed up and did the attack like two days later, but it absolutely does not exclude people who could be here for a while involved.
They were indicating that there are indications that this was an act of domestic terrorism.
Neither of them say it was a right-wing extremist, nor do they even suggest it was a patriot group, just that it would be a domestic group based on the profile of the weapons used and that sort of stuff.
The best Paul has other than that is a tweet from an unofficial Twitter account run by someone who works for the U.S. Forest Service saying that they're afraid it's a right-wing nut.
This quote-unquote evidence does not merit an article.
If the media were really trying to paint the picture that this was done by right-wingers in order to demonize the Patriots, Paul would have way stronger evidence than Jay Moore's Twitter.
This is a perfect example of Alex setting the editorial decision that the narrative is that the media is blaming the Patriots, and then his staff has to go out and find anything they can to defend the narrative.
No other explanation makes sense.
Why would it be this thin?
Why would the evidence you have be so scattershot?
Saxby Champlis and Jay Moore are teaming up to demonize the Patriots.
It's what happens when you set out to investigate something, but you already know the answer and you ignore everything that's that confirmation bias, except weaponized against people.
So the, you know, I love that he's sitting here saying, like, I read PhD-level textbooks, and then he says the most 101 shit you would get from any, like, homicide TV show.
So Alex is saying this because he believes that everything that's happening surrounding the Boston bombing follows the exact same pattern that has happened with all of the other false flags that he has in the past.
So he is now sees things that are happening in the world.
He's connecting them all together in the same way that after 9-11, there was those anthrax letters that got sent.
Right after the Boston bombing, there were Ryson letters that got sent to Obama.
And so now Alex has decided that he predicted this.
From where I'm sitting, I have no evidence that he did predict this.
But I would believe he might have said it when he was free associating on the nightly news or maybe on his coast-to-coast appearance.
It's a possibility, but I do not have evidence he predicted it.
Either way, it doesn't matter because Alex is full of shit.
On April 16th, 2013, letters laced with Ricen were sent to President Obama, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, and a judge in Mississippi.
The letters had been sent from an address in Tennessee, and because there was just a giant bombing in Boston, a lot of people made a hasty assumption that the attempts to poison these officials were currently.
They're not connected, yeah.
But guess what?
They were not.
And this is one of the craziest stories that I will ever tell you, Jordan.
The police arrest Curtis for the crime, but in the course of interrogation, realize they have got the wrong dude, that he does not know anything about the crime that's being described.
So they ask him if he has any enemies who might want to try and set him up.
And he immediately responds that there is one guy, James Everett Dutchke, who fits that description.
Curtis had been a janitor by profession and an Elvis impersonator by passion.
Him and his brother did a duo act where one of them was like younger Elvis and the other was Vegas Elvis.
Oh, man.
So they performed together as dueling Elvis impersonators.
So in his day job as a janitor, he'd landed a contract to clean the floors at the Northern Mississippi Medical Center.
And through some weird coincidence, he ended up in the morgue one day and saw body parts that really freaked him out.
He wasn't authorized to be in the morgue, so he was reprimanded for being there, which he thought was meant to be punishment for him seeing body parts he wasn't supposed to see.
Curtis smelled a conspiracy and decided that he'd stumbled into a black market organ harvesting operation.
He started disseminating messages about his theories online, like on MySpace at the time, and he ended them with his tagline, quote, I am KC and I approve this message.
James Everett Dutchke was a local insurance salesman who was also in a local band called RoboDrum, which describes itself as, quote, progressive guitar functronica for smart people.
So when Curtis heard about this newspaper, he was sure that this was how he was going to be able to get his message out about the organ harvesting thing that he'd stumbled into.
So Curtis accosted Dutchke at a party because Dutchke worked with Curtis's ex-wife in an insurance company.
So at a company party, he came along and confronted Dutchkey because Dutchke hadn't responded to his emails.
So he confronts him with this party and asks him to run a story about this big scoop.
However, Dutch key was not interested since he was in the middle of trying to run for public office and he felt a story like this would hurt his efforts to get elected, which he ends up not getting elected anyway.
Dutchkey lost his bid for office, and then the two men embarked on a completely insane online feud where they both accused each other of stalking them, and they were both probably right.
So, anyway, long story shortish, Dutchke decided to frame Curtis by sending letters with Ryson in them to the Mississippi senator, Obama, and this judge, who specifically had sentenced Curtis to six months in jail prior, like a ways in the past.
Well, there are some people who suspect that what he was doing was he realized that he was probably going to prison for touching these underage girls and that he could get a heavier sentence in a different facility if he got caught trying to do this clunky frame-up job.
And it was actually an effort to not be put in prison primarily as a pedophile.
There are some people who think that, but I think that's a little bit too much.
No, I'm saying with this theory, you're giving the guy who is in an online feud with an Elvis impersonator who thinks that there's an underground black market organ selling business.
You're giving that guy the credit for masterminding his move into a different prison like he's fucking.
But then again, like all of it is explained by just these guys being idiots.
But one of the reasons that people suspect that he was trying to get caught is that he'd included Curtis's tagline, quote, I am KC and I approve this message, on the letters that he sent off.
Anyway, in May 2014, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for this, and he has been very clear he's guilty.
This had nothing to do with the Boston bombing, but if you don't look at information or your journalistic practice is just to parrot off sensationalist bullshit because you feel like something is the case, you'll end up saying shit like Alex does.
unidentified
Like, I predicted there would be a bio-attack around this.
If he had correctly predicted that an Elvis impersonator and an insurance agent would get into a fight that would lead to sending Ryson to the president, then I'm going to believe everything he says forever.
And also, it turns out that the Ryson that this guy, Dutchkey, cooked up was so impotent that even if Obama had opened the letter, he wouldn't have like the judge did open the letter and she didn't get sick or anything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I'm glad that no one got hurt.
And I don't want things to escalate like that.
But the story of this guy stumbling into a morgue, thinking he's found a conspiracy, finding an alternative paper that won't publish his story, creating a giant online feud.
It's unfortunate that it has to get into the public exposure and dojo molestation.
Yeah, you kind of stop believing in cause and effect and start believing in fate if you have a story that begins with the janitor went into the morgue by accident.
unidentified
And years later, years later, the president is poisoned.
A lot of them have agendas and situations that they're going through that are not immediately apparent.
And so when you see a story like there's Ryson Letters sent to the president, it's easy to assume that you know everything about it when you know nothing about it.
And Alex knows nothing about it, but he's decided it's very important to include in his narrative.
All of this is unfolding, and so it's a replay where they want to get the Patriot Act through.
They want to get all this unconstitutional stuff through.
9-11 wasn't enough, even though it was all pre-written.
That came out.
So you have an anthrax attack to the media to scare them to get in line and to keep people in the House and Senate.
And now a pro-gun key senator who's been saying he will not vote, and he may be the vote on whether this is going to pass the Senate or not, has received and confirmed an envelope the office of Senator Roger Wicker, Republican Mississippi, including a substance that has tested positive for the toxic substance ryacin.
So now we get why this has happened, according to Alex.
So the very day that this episode is being recorded, the Guardian reported that the Senate voted against a background check amendment 54 to 46.
Whatever plot there was to intimidate Congress into falling in line certainly didn't have any effect on the real world, probably because it didn't exist.
On this very same day, April 17th, the Atlantic ran a story about this gun control measure being shot down that included, quote, Senator Roger Wicker gloated in real time by broadcasting his vote against one measure on Twitter.
Wicker then followed up with a press release going into detail about his decision and yelping the too familiar line, quote, I have not and will not support any attempt to infringe or undermine the Constitution's Second Amendment protections.
I'm not sure, but all the scores for like, you know, more left-leaning or civil rights kind of not good ratings.
Yeah, that's right.
I suspect that Alex is misunderstanding a vote from April 11th in order to build up his case that he was on the fence and because in that vote, Wicker had voted yay about this legislation, but he wasn't voting on the bill.
It was a cloture vote, and his yay vote was to end debate and put the measure up to a formal vote.
Since a lot of Republicans were trying to hold a filibuster instead, this could be seen as some form of support for the bill.
But in reality, 16 Republicans voted the exact same way, like our boy Sexby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake.
None of them got letters because they weren't in Mississippi and weren't the target of this crazy Dutch gee guy.
