#359: It’s All Legs dissects Coast to Coast AM’s role as a propagandist "Trojan horse" for Alex Jones, who exploited the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing to push gun control false flags and anti-vaccine claims (e.g., autism rates rising from 1 in 25,000). Host George Noory uncritically amplified fringe theories like the "all legs" conspiracy, ignoring victims’ trauma for ratings. Jones’s shifting narratives—from false flag accusations to sanitized media critiques—reveal strategic moderation, while inconsistencies (e.g., opposing plane knives but advocating gun rights) expose hypocrisy. The episode reveals how mainstream platforms normalize extremism without accountability, blending pseudoscience and politics under the guise of "skepticism." [Automatically generated summary]
I did probably, I know that I had a bowler hat for a little while as well, but I don't think I ever, it never really took over too much as like a part of my personality.
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I like what these guys do, like to support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
I was racking my brain in preparation for this episode, trying to come up with what we could do for a Wacky Wednesday.
And I pursued a number of possibilities.
As I've brought up a number of times in the past, I think I've about reached my point of disinterest in Carrie Cassidy and Project Camelot.
And the couple of interviews of hers that I listened to to try and chart a course were pretty uninspiring.
So I considered the possibility about doing another episode about Kevin Moore, the guy who's making a documentary about Carrie's best friend who's in prison for murder, Mark Richards.
He started releasing his new docu series about people who channel aliens and spirits.
Now, if you're interested in seeing otherwise seemingly normal people do terrible alien impressions and talk super vaguely about standard new age slash self-help ideas, this is the damn show for you.
But ultimately, it didn't feel like something worth our time.
There's not a whole lot to deconstruct and discuss about people pretending to channel aliens.
And that would ultimately just end up with us mocking them, which is kind of fun, but maybe not the best bedrock for an episode.
So, you see, for a while, Stephen Kelly was trying to co-opt the QAnon audience, trying to get them into his side.
But I think he's moved on from that now into just putting out weird videos where he talks about battles he and his Jedi followers are having deep underground while sitting in front of a sheet.
It's all pretty disturbing stuff.
And like I said, I've made it clear I don't want to cover that dude ever again because he scares me.
He looks like Killer Bob from Twin Peaks.
And his videos are just him sitting in front of a sheet, looking at the camera and rambling menacingly about Mind War, and also fairly often about how he's not so into the Jews.
But the racism and the anti-Semitism is like that makes it relevant to possibly still talk about these tendrils and where they go.
But I just, I don't know, it's a mess.
And then another issue is that Stephen Kelly has a very small audience.
Like his YouTube videos all hover around a thousand views, and it just doesn't feel like a great use of our time to make fun of him.
It just seems like, again, do your Jedi minds, mind wars, and whatever.
And, you know, he's on the more successful side of the space weirdos that I was looking at and considering covering for this show, and it just becomes a problem.
In the same way, we can't frolic anymore so much.
Similarly, we can't really just take any old video on YouTube and feel good about ourselves.
This motherfucker produced Bondi song Call Me, Kenny Loggins' Danger Zone, the theme song from the Neverending Story in a 2015 remake of Tom's Diner featuring Britney Spears.
So it's a very common request from listeners that we tap into the catalog of Coast to Coast AM.
And I've resisted the urge to do so up to this point, mostly because I was perfectly satisfied with the paranormal space weirdo stuff that we covered.
Project Hamelot and the Raptors was all I really needed.
But as that well has gone dry and we've gotten a pretty good idea of what's underneath Kerry Cassidy's shit, mostly sovereign citizen ideas and coded racism, it feels like we need to move on to greener pastures.
And there is no greener pasture than Coast to Coast AM.
We'll never need to worry about punching down since they have millions of listeners and the show is basically an institution at this point.
We will literally never come close to the level of success that they have.
This will be a new venture on the show, and I intend it to be an ongoing series.
So I apologize if this episode in particular isn't going to cover a whole lot of the background information about Coast to Coast and Georgian Ori in great detail.
I intend to save those for a future episode because I think the best way that we can make our transition into the world of Coast to Coast AM is by way of familiarity.
As we learned from listening to Alex's shows on the days after the Boston bombing, Alex was a guest on Coast to Coast on April 16th, the day after the tragedy.
Now that we're equipped with a bit of the understanding about what Alex was bringing to the table on his own show, I thought it might be interesting to see how he was presenting himself on a different show, a show with a way bigger audience than his, and a show that's hosted by a friendly host, as opposed to someone who's likely to call him out on his bullshit.
I think that looking at Alex's appearance on the April 16th, 2013 episode of Coast to Coast AM might be a perfect way for us to dip our toes into the water.
But for now, I think Coast to Coast might be a much better.
