Knowledge Fight #373 dissects Alex Jones’ April 24, 2013, episode where he falsely ties the Boston bombing to InfoWars, CIA recruitment via Georgia (not Georgetown), and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—themes Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s family confirmed he embraced. Jones deflects by mocking unrelated topics (Spider-Man, cancer cures) and edits out overt grift moments, like Lindsey Williams’ DVD pitches, while misrepresenting Izvestia’s Soviet-linked narrative. His pattern of cherry-picking sources to fit false-flag claims—blaming globalists for radicalizing gun owners—exposes a self-serving conspiracy machine that thrives on plausible deniability and manufactured outrage. [Automatically generated summary]
Because as we go through this 2013 investigation, checking into the stuff that Alex did after Sandy Hook and now, more specifically, the Boston bombing.
So before we get down to my birthday episode of Alex Jones' Boston bombing coverage, we've got to take a little moment to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show.
If you're listening out there and you love Blood, Sweat, and Tears or this podcast, you can support our show by going to our website, Knowledgevite.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
Last we left off, Alex is doing everything he can in his power to create various conspiracy theories surrounding the bombing.
He's taking whatever piece of information comes out and molding his theory to match that, as well as manipulating things about those stories to match what he had already determined.
But we start off with Alex basically completely admitting that he sent Dan Badandi to go to the press conferences that he ended up disrupting with his bombastic questioning.
He does not like to make it so overt that he tells Badandi what to do because the times that Dan Badandi went down to Newtown in Connecticut and harassed the victims' families and the lawyers and the people involved in the Sandy Hook situation was after this point, after April 2013.
Yeah, that does seem to indicate that possibly the behaviors that Dan Badanti illustrated and did in Newtown were at the behest of the one releasing the Kraken.
So, the birthday gift, I think, is that, at very least, news has come out that Tamerlan Tsarnav, the older brother in the bombing combo, was a fan of InfoWars.
unidentified
I thought it was that Jakari's head grew two sizes this day.
So as we've talked about on a previous episode, there's that whole Ryson letter situation where the Elvis impersonator got arrested, but he was being set up by a guy in a conspiracy blog.
I'm on record saying they'd probably go through two or three different Patsys.
That's what they tend to do whenever they've actually launched the anthrax or Ryosin attack themselves.
And with Ryacin case crumbling, FBI targets new man.
And then maybe the third or fourth Patsy will be killed in police custody after confessing, of course, if they follow the standard stuff that they tend to do.
So Alex starts talking about how the man, the media, the globalists, they all want you to think that the idea that this was a fake bombing, a false flag, all that good stuff.
They want you to think that's a conspiracy theory.
They just hope that they call that a conspiracy theory, and you don't read the New York Times admitting it or the Washington Post where they've come out and admitted that the FBI foils its own terror plots, but usually stops them before they go through.
In the case of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, it's on record.
AP, New York Times, federal courts why they had to admit it because their own intelligence officer, Ahmad Salam, said, you're setting us up.
You're a real bomb, real detonators.
Now you're going to let the bombing go forward?
I'm not going to be part of killing people.
And they said, well, you're going to go to jail then.
So then he freaked out and clandestinely recorded them days before the bombing and after the bombing.
And then he did a press conference and announced it, and that's why he got paid off $1.4 million to go back to Egypt and shut up instead of being given cement shoes.
So Alex is playing pretty fast and loose with the details of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing here.
But there's just enough truth in what he's saying that he would likely be able to trick anyone who just kind of want to feel like believing in more interesting versions of stories.
Ahmad Salam was an FBI informant who had penetrated the terrorist cell that had planned to detonate a bomb at the World Trade Center.
And later he would go on to testify in the trials that would result in the convictions of Ramzi Youssef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah.
Salam's, he made recordings that were supplied to the FBI, as well as recordings of his own conversations with FBI agents.
And according to the tapes, the FBI did have an idea that this group that Salam had infiltrated was planning to make a bomb and commit a bombing, but the specific details of it and the target were not known.
Agents were apparently not in agreement about the best way to proceed, with one plan being to supply fake explosive powder for the bomb so that they could arrest everyone when they attempted to carry out the bombing.
This was discussed, but the tapes explicitly show that this was not the plan that was chosen.
Instead, they wanted Salam to wear a wire and gather more information about the plot.
Some very important context for what happened in the lead-up to the bombing comes from a 2014 LA Times story, which was one of the first times Salam spoke publicly after about 20 years in hiding.
Quote, he says he has carried a good measure of guilt because shortly before the bombing of the World Trade Center, he refused to wear a hidden FBI microphone and dropped out of the undercover work.
He told agents wearing a wire was too risky and might bring harm to him or someone in his family.
He later regretted the decision, saying he could have saved the six lives lost in that attack.
I could have stopped it, he said, but I failed.
Salam was embedded with these terrorists and provided crucial information about them that led to their arrest, but he didn't entrap them, and his involvement in the case no way demonstrates that this was a government plot or a false flag.
There are countless complete lies that go around about Salam and conspiracy communities that distort real details in order to suit their purposes.
For instance, a book called The Puzzle of Fascism claims that the FBI paid Salam $1 million to, quote, build a bomb.
But that million dollar figure is the amount that he was given by the government for his testimony and part of his induction into the witness protection program.
Other people claim that the FBI replaced the fake explosive powder Salam was using to build a bomb with real powder, but according to every single piece of verifiable information I could find, this is just fabricated detail.
This is mirrored in InfoWars coverage, where they said in a 2010 article, quote, even Wikipedia admits that harmless powder was swapped with real bomb material.
FBI informant Ahmad Salam became alarmed at the introduction of real explosives and recorded his conversations with the FBI, proving they enabled and allowed the bombing to go forward that killed four people.