I don't know if Alex is just intentionally leaving out the judge or if he hasn't become aware of that.
I'm not sure exactly what the situation is, but that should be an important piece of his coverage that's just missing.
But anyway, none of these other voters who voted to not have the filibuster and to put this up to a vote, the 16 other Republicans, 15 other Republicans, they didn't get letters.
This is just bullshit.
Anyway, the letters had nothing to do with any of this.
No one changed their tune on gun legislation because of this.
Alex is just creating a completely alternate reality for his audience to live in where everything is connected.
And it's all an elaborate plan to deprive him of his gun.
It's childish.
It's manipulative and insane how profitable this clearly is.
So, Alex, on the last episode, when we covered the 15th and 16th, one of his major pieces of information was this Family Guy clip that had been manipulatively edited.
The episode had been edited to make it appear from two different parts of the same episode that Peter Griffin had set off two bombs at the Boston Marathon and killed people.
And that was very inaccurate and manipulative editing of the episode as it exists.
By the 17th, there had been backlash to this.
And people were saying, hey, you guys are pulling a hoax.
All Alex is doing is intentionally misunderstanding the criticisms that are being used against him in order to be like, they're trying to say that we're wrong about they're saying the episode doesn't exist.
No, people are saying that you are misleading people into thinking that the episode included Peter bombing the marathon.
It's the same thing that a lot of people got a lot of traffic and attention online by all of these, like, this predicted 9-11, like, Spider-Man, the trailer for Spider-Man at the Twin Towers.
I get why Alex is really into this, but if he were dealing with things in a real way, he would deal with the actual criticism that these are different parts of the episode.
I'm not sure I can find any evidence that Alex had anything to do with the arrest, investigation, or even that he brought to light any of the allegations against him.
This very easily could be a case of Alex taking credit for being the truth teller about something he was in the proximity of long after the events already transpired.
However, in trying to get to the bottom of this, I stumbled into an archive of media clippings from the Austin Chronicle, many of them about Alex's time at the Austin Community TV station.
And they paint a pretty interesting portrait of Alex's early days.
This has nothing to do with John Villa Real, but I accidentally found some stuff that I think is pretty interesting.
So there's an article about a bunch of suspicious coincidences related to the firings of other ACTV hosts who had issues with Alex.
And there were a bunch of mysterious complaints that ended up getting lodged against them for what's called commercialism, which isn't allowed on the station.
This didn't turn into anything, but Alex would later almost sue him after Honky read an email from a newsgroup posting by someone who worked at JFK on his own show.
That email said Alex, quote, was fired because he was an immature little punk who cries until he gets his wooy.
It's an interesting story, and it does paint a picture of Alex trying to use sort of lawfare against people in this early career and trying to get people who he feuded with fired on technicalities.
Now, how much of that is provable, I'm not entirely sure, but these people, like, they're pretty.
Yeah, it's him.
They're pretty insistent that this level of coincidence, like multiple people getting fired for mysterious complaints about commercialism.
But there's so much more to these clippings, Jordan.
There's a letter to the editor from July 2000 from someone who was at the dedication of the rebuilt chapel at Mount Carmel for the Branch Davidians.
Alex was involved in getting the building restored and had been in charge of the memorial event.
And as I read this to you, I want you to remember that Alex, one of the biggest things in his early career was the rebuilding of the Branch Davidian Church.
He made a giant name for himself going out, advocating for this.
He has always, in his early days, been so about Waco and so into championing for these people.
So one of the ministers' 12-year-old daughter named Angie had prepared a celebratory dance for that memorial event.
And well, I'm just going to read to you here from this letter to the editor.
Quote, even angels were moved by Angie's performance.
She adorned a white chiffon dress with gold trim that floated in the air.
Angie was a gift from heaven that afternoon.
Alex gave her last place on the agenda around 4 p.m. after most everyone had left, including the media.
Earlier that memorial day, I heard Alex tell Angie's father that there was no time for her dance.
I watched tears come to Charles' eyes.
How was he going to tell his beloved daughter there was no time to give the gift?
He hurried out of the chapel.
There was time for Alex to scream hatred and venom, but there was no time for Angie's dance, no time for beauty.
That's what he did to the people that he was supposedly championing.
And so it turns out that's been the case for a very long time.
I can find zero evidence in all these archives that Alex had anything to do with John Villa Real's case.
By 2006, when this all went down, Alex was well past his public access days.
And based on the information that's available about that time in his life, it seems like someone would have talked about it by now.
Like all the people who were working at the station, who have come out and talked about how big a piece of shit Alex was, all that.
Someone would have mentioned that he was involved in cracking the case open by barging into a meeting and bluffing everybody with accusations of malfeasance.
As far as I know, like I said, I have no indication that Alex said that if this is a false flag, they would release a bioweapon.
He repeatedly predicted that the globalists were going to nuke Chicago.
He did do that.
That was pretty consistent.
But I don't recall hearing this prediction at all that he's saying.
I suspect that he didn't make this prediction, mostly because of this clip that we just heard.
Alex absolutely did not say on his show that they would wait a few days while they figure out which Patsy to bring out.
Now, did he internally suspect that might be the case?
I can believe that's possible, but he absolutely did not say anything even close to this in the time after the bombing.
I can be very confident of that.
I believe that what Alex is doing is engaging in a practice that's known as postdiction, the opposite of prediction.
This is when an event happens and a supposed prognosticator, they sort of massage variables about their prior claims so as to make them fit the actual event that they're claiming to have predicted.
This is closely related to what's known as the hindsight bias.
Studies have been done where participants have been asked to predict which outcomes they believe are likely to happen about upcoming events.
One of the more notable examples of this was researchers asking people about Nixon's trips to China and the USSR.
After the events happen, they're asked to remember what their initial predictions were, and people consistently show heavy skewing towards thinking that their predictions were more in line with what actually happened after the fact.
I see a very high level of hindsight bias in Alex's coverage here on the 17th.
He's already decided with no evidence that this is a false flag.
He's already decided, again, with no evidence, that they're either going to have a right-wing Patsy or Islamic Patsy, who is still only being blamed in order to take right-wing people's guns away.
This completely manufactured reality is being propped up by his insistence that he predicted all of these variables.
He thinks he predicted a bioweapon attack, which I don't see any evidence he did.
And those rice and letters are completely unrelated to the bombing.
He thinks he predicted that they wouldn't find a suspect immediately, but I don't see any evidence of that either.
What I do see evidence of is completely failed predictions Alex has made.
One of them is that the globalists are going to blame the Patriots and use this to take his guns.
Since we're in 2019, we know that this prediction is complete shit.
He was way off about everything, but he's passing himself off as a prophet based on sort of fudging the details a little bit.
There's an interesting element to hindsight bias, which I found in a 2011 article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Quote, hindsight bias provides the illusion of understanding the past and can result in a failure to learn from the past.
This is a pretty common point made by researchers who study memory.
The less conscious you are about your experiences in life, the more likely you are to fall prey to cognitive biases like this.
And the end result of that is that you never learn from your experiences.
If Alex were an honest actor in this situation and he were like straight up and not trying to manipulate people, I would say that what he's doing is self-destructive and self-defeating because he's disallowing the possibility that he can reflect and think about like, I said that they're going to nuke Boston and I was wrong.
Or I said Chicago is going to get nuked and I was wrong about that.
What can I learn from those mistakes that I made along the way and get better?
But because he's just a rank manipulator, none of this matters.
But for other people, this is an important thing to consider about stuff.
So on our when we were looking at the 16th, Alex was saying that Stuart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers was going to be on because they were going down to Lexington Green in order to hold their annual oath renewal ceremony that they do around the time of the revolution.
This next piece, before I get into all the other news, they have banned this several years in a row.
We've gone and shot film of it to put in our documentaries like Fall the Republic.
Oath Keepers, that constitutional lawyer, Ron Paul, staffer, veteran, Stuart Rhodes is coming on later.
They go to Lexington Green to have their Oath Keeper event, and a lot of different groups get it for an hour here and there.
And we've gone and filmed it before.
You've seen some of that footage.
Stuart Rhodes, they were given the word, and when we're going to break this at Infowars.com, they were told by the city that because Oath Keepers is now considered an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and that they don't want to have any, quote, white nationals.
Now, you have to, under the First Amendment, let the Ku Klux Klan go have a rally.
But there's nothing racial about Oath Keepers.
