#360: October 23, 2019 dissects Alex Jones’ conspiracy-driven rants—dismissing Ukraine impeachment as a "hoax," falsely framing Austin’s MyPass microchip program as a globalist plot, and mocking racial justice cases like Connecticut’s N-word charges. His guest, Cary Poarch (a former leftist turned libertarian), reveals algorithmic radicalization, while Jones normalizes racism via caller Scott Goldsmith’s slurs. Even his lawyer, Robert Barnes, echoes Islamophobic tropes, aligning with Trump’s far-right allies. The episode exposes Jones’ reliance on outrage and misinformation to sustain relevance amid declining influence. [Automatically generated summary]
And I want you to ask your question, but there's a real big part of me that hopes it's a very specific question that I don't think you're going to ask.
Yeah, whereas with Alex's, especially around this Boston bombing period, that is stuff where two minutes of his show might take me an hour and a half to get through.
Just because he'll lie about something and that requires a ton of reading.
But we will be back in 2013 for Monday.
I consider the Coast to Coast episode from Wednesday to be our 2013 episode of the week.
Now, we obviously have the latest developments taking place on a lot of different fronts.
And we have the latest rerun of the whistleblower hoax with the diplomat, lead diplomat, the ambassador to Ukraine, saying he heard somebody say it was quid pro quo, just like the other fake whistleblowers whose names we can't know.
Leiden said that as well.
And then even when he testified, Bill Taylor yesterday in his bomb show had to admit that when he got a call from the EU ambassador and told him that, he said, that's insane.
Trump never said quid pro quo or that he better be given something.
So anyway, from page one, quote, our national security demands that this relationship with the U.S. and Ukraine remain strong.
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policymaking and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons.
Bill Taylor was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 and is very well aware of the situation in the country and its recent history.
He is absolutely no slouch.
And when he's testifying that there was a divergent unofficial foreign policy operation going on outside the State Department, it's a real serious charge.
And it becomes even more serious when you realize the charge Taylor is making is that this second unofficial channel was contradicting and threatening the objectives of the real official channel of U.S. foreign policy, namely strong support for Ukraine.
Taylor's opening statement involves very clear specifics, like the following.
Quote, on June 27th, Ambassador Sondlund told me during a phone conversation that President Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelensky, wasn't standing in the way of investigations.
Taylor provided WhatsApp conversations with Ambassadors Volcker and Sondland, where Volcker said what was, quote, most important is for Zelensky to say he will help investigations and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.
On July 20th, a representative of Zelensky told Taylor that Zelensky, quote, did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. re-election campaign, which kind of calls into question the idea of whether people on the Ukrainian side were aware of the machinations.
Taylor describes conversations with Ambassador Sondland, where Sondlund explicitly tells him that support for Ukraine was contingent on Zelensky publicly saying that they were going to do these investigations because, quote, Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box.
Taylor describes that, quote, the inability of any U.S. official to respond to Ukrainians' explicit questions about security assistance was troubling them.
You know, like the idea that they ask, what's going on with this, and no one, they just stonewall.
It is true that Taylor's opening statement does include a passage about a conversation that he had with Tim Morrison, the head of the Eurasia desk for the National Security Council.
Morrison had spoken with Trump, who said that, quote, he was not asking for a quid pro quo.
But Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say that he's opening investigations of Biden and the 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do it himself.
Right, See, so yes, I guess that Trump did technically say that he didn't want a quid quote pro quo, but then he did go on to describe the quo he was expecting from.
Since that testimony itself is private at the point when I was getting this episode ready, and I believe it still is, it's very hard to know precisely what he told those committees.
But if this opening statement is any indication, it was very likely some fucking damning stuff.
Just from this one person in this opening statement, you have multiple name people like Volcker, Sundland, among other people, who had direct conversations with Trump about this situation.
Just from this, there's a clear roadmap to an investigation.
The people you need to ask questions of, the people you need to get under oath.
And if I were Alex, I would be seriously, seriously thinking about turning on Trump right now.
If there ever has been, I mean, it's been for a while now, but just strategically as a propagandist, you're about to enter an area where there's nothing you can do.
So last month, Adam Schiff read what you might call a parody version of the rough transcript of the phone call that Trump had with Zelensky, which he kind of meant it to just heighten the mobster qualities of the conversation while trying to maintain the essence of what Trump said.
Some may call that a boneheaded move, but others might think it's a worthwhile strategy to attempt to creatively make the point you would otherwise be trying to make dryly.
I have no opinion on the matter other than that when I first heard about Schiff doing that, I knew immediately that Alex would pretend that he was claiming that he was reading the actual transcript.
He said that Schiff said that he was going to lay out, quote, the essence of what the president communicates.