Weirdly, given the opportunity to ask direct questions about how exactly the government orchestrated the World Trade Center bombing, he spent most of his time trying to create fear about Muslim immigrants.
If Alex believed that this guy is a first-hand expert about false flags and he was involved in one and the bombing at the World Trade Center wasn't actually carried out primarily by Islamic terrorists, why would he interview him about how he shouldn't let Muslims into the U.S. and Europe?
I can't believe I wasted 40 minutes listening to Alex ask Ahmad Salam about how Obama is being secretly blackmailed by the Muslim Brotherhood instead of actually nailing down his conspiracy theory about the World Trade Center bombing.
If you're Alex, that's a real dicey energy for you to do.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Also, Alex probably doesn't want his audience to actually look into the trials that Salam was involved in because in 1995, Salam's actions jeopardized the entire prosecution of a semi-related terrorist cell he'd infiltrated and irrevocably damaged his credibility.
From a New York Times article with the headline, key witness in bomb plot trial admits lying about his exploits, quote, the prosecution's most important witness in the terrorism trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 10 others admitted yesterday that he had lied for years about his background, boasting to federal agents and friends that he was an intelligence officer in the Egyptian army when in reality he'd been a technical officer who never saw combat.
The article goes on, quote, once he said he even lied under oath in a criminal trial in Manhattan, claiming he'd been wounded trying to protect President Anwar Sadat of Egypt when he was assassinated in 1981.
These were things that were brought up in the trial by the prosecution because they were so worried about how brutal cross-examination would be if they didn't defuse Salam's severe credibility problems.
His pattern of lying had the potential to completely destroy the case since he was such a crucial witness.
The actual facts that are available do not support the story Alex is telling on this episode about Ahmad Salam.
And I can't really find evidence that Salam has ever told this version of the story himself.
However, even if he has, I'm not sure it would be wise to believe him unless he could prove it, which is generally my policy with people who have had to admit that they've lied under oath.
That one's usually pretty signatory of it's a bad sign for someone's reliability, but it's also a weirdly common thing on InfoWars for their guests.
And remember that Saudi Arabian that was missing that fit one of the descriptions of the people there at the scene?
He's been found in the river, which I again said, I think you'll start finding some of these people in the river.
The question is, was he in the river beforehand?
Well, there was a local Muslim leader saying the government was involved in provocative terror in Austin, and he bound his arms and legs, slit his wrist and his guts open.
He'd clearly been tortured, and threw himself off the Congress bridge.
And the police immediately said it was a suicide.
I wonder if they would have tied up Breitbart and then slit his wrist and tortured him and then thrown him in a river.
Maybe put him in a steel cage.
He put himself in a cage and had a crane lower him into the river like Houdini, but he didn't get out.
So the Saudi Arabian man that Alex is talking about, like I said, is Sunil Trapathy, the Brown University student who had been missing since March 16th and who dumb-dumb internet sleuths decided to turn into a suspect in the bombing for no reason.
His body was found on April 23rd and he had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing.
His family was deeply traumatized by the experience of having their loved one be missing and then dealing with his death, all while being harassed by dumb-dumb internet sleuths who were convinced that he was suspicious just because of his country of origin.
This news story that Alex is talking about is about this Muslim activist.
It involves a man named Riyadh Hamad, whose body was found in Lady Bird Lake in Austin on April 16th, 2008.
The details that Alex is giving, like his stomach being cut open, I can't find in any official account, but I do know what Alex is lying about.
Alex had Dr. Ibrahim Dramali on his show on April 22nd, 2008 to discuss the case.
And then InfoWars published an article titled, quote, Condition of Riyadh Hamad's Body Contrary to Suicide.
The article discusses Dramali saying that Hamad had been cut down his torso and his brain was missing, which Alex was then reporting as being details that contradicted the police assessment of this being a suicide.
Dr. Ibrahim Dramali was the Imam of the Islamic Center of Greater Austin, who was the one who received Hamad's body after it was released from the medical examiner's office.
Dramali said the body was in, quote, barbaric condition and described it as if, quote, an animal might have attacked him.
He made a formal complaint to the medical examiner's office about the presentation of the body, including the cuts to the brain cavity and the torso, which he said were inadequately sutured.
The stuff about his torso being cut and all the related complaints that Dramali made about the shoddy job, they were about the shoddy job of the medical examiner, not anything to do with the circumstances of Hamad's death.
At least that's the conclusion you'd have to come to, because I've read the autopsy report and it's pretty clear that none of that kind of trauma was present.
He has every reason to know exactly what Dramali was talking about, especially considering it kind of turned into a big deal locally in Austin.
From an article about these circumstances in the Austin Chronicle, quote, Dramali demanded and received a meeting with the medical examiner, Dalanek, and Austin police chief Art Acevedo.
Afterward, Dramali and Dalinek each told the Chronicle that they believe the meeting was useful and should lead to better medical examiner practices.
Dramali said he, quote, cannot accept the apology offered by Dalanik for any misunderstanding or mistakes.
Quote, I believe they were sending us a message, he said, quote, and that what I told the people here at the mosque that they believe they do not have to respect the bodies of Muslims.
It's very clear from the article and from the ensuing interaction with the medical examiner and ASAVeda that this was an issue that arose from feelings of poorly carried out mortuary work that was a disrespect to the Muslim community.
Alex's behavior surrounding this story is profoundly disrespectful, no matter how Hamad died.
As far as actual details go, police reports indicate that Hamad had duct tape on his face and that his hands and legs were bound.
These would lead somebody to believe that this was not a suicide, but in reality, that assumption is probably too hasty.