And, you know, mother's a Mexican.
But it doesn't matter now.
You see, all conservatives are now racist, as MSNBC has said.
I think the town council did what they thought was right here and what was best.
But ultimately, it just played into the Oathkeepers' hands and allowed them to amplify their victim narratives.
There were tons of events whose permits were suspended.
I mean, it was fucking Lexington in April.
That place was probably swimming with really depressed reenactors who didn't get to do their war reenactments.
But Alex and Stuart Rhodes don't care about the larger picture when there's a possibility to make this about them being singled out because the globalists hate conservatives.
And that's not the case at all.
And honestly, when I was reflecting on this, I thought about it.
I thought, well, I think this played out exactly how it should have.
I think the selectmen of Lexington did the right thing in terms of like, well, our goal is to try and protect the public.
And if there is a bomber on the loose, multiple bombers possibly, and they have attacked a large public gathering, it's probably in our best interest to make sure that we don't provide targets.
Now, I hate the Oath Keepers, and I think they suck, and I'm not thrilled with them ever having rallies.
So, I mean, I stop short of supporting the Oath Keepers and what they did.
But abstractly, if you just look at them as a fill-in-the-blank group, I think that this played out how it should have.
With the exception of the pretending that they were singled out.
That part of it is irresponsible and stupid and propaganda.
But I don't know.
I think it's maybe not the best thing for governments to decline all permits for the sake of there is a danger because it is dictating what we do based on threats.
And I stop short of saying the terrorists win or anything like that.
I think in my estimation, chances are, or from everything that I know about people, the best way to respond to a terror attack is to treat it as a police investigation and pretend that it means nothing.
True.
And then just go on about your day.
Make terrorist attacks uneffective in their goal.
You know, the terrorist attack of 9-11 was very effective.
There is no way you will convince enough people to just say, we are going to accept and absorb a terrorist attack with no response other than have the police investigate.
I think their actions were wrong, and I think every thought that got to them, got them to where they are, makes perfect sense, and I understand it completely.
And that's his way of saying that, like, I'm predicting all of these things, and I am right.
Now, if the reality that comes about in the next day or two or whatever doesn't match my predictions, that's just because the globalists changed the script.
One scene, as you said, depicts victims at the finish line of the Boston Marathon having been killed, having been massacred, covered in blood, dismembered limbs, etc.
The other scene, which is a different scene from the same episode, depicts the main character in Family Guy detonating two explosive devices via a cell phone.
So somebody put that out on the internet and edited those two clips together.
I saw it, made a commentary YouTube video about it, saying not that it was proof of an inside job or some grand conspiracy, merely that the fact that an episode of a cartoon broadcast three weeks before the marathon bombings in which scenes eerily similar were depicted was weird, was bizarre, was strange, was interesting.
Didn't claim it was proof of anything.
Put the four-minute commentary video out yesterday.
Within hours, within about three hours, the video was deleted by YouTube, and they put a strike on my account, threatened to terminate my account.
Then immediately after that, this meme began to circulate amongst the media that the Family Guy link to the Boston Marathon bombings was a hoax.
So some people, like you and the listeners probably, are wondering, you know, right about now, why is the Family Guy episode coming up so much on this show?
Why is Alex talking about it so much?
It clearly doesn't prove anything, and Paul is even saying it doesn't prove anything.
It literally does nothing to further his argument that the bombing was a false flag.
So what's the deal?
This can all be summed up very simply.
Seth McFarlane responded.
This manipulatively edited clip was created by whoever created it, then pushed to a massive audience by Paul Joseph Watson and Infowars, to the point where Seth McFarlane, the creator of the Family Guy, was getting messages about it, to the point where he had to respond that this was an alteration of his work and he feels terrible that people are doing this with his intellectual property.
It's hurting the people who are the victims of this.
It's really fucked up.
That's why Alex is continuing down this road, because his target didn't ignore him.
We've seen this over and over through his career, this instinct to pursue press and attention by fostering feuds with people way more famous than him.
We saw it in 2013 when Alex essentially begged Piers Morgan to have him back on the show while he was pretending to confront him at a gun shop.
We saw it in 2019 when Alex threatened to murder Joe Rogan politically and then called him a sneaky snake.
Let's not even broach the years-long will they, won't they? feud with Glenn Beck.
This is his strategy to hijack attention.
Alex knows the power of that, hijacking celebrity.
He ended up going on the view after Charlie Sheen freaked out because Sheen started his public meltdown on Alex's show.
So Alex knows that game really well, and he plays it a lot.
What I find particularly distasteful, as I've mentioned, is if you listen to these clips, it's clear that they know that they're lying about this.
They know that the bombing and the marathon are from totally separate parts of the episode, and they only appear connected because the video that Paul reposted manipulatively edited those parts together.
He knows that this barely rises to the level of, that's weird.
And yet he sits here with his boss who's trying to turn it into proof of an elaborate plot to not only demonize right-wingers, but apparently also to gaslight Alex.
Like, it's crazy.
This dude's the worst.
And it's moments like this that make it totally clear.
Paul knows what he's doing.
He knows he's paid to build perceptions, not to report anything real.
Because if he was reporting honestly, they would have been clear about like they never would have played the video that they play.
Because the video that they play and that they promoted took a part of the part at the beginning of the episode and cut it in with a part of the end to make it look like those are.
It's not like they played the part where Peter runs over people at the marathon in his car to win, and then after that the part at the end of the episode where Peter blows up the bridge accidentally using a cell phone detonator.
They don't do that.
They have the edited video where it looks like, based on the edits, Costas says, how did you win the Boston bombing?
And then they cut the phone immediately to the cell phone and then the bombs go off and they show the people at the marathon, exactly it's.
They would never do something like that if they were trying to point out how weird it is.
Yeah, it's a manufactured perception and they know what they're doing.
It is, it is kind of weird, but unless you manipulatively edit it together, here's your response, oh, that's kind of weird, but the number of random jokes and distasteful jokes that exist in the I don't know dozens of seasons of Family Guy, i'm positive that you could do this with a lot of stuff.
Yeah, you could find some way to manipulatively edit the random jokes right that are thrown in and create something out of it.
It's only because there will and look.
Sure, the Boston bomb or the Boston marathon is very specific, but the character lives in the northeast.
It's it's never gonna it's never gonna beat out the Simpsons predicting Trump becoming president, and that was just because they thought it was so utterly funny and impossible to imagine.
In the past few hours, these photos have emerged out the uh from the scene of the Boston marathon bombings and basically they show four or five individuals wearing coats and Acts that look like they're heavy and weighed down.
So, Paul Joseph Watson has found pictures that are going around from the scene.
I was wondering when this was going to come up.
And honestly, based on my memories of the time and following this story, I'm shocked that it was on the 17th.
I thought it was actually pretty more immediate.
And it may have actually been a little bit more immediate online, but it took this long to filter to Alex.
As I mentioned on the last episode, I was working a dead end temp job on April 2013, and most of my time was spent cruising conspiracy message boards to kill time.
People were with outrageously unsupported views and ideas were way more interesting to me than anything real at the time.
And there were mountains of things to read if you look into that world.
So many message boards, a consistently renewing source of anonymous posts and weird thoughts.
I would be lying if I said that I was 100% skeptical of everything I read back then.
While I didn't buy into any of it wholesale, I definitely was way more naive than I am today.
And I can still kind of remember the feeling that came from taking in those baseless theories presented as truth.
It was scary.
Even if I didn't really believe the stuff I was reading, there was so much what-if in these posts and blogs that it was injected into my mind, and I couldn't help but be somewhat affected by it.
That's the feeling that people like Alex and others like this who profit from these worlds want to maximize.
It's that uncertainty laced with fear that makes people vulnerable enough to lower their rational instinct and accept whatever is offered as a way of alleviating these feelings.
In the aftermath of the bombing, there was no information from officials channels.
And in that vacuum, idiots online decided to become detectives.
I remember this period so vividly because whenever a new picture from the marathon was posted by anyone, it would end up resulting in tons of new possibilities and suspects in the images.
None of them really stuck, with the exception of two men who the internet decided to look into and decided that they were military contractors and thus probably involved in some show.
There's legitimately nothing more to this conspiracy than that.
Two guys the internet thought looked suspicious who were wearing backpacks became the targets of a giant online mystery.