You'd have to be an idiot or a shameless propagandist to try and claim that he was trying to pass that off as a real document.
I'm your host, Alex Jones, and we're live broadcasting worldwide.
There's a couple of really important things I want to let you know.
I am aware of information going on inside the Trump campaign that is very, very dangerous and very, very scary to the president, to this country, and to all of you watching and listening out there.
You may have noticed that Brad Parscale earlier this week had a huge, lavish cover story in the Sunday New York Times about what a wonderful person he is and what a genius he is.
Well, there's some interesting things going on with Brad Parscale that I'm going to reveal later on the broadcast today.
There's an interesting thing about Alex's relationship with the Trump administration that I'm starting to notice.
There's a trend where he seems to keep finding out about how certain members of the team are evil and working against the resurgence of Americana.
A lot of this falls squarely into the genre of what you might tend to see in authoritarian systems, where the media bootlickers constantly dwell on palace intrigue, where the storm of suspicion and accusation is always raging, threatening those who don't appear to be loyal enough to the leader.
With Alex, I'm starting to notice a slightly different character to his particular type of palace intrigue, namely that all the people he seems to think are threats within the administration are specifically people who apparently don't like Alex enough.
We saw this with Generals McMaster and Mattis, who Alex said were globalist infiltrators, largely because he felt like they were trying to stop Trump from reading InfoWars, which was how Alex communicated direct messages to Trump, which is weird on its own.
He had similar problems with the former chief of staff, Reince Priebus.
And now the crosshairs are fixed on Brad Parscale.
It should be mentioned that Alex has recently complained about how he saw a video where Parscal was asked about Alex Jones and replied, Who is Alex Jones?
So it's kind of hard to hear Alex now uncovering some kind of scary and dangerous information about Parscal and not thinking maybe his bruised ego is somehow involved.
This dude really wants to get back on Facebook, and he's willing to wage public demonization campaigns against essential personnel in Trump's administration in order to get there, which is kind of funny on one level, but really just sad.
So Alex doesn't get to talking about what his dangerous and scary information about Brad Parscal is on this episode, but he does tease that he has a huge guest coming up on Friday.
And later in the show, he does sort of connect these two things: that this guest has some information about Parscal and the Trump campaign.
And I would say that this next clip is really Alex overselling Friday's show and his guest that he's going to have.
Because Alex seems to think that he's going to get killed over this interview.
This is a really important, big interview, and it's an emergency message to the president.
And I know my phones are getting listened to.
So it's the kind of interview where I'm looking under my car, literally, now for bombs when I drive to work in the morning, and I've never done that before.
So we got a big interview coming up Friday in the second hours where it's scheduled live.
And you're going to want to tune into this.
And if something happens to me, the interview's still going to go out.
Okay?
Folks know, by the way, I don't hype stuff.
I just tell you how big something is and straight up deliver.
He says that it's going to be live, but that he's worried that someone's going to try and kill him before then, which would only make this interview larger.
I was trying to think of who a big name Alex could get who's in the Trump orbit and he could pretend is a danger for him to have on.
And I just couldn't think of anyone, really.
Like Roger Stone coming on is only a danger to Roger's gag order at this point.
I thought it could be Steve Bannon for a second, but Alex could never pull that off after he spent so much time in the past calling Steve a traitor and possibly a globalist.
Plus, Bannon just started a podcast called War Room.
So Alex can't be happy about that clear infringement of Owen Schroyer's copyright.
I thought it might be possible that this is a place where he could have a return of Steve Pieczenik.
After their unceremonious falling out, I thought they'd probably never speak again.
But I checked in on it, and Steve's YouTube channel has been coming along, and he's gathering an audience, which I think that Alex might be interested in trying to poach.
And I could see him trying to put water under the bridge and say, like, yeah, you know, he was wrong about the Las Vegas shooting, but he's one of the greatest ever State Department officials.
If I hadn't listened to as much Alex as I have, I might be excited to find out who his guest is.
But unfortunately, I still remember how in 2013, he teased that he had the biggest guest ever coming on later in the week, and it turned out to be the Obama phone lady.
So my first thought about this is that it seems strange how every nefarious plot that the globalists try and pull off seems centralized in the exact same area Alex lives in.
Plus, if you are the globalist ne'er-do-wells and you have this crusading hero named Alex Jones, who's super good at digging into things and keeps uncovering your plots in his home city of Austin, it feels like you might move your operations somewhere else.
As for the actual story Alex is talking about, in a very strange twist, he's not just making stuff up.
There is an organization that's working with people experiencing homelessness that will allow them to have an implantable form of identification.