If someone were definitely wanting to follow through with their attempt at killing themselves and they had thought it through, it makes sense they might try to find ways to limit their ability to change their mind at the last moment or limit their body's instinctual reactions towards survival.
Also, you have to consider that someone might want to commit suicide but not want people to think it was suicide because that's very painful for their loved ones.
Someone in that kind of headspace might try to make things look like a murder.
It's not impossible that was the case.
While it would be presumptuous of me to say that I can definitely say that this was a case of suicide, I cannot see any evidence that I've been able to find that makes me think that it was a murder at all.
It makes all the evidence that's available fit the explanation that the police have offered.
Right, right, right.
Riyadh Hamad was the founder of the Palestinian Children's Welfare Fund, a charity that worked to improve the lives of children living in refugee camps in Palestine.
I can find no evidence of him talking about the government provocateuring terror, as Alex is alleging.
I have no idea where that's coming from.
A couple of months before his death, the FBI and IRS stopped by his apartment and took a ton of files from him about his business and his charity, claiming they had probable cause to investigate him on charges of wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering.
Charges were never brought in the case because he ended up passing away.
So I don't really know what the reality is here.
Whether or not these were legitimate suspicions is kind of secondary to the fact that this sort of a raid would definitely alter a person's mental state.
This was only one of a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence you can find that make it really look like Hamad died by suicide.
In the days before his death, he was dealing with that heightened governmental scrutiny, as well as an apparent increase in racist harassment, as reflected in an email he sent friends where he told of getting late-night phone calls from someone who would ask him where his camel was.
An article from KXAN, local Austin News, said, quote, investigators on Thursday said families and other sources have told them that Hamad was suicidal.
This all sounds very tragic.
In terms of what's relevant for our show, though, Alex appears to be willfully misrepresenting details about this man's death in order to prop up his flimsy conspiracy theories, which I find to be ghoulish.
Whenever people politicize somebody's death in a fucking complete out lie, and then like with Pat Tillman, like the former football player who fucking gave up his football career to go fight in the Iraq war, hated every second of what the government was doing and all that shit, and was killed in friendly fire.
And then the government fucking covered it up and treated him like a paragon of United States colonialist justice.
He's also even just embellishing the hell out of what David Axelrod said.
It's all just nonsense.
So what's going on here is that Alex has completely failed with the whole they're going to blame right wingers narrative.
That was something he'd stressed super hard based on more or less nothing.
And now the rest of the world has moved on.
The real suspect had been captured, and as more information came out, no one was really interested in using the bombing to demonize right wingers.
But Alex still needs that to be true for his victimhood narratives to float.
And luckily, reality threw him a little bit of a bone.
On the afternoon of the 23rd, it was reported that Tamerlan Zarnev had, quote, taken an interest in InfoWars.
I've read a bunch of articles about this in BuzzFeed, Salon, The Atlantic, and AP, and I don't think it's a fair reading of these articles to say that they're blaming Alex for the bombing or even trying to associate him with them unfairly.
But I think it's exactly the sort of impression that Alex would like to make out of them.
I also don't feel like these articles get to the crux of the issue.
In each of these articles, they say that Tamerlin took an interest in Infowars and also mentioned he was trying to find a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
But they treat these as unrelated pieces of information.
As someone who's spent as much time as I have listening to InfoWars, I'm very confident that Tamerlin's interest in Infowars and his interest in the protocols are connected.
The grand conspiracy that Alex yells about for hours a day is so derivative of the protocols of Zion that his show becomes a natural funnel towards it or facilitator of those same ideas.
The AP article about this isn't even about Tamerlin's interest in Infowars.
That's really just a side note, more or less a trivial detail.
The article is about Tamerlin's shift from being a non-religious boxer and music student to a terrorist.
Quote, he began opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
He turned to websites and literature claiming that the CIA was behind the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and that the Jews controlled the world.
An important element of the story is one that perhaps can't really be told by regular news outlets.
And honestly, it might be a minor point, but I consider it to be very key.
And that is that Alex Jones and Infowars are compatible with so many different kinds of extremism and will never, ever do anything to de-radicalize someone.
If you're someone who thinks that the Jews control the world, you'll hear so many things that resonate with your beliefs in Alex's rhetoric.
You can tell yourself that he's smart enough to be subtle so the powerful Jews don't kick him off the air, and that's why he's not overt like you would like him to be.
If you're someone who's inclined towards Islamic extremism, Alex will provide you with all the anti-American government rhetoric you're looking for.
And just for good measure, you'll hear constant denials of high-profile instances of terrorism, saying that they're actually the government attacking itself.
If you're a white supremacist, you'll get your fill of white victimhood narratives all day long, accompanied by an insistence that these white identity narratives aren't racist.
They're common sense.
If you're a militia weirdo, Alex says you covered with all the revisionist American history you need to justify your belief that one day you'll be forced to nobly kill your fellow citizens in order to bring back the glory of the republic.
When I hear a report that a person driven by extremist ideology ended up committing a horrible act, and I hear that they were a fan of Alex's, my immediate response is, yeah, that makes sense.
That doesn't mean that Alex is fully or even partially responsible for what they do, but it's foolish for us not to recognize Alex for what he is, or at least what he was for many years, and that is a radicalization pipeline.
Because here's the thing: no matter what you enter into InfoWars with, regardless of the flavor of your extremism, there will never come a time that Alex tells you to calm down.
There won't be a time when Alex says that your ideas are crazy, because in order to do that, he would need to call his own ideas crazy.
His business model relies on never moving backward toward less extremism.
So when you have someone like Tamerlin who's getting into the ideas that the Jews run the world, he's going to find Infowars, and what he hears there is going to make sense to him.