It's being here, amplified and validated by Alex and Paul Joseph Watson.
They have zero reason to do this.
There's no journalistic value to them tossing around under ungrounded suspicion based on a blog post or message board thread that Paul just happened to stumble across.
It's like it's that impulse that people have after listening to all these true crime podcasts where they're like, there's giant groups that crowdsource detective work.
Sure.
And it's like, I would prefer more people took it down to those stakes.
But if you have rabble-rousers like Alex and Paul Joseph Watson hijacking that for nefarious purposes instead of just a bunch of weirdos.
And again, I said the minute it happened, I said they're going to blame right-wingers and libertarians.
That's my gut.
And then even right-wing media said I was wrong to say that.
Why?
Why am I bad?
Because I'm right, Paul.
Why am I bad?
Why are you bad?
But yeah, get back to these now guys in trench coats and what they're saying because they're now getting into a frenzy going, it's time to demonize the devil Whitey.
And it's all white guys on TV saying this.
This is now they're going to make us all perpetrators, all Americans, all libertarians, all conservatives.
If you look at those pictures, there are a lot of people with backpacks.
And they are mostly ignored.
The internet had chosen to focus on specifically these two guys who they decided are military contractors because they're wearing tan pants, boots, and whatever.
And the reason that I appreciate your spin on this, you're wrong.
But the reason that these people were focused on is because these internet places were engaged in building the same narrative that Alex was.
They were working to try and prove the talking points that Alex was putting out.
Now, whether or not they were doing that specifically in service of Alex or just that these corners of the internet were on board with this, whatever the reality of it is, a little bit unclear to me, but it's perfect because they focused this suspicion on the specific people that would help Alex build his narrative, specifically that he's trying to do with the Family Guy episode.
That is, Paul, I'm sorry, Peter Griffin is a tea party guy who works with the Taliban, and that's what they're telling you all along.
unidentified
It's like white guys are going to be in the Taliban.
You see Paul take this suspicion about the people with backpacks, and it all gets funneled towards, wait, there were two guys who are a military contractor looking.
There's a Middle Eastern guy and a white guy.
They're trying to run an op where this Middle Eastern guy is working with the white guy in order to make us all look like we're working with terrorists.
The thing about crowdsourcing these kinds of propaganda conspiracy theories is that you already have a built-in audience for you to, because they want to be validated by you.
So they have not only given you the means by which to propagandize to them, but at the same time, they're your main audience to, yeah, it's a weird, like, fucking symbiotic, parasitical relationship.
Well, I mean, it's actually the opposite of what's going on with the police in terms of it not being a two-way street with the crowdsourced information.
And the backpacks that were found several feet from the bomb, one of the backpacks is identical to one carried by one of these individuals in the photo.
So Alex has decided based on these pictures of some people with backpacks that all of his arguments about the white people working with al-Qaeda, white al-Qaeda is going to, it's all validated.
What I find fascinating is that all these citizen sleuths who are figuring everything out, basically reliving law and order episodes, don't get to that second part where they're like, we have to build a case in order to get a conviction.
You can't go to the police with, well, duh, that's not a, that's not your honor.
Been going through the different Twitter accounts and photos and people analyzing it.
The police have asked people to, quote, help them analyze it.
And ladies and gentlemen, I thought he was talking about some other photos in the last segment.
If you just joined us, Paul, and this is nowhere in the mainstream news, Paul has found on one of the hacker sites photos, dozens of them.
Let's start running them on screen, guys.
Let's put this on screen with what appears to be white males, with what looks like Middle Easterners, with the heavy black backpacks, the canvas black backpacks that they're talking about.
And this looks really, really bad.
Let's keep scrolling down here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this looks incredible.
We're streaming video of this right now at InfoWars.com.
And you can hear Paul Watson there typing in the background.
Paul Watson is posting this right now at Infowars.com.
He's mirroring all of this information.
This has been out for eight hours with 228,000 views.
That's nice.
But has not hit the mainstream.
And right as I'm talking to Paul, CNN during the break goes, they believe they've ID'd suspects.
That was the headline.
So all this is breaking, and they're not even showing this information unless I missed it.
People captured of the bombing with people circled and red lines everywhere.
Acting like they demonstrated something.
The Brain Trust on the Internet scoured these photos and found anyone with a backpack that closely resembled the ones used in the attack and then excluded people who didn't fit whatever narrative they were.
And then they just started speculating wildly that they were involved.
I can't overstate how dangerous this sort of thing is.
And I'm honestly surprised that nothing ended up happening to any of those people.
Like the way that this was such a mob, and Alex is facilitating it, amplifying it to presumably millions of people.
It's so bad.
It's bad for the internet to behave that way and for people to take it upon themselves to speculate that a private citizen bombed a marathon based on evidence that they had a backpack and look weird.
That's bad, but it's an entirely different thing for Alex to base his reporting on those internet rumors and witch hunting.
Alex calls this breaking news, but there's no news to break here unless his show really is just a roundup of dumb things idiots are saying online, masquerading as news.
That's all this is, and it's so dangerous.
Like, you and I know that Alex is a complete liar and fraud, but a large section of his audience thinks he has high-level sources, and he knows what he's talking about.
When he acts like this, passing off internet posts as breaking news, it gives them undue credibility in those people's eyes, and that can lead them down bad roads.
One thing I find particularly interesting about Paul Joseph Watson's post on InfoWars, however, is that it's a ton of crowdsourced pictures of the bombing that prove nothing.
And then there's one other image that is not a crowdsourced picture of the bombing.
That image is a screenshot that someone posted on 4chan.
That's interesting on one level because it means that InfoWars was using anonymous 4chan posts as a source as far back as 2013.
But this particular post is interesting on another level.
If you read the body of the text, this is the exact same post that Alex read on air on April 16th.
You remember, it was the one he started out by saying was a troll post, but then he got to reading the part about Outlong reloading powder and found himself agreeing with it.
That post is now not a troll post.
It's part of the evidence being presented that this was a false flag.
And if you weren't paying close attention, you never would have realized that there was a sleight of hand.
I mean, that's certainly a possibility, but you know what's another possibility?
They don't always do it in fatigues.
Like, they're not always in camo.
Right.
That's not always the uniform that they wear.
There are a lot of different uniforms one might wear to do a tough ruck.
And it's not outside the realm of possibility that these men had already completed the marathon and were waiting for someone they knew.
That is a possibility.
I don't know that to be true, but I'm saying there are tons of other explanations for their appearance that Alex won't even consider before jumping to the conclusion that they're there as part of a drill.
These are the sort of things that you need to consider before you jump to your conclusion.
Right, right.
What are alternative explanations?
Can we rule them out?
And you can't.
You can't rule these things out.
Therefore, you can't draw the conclusion that you're drawing.
I can't tell you who these dudes are.
And honestly, I'm glad that the information like that didn't get disseminated widely, as far as I can tell.
Based on everything I've read and can tell about the investigation of the bombing, this was not a relevant thread to anyone who actually knew what was going on.
All the detectives.
For example, if you go watch interviews with FBI agents who were involved in the immediate investigation, their focus was way sharper than the lack of public information led people to believe.
By this point, they'd tracked down where the pressure cookers were bought and had a pretty good idea of the suspects.
They didn't need Alex or 4chan or Reddit throwing around baseless accusations at people just because they have backpacks.
But it's the only thing that Alex can do.
He doesn't have any sources.
He doesn't know anything.
So if 4chan is obsessed with a guy with the backpack, that's going to lead his reporting.
And that's abysmal.
When you really recognize that, like, this is what he's basing shit on, it's really fucking scary.
Because that means that anyone who's anonymous and just posts something could guide his coverage.
Alex spends so much time on this episode about the logo.
He's convinced that the fact that the guy in the picture from the Boston Marathon is wearing this hat that has a Punisher logo on it, that means ipso facto he's on a SEAL team or he's being set up to look like he's on a SEAL team.
Alex expounds at length about how only an idiot thinks it's a Punisher logo because the Punisher logo itself was just stolen from the Marines and Chris Kyle was a member of a SEAL team and he was known to wear this logo on his clothes not because he liked the Punisher, but because it was a Marine SEAL team symbol prior.
There's something unnerving about the appropriation of this particular symbol.
Considering that the character of Frank Castle is based on a bad guy who's fighting bad guys, he accepts that he has to use pretty fucked up tactics to achieve his goals.