The argument goes like this: in order to access many of the benefits that these folks depend on to survive and try and get their life back in order, people experiencing homelessness need identification documents.
However, these same people are precisely the ones whose life circumstances are such that they may have the worst ability to have secure places to store these documents.
And that's not even considering the possibility that just living in the elements might destroy your identification card without any incident or accident.
This leads to people in that situation having to be in a constant state of reapplying for these documents, which becomes an awful cycle that you end up in.
And you can only imagine what kind of, like, that would cause a horrible psychological experience of feeling trapped and unable to get to the next step or having to constantly reset.
These sorts of barriers are a frustrating part of life for people in these circumstances.
And the goal that problems like this one in Austin, called MyPass, have is to eliminate some of those barriers so people can have a better chance of getting back to having a secure life.
I don't know how I feel about this program as a whole.
Obviously, I support the goal behind it, and anything that can be done to help people experiencing homelessness and that is developed with their input is something that is worth being explored.
There are some concerns you can have about data security, but the early trials of this program have shown a lot of promise.
And part of that is by using blockchain technology in order to service these chips.
So, you know, the control of the data is entirely under the control of the individual.
Like, if they need to prove a certain form of a medical identification, they can allow those people only to have access to that medical information.
There is some compartmentalization of the data through the blockchain that is allowed, which is actually very interesting the way they're trying to set this up.
And like I said, it shows some early promise on that front.
If those sorts of considerations are adequately taken into account and it's shown to help the community it's meant to help, then I don't see a good argument for being against this.
Whatever your position is on the issue, one thing that's important to point out is that Alex is presenting this like it's breaking news.
And that's because Mike Adams just ran a story about this on Natural News that Alex read, which is now he's acting like sound the alarm, they're chipping the homeless.
But don't get it twisted.
This is not news.
I found stories about the beginning of this program dating back to April 2018.
The Wall Street Journal covered it on June 26, 2018.
Harvard's Data Smart blog ran a piece about it on September 13th, 2018.
The Austin American Statesman covered a new grant for the program back on August 2nd, 2019.
Local news in Austin, KXAN, covered the program on July 31st, 2019.
This isn't something that's been like, you know, that's just been developed in secret.
It's not hidden in plain sight.
It's a program that aims to alleviate the often under-recognized hassles of experiencing homelessness, which many outlets have covered and discussed for a year and a half now.
Alex's team is just super bad at news.
So they had no idea that this microchipping program was happening in the city that they live in and operate out of.
This is just embarrassing stuff.
Like the severity of like, ah, this by the way, we've cracked the case on this is a mask that's covering, we didn't know about this for a year and a half.
And it should be a marquee issue for them.
Like this should be squarely in their wheelhouse.
This should be something they've been talking about for a year and a half.
I mean, it's literally the way that he describes the mark of the beast being carried out.
So if you were at all paying attention to news that is not coming from Mike Adams, especially if it's local news in Austin, you should definitely have been aware of it.
So anyway, Alex is just trying to victimize the homeless community.
And one of the things that this achieves is disallow them to possibly have a better chance of breaking out of this cycle of needing to reapply for identification in order to get the ball rolling.
That's one thing.
Keep them trapped in the system that they're trapped in, which Alex is whether or not he's actively and actually in favor of that.
You wonder why everybody's so dumb and looks like zombies and are so damn ugly.
It's the fluoride.
They take out the good halogen, the iodine.
They put the bad one in.
And I get up here and sensationally lay it all out with the government documents, the periodic table, and try to launch a movement against it so that people understand the fluoride out, get the good iodine in.
And yes, we sell the best, cleanest, best iodine out there, a symbiotic relationship, fund the Infowar, and get the best X2, the best X3.
See, the reason that I think that's a little smoother is because it is just normal content of the show that starts to get defensive.
And then while he's still in the same sentence, there is an A to B that goes in that, that gets to like, before you know it, you're in the middle of an ad.
That was one of the weirder ads I think I've ever heard.
You don't hear like professional ad people going like, let's put in an overly complicated analogy that doesn't actually make any sense if you think about it.
There's a more important issue, and it has to do with this stuff about China and all that.
My first comment is to say that him saying that the globalists put fluoride in the water in the West to attack Christians is maybe making his Christian identity ideas a little bit too overt.
So my first glaring problem with the content of what he's talking about is that most of Europe doesn't add fluoride to their water.
Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, none of them practice fluoridation.
And there are plenty of Christians in those countries, and many of them are considered parts of what most people think of as the West, which is a problem for Alex's narrative that he's selling about they put fluoride in to teach us Christians to lay down and die.
As for China and fluoridation, Alex is correct that they don't add fluoride to the water there, but he's missing out on some important context.