So that's really what I think is important about this story, this wrinkle of Tamerlin being a fan of Alex's.
It's a recognition of like, yep, that makes sense.
Alex, because of the way he does his broadcast, because of the themes in it, because the tradition that he's building upon, it's something that people of all different stripes of bad ideologies can resonate with.
Yeah, that is really interesting to look back at 2013 when, one, Gawker was still around.
And two, people didn't know quite what Alex Jones was yet.
A lot of people, or maybe not many people did.
Obviously, some people, of course, did, but most people were like, because I remember this one, and I was thinking, is this more like a, this guy's a crazy conspiracy theorist angle?
Is that what they're doing?
Instead of being a anti-Muslim extremist terror attack, it's this guy is actually just like any other weirdo conspiracy theorist that follows Alex Jones.
But now we know, obviously, that Alex Jones is an inspiration for terrorism.
But he also has some other little narratives to pepper in, and one of them is about Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States back in 2013.
So that's the new system in America where, you know, they arrest you, you're walking, they cut your larynx out, and then you're guilty, and then they put that out in the news, so you can't get a fair trial.
And then everybody's chance, USA, USA, USA is due process.
What the USA is based on is flushed directly down the toilet like the babies at the different abortuaries owned by the Attorney General.
By the way, Kermit, not the frog, but the abortionist, they've dropped most of the charges.
The judge is inexplicably dropping most accounts against him.
And even the Associated Press, not known for its accuracy or standing up for Liberty, had to say really no reason.
So first of all, Eric Holder did not own an abortion clinic.
This was a right-wing talking point that was going around at this period in 2013, and Alex has been talking it up a little bit.
The story that's told varies depending on how angry the teller is at Holder.
I've heard variations of it where Holder owns the clinic, he runs the clinic, and that the clinic he owns is one where atrocities have been committed.
This particular narrative is being trotted out at this point in time because Kermit Gosnell is on trial.
And the anti-choice right-wing are trying to craft the narrative where the DOJ is giving him a light sentence, which is naturally explained by Holder owning an abortion clinic.
I say sort of owners because Holder's wife is actually just a trustee in a family trust that holds the property.
She and Eric are legally unable to profit from renting the property to anyone, and the money accrued from the building will be transferred to her nephew and niece along with the building itself because the other co-owner is her sister.
The building was to be given to these children according to a will drawn up by their father prior to his death in 2004, but they can't take ownership of it legally until they're 18.
Right.
So they have this family trust owns this building that houses a reproductive health clinic.
So this is the story that, and the stuff is all getting mixed up because the tenant, one of the doctors who was working at this reproductive clinic did get in trouble for, I believe, Medicare fraud.
So as to the question of Kermit Gosnell, he's not someone I would catalog as an abortion doctor.
He's someone I would say is a murderer.
It's a fair point to say that he was someone who worked in the field of reproductive health, but what he actually did was not appropriate care.
This would be like if there was a dentist killing patients at his dental office, and then we used him to argue that the entire field of dentistry is evil and murderous.
In the course of investigation, detectives uncovered multiple cases of Gosnell killing babies after being delivered and at least one woman whose death he appeared to be responsible for due to negligence.
In January 2011, Gosnell was charged with eight counts of murder, but by the time he went to trial in 2013, a ton of other charges had been added.
When Alex is saying that some of the charges had been dropped, it's because the court felt like the evidence surrounding three of the counts of murder were not strong enough to pursue.
The question came down to whether these babies were born alive.
And in those three cases, the state could not definitively prove that, whereas they could in the other cases.
So Alex has discovered a person in government that he I think he feels like he probably has a bond with because she is out there saying that the Boston bombing was a false flag.
And a New Hampshire lawmaker says Boston bombing was a government job, and then it's because of me.
Now a lawmaker in New Hampshire.
I'm going to try to get her on.
The social media ramblings of a woman who read about conspiracy theory on InfoWars wouldn't usually be newsworthy, but it's the case.
The woman is a lawmaker in New Hampshire state legislature who thinks the government is responsible for the Boston bombings.
Three-term Republican representative Stella Termblay, I believe you pronounced it, first made her case in a scare quotes, saturating Facebook post on Friday, writing to Glenn Beck.
She said, just as you said what happened, top-down, bottom-up, the Boston Marathon was a black ops terrorist attack.
One suspect killed the other one, maybe two before they even have a chance to speak.
Oh, notice they cut out his throat, so that happened.
He's walking out of the boat and then drones are now terrorist attacks by our own government.
Sad day, but wake up to all of us.
First there was a suspect, then there wasn't.
InfoWars broke the story, and they knew they had been found out.
And then the New York magazine demonizes and attacks that.
And again, they're all over the news.
The Tamerlan-linked InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, alleged Boston bomber, was Alex Jones conspiracy fan.
She resigned in June 2013, most likely due to a very considerable backlash to some of her comments, which earned her a rebuke vote from her House colleagues.
The public didn't seem to have too much of a problem with her being a pretty clear sovereign citizen, and I guess everyone just kind of put up with her being a very public idiot.
According to a story about her in the Huffington Post, six months prior to this, her comments about the Boston bombing, Tremblay, quote, sent an email to the other 399 state House members with a doctored video she claimed depicted President Barack Obama saying he was not born in the United States.
Also, quote, in February, Tremblay told a legislative committee that President Woodrow Wilson agreed with Adolf Hitler, even though Wilson died before Hitler rose to power.
The story also points out that Tremblay's history advisor has publicly claimed that, quote, the U.S. government is under the control of Queen Elizabeth II.
This is all just all that, you know, that's just good fun.
A little disagreement across party lines or something.
However, in the aftermath of the Boston bombing, Stella went too far.