And the only thing that differentiates him from the villains he's up against is who he's torturing and murdering.
He's a character without a finely tuned morality.
Or as he's been described, not an anti-hero, but an anti-villain.
The idea of our soldiers associating with him is absolutely chilling and suggests that we don't need to just get out of foreign wars.
I've read tons of military blogs about this subject, and literally none of them suggest that Chris Kyle adopted this logo because it's part of a long-standing Marine lineage.
Every single one of them talks about how he specifically took the logo from the Marvel comic because he was a military celebrity, or because he was a military celebrity, it caught on.
All of the websites quote Kyle's autobiography.
Quote, our comms guy suggested it before the deployment.
We all thought what the Punisher did was cool.
He righted wrongs.
He killed bad guys.
He made wrongdoers fear them.
That's what we were all about.
So we adapted his symbol, a skull, and made it our own with some modifications.
We spray-painted it on our hummers and body armor, on our helmets and on our guns.
We spray-painted it on every building and wall we could.
We wanted people to know we're here and we want to fuck with you.
This is all pretty upsetting stuff, particularly to Gary Conway, the character's creator, who's super anti-war and obviously not happy about his character being co-opted by soldiers, many of whom probably like that character for the wrong reasons.
Quote, in my mind, he's not a good guy, Conway told Tom.
I found tons of SEAL team logos, and none of them seem to match Alex's contentions that he makes later in this episode about it being a classic SEAL team logo.
The main SEALs logo is an eagle carrying a trident perched on an anchor.
None of the specific SEAL teams have insignia that are even close to a Punisher skull.
They're mostly SEALs doing shit like holding knives and riding submarines.
Some of their logos are downright cute.
The guy in this image that Alex is reporting on might be wearing a Punisher head because he likes Frank Castle.
He might be wearing it because he's a fan of Chris Kyle.
He might be wearing it randomly.
It could indicate that he's in the military, but it certainly doesn't prove it.
Alex is absolutely just making shit up that the Punisher logo is a SEALs logo, which is why Chris Kyle adapted it.
And he's doing that to strengthen his argument that the guy in the picture at the marathon was there in an official capacity to pull off a false flag.
This evidence is super thin.
And this is what you have to understand.
Alex knows that this evidence doesn't mean shit.
That's why he needs to work to overblow it, to fabricate a greater meaning to the symbol than actually exists.
He knows what he's doing.
And even in that, his immediate recognition of it, he knows that Chris Kyle ripped off the Punisher logo, and that's why people wear it.
He later says the exact opposite, that the Punisher logo itself was a ripping off of CT stuff.
He completely contradicts himself later once he's had time to flesh out the narrative.
It is that same kind of thing that happened with Wall Street and the Wolf of Wall Street, where the characters are absolutely evil, awful, awful people.
And then so many people are like, man, that guy's really cool.
So many people modeled that behavior of the wolf of Wall Street and Michael Sheen and all that shit.
Could the government really be this inept to blow this up in front of us and even get caught?
No.
7-7, they did a drill, set up the Patsies.
That came out.
My God, these photos are incredible.
They've been saying they don't know about these.
These are in news feeds.
These are hidden in plain view.
This was hiding in plain view right where the bombs go off.
What looks like military intelligence, white guys and Arabs or Hispanics with what look like Patsys with them, wearing the same boots to be identified.
And no wonder they told everybody, don't be alarmed on loudspeakers.
Let's report things we can't confirm because it's because in the absence of official information, InfoWars appears, to people who don't know what the game is, to be a legitimate outlet.
They have a professional-ish-looking website.
They have a guy whose title is editor at large.
They have a TV show, a radio show.
It's easy to trick people into thinking that this is legitimate, and he's doing that.
He's striking while the iron is hot, while there's an absence of credible information, and he's injecting himself into that space.
And it's just so clear.
When I talk about how this makes me really anxious this period of time, it's because I see this stuff.
I see this is working.
Alex is seeing that this strategy is working.
I can almost feel the deterioration.
Not that he had any standards before, but the path that leads to the present day.
I really feel like you're seeing a lot of the beginnings of it.
Look at the CNN now that we said this instantly came out saying suspect identified developing.
But they haven't shown the photos yet.
Infowars.com.
Dan Badondi goes in to the press conference and says false flag staged, and the governor and all of them instantly jump like when you've been guilty and your dad comes in and goes, I found the liquor bottle under your bed and you have that pang of oh my god, I get caught.
So you've got CNN now reporting that FBI has the pictures of the suspect Alex believes to be the same ones as if him, coming on air and talking with Paul Joseph Watson, has forced them to admit that they have the pictures from 4chan.
That is exactly about completely different pictures, exactly what he thinks.
I mean, I mean, could they really be this evil and this stupid and just do it in front of everybody and then be running around going we don't know, we don't have leads when they've had this all along?
And then, within two minutes of you saying it, Blitzer's talking in his ear, freaking out, and starts announcing it.
So the announcement that the FBI had a picture of the suspect absolutely has nothing to do with Alex's shameful coverage of these 4chan rumors.
The news had already broken by the time Alex got on his little rant and it was based on surveillance footage that had been reviewed from the LORD AND Taylor outlet on Boylston Street, which showed a suspect dropping a bag at the location of the bombing.
What separates this evidence from the quote-unquote evidence Alex is paddling is really the element of the person in the footage dropping off a backpack at the location of the bombing.
That's a lot more compelling than this guy looks like he's in the military or the logo on his hat is weird, right?
This is another case of Alex just instinctually knowing how to lie about an evolving situation.
To make what?
To make what's happening in the real world appear to support his fake one in his alternate reality.
He's just broken this thing wide open thanks to completely inconclusive pictures his British friend found on 4chan.
So when CNN reports that the FBI has a picture of the suspect, it only makes sense that they're just doing that.
Because Alex is too close to the truth.
They've forced his hand.
It's really fascinating to watch him in action.
This everything is distraction, bluster and misrepresentation, but it's also so natural to Alex he doesn't even think for a second about suggesting that CNN is watching him and their report is in response to his.
It just flows out of him.
There's no concern for ethics, no concern for how this might affect his listeners.
It's all just pandemonium and sensationalism.
Anything to escalate, this is good.
It'll lead to more traffic and more money.
Fuck the consequences.
What I'm saying is that this is a really, really bad person.
Yeah and, And it's all like it's like.
It's crazy, because part of it is conscious and part of it is instinct.
Now I want to write a series of detective novels called Jones and Watson, where they always catch the wrong guy and the police chief is extremely competent and they always fail.
When you have as much research and data as I have, just because I focus on this full time, and you see things like this, and then you see the time stamps, and you see it confirmed, and you see it on local news footage, and you see the guys with the backpacks, with the pressure cookers in them, and then after the explosion, the straps matching, and you even see who they're going to make the Patsy.
And then you see what looks like the gentleman with the backpack who is in all the photos basically looking the different direction than everybody else and just fitting the exact MO.
If you were someone who had just pulled off a bombing and you were on the lamb, you know, you're laying low or whatever, if you tuned into InfoWars and you saw them doing everything in their power to point the finger at somebody else, you would have to be like, fuck yes.
And then you find out that the authorities are really interested in just ramroding one other dude into prison and they are not going to look at anything towards you.
And I've told you yesterday, a couple days before this happened, I said, don't go be part of drills and don't carry simulant backpacks full of bombs for people.
Like, you've gone on a show with millions of listeners, allegedly, and said that being pulled out of a race for dehydration or exhaustion is somehow related to a plot to murder civilians.
Why would you ever talk to that person ever again?
He's asking him, what's your take on this in order for Paul to say what he's going to put in the article and for Alex to be like, let's punch this up a little bit.
And that's why he's facilitating it and why he's making it worse.
So this reporting that the FBI has pictures, again, Alex, without any proof, without any information, is dead set on his audience believing that it's the same pictures that he has.
CNN's reporting that authorities have identified one of the suspects involved in the attack by means of video from a department store near the site of the second explosion and video from a Boston television station.
And notice within five minutes of us announcing this, CNN suddenly said, oh, they've identified film footage from a department store in another one, and they have identified the people.
I mean, they had this footage all along.
And this had been out on the web for days.
So Boston bombing culprits identified, Infowars.com.
And now the story for Paul Watson to write and others is within five minutes of us announcing this, CNN then instantly talking in their ears.