And there's a lot.
I have a working theory about Coast to Coast AM that I think will flash out over the course of not just this episode, but other episodes we do about it.
That I think it's a very important spoke in the wheel.
But one of the things that's also really difficult about the idea of us dipping our toes in and trying to do like an all-encompassing episode about Coast to Coast is that it's had a number of hosts over the years.
Okay.
And like Art Bell's era is very different than George Norrie's era.
And I think that some of that is almost even more dangerous because as we just hear 30 seconds of his voice, you can hear a welcoming, there's a performance to his voice that is very old school radio.
Well, let's assume for a moment that the situation in Boston was caused by somebody, individual, not necessarily a group that has some kind of political ideology, but an individual who's just ticked off for whatever reason.
He's maybe ticked off at government, but why do you take innocent people when you're that angry?
So he's talking to this psychiatrist, Peter Bregan, about the nature of hate.
Like I said, it's largely an unnotable interview, and I don't have much to say about it other than to point this part out and to say that Peter Bregan is the leader, a leader, in the field of anti-medication psychiatrists.
In that clip we just listened to, Norrie is trying to ask Bregan about how a person could hate so much as to pull off a bombing like this.
But in the process, Nori is speculating that the bomber was a lone wolf.
And the example that he comes up with is maybe they did this because they hated the government, which weirdly, he doesn't think is a political motive for terrorism.
I can recognize this as a person speculating and having a conversation abstractly, but Alex cannot.
This is exactly the sort of behavior he spent days on his show claiming as evidence that the mainstream media is planning to blame right-wing patriots for the bombing.
If Alex had any intellectual consistency, he would be yelling at George Norrie about how he's trying to set up the Patriots.
But we don't hear that sort of thing.
And I imagine that's because Alex is welcome as a guest on Coast to Coast AM and places like MSNBC don't have any interest in booking him.
This is very intentional.
Oh, this same exact behavior that you're decrying in the rest of the media is something that Norrie is doing, and you're going to be on the show in 20 minutes and talk to him about how he's the greatest.
If it were a terrorist act, and this is a little out of your bailiwick here, I would have thought that these bombs, these two bombs, would have been bigger, a little more sophisticated.
And that's what baffles me, Peter.
unidentified
Well, you know, they're saying that these pressure cooker bombs, you know, have come out of the Pakistani Afghanistan area.
Yeah, yeah.
So, I mean, obviously, he's getting a little bit out of my expertise, but I don't have the answer to that one.
No, and it's going to be important to find out, obviously.
I don't know for sure, but we can be fairly certain that she doesn't have some sort of hidden anti-ampute agenda that she's trying to turn public opinion against specific amputees.
And behaving this way and non-judgmentally and non-abusively towards callers, I think you have a pretty good, pardon my using the term, a leg to stand on for George.
All right.
The like not attacking her for this and being like, well, you know, you have some interesting ideas.
If, like, after the Oklahoma City bombing, you know, or 9-11, when the rumors are going around that Jews were told to stay home from work, like someone calls in and says that, you can see that being his response.
I have not heard somebody say he's considered one of the founders of the 9-11 truth movement in that kind of positive and loving tone in a good long while.
We probably do need to spend a few minutes on the tragedy that, you know, regardless of what really happened, whoever was behind it, for all of those, I listened to you last night break that down eloquently with your guest for all the people there and so many going through the trauma of just watching.
So on the night of the 15th, George Norrie did a show that was just about the attack that happened that day.
On the one hand, I applaud him for having a large chunk of open phone time for callers to call in and discuss their experiences.
Just kind of like him offering up a public forum for his audience to collectively process their grief and what had happened.
I think that radio shows should do stuff like that.
I think it's positive.
On the other hand, I absolutely do not applaud him for his guest choice.
On that night, Norrie's only guest was Infowars regular Doug Hagman.
And a large part of his narrative on this appearance was about how the supposed bomb drill happened that took place before the marathon in order to make the argument this is a false flag.
So Hagman was on on the 15th on Coast to Coast AM pushing for this narrative.
Perfect.
Hagman is a far-right anti-communist lunatic who disseminates information through a group he started called the Northeast Intelligence Network.
Throughout the years, he's been entirely wrong about countless bombshell stories that he's claimed were based on unnamed but very real and very credible intelligence sources.
His career has completely fallen apart by the present day.
And now he hosts a show on YouTube where his guest roster includes coach Dave Dobbenmeier and frequent appearances by Steve Quayle, the guy who Alex thinks is a prophet and has written multiple books about how biblical giants are real.
The day of the Boston bombing was a very, very tense time.
And if you're a person who has a large audience, you have a responsibility to them.
You can't just let them be misled by con men while they're in that vulnerable state.