It's probably, it probably wouldn't have been too big a deal if she just suggested that the event was a false flag or something like that.
People kind of absorb those things.
And she has a history of saying dumb shit, so it probably would just be another example of that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
The problem really seemed to be that she was accusing victims of faking injuries.
Tremblay went on the Pete Santilli show and argued that if she had had the sort of injuries she saw in those pictures, she'd be screaming.
And thus, these people who are, they're probably actors.
This is what led to the real backlash and the calls for her resignation.
She's a crisis actor conspiracy person.
So the possibility of Alex getting her on the show and being like, hey, she's talking about Infowars stuff, that doesn't bode well for his path down that road.
But the larger picture here is that Alex doesn't know how to deal with his influence.
On the one hand, he seems proud that this New Hampshire House member is referencing him and her conspiracy ramblings on Facebook, while simultaneously he complains about the media saying that Tamerlin was a fan of Infowars.
The reality is that they're both into his work.
Alex was a terrible influence on both.
And, you know, pretty much everybody who falls for his shit.
So, I don't know.
It's very weird to see this.
On the same episode, he's really pissed off about people saying that Tamerlin's his fan and then also being like, Look at this lady who's my fan who's saying the same stuff.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Russian mainstream media is now leaking why the Russians called for an FBI investigation of Tamerlin.
Tsarnev or Tsarnaz or however you pronounce it.
They are now coming out, ladies and gentlemen.
Document Cam, please.
This is in the mainline Russian news and been picked up all across Russia.
Tamerlin recruited via the Georgetown Foundation, Jamestown, U.S. nonprofit.
The board of directors of NGOs previously entered one of the ideologists of U.S. foreign policy, Zbign Brzezinski, who calls for using terror states up against Russia, was engaged in recruiting residents of North Caucasus to work in the interest of the United States and Georgia.
And that's why he had an alias that's confirmed.
That's why the family said it must be a setup because the family are pretty, you know, some of them are some heavy-hitter lawyers and people working for oil companies.
So this is a perfect case of Alex doing the worst job he possibly could as a newscaster.
Here, he's trying to report on a story about why the Russian government warned the United States about Tamerlin Zarnev, but he can't possibly be bothered to be specific about anything.
I tried to search for the article he's talking about, but it's almost impossible.
Like, what does he mean by mainline Russian news?
What is that?
How do I look for that source?
The way Alex delivers his stories is intentionally designed to make it more difficult for his listeners to follow up on anything.
So it's important, and he has a particularly dubious piece of information.
It's key for him to be as vague as possible so they end up hitting a ton of dead ends.
I heard Alex in that clip say, document Cam, please.
So I knew that if I found the video for this episode, I'd at least get a brief shot of the article.
So I hunted down the video, and what a shock.
Alex has completely misread this headline.
The way he reads it is, quote, Tamerlin recruited via the Georgetown Foundation, Jamestown, U.S. nonprofit.
Then he connected to Zbignubrzinski.
The actual headline of the article is, quote, Tamerlin Zarnev recruited via the Georgian Foundation.
The rest of the stuff he's reading is just disconnected bits and pieces from the article.
He's taking out of context because they're words that fit into his propaganda.
Obviously, there's a big difference between Georgetown Foundation and Georgian Foundation.
What?
Georgian is a reference to the Eastern European country, whereas Alex is intentionally misreading that as Georgetown because that's a university that plays a massive role in his conspiracy worldview.
Carol Quigley taught at Georgetown.
And of course, Quigley was on the grand overarching conspiracy.
In this instance, I cannot see this as anything other than an intentional misdirection.
If it wasn't, why would he just say that this is a story in the mainstream Russian press instead of specifying his source?
If he wasn't intentionally lying, why wouldn't he correct himself after saying Georgetown instead of Georgian?
There's a perception he wants his audience to take in, and that is that the globalists recruited Tamerlin, and that perception is basically impossible to create if he reports this story straight.
In reality, this was a story published in Izvestia, which is not a source Alex should trust.
From 1917 to 1991, Izvestia was the official paper of record of the Soviet Union.
So he should probably have some concerns about their editorial positions and processes.
In 2005, the paper was purchased by Gazprom, the energy giant that's majority owned by the Russian government, though it was sold to the national media group in 2008.
Even so, allegations of the paper being used to disseminate false information put out by the Russian government have lingered.
I'm not certain how prevalent an issue that is, but I would prefer to err on the side of not discounting the story just because it comes from what might be a dubious source.
I bring most of this up because Alex should absolutely not trust this paper based on who he is.
They were the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union for the better part of a century.
And even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, they still employed Stalin's personal political cartoonist, Boris Yefimov, until his death in 2008.
I wasn't able to find this actual article, but I did find an article in the interpreter covering the underlying article.
Apparently, Izvestia was alleging that they had received documents from the Georgian Interior Ministry claiming that the Caucasian Fund was in league with the Jamestown Foundation, and they were recruiting residents to advance U.S. interests in the country of Georgia.
The claim that these foundations were actually doing this has not been proven.
And on top of that, the added insinuation that Tamerlin attended one of the meetings they held to recruit people is based on no information past the fact that Tamerlin was in the region at that time.
Even RT's eventual coverage of this story says, quote, Georgia's Ministry of Internal Affairs said it had no knowledge of whether Tsarnev had attended the seminars.
Quote, we don't have such information.
We haven't heard anything of the kind.
We don't know.
Nino Giorbiani, head of the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs press service, told RAI Novosti.
An issue that needs to be pointed out here is the Russian state would have a very vested interest in trying to disrupt Western relations with Georgia at this point in time.
There was a process in motion for Georgia to join NATO, which would have made it the furthest East country to do so at the time, which Russia would naturally see as a threat and an incursion.