Oh, there's been, you know, oh, they now have suspects from video.
Oh, and it's the exact video we talked about.
Oh, we now have photos.
Oh, they're going to arrest them, but they're not showing the people.
And so, are they going to show the Patsys that have backpacks and match the bags that were exploded?
Or are they going to show you the Navy SEAL military people?
But one of the things that's difficult about talking about 4chan, and to some extent, I guess, 8Chan, although I know much less about it, there are a lot of different boards on there.
It's looking like it's going to be a white conservative.
We're going to be finding out.
I mean, ladies and gentlemen, the scripting from family guy to founding fathers, every show, every movie.
Patriots are going to blow you up.
Gun owners are going to blow you up.
They're going to link up with Al-Qaeda.
Family guy, the turbaned cowboy who bombs the marathon and runs.
I mean, this is so over the top right now that I told Stewart, think about never, never broken something this big, never been more certain, never been more freaked out looking at hundreds of these photos.
I mean, we're going to find out very soon.
They may change their plans now because of this, and we need your prayers.
Getting yourself out of the little trap you've set for yourself once again.
So, right there at the end, that is how I know Alex is full of shit.
They may change the story.
It's such a cowardly get-out of jail free card.
That's him preparing his audience for literally all evidence to be completely opposite of what he's yelling at them, hoping that they're naive enough to believe that the difference in reality in Alex's narrative is due to the globalists and the media changing the story because Alex was too right.
It's a sad, pathetic gamble that no one would make.
It's a gambit, excuse me, that no one would make unless they know that, hey, once the dust settles, I'm going to be wrong about this.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's an act of someone, like the metaphor that I always make about the wet concrete and being able to write your initials in it until it dries.
It's the act of someone who recognizes that they can't do shit once the concrete's dry.
So, like I said, this is one of the biggest fuck-ups that the media was absolutely guilty of in the bombing coverage.
CNN reported that one suspect had been arrested based on information allegedly from three sources.
From there, a lot of other outlets picked up on the story and reported that news, or at least reported that CNN was reporting it.
As we know, this was not true.
And CNN was forced to make a retraction, which really hurt the media's image in a time when they needed it the most.
The nation was anxious, Boston particularly so.
And it's the media's job to convey the information that people need.
So this kind of fuck-up is a really bad look.
CNN turned out to be wrong.
And I think that they should have been more cautious.
But ultimately, they did the right thing and retracted the story and apologized.
It's fairly easy to see how this mistake could be made by people who meant well but didn't double and triple check info that was coming from sources they presumably trusted.
But even if you can see how this sort of thing could happen, it doesn't take away how much of an unnecessary, egregious error this is.
Here we're witnessing Alex Jones, to use his phrasing, piss all over reality as it relates to the bombing.
And he's never going to apologize for being wrong about literally every aspect that I've heard of this.
He doesn't have to.
He's a liar by trade.
So he doesn't give a shit when he completely fucks up a story.
When CNN has to retract a major story like this in the midst of a very high-profile, ongoing situation, what happens is that Alex is being given a perfect opportunity to attack the media and pretend like they're always wrong.
And by extension, he's always right.
Of course, Alex is always right.
When's the last time you heard him retract a story?
But Alex is the big game in town in terms of this stuff in 2013.
It's hard to also wrestle with that in 2019 where you have so many different shops that are so similar to Alex, whereas back then he was the king of ANS.
I'm correct in saying they're at Lexington and Concord.
Don't they have dozens and dozens of different events in the different areas?
I wonder if they're letting them have all their other events or it's just you being discriminated against.
The MA chapter of Gun Rights Across America, Steve Redfern, and Stuart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers.
Please finish your story.
unidentified
Well, from what I gather now, the counter-protesters that were set up to be demonstrating against us are not going to be stopped from their counter-protests because they did not pull permits.
They're not required to for some reason.
So I expect a turnout in Lexington still to counter-protest my pro-gun rally that's not going to be happening anymore.
I went about the other events on April 19th and the reenactment, things like that.
Well, the reenactment took place this past Monday.
They do it early.
So that's not going to be.
Isn't it going to march from Concord Bridge down to Lexington?
Yeah, from what I gather, they did that early this year.
So the specifics that they ended up asking about were things that had already happened.
And so they didn't have to deal with the fact that other events absolutely did have their permits pulled.
But if they had talked about any other events scheduled for the 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, or whatever, that whole weekend, they would have been like, oh, no, it was everybody.
For the last six years, people in these communities, these media ecosystems, have been being told and believing that we are in a cold civil war with our political enemies and a fight is inevitable.
It's going to turn hot.
They've been preparing for this shift in rhetoric whenever it's needed.
And, you know, that's because it's not a new phenomenon.
The right-wing media can't tell them the truth, which is that they're a bunch of fucking cowards who are afraid of any kind of progress or diversity and would rather smash things than deal with it.
And they're not going to do anything because they're, again, aforementioned cowards.
Yeah, even his rationalizing, even his rationalizing for laughing on air somehow winds up with him back at the end being like, and that's why I'm happy about this tragedy.
You know, it's like, no, you were supposed to be saying that you.
If he were to portray any of the things that he's covering in an honest fashion, like, I don't even think most of his audience would find it compelling.
So Blog Dog is exactly what you might think it is.
Some dude's blog.
Blog.
Looking over the guy's front page from around this time.
His reporting is mostly just reposting and commenting on Infowars articles.
So this seems like kind of a feedback loop in this situation.
So if you are paying attention, the way that this is being presented is this cop in the recording has stumbled onto the bombs and is trying to alert people that there are devices.
And this is important.
She's saying that this is like the first reporting officer, as if this is before the explosions.
This is just a noble cop who's not part of the drill who realizes something is up and they're trying to save people.
However, if you listen to Alex, he's clearly contradicted this narrative already.
The first bomb went off at 2.49 p.m., and the second was 14 seconds later.
The time stamp Alex just gave was 2.51 p.m.
This is two minutes after the explosion.
This is not the first reporting of the bombing on police radio.
It's a case of a cop thinking that he'd found another bomb, which makes total sense to hear on a police scanner in the aftermath of something like this.
You don't know what's going on.
You can't be too careful about the possibility that there might be more bombs.
If you find something suspicious, of course, you're going to call it in and get support.
That's all that's going on here.
And it's being twisted by liars like Blog Dog, This Caller, and Alex into proof of their dumb false flag theories.
This narrative is further complicated, though, because I think Alex realizes that the clip that what he was saying, that 251 is after the bombs went off.
So he tries to spin it into being a thing where this clip on the police radio proves that the police had foreknowledge of what to look for.
I would argue that the two bombs had just gone off.
So with or without any preparation, if you're the protector of public safety, I think you might immediately get the message with or without anyone telling you to keep your eyes out for anything that looks like a bomb.
There's no prep necessary.
This is a natural reaction that you would expect to see.
And you know what else you expect to see?
Professionals.
So the other people on the police radio aren't going to be yelling like, oh my God, Bedlam.
If you listen to him and you believe he is saying anything real, you're listening to a guy like really, I mean, we can hear it and we're like, this is a paranoid delusion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Or just presenting a paranoid delusion in order to make your show more interesting.
See, I tend to believe that he's being sincere here, mainly because for somebody who has broken so many scoops, who has been proved correct so many times, 99% of the time over 20 years.
I think that an alternative explanation for that could be found in that clip with Paul where he's talking about how the traffic is through the roof, and he realizes I got to figure out exactly how to maximize These elements are falling into my lap that really work towards the narratives that I need to build to maximize traffic.
It's definitely not that the FBI is listening in right now and that the globalists are adjusting their media coverage because Alex has ruined the Patsy for them.
I don't know how they're going to get around now saying there's no John No number two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twenty.
Because they had people lining the last few miles saying it's a drill, it's a drill with black backpacks.
I guess so.
The plan was probably have a drill with so many black backpacks, everybody compartmentalized, that when our Patsys deliver them, the cops don't have time to save people.
Boom.
That's what happened.
I mean, I mean, I just boom, that's why.
Why would you have a mile plus lined with back with black backpacks?
So all this is really bad and irresponsible, but one of the things that is important to pay attention to is like the motive is very, there's a motive very clearly in that, like, we're getting more traffic.
Let's maximize this.