And to do so is to be actively complicit in the con yourself.
And I'm sure George Nori had Doug Hagman booked in advance, and this was just bad timing.
But I don't give a fuck.
If you have Hagman booked and there are bombings like this, you got to say something like, hey, Doug, we're going to reschedule.
There are 100 acceptable excuses, and goddamn George Norrie holds all the cards.
These dicks almost don't exist compared to Coast to Coast AM when you're judging by audience size and influence.
What he says goes.
What I'm getting at is that Norrie had every reason to cancel Doug Hagman's appearance on the day of the bombing, and he didn't.
He didn't because he thinks Doug Hagman is a credible source and wants to help spread his bullshit far and wide.
These are structural editorial decisions that run under the surface of a show like Coast to Coast AM.
And they're a big part of the reason why, as it exists with George Norrie, this show is a Trojan horse for the very propagandists who are now currently running amok and have caused so much disorder.
You get into the next few months after April 2013, and you see appearances by Steve Quayle, Webster Tarpley, Steve Pieczenik was on twice, Catherine Albrecht, who filled in for Alex when he went on vacation recently for almost the entire week she was on.
Anti-tax protester Joe Bannister, Bilderberg fan fiction expert Daniel Estelin, William Binney, Mike Adams, and even more appearances by Alex and Jerome Corsi.
It would be easy to say that this is a radio show that has a very serious vetting problem, but that's absurdly naive.
These are intentional choices made by producers and Norrie himself to have these people on, despite the very clear reasons not to.
They're liars.
Coast to Coast, while charming at times, at least in part exists to mainstream voices like this.
And to introduce them to a giant, gullible platform in a way that makes them seem credible.
That alone would be really shitty, but it'd be like, what are you going to do?
That seems like a pointless question to ask Alex, unless you know that Alex thinks this is a false flag and you want him to soft-pitch that into the conversation.
Well, the lust for power, the lust for control, the lust to see the media completely focus on them, the lust to make trillions of dollars invading countries and selling robots to every city to fight non-existent bombings.
You know, I have the New York Times here in front of me from last April 28th, terror plots hatched by the FBI.
And the New York Times talks about, in this article, just a few cases, but there's hundreds of the government going out and finding mentally ill people.
Anybody could do that.
And then giving them the weapons and pointing them in the direction to then play the part of heroes.
And I'm not saying that that's what's happened with this case, but I do know this.
There were 4,000 great National Guard out there, great men and women, not part of the conspiracy, if there is one, out there trying to protect people, but violating the Fourth Amendment, searching bags and running checkpoints.
The thing that I immediately wrote down in my notes is how brazen this is, knowing full well that nobody's going to be going back and forth from his show to AM to back and forth and being like, well, wait a second.
And the strategy is to get as many people from the Coast to Coast audience to him.
If he loses some after that point, that's fine.
Let's say he loses 60% of the people who come over.
That 40% is still going to be much larger than the amount of people that would come over if he got on and started yelling like he does on his own show.
So about that New York Times article, if Alex wants to argue that the FBI definitely has used fucked up and inappropriate methods to generate terrorist arrests, most likely to justify their funding, I'm willing to listen to him.
But where he loses me is when he tries to connect that to that very real phenomenon with actual terrorist attacks that have been carried out.
This New York Times article that Alex is referencing here is specifically about pretty much exclusively Muslim men who have indicated an interest in committing a terrorist attack, who are then ensnared by the FBI, who help facilitate an artificial attack in order to eventually arrest them.
Personally, I think this is a fucked up practice and a waste of resources.
But it's super important to point out that these people who are discussed in this New York Times article are not people who actually carry out an attack.
That's a bridge that Alex needs to build if he wants to use this idea to support his false flag argument.
And from everything I can tell, he's failed to do that.
The larger point, though, is that you can see a completely different Alex on this show from the Alex you saw on his show from the same day, April 16th.
Here on Coast to Coast, he's saying he's not sure if there's a conspiracy and that he doesn't know if the bombers were put up to this.
Steve Pieczenik wouldn't commit treason on air until the 17th.
But Alex's show on the 16th, on that show, he was very clear that he thought this was a false flag.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Alex was yelling about Rob Dew's brother and that manipulatively edited family guy clip.
He was sending Dan Badondi to disrupt Boston officials' press conferences yelling about how this was a false flag.
He wondered on air why a right-winger hasn't blown up the UN building.
Like, Alex knows what audience he's speaking to and always tries to cater to what they need to become interested.
He knows that Coast to Coast has a huge audience and a whole lot of them aren't what we now call red-pilled.
His goal is to get more people to his website and the maximized strategy for that is to moderate.