Accusing the West of recruiting people to attack Georgia, or attack Russia from Georgia, one of whom ends up becoming a domestic terrorist in the United States, seems like a good method to sow some trouble in the NATO accession plot.
That's just kind of speculation on my part, and I can't really stand behind that as being what's up here.
All I can say is that evidence offered is pretty thin, and I'm generally pretty skeptical of vague information that comes out of Russia about these sorts of regional issues involving states that are leaning towards the West.
I think that you need to really nail down specifics if you're going to traffic in that.
But even leaving all of that aside, the story that Alex is telling doesn't make sense.
This report from the Georgian Interior Ministry, allegedly, it's claiming that Tamerlin was recruited in the summer of 2012.
And that's why Alex is saying this is why the Russian government warned the United States about him.
Alex has just found an unsubstantiated report out of the Russian media that contains enough buzzwords for him to connect Tamberlin with Georgetown and Zabig New Brzezinski, so he's running with it.
This is sloppy work, and it ultimately means nothing.
That's one of the reasons I don't believe that it's true because I think even Alex would recognize I might get this woman killed if I am talking like this on air.
I think that there's also a decent chance that Alex just saw some comments the family had made in other media sources and realizes there's no downside to me just making stuff up.
So he's got this story from Izvestia, this story about this alleged recruitment thing that Tamerlin was in the region at the same time as, so therefore Alex has decided he did go to this.
And it's interesting because the next time he brings it up on the episode, he's completely changed the story, even from the beginning of how he was presenting.
So he hasn't established that, but he's already pivoted because he knows he's made it vague enough that nobody's going to be able to find this underlying story.
And so they're just going to take his word on it because he's a fucking expert.
And consequences that like people saying that I'm tied to the bomber, which I'm able to turn into positives.
Right, right.
Yeah.
Of course, I'm tied.
And it's a real bummer because I fucking hate Dan Badanti.
But at the same time, even if you have this villain guy, you can still clearly see the manipulation that Alex is doing to him.
And when he comes on Alex's show and talks about these personal consequences that he's having, he can't help but feel a little bit for it.
And at the same time, I think more of my empathy goes to his girlfriend or his family who have to make that difficult decision of like, hey, we have a boundary and you've crossed it.
The best thing that Alex or Badanti could do to make this American in origin is to say that it's an FDR quote, since he did say it in a June 19th, 1941 speech. Quote, we too, born to freedom and believing in freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom.
We and all others who believe as deeply as we do would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
However, FDR was actually making a reference to the source of the original quote, which is probably why he said, we and all others who believe as deeply as we do.
The original source of this quote is Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata.
Alex does not like Zapata, mostly because he was involved in peasant revolts and carried out direct action towards land reform.
It's such a bizarre phenomenon among these right-wing idiots.
They fetishize and lionize the founding fathers of our country, and yet so much they think they know about them is not true.
They imagine what their political positions really were and attribute all sorts of completely false quotes to them.
But the trend that I'm starting to see looks a little more sinister than idiocy.
These people are robbing non-white communities of their history.
Alex has repeatedly tried to pass off a Frederick Douglass quote as being a Thomas Jefferson quote.
And here, Dan Badanti is taking a Zapata quote and attributing it to Washington.
They love the words, but they want a white person to be saying them.
And I'm not saying that Alex or Badanti is consciously even doing that.
I think it's entirely possible that they just get all their information from places where the prevailing thought leaders are whitewashing everything.
So people like Alex and Badanti may have no idea they're parroting back a completely incoherent and false version of history that they claim to love so much.
Yeah, I mean, there's an ecosystem that probably repurposes really great things that are part of non-white communities' history and puts them on people like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.
So he's coming up later on the show, which I was like, that's not good.
Because Alex's audience is like, I don't know exactly the timeline of it, but if I understand correctly, by this point, they've largely turned against Lindsey Williams because he is so clearly a shill.
There has to be something that could have been, like, there's got to be somewhere along his life where he could have had this very childlike glee at seeing something exciting and fun and meaningful to him and turn that into something other than turning into a fucking monster that harasses people and then only occasionally pulls out this childlike glee.
I mean, I'm going to be honest, we had rush tickets and a bunch of stuff and probably could have got backstage and stuff, but I didn't go to rush last night because I went back to see with my wife again because she wanted to see it.
Plus, I ran home and saw the kids.
But I went back just to try to see it again when I wasn't tired.
And it's just the whole thing.
It's definitely anti-Illuminati.
It is not a revelation of the method, externalization of the hierarchy.
Alex has made waffly overtures towards the idea that there were definitely actors in the Aurora shooting, sort of dipped his toe a little bit into Sandy Hook, saying that some of these people who are survivors and family members are acting weird.
So I heard this caller, and I'm like, I wonder what Alex is going to do.
And his response really shocked me.
unidentified
I'd like to address a popular photo circulating impossible use of actors involved at the actual bomb site.
The one I'm talking about in particular, the media is really showing this a lot, of the guy with supposedly just lost two of his legs being helped by a guy in a cowboy hat, and he's on a wheelchair.
There's actually a series of photos on this guy, but someone has done sort of like a closer kind of looked at the close-up shots of the bomb site itself, and it shows a hooded man in sunglasses.
What looks like he's like dropping the guy on the ground, and then like all these sort of other suspicious-looking photos where, I mean, there's like, there's no actual blood squirting from this guy's like, you know, two legs on the bottom.
Well, that's because they would have put a tourniquet on it.
Let me just stop something here.
They clearly had actors on 9-11 go and put out the official story over and over and over again that it was Jet Fuel that did it, pancaking, and then it fell into its own footprint.