But the other motive is in how you present what is happening and what this ultimately means.
And this is where we get to that.
And Alex says some stuff that is very irresponsible.
You know, I called him before probably a month ago or so about the whole Sandy Hook thing and now, you know, this whole thing that's going on.
I looked into that Sandy Hook thing deeper and I found that the Iroquois gas company bought in 2009 bought out the city of Sandy Hook.
And so did State Connecticut and so did Newtown.
So what I found out in my deep searching was that nobody has lived in Sandy Hook for the past three years.
If you go on the U.S. Census Interactive map, select places on the interactive map, and then zoom into Newtown, and you'll see Newtown on the west side of I-84 light up.
But on the right side of I-84 on the east side, you will not see a population light up at all.
So, first of all, Sandy Hook is not a city or a town.
It's a village within Newtown.
When this guy is looking at the U.S. Census Interactive map and he doesn't see a population for Sandy Hook, that's because the map doesn't take things to the granular level of villages within towns.
Newtown has a population that's displayed which contains the residents of the village of Sandy Hook.
There's nothing suspicious about this unless you're very dumb or trying to make an argument that's not based in reality, which this caller is one of the two or both.
What he's talking about with the Iroquois Gas Company is that they built a 1.6 mile stretch of underground pipeline through Sandy Hook in order to provide additional gas to the northeast of the country.
This was proposed in 2007.
You can find a Newtown B article discussing the suggested plans.
If you do look up that article, you'll find that this plan was to build not a new pipeline, but to build an additional pipeline to supplement the one they'd already built back in 1989, which finished construction in 1991.
So the big issue that they ran into was that there were a number of houses that had been built in the area since 1991 that would make it almost impossible to just wantonly build another stretch of pipe.
And in order to do so, they would, quote, need to purchase land use easements from about six property owners.
The Iroquois gas company didn't buy out the village of Sandy Hook.
They just had to pay off a couple landowners in order to get permissions to build this pipeline supplement.
There's no truth or evidence to any of the stuff that this caller is saying.
But this is an interesting example of Alex's sloppiness.
He has no idea what this caller is talking about.
But to his credit, he doesn't pretend that he does, which is weird.
However, not to his credit, Alex's response is, anything's possible.
And then he rants about this other contrived bullshit he's trying to push about the Boston bombing, like the family guy episode.
I would say that Alex's inability to critically assess this information from his caller is something, you know, about something so massive as an accusation that no one lived in Sandy Hook is a really bad sign for his coverage moving forward.
I really don't.
I think that indicates an openness to these large-scale conspiracies about Sandy Hook.
The unintended consequences of the Boston massacre, the specific indictment.
What happened of Bush and Obama and the U.S. military for the tortures of 9-11 prisoners were reported on the same day as the Boston massacre at the level just below, but nobody read it.
It was in the New York Times, a far more serious indictment accusing Bush Jr. and Obama of war crimes equivalent to that of the Nazi war crimes And the Japanese internments during World War II, and I predicted on my end psychologically that there would be a false flag to cover this, and lo and behold, you and I came to the same conclusion, and I wrote a blog to that effect.
So, look, there were two reports about torture that came out in April of 2013.
So, initially, when Steve was talking like this, I didn't know exactly what he was talking about.
I had to figure it out.
I ended up going to his blog and figuring it out.
But, regardless of which he's talking about, his main point is that he believes that the Boston bombing was a false flag because there was a bipartisan committee that just decided that people carrying out the war on terror had committed war crimes in terms of torture, among other acts, and that the bombing was meant to make sure no one noticed the reporting on this report.
One of the reports was put out by a nonprofit called the Center for Victims of Torture, and nothing I'm going to say is meant to impugn them at all.
They have no Steve is not related to them at all.
From what I can tell, they're a group whose mission is to fight against the use of torture and further to establish centers where survivors of torture can rehabilitate and hopefully get back to a normal, happy life.
I don't know a ton about them as an organization, but from everything I can find, they seem like they're doing really important work for people very much in need of protection.
This is a report that advocates for stopping torture and for Congress to fund rehabilitation programs for victims, and it is not the report Steve is talking about.
It's titled The Report of the Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment.
This, again, is a report that was released by a nonprofit advocacy group, but Steve is literally calling it an indictment.
That kind of language is so sloppy for someone like him, since I guess you could say that it's indicting their behavior in the court of public opinion.
This report is 600 pages long, and I don't believe that for one second that Alex or Steve even got to page nine of this thing.
They just see a report on torture, decide to connect it to the bombing as a motive for the false flag, and it's off to the races.
And I didn't choose page nine randomly.
If they'd got to page nine, they would have found this passage.
Quote, this report was supported in part by grants from the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Open Society Foundation, Open Society Policy Center, Proteus Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
This report was funded by grants from Soros and the Rockefellers.
Now, if they're the string pullers of people like Obama and Bush, why would they pay for a report into detainee abuse to be written, which they'd then have to pull off a false flag to cover up once it's going to be released?
That seems like a level of self-defeating bullshit that kind of invalidates this entire argument.
Now, the argument that this is a false flag in order to bury that report, I 100% disagree with.
And I do believe that that is taking attention away from the very important conversation about the detainee abuse that Steve is supposedly trying to bring light to.
Also, in December 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee released their torture report, which actually had way more of a possibility of putting people in legal jeopardy.
And somehow the Globalists didn't pull off a false flag trying to strike people around that time.
All you need, it's like that Jesus lizard metaphor.
You got the surface, and that's all you got.
You got to keep moving.
You've got to build this in fast, or else you're going to fall in that fucking water.
You take a second to critically read this report.
Everything falls apart.
Now, the good guys in government is very reminiscent of the counter-coup narrative that Steve Pieczenik pulled on Alex in 2015 to help ease his way into supporting Trump.
This to me shows a counter-coup in the government to have bipartisans say this is wrong, that a large part of the establishment, as I've been told, is actually freaked out by this tyranny and realizes there's no stability if this continues.
The real issue is that this whole history covered the basic story of the indictment of Bush Jr. and two presidents for war crimes, which normally would have put them in prison and would have incarcerated them.
Normally, it took the attention totally away because nobody even listened to it.
And I think the New York Times has been exceedingly helpful, at least to me, in signifying how much of a So you're saying a certain part of the establishment gets they're going to lose a war with the states?
Well, it's not only that, it's a certain part of the establishment is against exactly Obama, Bush, Jr., the suppression, the false flags, and they've been showing it to guys like me in a hidden way.
Where we are right now is exactly where we were when our forefathers were in 1776 being oppressed by King George III.
We have literally now a non-legitimate presidency and government and executive.
We have not had a legitimate government or presidency under Bush Jr. for eight years.
So for exactly 12 years now, almost 12 years, we have not had a legitimate executive government.
And in effect, what we have is a non-legitimate hierarchy or hegemony over us.
So we have the right to indict our presidents, to organize, ask for an impeachment not only for this president, for the impeachment of Bush Jr. and all of his men in the White House.
If they refuse to do that as a collective, we all have to join together now as people.
It's not going to only happen through your legislators.
You can try through your legislators, through the internet, but we get together in groups and ask for the Nuremberg trial.
This is a war trial now of both Bush Jr. and Obama, who have been tried by their own peers in Congress and the bilateral commission saying that they're war criminals.
Therefore, we request a new election immediately, as soon as possible.
If that is refused, then we go into what is called a revolutionary mode.
Then we go to the guns, as we did in 1776.
I have no qualms about that.
If force is used to suppress us, if false flags are used to give us honesty, then I said to Jeb Bush, in the face of tyranny, treason is patriotism.
Let me say it again.
In the face of tyranny, which we have right now and we've had under Bush, treason, which is an act against the government, which is an illegal government, is an act of patriotism.
In essence, what Steve is saying is that there are three steps.
And the underlying unspoken message is that the first two aren't really suggestions.
The first one's been tried over and over and hasn't worked.
The second involves a complete breach of the fundamental ideas that the patriots and weirdo militia guys have about sovereignty, so that's not going anywhere.
All of this is about finding a way to rationalize calling for an armed revolution.
What Steve is doing on this episode may legitimately be the most dangerous, most irresponsible thing I've heard to date on Alex's show.
He's walking around with his fake resume and imaginary credentials and credibility to come onto the show and lie to Alex's audience about a nonprofit's report on torture being actually a legal indictment of Bush and Obama in order to justify his argument that this is the time they've been waiting for.