You can still be a paranoid fuck and say dumb shit, but most of the Coast to Coast audience isn't ready for raw, uncut Alex.
I told you that one of the reasons I thought that this would be a good way for us to dip our toes into the Coast to Coast canon is because of the familiarity of it.
But little did I know that this would be so familiar.
Because we're going to talk about guns a little bit later, Alex.
Did he not say that if you take away the guns, I'm paraphrasing you, take away the guns from the good people, the only one who will have the guns is the criminal who plans to use it.
None of these people have any idea what Thomas Jefferson did or did not say.
All of them love Jefferson so much, but haven't done a single second's worth of work into understanding his life or accurately discussing his career.
The quote being referenced here is: quote, the laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature, they disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Now, it is true that that line appears in Thomas Jefferson's legal commonplace book, but it's a complete misstatement to say that the words are Jefferson's.
They appear in his book because he was quoting a passage from the super influential legal reformer of the time, Caesar Beccaria.
And it's from his 1764 publication, Essay on Crimes and Punishments.
Beccaria was a big inspiration to a lot of the founders of the United States, so it makes complete sense for Jefferson to cite his work later.
So it could be fair to say this quote is something that Jefferson most likely agreed with.
And if Alex and George were saying that, I'd be totally cool with it, and I'd just let it be.
The fact that they repeat this as a Jefferson quote indicates that they don't know where this quote actually comes from, nor do they care.
Even if Alex knew where the quote actually came from, he's smart enough to know that his audience and Noris have no interest in what a legal reformer from the 1700s said.
It's like they rather than talk or engage with Thomas Jefferson at all, they're just holding up a Ben Garrison caricature of Thomas Jefferson and being like, see, whatever this thing said.
Like, you can already see the differences in Alex's presentation, like trying to moderate his beliefs and not be like, I know that this is a robber rock.
And one of the things I've pointed out a couple times in our coverage of Alex's immediate response to the bombing is that he seemed to not have any interest in the victims or survivors.
Alex was singularly focused on building his conspiracy and spent essentially no time to even acknowledge the people most affected by the tragedy.
This is another instance of Alex shifting his behavior to suit the audience he's speaking to.
The InfoWars audience has no expectation that Alex will even pretend to care about the people who were hurt or killed.
But for the uninitiated, that comes off as super fucked up.
To make sure that the Coast to Coast audience doesn't get the impression that he's a real pile of shit trying to profit off a tragedy, it's important for Alex to really express how much he cares about people.
And yet, he can't even get through a sentence talking about caring about the victims of the bombing without qualifying it and saying that that's just three dead, whereas thousands are starving a year.
As if to say that you should care about this tragedy, but keep it in perspective.
I think that's a dick move.
On the day after a bombing, it's probably a shitty thing to say that people who care about the dead or injured were misplacing their emotions.
My larger problem, though, is that in my experience, I see no evidence that Alex cares about starving children either.
I don't think I've ever heard him advocate for anything other than vague notions of prosperity that would alleviate poverty or starvation.
He's totally against assistance programs, and I'm certain that he's against universal school lunch programs, even though I have not heard him speak on that one specifically, but you got to assume he's against that.
Yeah.
This is the issue here.
If you're someone like Alex and you expect to get some mileage out of the these deaths are bad, but what about the starving children argument?
You better make sure that you've made directly addressing the problem of starving children an identifiable part of your career.
Because if you haven't, it really comes off like what you're doing is trying to convince people not to care about the victims of a particular tragedy because something else is supposedly worse.
This is just what are you talking about?
unidentified
The gun does over 30,000 people a year die in car accidents.
In that episode, he gives Alex the motive, which is that they supposed bipartisan committee had indicted everybody for war crimes and they had to get it out of the news.
My final point on the bombing, because I want to hear your point, George, is this.
Right now, they're trying to pass total blanket open border amnesty and to give Homeland Security its own control over that and take Congress out of the loop.
That's unconstitutional.
They're trying to pass massive gun restrictions and registration where they can take your guns on the word of one psychologist, not a judge, not a jury, not proof.
And they're trying to give Homeland Security other domestic powers.
And Hegel is talking about basically soft martial law.
All that is before Congress with a razor-thin margin.
All of it is failing because not all the House and Senate members are corrupt.
So this happens and it diverts everyone.
And oh, let's get behind what the government wants or what the president wants.
Now, the idea about immigration and open borders and stuff like that is particularly ludicrous because as we come to know, Johar and Tamberlin, Tsarnev, who did the bombing, were immigrants.
Right.
The idea that they would end up doing this bombing and that the culprits would be Chechen people who came to the country.
Tamberlin wasn't even a citizen.
Johar was.
But the idea that that would be what they would do in order to somehow distract people from pushing through an open borders package seems counterproductive.