They clearly announced Building 7 had fallen before it fell.
They false started on that.
But the event was real.
Sandy Hook Aurora was real.
They clearly have had, because we prove this, and I didn't even go with it.
Because I said the media will attack us.
We found two of the people are actually pretty successful actors and admit they're actors and even use their real names.
But I thought, well, maybe real actors could just actually be in the movie theater.
But the guy goes, here's my ticket.
I was really there.
And then he tells the official story.
And the other guy does it.
So it looks like, yes, and the government loves you.
Brought to you by Doritos.
Brought to you by Pepsi.
I mean, it's like product placement, propaganda placement.
Because he's trying to shut down this talk of actors, but at the same time, saying that these people who come out and talk to the media are actors, trying to give you the official story on it.
So, what he's doing, particularly about the Aurora shooting, is insisting that one of these people who claims to have been in the theater and survived the shooting is an actor who the globalists have put there to put out the official story.
Yeah, that is invalidating and taking away this guy's agency and accusing him of being in on a false flag attack that killed a bunch of people.
But I think the more important distinction is he's pushing back on the idea that people are presenting that no one died.
That's the only thing that he seems to really have a relevant difference with the people who are presenting the crisis actor narrative.
Yeah, it's a matter of scale, really.
Because Alex is saying that some of these people who have survived these things are actors who are paid by the globalists to put out the propaganda, right?
These other people are saying all of them are actors.
My sense of it is after, or um, yeah, I don't know.
He's not really clear.
See, that's that's kind of where I'm confused as to because if they were there and it is a real shooting, that seems too risky.
It seems like you wouldn't be able to make sure that the person isn't hit by a stray bullet like in the theater or something.
Yeah, I don't, yeah, I would have to say that it's someone who is paid after, or they would have to have so much awareness of it to know where to be in the building.
Yeah, that it would all, I don't, yeah, I don't know.
So, I think he's saying after so the entire thing is orchestrated by the globalists as a um, I guess, as a, as a, as a mass shooting, yes, then the globalists hire actors in order to tell the media that the what they think happened didn't really happen, and what the globalists say happened is what happened.
Yes, I think, yeah, to give the official globalist narrative, but I do think that it has to be there in order for there to be the credibility of it, right?
I don't know, but I think that I think that the most important thing, because I don't think we're ever going to get to the bottom of that, because Alex is too much.
And if Alex is saying that this guy who survived the Aurora shooting is lying in order to put forth the globalist narrative, it's not a far leap from that to the Sandy Hook families also are doing the same thing.
Of course, they have to.
Because the behavior is the same.
They're in the media giving the globalist talking points about this tragedy.
And so was the guy who survived the Aurora shooting.
It's the same accusation.
It's just a matter of putting it where it's inevitably going to be.
And furthermore, it means that the globalists didn't just engineer a mass shooting, but they engineered exactly how it would go down and then hired people to say or yeah.
That clip, I think, is so crucial since it perfectly illustrates the way Alex jumps to conclusions.
The actual news is a possibly unreliable Russian media outlet has claimed that they have documents from a Georgian interior ministry that shows that Georgian Foundation and the Jamestown Foundation were recruiting people to meddle with Russia.
They don't say anything about the CIA and they don't prove or even specifically assert that Tamerlin was definitely at one of these meetings.
The Russian media outlet did not release these documents and for all we know they may or may not even exist.
But you hear how Alex reports the story.
He says that Tamerlin, quote, on record, documents released in Georgia training under a CIA program.
None of that even relates to the source he's working from.
That's Alex making things up.
And it's so important to understand the little things and why he does what he does.
He's talking like this to make his conclusions, which are just his imagination, sound definitive and authoritative.
It's on record.
So it's definitely true.
The documents are released, which creates the perception that Alex has seen these documents, thus the certainty of his reporting.
None of this is proven, but Alex intentionally does his show in such a way as to make his audience think that he's definitively proven all of these points.
It's something he does literally all the time.
It's how you take baseless conjecture and present it as hard-researched fact.
It's how you act like a dumb conspiracy theorist and pass yourself off as an expert.
It's as easy as manufacturing evidence and misleading your audience about it.
So as soon as the suspects in the marathon bombing had been neutralized as an immediate threat, the attention primarily turned to questions of why did they do what they did.
In interviews with Johar, it became clear that Tamerlin had some religious extremism to him, so investigators wanted to discern where that had come from.
Tamerlin's father, Ruslan, told CNN of a man named Misha, who is said to have been Tamerlin's teacher, who had brainwashed him into an extreme version of Islam.
Christian Carroll, a writer for the New York Review of Books, tracked Misha down and reported on their conversation.
Misha's real name was Mikhail Alekhdurov, and he claimed that he thought that though he knew Tamerlin, if he'd actually been his teacher as it was being alleged, he would have stopped him from carrying out the bombing and absolutely did not support his actions.
Misha agreed to cooperate with the FBI, and officials came out and announced that they could find no link between him and the bombing.
In the end, Misha was a bit of a red herring, though the attention on him kind of makes sense given the media tone and all the confusion surrounding that.
Tamerlin's father had indicated that Misha was responsible for radicalizing his son, but he only knew him by this pseudonym.
And that's just red meat for the media.
A shadowy, mysterious figure is perfect for creating intrigue, so I don't know how they could have resisted reporting on this a ton.
Alex is suggesting that Misha is in Langley because that's shorthand for the CIA.
He's trying to pretend that Misha is a CIA operative, which is why Misha would say that the Tsarnev brothers were fans of InfoWars.
A few days after this point we're at, he was found living in an apartment in West Warwick, Rhode Island with his elderly parents.