This legal indictment's been made and it didn't do anything.
They just did a bombing to keep it out of the news.
So really, the legal and appropriate channels are not how this thing is going to be solved.
He's stopping short of saying that people should be committing violent revolution, but that's 100% the message that he's putting forth.
So the military is the first part to say to themselves, are we in fact in charge?
And you are now in charge.
Your commanders-in-chief are not in charge.
They are illegal.
They are a legal presence, and therefore it justifies you at the level of the colonel, the lieutenant colonel, and the major level to question the authority of the commander-in-chief at every level because they have been indicted for war criminals.
You do not have a commander-in-chief who is legal and authoritative no matter what he says.
He's just been indicted for war crimes.
Therefore, I ask our military officers, our veterans, to stand up and say that this is enough.
We have to organize together, and if need be, we'll be on.
This is what it comes down to.
I ask our local officials, our local policemen to work with us, our local fire department.
But this cannot be run anymore by an illegal criminal president who was indicted by his own Congress and the previous president indicted by his own Congress and the former president as well, Clinton.
I think Brandenburg versus Ohio, the Supreme Court decision, leaves a lot of gray area in terms of advocating for illegal things.
There are certain standards that need to be met from a legal perspective in order for the government to be able to punish someone for even advocating illegal acts.
And I think he's on the wrong side of it, but I'm not a legal scholar.
And one of the reasons that I think Steve is confessing to what he's trying to do on air.
And I think that makes it much easier to prosecute him.
So Steve essentially is arguing that these people who are advocating for this coup against the government need to be able to choose the next president.
And then we immediately ask for new elections, and we will create our own candidates.
That is exactly what we have to do.
If they refuse to do that, then we use whatever we need, whether it's cyber attack, whether it be guns, but it will be the force of our will which will determine the outcome of the United States of America.
If we remain passive, then we deserve to be suppressed and repressed.
If we do not stand up today at the moment of illegality, we will regret the day that we did not stand up.
What they're going to do next is they're going to be very frightened because this type of transmission is going to literally put us into a nexus where we are literally in the position of a war against our own federal government.
I know what will happen to me.
I will be warned repeatedly again that I'm in an act of treason.
And I am.
And I am boldly saying I am in an act of treason against tyranny, and I will view that as an act of patriotism.
Because one of the other things in Brandenburg versus Ohio, another one of the standards, is likelihood that it will result in an actual attack or something.
Like, likelihood that your words will lead to illegal action.
His intentions are predicated on, I'm being presented on Alex's show as one of the most credible government insider psych warfare experts that has ever lived.
I'm a patriot.
I used to be a part of the CFR, but I left because they are a bunch of snakes.
And so the presentation of this on the show is, let's get going, guys.
Let's do it.
And he's like, if you listen to this next clip, he's legitimately calling for lone actors, lone wolves, to attack the government.
I don't want to bring it down and bring something even worse in, but if we do the Declaration of the United States, I'm not bringing in worse because with technology now and the Internet, you will have to go through a period where you have to have a give and take, which was not what we had.
And so, like, in his talking about how the last election wasn't a real election, he's complaining about Romney and Obama, and he starts talking about Hillary.
And this is a little bit of foreshadowing for 2016's election.
Well, I was about to say, what you've said is in the Declaration of Independence, that when you have a tyranny, it's not just your right, it's your duty to throw it off and make a new government.
And I say take the Bill of Rights Constitution, re-upload the Republic.
We're not going to break away to get rid of the government.
So I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but I believe that Steve Pieczenik is super lucky he's not in prison right now.
What he's doing is explicitly a federal offense.
And because Alex allows him to do it on his show, Alex could possibly be in trouble, too.
According to U.S. Code, Chapter 115, Section 2385, quote, whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any state, territory, district, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government,
or whoever, with intent to cause or overthrow or destruction of any government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government of the United States by force or violence or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.
This is the section of the U.S. Code on Treason and Sedition.
It's incredibly relevant because Steve, by his own words, admits that he's committing treason, but he has decided that it's patriotism because of a Constitution Project report that he's misrepresenting as a criminal indictment.
This is a big fucking deal.
Steve Pieczenik is actively and clearly committing treason on Alex's show, and Alex doesn't cut him off or even really give him much pushback at all.
And that's where that second clause of section 2385 comes into play.
Since you could possibly make a compelling argument that Alex is printing, publishing, circulating, distributing, and publicly displaying matter advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Now, granted, that statute does specifically say printed matter, but I have to assume the same rules apply to broadcasts.
These dudes are probably legally in the clear, thanks to Brandenburg versus Ohio, which ruled that the government can't punish speech that abstractly advocates criminal acts.
Well, I don't know whether or not Steve could be successfully prosecuted for this.
As always, the legal aspect of this is secondary to me compared to the ethical one.
Steve and Alex both know that their audience is in a very tense, impressionable state right now because of the bombing.
Alex has been priming the pump for a while now.
And in this episode, he's clearly told his audience repeatedly this is a false flag attack against the Patriots and that this is the big one.
The beginning of the globalist offensive to round up the good white people of this country and put us in camps.
He presents Steve as an expert.
And when he comes in, the payoff to all of this is explicit treason and advocating war against the government, which is totally just patriotism because the government is illegitimate as proven by a nonprofit report.
Like, this is unacceptable on so many levels.
Like, while you're listening to Steve's talk, it's almost like you forget that the Boston bombing happened.
You know, like that that's the context wherein this conversation happens.
All right, Dr. Pachenek, we'll have to get an update from you tomorrow.
StevePachranik.com.
You are a brave person.
And this is historical what's happening.
I've never seen a false flag on Ramble like this in front of everyone where they think we're all so dumb.
We don't see the guys with the bombs.
And we even got like shots of the backpacks with the pressure cookers in it.
We know who they are.
The media is acting like they don't know because their own agents are all over the camera with the bombers.
I mean, this is just all at Infowars.com, prisonplanet.com, David Night, Jakari Jackson coming in for the next two hours, and then we'll take a break until nightly news with updates tonight.
This is real grim because the next day, the FBI does release those photos.
And the suspects, unbeknownst to Alex and a lot of the world, had gone back to their normal lives.
One of them, the younger brother, had gone back to college.
And after the fact, there was video that came out of him at dorms.
And he went to some parties, like nothing had happened.
And the older brother had gone back to his life in his apartment with his wife.
And when the photos get released, it causes chaos because they realize that they didn't get away with it the way they might have thought.
Based on all of the coverage, having no information, based on, well, one of them, as we will later learn, is a fan of InfoWars.
And if he's watching Alex's coverage, he's got to think he's completely hoodwinked the entire world.
And that is not the case.
Everything blows up on the 18th.
It happens in the evening of the 18th, but the 18th and the 19th are going to be such insanity.
And if we're at the point where one of Alex's most trusted sources is coming on air and advocating treason before any of that stuff happens, before the manhunt, before the city is put into lockdown, I can't imagine how dark this is going to get before we get through it.
A lot of this is Sound and Fury signifying nothing.
Yes.
But it is also the sort of thing that's intending to lead people to violent action.
Yeah.
And like, I mean, it's not a direct consequence of this coverage per se, but like, you know, a couple years prior to this, one of Alex's listeners killed three cops when his mom called the police on them.
A year after this, two people who are big InfoWars fans killed some cops in Las Vegas.
Like, it's not.
It's easy to look at this stuff where Steve is calling for an insurrection in the military and all this and be like, well, it didn't happen.
And it didn't.
The large-scale version that you would be afraid of happening didn't happen.
But that's not to say that people who are fans of Alex, who take in his rhetoric, haven't done stuff.
So There aren't the terrifying world-changing consequences, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
Yeah, I mean, it seems like their ultimate goal is because you and I both know, like, the GOP doesn't all have this bubbling up underneath it.
Like, my dad doesn't secretly want to start an armed insurrection.
Right.
What they want is for a few people to do this.
Then the government reacts, and then people like my dad will be like, well, you know what?
The government, I don't approve of the way that those guys bomb stuff, but the government did overreach, and then it spirals out of control from there.
And along the way, they get to make a shit ton of money.
And also build up the narrative that those people who bombed stuff in the first place that the government overreacted to was a false flag by the government cause that overreaction in order all to take away Alex's guns.