I just think that there's such a standardness to this argument and such a like it's just universally deployed to the point where it loses any kind of even feeling that it means anything.
This question, I think, would be good if the person asking the question had any interest in the actual answer and had the capacity or inclination to ask a follow-up question.
Neither of those things describe George Nori, and thus this will end up poorly.
Where do you draw the line between the reality of an event and the possibility of the conspiracy of the event?
And by that, I mean so many people, the minute something happens, they immediately say, without even looking at any facts, whether some little lady gets hit by a car.
Instead of it just being a lousy accident, it happened.
At what point, and for you, because you amass a huge following, where do you draw that line where you have to say to yourself, there's something wrong here?
That would be a good question if honestly answered.
Now, we know from listening to this that on the 15th, minutes after the bombing, Alex is talking to Richard Belzer, and they're spitballing, talking about how Rob Dew's brother was in command of the army unit because he misunderstood running the race.
If he was on some truth drug, that would be the answer.
But we know from looking at the actual timeline in the event, he was trying to come up with ways to argue that this was a false flag within minutes of it happening.
There was no evidence that came to him that led him to suspect this is a false flag.
There's nothing.
It was something he was trying to build from the jump.
I want your audience to know that I'm not some crazy guy who just yells bullshit minutes after a terrorist attack and tries to justify my predetermined conclusion that it's fake.
I feel like I'm in one of those TV shows where they have that episode where the longtime nemesis just shows up and acts like they have no idea who they were before.
Oh, no, no, no, I'm a completely, I'm a changed person.
And the whole time you're going crazy, you're like, no, they're just wearing a mask.
You can't buy into this bullshit.
No.
And everybody doesn't believe you, and you start to go crazier and crazier thinking that you're the one who's insane now.
unidentified
And then their mask is revealed and it was the bad guy all along.
George Norrie is a big bad in some ways, but he doesn't appear to be because he has that folksy presentation and he's, oh, you know, I just like to talk to interesting people.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Whatever.
When you really get down to it, though, he is far more similar to Alex than he might like people to think.
And I think you get a taste of that here in this next clip.
There is no question in my mind, Alex, that the globalists, the elitists, will do anything, anything to control us, to pull our rights down, to rip things apart.
They'll do anything.
And what's so frustrating for someone like me and you is that when events occur, we really have to question the possibilities of either one.
When you're actively trying to build up argument on a, like you're building a house of balsa wood that is, you know, trying to demonstrate that this is fake.
That's not asking questions.
No.
That's the same thing as like Millie Weaver, Caitlin Bennett, Owen Schroyer being like, we're just conservatives and it hates us because of that.
So, you know, the family guy, one of the things that's important about that line of rhetoric, that narrative, is that it demonstrates foreknowledge in some way.
You had Peter Griffin sending off two bombs at the Boston Marathon.
Except that wasn't what was in the episode, just in your manipulatively edited clip.
You got that.
That's foreknowledge of what ends up happening at the Boston bombing.
So the book that Alex and George are talking about here is called The Final Jihad, When the Best of the Worst Finally Come for Us, which is a fucking unwieldy subtitle.
The book was written by Martin Keating, brother of former governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating.
Conspiracy theorists believe this book somehow demonstrates foreknowledge on the part of the government about the Oklahoma City bombing.
Then they knew, you know, they knew it was going to happen.
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
The evidence for this is that there's someone named Tom McVeigh in the book who carries out a bombing on a federal building in Oklahoma, which definitely seems kind of weird at first glance.
It becomes way less weird when you take a couple more glances.
Keating had written the book prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, but it wasn't published until the middle of 1996, well after the bombing.
There's literally no reason to think that he couldn't have gone in and changed a few details in his manuscript to make it seem more interesting after the bombing, because it wasn't published until after.
Alex is saying it was published six months before.
It was not.
Probably it was about a year after the bombing that it was actually published.
He was talking to a reporter from the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, and I have to say, this guy fucking weirds me out.
For one, the anchor of the segment says that Keating is currently, quote, finishing up a book, which really gives you the strong sense that he wasn't finished with it yet, mostly because that's what those words mean.
In the middle of the interview, he says, unprompted, quote, I also predicted the World Trade Center bombing because that would be a gorgeous thing to bring down.
He thinks for a beat, then says, from their perspective, with a really weird smile on his face.
He's clearly saying that he thinks it was a right-wing group.
Yeah.
Because he's talking, even in that interview, he's talking about how that the Murray building that got bombed was the place where the FBI agent's office who was in charge of the Waco standoff, that's where his office was.
He's talking about he's very clear that what he believes happened in the real world, but is also trying to trade in some sort of prophetic aspect to himself.
So this isn't a live TV show.