China and India both don't add fluoride to the water, partially because they exist geographically on top of a gigantic belt of naturally occurring fluoride.
This belt contains 85 million tons of fluoride, and it has the expected effect of making their water supplies naturally high in fluoride.
There'd be no point in adding fluoride to their water since the naturally occurring levels are often higher than any place in the United States, even after we've added fluoride to the water.
This is a public health problem that's caused increased rates of detrimosis and even fluoride toxicity in these parts of the world.
It's a very heavily discussed issue, and anybody who knows anything about the real issues in the world related to fluoride would understand this clearly.
All Alex knows is that China doesn't add fluoride to their water, and that's all he needs to know.
Bada bing, bada boom, let's make a narrative out of it.
I could find, I can't find any information concretely about China adding iodine to their water, but they did pass regulations in 1995 about adding iodine to salt to address the high prevalence of iodine deficiency in the population.
Well, the U.S. hasn't made a law about it.
We've been adding iodine to table salt since 1924, and current estimates say about 70% of all salt sold in the United States is iodized.
That number would probably be higher, but we don't have as big of an iodine deficiency problem as China did, most likely due to varying iodine levels in each country's natural water supplies.
But you understand, there are real world issues that explain a lot of this stuff that Alex is trying to pass off as like this is an attempt to attack the West through fluoride.
My point here, Jordan, is that Alex is very stupid.
His stupidity carries over even into his ads, which are now starting to sound a little bit like an open appeal to white Christian victimhood narratives.
This indicates to me a bit of a lack of interest in any other demographics, which kind of makes sense.
Like, when you target your marketing that selectively, it's not a good sign for your business because you're alienating people who are outside of that possible market.
I can see him previously, like back when he was on Facebook and shit, having to pretend to cast a wide net, you know, in order to block the perception that he is only speaking to white nationalists, even though he knows he's only speaking to white nationalists, he still has to pretend like he doesn't in order for people to think that he's a more mainstreamer.
Alex and his ilk can make excuses for their beloved fascist street gang all they want, but in doing so, all they do is reveal what they really support.
Alex can get on his show and here and report the news of these two Proud Boys who are being sent to jail after being found guilty of attempted gang assault and rioting stemming from a brawl in New York last October that took place after their leader, Gavin McGuinness, gave a speech.
He can say all they did was defend themselves from an Antifa attack, but that isn't true.
And if he was in any way interested in reality, he would know that.
Alex is operating off of one video that was widely circulated by the right-wing media, which appeared to show one of the victims of the beating throwing a water bottle at the Proud Boys.
And thus the argument goes, the Proud Boys were just defending themselves.
Antifa started it.
Subsequent videos have come to the surface that show a very different story.
There is a water bottle thrown, but the person who throws it is doing so in response to one of the Proud Boys literally charging at them with his fist cocked back.
These aren't children.
One of the men who was sentenced is 39 years old, and he joined a group where the only way to get in is to name serials while the gang punches you.
I'm kind of sick of the bullshit, so I'm just going to put this simply: The Proud Boys is an organization that is based in violence.
Their initiation ritual is based on a mock jumping-in ceremony.
Gavin created the gang with a tiered structure of membership where the only way to get to the fourth level of initiation is to get into a violent confrontation with Antifa.
From the second you joined with the Proud Boys, and as you work your way up the ranks, everything is centered around either implied or real political and physical violence.
If Antifa had a leader who had said specifically that they created this group as a way of getting into fights against people they're politically disagreeing with and made submitting to an act of group violence necessary to join and created a hierarchy ladder that required violence to climb, I promise you, I would not find that acceptable, even if I completely agreed with what they stood for and were working for.
In the case of Gavin and the Proud Boys, I find what they stand for repulsive, and their entire structure is indistinguishable from a gang.
It's a real lame gang, mostly centered around misplaced feelings of victimhood, but it's a gang nonetheless.
Alex, if that were true for him, he needs to get off air because he is so stupid and so unable to present information that what he's doing is accidentally misleading literally everybody who listens to his show.
Well, you know, I know he's not that stupid, and I know he knows what's going on because that clip of the guy throwing the water bottle, obviously the right-wing edited.
What they did was they started the clip with Peter Griffin running Boston Mary.
I was trying to listen to you, and I agree with what you're saying, but I'm very self-conscious that I've talked about that bone thugs and Phil Collins song.
Massachusetts has what's known as the right of free petition that's built into the state constitution and actually predates the founding of the United States, which allows citizens to send bills to their representatives to be introduced.
It's the responsibility of state reps to give their constituents a fair hearing in the state government, and that's exactly what happened here.
An unnamed Massachusetts resident sent Dan Hunt a bill to introduce that would outlaw the use of the word bitch, and he did what he was supposed to do since he represents that person.