They had to pre-tape this just hours after the bombing.
How the hell is this station going to dig up a story about an unfinished manuscript for a book that has some parallels to the bombing?
Am I to believe that the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority as a researcher that thorough on their payroll, they got somebody on the unpublished manuscript beat?
Obviously not.
This only happens if he reached out to them.
And I would say there's a pretty good chance he reached out to all the other news networks, and OETA is the only one that said yes.
The bombing itself is not the main plot of the book, so it would have been really possible to take an already existing manuscript about a terrorist cell in the United States, which is what the best of the worst is, in the subtitle if it's unwieldy.
And he can finesse a few details to make it mirror a real world event, which would then naturally boost your sales considerably.
Until anyone could demonstrate otherwise, the simplest explanation for this is publicity hunting on the part of Martin Keating.
Alex and George don't care about any of this, though.
They need talking points they can use to justify their anti-government positions and to create seeds of doubt in their audience's mind that all these horrible national tragedies are really just the plots of these evil globalists.
Looking at them as if they aren't acting from a position of bad faith, you just see this as absolutely, completely stupid.
So, Alex, you mentioned the family guy shit earlier, and he brings that back up because at this point on the 16th, that is one of the only things he has to go on.
If you recall on our episode about the 26th, the April 16th episode, that was what he was yelling about for a lot of the episodes.
For this episode, I did not have time to watch the entire third season of Hawaii 5-0, but I did go to their Wikipedia page and I searched the page for veteran or military or soldier.
None of the episodes had any of those words in the description.
I don't remember who else was on that show, but it came out right after, a little bit after Lost, and it was exciting to see the people from Lost getting other bookings.
So all this stuff, there's 22 shows demonizing Patriots, the family guy, all this is just Alex trying to build up the idea that there was a pre-existing vibe that was going on that led him to believe they were going to blame the Patriots.
They didn't say Tea Party specifically, but when Alex is saying that, we know that the grander context of that is returning veterans, gun owners, militia, right-wingers.
He's using Tea Party as like a stand-in for all of those groups when he's talking to George here.
But earlier on this very episode that Alex is a gaston, George and one of his callers were bandying about the idea that it was probably somebody who was mad at legs because they're a returning veteran.
And then you've got the marathon coach saying they were running a drill.
They were announcing on loudspeakers, never mind what's happening.
This is part of the drill.
Everything's safe.
Right before it exploded, and then Rob Dew, my news director for my nightly news show, Rob Dew's brother-in-law, because I've seen him have arguments with him on the phone.
His wife's brother is in Army intelligence as an officer.
He is on the Army marathon team, and he called Rob's wife at about five o'clock, his sister, and said, Yeah, it's weird.
They pulled me out of the race towards the end.
You know, I was pretty close to the lead.
They said, You're dehydrated.
You're going to the hospital.
And I didn't think that made sense because normally they, you know, people can crawl across the fence line, and I'm being taken to the hospital.
So one of the things that I think is the most interesting about looking at Alex's narratives forensically is that I can tell you when and how they change based on new information that he gets.
At this point on the 16th, Alex has heard the stuff about the coach who mentioned a police exercise at the marathon, which, based on all evidence, is likely a crowd desensitization drill for the police dogs.
Alex ran with that information, and you see it being repeated here on this last clip.
On the 16th, Alex had not yet found the pictures on 4chan from the marathon.
So he doesn't know anything about black backpacks yet.
This narrative about the supposed drill becomes announcements on loudspeakers telling marathon runners not to be worried about men with black backpacks later.
That's how he is telling the when we've looked at the 18th, the 17th, at least the 18th.
That's what the narrative becomes.
But because he doesn't have that piece of information yet, his there was a drill narrative is still in the larval state as he's talking to George.
This is a really good case in point for how Alex incorporates information into his already existing narratives.
He's already established with his audience that there was a drill going on, and that means this was a false flag.
Later on, he'll build on this narrative, adding in the entire part about the supposed Navy SEALs and the white Patsy Alex imagined in the pictures he found on 4chan.
This fundamentally has no relation to the comments made by the track coach.
But Alex needs them to be connected.
So he goes on to claim that the track coach was talking about announcements about people with black backpacks, which is not here when he's talking to George on the 16th because he doesn't have that information yet.
But he should, because all he's talking about is the announcements that the track coach talked about.
If this was sincere and Alex just repeating information, he should know about the black backpacks from the announcement that it's just impossible for this to be the product of good faith effort.
Alex already has the information that came from the track coach.
So if that information had anything to do with black backpacks, that should be a part of the narrative from the beginning.
So they're going to use computers and robots to track and trace and socially engineer us to make us pliable and submissive so we can then be exterminated.
There are real groups, and then they get recruited under multinational organizations to engage in selective controlled attacks, and the compartmentalized low-level people don't even know what they're part of.
They believe they're fighting for, you know, the jihad, Allah, whatever.
That's right.
For Wahhabeism, but they're working for a higher cause to scare the West into giving up its liberty and freedom.
Yeah, he's almost describing like a punk rock scenario for terrorism where like you get a good band together and you start out real small and then you start gaining some traction.
You got a bunch of members and then the fucking record labels come in and they just own you.
And again, like I said, I think that that would be a real pointed question to ask Alex in a situation where you would actually ask follow-ups and actually be interested in an answer as opposed to allowing Alex to just spout his nonsense.
And one of the reasons I think that this is a problem, and just it's impossible for this sort of interview to go well, is that George Norrie is not like, I think his perception of things is a little bit off.
And how many mainstream media people, Alex, even know that when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, we created and backed the freedom fighters who were called the Mujahideen, who became part of the Taliban, part of al-Qaeda.
You can only build a case for a position like this with appeal to emotion and narrative and these anonymous stories of someone who got sick because they got a vaccine or his arm blew up to the size of a basketball.
Anyway, this is a very important thing because this is one of the things that make George Norrie a real shithead is that he is pretty anti-fax and has a lot of alternative ideas about science, as evidenced by the doctor that he talked to at the beginning of the episode being strongly anti-psych meds.
So that's a problem, and it's a problem that we'll continually see and will develop as we get more and more into Coast Coast.
Hundreds of thousands don't die from bad drug reactions.
The number you most commonly see cited is 100,000 per year, which certainly is a lot, and it is a real problem.
But Alex is still embellishing it in service of minimizing the deaths at the Boston bombing, which is what a monster would do.
Alex might be closer to fine on the medical procedure one, but there's a larger issue that he's completely ignoring about all of these examples.
All of these things are examples of things that the federal government has spent money trying to address.
The CDC puts out PSAs and educational material about how to avoid getting flesh-eating bacteria.
Many of the drugs that people have adverse reactions to are prescribed and are substances that are literally called controlled substances.
You're not going to last long being a licensed doctor who can practice medicine if you keep botching surgeries and procedures.
Using examples like these in relations to guns really only makes the argument stronger that all guns should be licensed and registered.
Sure, a lot of people do die from medical complications, but imagine how many more would be dying if you just had no licensing or governmental educational requirements for doctors to do surgery.
I just think what's fascinating about this argument is that he gets to, he's getting it both ways here because he's both setting the stage for it to be a false flag attack.
So it doesn't matter who did it, except for who they're trying to blame for it, while at the same time minimizing what the attack actually means, almost saying, like, well, if it is a right-wing terrorist, they wouldn't, we wouldn't act, you know, he's not going to say we, but they wouldn't just go after something small, like, oh, only three dead people, only 100 people.
Like there's a bit of the Boston bombing talk, but then they also veer off in other directions because Norrie has some news topics that he wants to hit.
And one of them is apparently a discussion about allowing people to have knives on planes.
Well, yeah, take the Lone Star College thing in Texas last week where 12-plus people were stabbed by a one-inch X-Acto knife.
And my issue is this.
England is trying to register butcher knives now because they took the guns of the stabbings exploded.
And I want to know why they make pilots who we trust with a whole aircraft, this giant missile, this giant weapon, why do pilots have to jump, because I've interviewed him and you've interviewed him, through dozens of hoops to have a locked up in a safe, a firearm in the cockpit.
But yeah, now we're going to let people take knives on the plane.
So, first of all, I have not heard Alex say a single word about that Lone Star College stabbing on his show.
When he first brought it up, I thought he was talking about the shooting at Lone Star College from back in January 2013 that we covered on our show.
If you don't remember, that was the one where Alex feverishly covered live footage of it on his show, saying the media was covering it up, thinking that he could turn it into his own Sandy hook, only to realize that most of the students at the school were black and he lost interest.
Well, it turns out on April 9th, 2013, there was another incident at Lone Star College when a student named Dylan Quick stabbed 14 people before being tackled to the ground by a fellow student.
In interviews with police, Quick talked about having fantasies about cutting off people's faces and wearing them as masks since he was age eight.
And he also talked about how he was into necrophilia and cannibalism.
Right, right, right, right.
It's so weird to me that Alex never brought up this case until now and not on his own show.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Dylan Quick is a white male who went on a stabbing spree at a school that has a student body that's approximately 75% non-white.
Because, see, it's a story that fits perfectly into his narratives.
Here you have an example of a non-gun-related school attack.
It's just sitting there on the tea for Alex, ready for him to use as proof that school violence isn't about guns.