According to The Guardian, at least 6,000 bills get introduced through the right of free petition in Massachusetts every year.
This is kind of a perfect example of why Alex Jones fucking sucks.
It's so interesting how Massachusetts has this right of free petition.
And if I were one of his listeners, I would probably get a lot out of learning about how and why they're the only state in the country whose state government works that way.
There's a lot of opportunity for some much-needed civics education here.
And this is a perfect way in for that to go down that direction.
Yeah.
Alex could talk about how this quirk of Massachusetts law has allowed real direct action to take place.
Like how in 2013, an eight-year-old kid was pushing for a bill to put restrictions on shark finning.
Or Alex could go the opposite direction and talk about how in 2011 someone tried to request their representative do something about how football games were preempting jeopardy.
It's the yin and the yang of people actually having a voice.
I mean, granted, maybe we're abusing the system a little bit here, but there's a lot that Alex could bring to the conversation to be like, what is behind this clickbait story?
This is how civics works in one of the great states in our country.
And instead, he just ignores all of that.
He doesn't even look at the issue at all.
He just sees a headline about someone trying to outlaw the word bitch, and he just takes it, says good enough, and builds an outrage cycle about how they're trying to suppress free speech.
And the globalists want to control how you talk.
It's pathetic and trivial.
It's pointless to even critique because what he's doing is so uninspired, so transparent, except to the completely, hopelessly lost among his audience.
What makes it so insanely dumb is to imagine that what he's saying actually is true.
Imagine if he's right.
Imagine that someone in the Massachusetts State House was trying to ban the word bitch.
I think it's one of those things where you had like a really good, not a good, but you had a sustainable balance between these con, these right-wing con folk and the rest of the world who just wanted to move forward.
Right, right, right.
It was a kind of adversarial, like, all right.
They flew too close to the sun.
They took the game to too high of a level where it's just like everyone is now like, okay, you're a problem.
Could have flown under the radar for quite a while.
So here's a short clip of the video that was shot by the person that complained.
And reportedly, it might have been the N-word.
We don't get to hear it.
It's just, it's too dangerous for us evil Americans once the passion of free speech.
And so these guys are walking along together saying the verboten word, but a good citizen caught it.
There's a big investigation.
Everyone's panicking in fear right now at the university.
Here it is.
Well, this is just incredible.
We might as well just eat the planet at this point.
And of course, these are the same universities banning Halloween parties, just someone might get offended.
Don't worry, the ADL came out and said the okay symbol that law enforcement uses, that divers use, that the International Sign Language Association's used for over 100 years.
All the times Obama did this.
Well, it's okay.
The ADL says he can do it.
You just can't do it.
Okay, and of course, in the NBA, there's a popular clothing line with a three-point symbol.
It's okay.
Black guys wear it.
But if the ADL decides you're going to lose your bank accounts, you're going to go to jail.
Because they're our bosses, and the Southern Property Law Center is our boss as well.
So this is a case where a couple of white students were repeatedly yelling the N-word on the campus of UConn outside student dorms.
While it's not illegal to say the N-word, I do think there's a good reason why action had to be taken here.
For one, this was on campus property, and it happened at night and in such a public manner that someone in one of the buildings taped it.
This does create an environment where if you're a black student in one of those dorms, it would be hard to imagine that it would not, like, it not making you feel unsafe.
And when you add the racial element to it, it doesn't have to be the N-word, but it could be some other term or it's the factor of it that is less the word itself and the behavior.
But if you're the school administrators, you have to do something.
If you don't do anything, you're sending the message that you run a school where this kind of thing is acceptable.
And making people feel unwelcome because of their race is okay.
It has a very dangerous normalizing effect to just let students run around campus yelling the N-word from a school admin perspective.
The real options here are either kick them out of school or enforce some kind of punishment and hope that they learn from their mistake.
These kids were charged with ridicule based on race, which is a crime in Connecticut.
According to their general statutes in Connecticut, the law, the punishment for this is a fine of up to $50 or 30 days in prison.
These kids will definitely not get any jail time for this.
So if I had to bet, I would say that they're going to end up with a $50 fine.
This is really actually what I think, and maybe I'm wrong on this.
I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong.
But I kind of feel like this is a good process for dealing with abhorrent behavior like this, particularly in a college setting.
There needs to be a punishment, but it shouldn't be overly harsh.
And the door needs to be open for them to learn about why they did this thing and why it's awful.
So when you have a punishment like this, it's a negative reinforcement, and that's good.
And it also opens up the possibility of them speaking to people who have a different perspective than them.
And it allows for a conversation with them, hopefully, to become aware of why this is like, why people take this seriously.
It is a healthy process that can go on.
And that process is completely disrupted by people like Alex and all this outrage-driven right-wing media.
Because of their framing of the case, people like Alex have created the illusion that these two kids are involved in a very important free speech case.
If they're so inclined, these kids could choose to learn no lesson from this because of the exposure that they're getting and take their metric tons of free publicity and turn it into a little grift.
In essence, what the right-wing media does is create a countervailing force against the process of growth that could run its course without people like Alex getting involved.
It's not to say that these kids are going to do this, but they could, you know, start a GoFundMe for their $50 fines and end up raising $50,000.
You know, I'm not saying they're going to do that, but you could easily see, like, oh, let's fucking capitalize on this.
That sort of attention and coverage that they're getting from the right-wing media, it gives cases like this the possibility of another path to go down as opposed to learning.
And I think that some people might say, like, yeah, you should kick them out of school.
And I think in egregious examples, yeah, you probably should.
In this case, I think that you have the opportunity for some sort of reconciliation.
I think that you definitely have the this isn't I know that they were screaming the n-word, but on an examination of it, like the circumstances of the case, it seemed like they were yelling other words as well that weren't like targeting black people and were just trying to play a game where they yelled offensive words.
So the issue comes down to like, okay, given those circumstances, the effect on people who are in those dorms and affected by their behavior is not changed.
Yeah.
But the possibility that they could learn from this and aren't people who want to run around and try and terrorize people is still there.
So you need to make it so the punishment isn't so severe that it inhibits the possibility of learning from it.
I don't know.
I would be interested in other people's perspective on it.
But from where I am looking at it, like trying to imagine how you would handle this from a school superintendent perspective, that seems like the most likely to get the desired outcome that you want.
The ultimate outcome is taking those two considerations and looking for the best way forward in a possible way, like a way that is actually achievable.
And this behavior from the right-wing media is not particularly conducive to that.
And it turns into a situation where the interaction between us has absolutely changed based on the context of what's being said and how it's being said.
Absolutely.
Like, are you serious you don't understand that, Norm?
This is some dude coming up to me after a show and telling me, like, you want to hear a joke, and then tossing in racial slurs in the joke because he's like, you're white, I'm white.
When Alex got kicked off social media and YouTube and all that, one of the things that I speculated was a possible outcome of it was he was going to just lean in.
Like a lot of the stuff that might have been there subtly and under control a little bit before was just going to come up.
And I mean, even just in this episode, we see this whole goddamn thing.
So glad that we've been around for as long as we have doing this show because, like, this would sound like, oh man, that's too ambitious if we had no idea, if we didn't listen to his show.
But because we do, this takes on a layer of hilarity.
You know, one reason I want to stay on air is because we put out a lot of critical breaking news that percolates up into the mainstream and goes through the electronic Berlin Wall when the deep state and the big corporations don't want the information out there.
So many big stories that are pro-human that really stop a lot of corruption and evil originate here in Infowars.
So here's a guy tried to work here, and now he goes to CNN and joins the dark side, and then literally goes around policing everyone on the internet like he's God.
But I also think that if it's like 2012 InfoWars, you might not have as much awareness of it other than it being a conservative-leaning Ron Paul type of a libertarian organization.
And with old tweets, let's say, I think that there is a public interest when it's like someone who's trying to rebrand who used to be like a fascist or something.
I mean, it is kind of cruel to be stuck in a U-Haul van watching a fucking live video made by Project Veritas on an iPad after they stole your goddamn life.
So Alex has this guy, Carrie Porch, on the show to talk about his big CNN whistleblowing that he did with James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, and it's not a good interview.
Carrie is not the chatty sort, and it doesn't seem like he's too into Alex's sense of humor.
So the interview is kind of like walking through calf-deep mud.
Carrie is trying to be humble and accurate and constantly refers to himself as a low-level employee, but Alex needs that not to be true, or at least the perception of that not to be true.
So he has to keep correcting him and saying shit like, sometimes the lowest level gives the best view.
Carrie seems very dumb and to be on board with Alex's worldview entirely.
But the two of them have zero chemistry.
So in the middle of the interview, Alex becomes preoccupied with proving to Carrie that your light bulbs are spying on you and that Trump was probably being spied on by light bulbs.
Carrie seems politely interested in looking into it and like, yeah, I'll look, you know, I'll look into that.
But Alex, because the interview is such a dud, becomes hyper-focused on proving it to him.
Like, part of this interview that they're doing is like, I just don't understand why the mainstream media is covering up this Project Veritas interview.
It's a four-part series, but I only watched the first one because that seemed to be the one that was focused on Carrie and because it was boring as shit.