But for some reason, I don't remember seeing him or hearing him say anything about it, which I imagine is just because Alex was super busy at the time with trying to help Steve Pieczenik pretend to be in Korea on clandestine business.
Also, shouldn't Alex fully support being able to be armed on a plane?
Does he not realize that him conceding that there are certain situations where it's not appropriate for him to be armed really hurts his argument that the globalists are trying to make schools and hospitals disarmament zones?
If he's allowed that some places or places where you should not be allowed to be armed, it logically follows that there may be some other places where the same is true.
What is it about a plane that makes it so you shouldn't be able to be armed on it?
Well, if it's that it's a confined space, then he shouldn't be okay with anyone being armed on a train, a bus, or any other form of public transportation.
These are just simple and very elementary problems with the way Alex constructs arguments.
And the term for this is inconsistency.
Alex goes on and on all the time about how more guns equals safety, because having a weapon empowers a person to defend themselves.
But here, for some reason, he's opposed to people being able to protect themselves just because they're on a plane.
His argument that the answer to the bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun should still apply in this situation.
The answer to a bad guy with a gun on a plane is a good guy with a gun on a plane.
There is nothing, and it's even worse in terms of knives, because guns, you could say, well, you might shoot out the window, and it's a big, you know, that makes sense.
But knives, you're not going to knife through the window.
Maybe there's something else behind his supposed convictions that he's just not spelling out.
But maybe that he doesn't even realize, quite frankly.
If you yell about how everyone should be armed in every single situation, you should be able to have guns at a stadium in the waiting room when your kid's being born.
You should have a gun.
All of these things.
If you believe all that stuff, you need to make a fuller argument about why you're against people having knives on a plane.
So along the way on this episode, we've seen Alex kind of minimize the deaths at the bombing and be a little bit dickish even while he's touting his great empathy.
So while we're scared of whoever killed three people at the Boston Marathon and the media is acting like it's the end of the world, there's giant issues going on.
I saw a Washington Post article a few months ago that had the headline.
The little eight-year-old boy who was killed, who was waiting at the finish line for his father, who was in the race, his sister, six years old, had her arm blown off.
So this clip is super interesting to me because just hours earlier on his own show, Alex had repeatedly done some riffs about how that very same eight-year-old child was probably killed because a cop told him to hold the bomb before it went off.
Alex, in his own controlled environment, spoke in ways that were outrageously disrespectful about this kid who was killed.
And if I was the parent listening to that, I would be furious.
But he did that, and he was able to because he's acclimated his audience to that cruelty and inhumanity gradually.
And now he has them convinced that him fantasizing about imagined scenarios of how the globalists killed this kid is somehow productive as a part of fighting the globalists.
He can't do that on coast to coast.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, he knows the audience is very different.
And he knows that if he shows his true colors, no one's going to come over to his show.
But it's bigger than that.
George Norrie doesn't listen to Alex's show.
He doesn't know the kinds of horrible bullshit Alex says every day because he just doesn't have time for that.
He's a busy dude.
He's got hours of radio to do.
He's got prep.
He's got a life to live.
He doesn't have time to listen to three hours of Alex doing bullshit.
And we see Alex like just sort of rolling around like a pig and shit, talking about how his ratings are through the roof, talking about narcissistic media, basking in the ratings.
So there's just a bunch more talk about the family guy stuff.
And Alex is pretty clearly expressing that he understands that what they did was run with a clip that showed different parts of the episode put together to make it appear that Peter was bombing the marathon.
There's sort of indications that he's aware of it.
I don't really care to hear him talk so much more about this.
George announces that he's going to Canada to give a speech, and Alex is going to be live streaming in via Skype.
Oh, and Alex, they talk about why aren't you going to come?
And if only you knew that a lot of the negative stuff is a direct consequence of the actions that you yourself have chosen to facilitate, to mainstream, to platform, giving these people a much larger audience, much more influence than what they bring to the table deserves.
I would say you should look back on this, George, and be deeply ashamed.
You know, here's what is actually happening right now.
And this is something that I don't know if I can prove, but I think it's true.
George Nori, in that moment, right, genuinely wondered what was going to happen in 2016.
So all of a sudden, we have a thought bubbly appearing, and then we're playing out the similarities of what would happen if George Norrie continues on the same track.
When we find ourselves at the end of the world and it explodes, he's going to suddenly wake up in the middle of this conversation, say, Fuck you, Alex Jones.
Donald Trump will never be president.
He's going to burn the studio down and run out the door screaming.
And that's how we're going to save the world, Dan.
So you have these, there's so much intersection that comes in at Coast to Coast.
And I think as we peel back layers on the onion, I think that what we'll see is almost a unified place to cover that Young Jevity is actually behind the fucking all of this.