So there's no way I was going to keep going after the first one.
That is enough.
This boils down to more or less some employees saying that CNN CEO Jeff Zucker doesn't like Trump personally and that the editorial decisions are to cover negative stories about Trump, like how people are talking about impeaching him.
If the main criticism you're primarily lodging at the head of a uh is that the head of a company doesn't like the president enough, it seems like the situation you'd prefer is if everyone liked the president enough, which sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
If your criticism is that the network is chasing ratings, then fine.
But then why is your whistleblower going on info wars?
Alex tried to cause a panic last week that Trump was going to get assassinated at his rally in Dallas just to drive traffic to his website.
Honestly, all of James O'Keefe's exposés are complete trash and embarrassing, but this one's particularly weird to watch.
Here you have a guy who works at CNN talking to his co-workers about stuff like what the newsroom was like on the day after the election.
They think they're just having a conversation with a friend or an acquaintance.
They have no idea he's secretly recording them so he can give the tape to a shithead propagandist.
It's a pretty messed up violation of their trust, and it really doesn't reflect well on the character of this Kerry guy.
It's just kind of, it bums me out.
Like, I can't even begin to quantify the number of times I've talked insane shit at work.
The workplace is an environment where nearly everyone has something to complain about, and everyone's got something to say about what's wrong with the bosses.
Co-workers often build rapport with each other by venting.
And that's kind of what's being hijacked and abused here in order to make this video.
It feels dirty and invasive, but I guess it bought Carrie Porch 15 minutes of fame in the right-wing media, and it kept O'Keefe useful to his dark money patrons.
From everything I can tell and listening to this interview and watching the video, he's not like some guy who got roped into this.
He's on board.
But at the same time, James O'Keefe couldn't get these people to say what they say in the video.
But someone who you think is your friend at work, you might talk this kind of shit around them and think everything is totally fine.
It's such an invasion of privacy and gross, like for people who care, like, you know, they talk about how big tech is like all invading our privacy, and then to turn around and act like this to other people in real life is just monstrous.
Or even the best move probably would have been to be on Trump's side for like the first 50 or 60 days and then go hard against him and do that whole thing.
And, you know, I use the term loosely with liberal and everything, but, you know, I supported Bernie in the 2016 election, voted for him, caucused for him in the primaries, and then voted for Gary Johnson in the general just because I didn't like Hillary and I didn't like Trump.
So I just went third party, and nobody said my vote mattered until obviously the next day.
But I would actually say I was more on the term of leftist or far left when I got to CNN.
And then from what I saw, the two and a half year journey, I basically got to red pill myself on YouTube while I was in the bureau.
And I would say I'm mostly center-right libertarian kind of right now, but definitely leaning more and more conservative with each passing day.
You know, I spoke at a turning point event in College Station last night.
A bunch of great kids there, great people.
And it was a lot of fun to meet a lot of people that just wanted to know what happened.
Well, before you go today, I'm going to do a shoot right after the show, but we should talk on the phone about ideas you've got because I'm trying to hire a few more reporters, a few more people, especially for 2020, to really go out there and fight.
And you can see here, this is totally transparent.
Well, that's just a testament to James and his team.
Like, he is very particular with who he hires and vets and everything.
Like he and I talked for almost two months, you know, while he and his team were vetting me quietly, making sure that I wasn't a CNN plant trying to inside.
Yeah, I mean, it is a possibility that he was, you know, inclined towards the left and he was just profoundly stupid and thought James O'Keefe was actually like there are people on the left who don't read also.
But yeah, if you're somebody who is inclined towards left positions and you think that James O'Keefe is accurately portraying things in the videos that he's putting out, that means you're inclined towards the right, quite frankly.
Because otherwise, you would look into it and you'd be like, oh, this is all complete bullshit.
The video brings up Acorn and like that video, Alex still pretends that James O'Keefe was wearing the pimp outfit when he went in to talk to the people at Acorn.
It was this process of coming to work in DC and kind of seeing how the sausage is made, slowly but surely, you know, watching an ecosystem of videos here and there and just being open enough to start to actually entertain other ideas, you know, without accepting them at that time, but just being open enough to, okay, let's see what the other side has to say.
And there was a whole ecosystem on YouTube where I could go from one video to the next.
I know they're going to take this out of context.
I see the YouTube radicalizes people.
You remember that New York Times article?
But it just got me a point where I could start watching pieces of several different people's videos and was slowly but surely kind of redpilling me in the process.
Yeah, the problem is it's just so like they do it so gradually.
Because, you know, if you were talking to somebody and you hadn't been radicalized by the YouTube videos and they took a big swing, you know, say you are somebody who voted for Bernie and like you're like, I consider myself on the left.
And then you watch a YouTube video where it's like, white people are under attack.
You're going to be like, nah, okay, fine, whatever.
But if it's just like, hey, you know, this guy can't say this anymore.
And you're like, yeah, I noticed that I can't say that's the function of people like Dave Rubin.
So Alex has been teasing that he's going to go to calls with this whistleblower for a long time on the show.
And he finally gets around to it when there's 10 minutes left in the show.
And instead of going to actual calls, he immediately goes to a friend of Carrie's who's called in, who apparently served with him overseas in the service.
Like, this, I think this is a good way to demonstrate to people that, like, hey, Alex is making these videos where he does this offensive Chinese voice on a dragon cartoon, and the audience responds to it.
They like it to the point where this guy is calling in, and he does it as a joke.
So on October 14th, ABC aired some footage that was purportedly from Syria.
There was actually a, quote, nighttime machine gun demonstration from a shooting range in Kentucky.
Ever since this point, right-wing media figures like Alex have latched onto this as an excuse to pretend that there has not been horrible shit happening to the Kurds in northern Syria.
ABC apologized for the error and is investigating how the mistake was made.
This is a big mess up, but it was handled appropriately in terms of how news operations are supposed to work.
They fucked up, they apologized, and they made a correction.
It doesn't matter, though.
People like Alex can fuck up and lie a million times, never apologize, never correct anything.
And if you slip up once, they'll point to it over and over to portray you as the unethical party.
I personally don't care too much about this stupid game of finger pointing.
The truth is that ABC did fuck up in a big way, and in doing so, handed a weapon to the parties that want to whitewash and justify allowing a potential genocide to take place.
Senator John Cornyn said on Wednesday, quote, if Turkey was planning on coming into northern Syria and trying to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, and U.S. troops were caught in the middle, I'm not completely convinced that it was a bad idea to get them out of harm's way.
Last week, talking about Northern Syria, Trump himself said about Turkey, quote, they had to have it cleaned out.
In the immediate aftermath of Trump's withdrawal, Turkish forces moved in and started attacking.
Tens of thousands of civilians were displaced as they had to flee for their lives.
On the 13th, it was reported that Turkish-backed militants had executed nine people, including the Secretary General of the Future Syria Party, Hevrin Khalaf, who was the leader, who is a leader pushing for a more democratic state.
And these are far from the only civilians that were killed.
Pointing to one video that ABC News got wrong doesn't undo Hevrin Khalaf's execution, nor the deaths of all these other people.
All it does is give Alex a crutch to feel right when all he's doing is supporting an unjustifiable foreign policy decision that has doomed countless people to displacement, life under a dictator, or death.
Fuck Alex Jones.
These are the sorts of moments that you need to fully understand when people say that Alex is funny or this is just entertainment.
Were the hosts of the RTLM in Rwanda funny?
Was it just entertainment?
Was Lord HaHa funny?
Is that just entertainment?
Is this entertainment?
Alex is carrying water for Trump abandoning the Kurds while doing a racist Chinese accent.
Is that just funny?
It's not funny, and it's not entertainment.
It's cruel and malicious propaganda.
And the only thing I can really take solace in at this point is that I believe he'll probably live long enough to extremely regret his actions.
that's the only thing i can really hang my hat on because at this point like there's just there's just no words for how no i just can't he's He's doing an incredibly racist Chinese accent while minimizing and defending a genocide.
So I don't know what else.
If you can't recognize that as not just immoral, but some level of something that I can't complete psychopathy.
It's to minimize these very serious situations and deflect anybody being concerned about it in service of supporting Trump at any cost.
I think history is going to have a very complicated look at this if they actually take what he's doing seriously, as opposed to being like, yeah, he was an asshole conspiracy theorist, which is, I think, what a lot of people do.
And I think that one of the things that's really important, and I hate to say like, haha, our show is important because I don't know if it really is all that important.
But when you talk about Alex Jones, this is the stuff that really is the balance that's important.
This is this, like, this dude is like way out of line here.
But at the same time, he's also running commercials where he brags about having a chainsaw.
There is a farcical aspect to a lot of the work he does, but underneath it, there is this, like, if he had an opportunity to, he would defend a genocide.
Because should things ever get bad enough in this country where we're talking about, like, let's say getting rid of all Muslims in the country, like deporting all of them, he would be for it.
So, Jordan, I ask you, which of these lawyers is more fucked up?
The guy coming in and talking about the N-word and saying the N-word, or the lawyer who comes in and very bluntly and confidently declares we're at war with a religion.
I really, I genuinely, really think that if you had Trump as the host and Barr and Giuliani as the two lawyers, this conversation, these could be played out in the same script.