Alex has created the narrative that Tamerlin was working with the CIA thanks to this shoddy story from Izvestia, so now anyone associated with him must also be a CIA.
This is bad work.
But the larger structural problem with this narrative is that Misha wasn't the one who said Tamerlin was into InfoWars.
That information came from El Nizra Kushigov, who was Tamerlin's sister's ex-husband.
That bit of information about Tamerlin's media diet is completely separate from the thread about his possible connection with Misha.
But Alex wants to muddy the water.
And the reason he wants to do that is because at this point, on the 24th, the ex-brother-in-law is a known quantity.
He's someone that definitely exists in a tangible way, but Misha does not.
As of April 24th, Misha only really exists as someone who's been talked about but hasn't been found.
So Alex can make up anything he wants about them.
This is a mini version of his larger content about the bombings.
Alex thrives on manufacturing certainty in places where reality reflects vagueness.
Because Misha is an unknown quantity that's being reported as a mysterious figure by the media, it's in Alex's best interest to attach the idea that Tamerlin was into InfoWars to him.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding Misha, Alex can claim with no evidence that he's CIA.
And that means that the claim that Tamerlin liked InfoWars is probably coming from the CIA because they were behind the bombings, which is all meant to demonize the Patriots after all.
There's a conclusion that he needs to arrive at, and he molds reality to support that conclusion.
In the case of his entire coverage of the bombing, the conclusion that must be reached is that this was a false flag that was meant to be blamed on patriots and gun owners.
There's no evidence that this is the case, and no one seems to be blaming right-wingers at all.
But Alex needs something to justify his narratives, and this will do just fine.
Instead of accepting the very likely reality that someone who is deeply interested in the protocols of the Elders of Zion would also find his broadcast appealing, mostly because they're almost identical in theme, Alex has to deflect.
It cannot be possible that this guy was a fan, so it must be the case that the claim that he's a fan is coming from the globalists who see this as their best chance to blame the Patriots for the bombing in some way after all.
I kind of understand why he would do this, considering that the alternative is publicly owning up to the fact that his show appeals to terrorists.
I think what he's saying is hard to deal with is like he's got his narrative and there's just too much information coming out that he has to incorporate.
Chambliss, a law enforcement agency, may have had info about bombing.
Boston bombing in advance.
Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss told Channel 2 Action News last night that the law enforcement agency may have had information in advance of the Boston bombings that wasn't properly shared.
Oh, gee, think so?
And now it's come out in the Russian news, in mainline news, Boston bombers role in the CIA and Schetchen Terror.
So Alex is completely twisting the comments that Saxby Chambliss made about the law enforcement agency having advance warning about the bombing.
This is specifically about the warnings that the Russian government gave about Tamerlin back in 2011 and how that information didn't get shared to all the places that it might have been helpful for it to get to.
The way Alex reads this story throughout the show, it's meant to imply that the law enforcement agency in question had specific foreknowledge about the bombing and didn't do anything to stop it, which is absolutely not what Chambliss was alleging, nor is there any evidence of this conclusion that's been produced.
There was a failure of information sharing that it possibly could have contributed to Tamerlin falling off relevant radars.
It's unclear how much of a contribution that had in terms of allowing the bombing to happen, but it's definitely a productive avenue for conversation after the bombing.
It's just unfortunate that media outlets decided to present this information with headlines like, quote, Chambliss, law enforcement agency, might have had info about Boston bombing in advance.
We were drinking every time a state went Democrat and went for Obama.
And just because earlier in the night Saxby Chambliss had won a race, we had no idea who he was, but the name was so great that every time we drank, we cheered.
This is a straw man that Alex is deploying to attack because he knows better than to engage with the actual reality.
Were Alex to discuss this story as it's actually being reported, he'd have to bring up that Tamerlin was into the protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that would bring up some difficult questions because the protocols are so thematically connected to his worldview.
Discussing this issue in reality would force him to address the fact that the evil globalists he yells about are real similar in characterization and in goals with the Elders of Zion, which is a really tough line for Alex.
Should he say that the protocols are real?
That would take his show into a pretty overtly anti-Semitic place, and I'm not sure he thinks that's good for business.
Maybe he could say that they're real, but it's not about the Jews.
That seems like a little bit too hard for him to pull off, and it's embarrassing when other people have tried that in the past.
And trying to thread that needle would probably blow up in his face.
Plus, he'd probably be accused of ripping off Bill Cooper.
So what option would be left?
Saying the protocols are fake?
If that's the case, then this historical forgery that it's a complete hoax meant to demonize the Jews, and it has staggering overlap with his rhetoric and worldview.
What does that mean for the InfoWar?
These are not questions that Alex is equipped to deal with.
So instead of recognizing that Tamerlin had an interest in the protocols and in InfoWars, probably for similar reasons, he just pretends that everyone is saying that Infowars made Tamerlin into a terrorist.
Just like that, he's off the hook for the hard questions, and he's created a completely false accusation that he can get indignant about people making.
Plus, it validates the narratives about the globalists finding a way to blame the Patriots for the bombing.
It's exactly what he needs to do, but ultimately, it's painfully transparent.
So here, Alex has one of his employees write an article desperately trying to create another straw man to obfuscate the connection between his work and Tamerlin.
This time, the goal is to say an interest in Infowars is the same thing as an interest in Spider-Man.
Therefore, if you're saying that it's notable that Tamerlin was into InfoWars, it's equally relevant that he was into Spider-Man.
The issue with Tamerlin taking an interest in Infowars is that it speaks to the worldview that Tamerlan was cultivating.
According to that report in the Associated Press, his family members said that he changed a bit in the years before the bombing, becoming convinced of a broad range of conspiracy theories.
He became a 9-11 truther and was dabbling in these ideas that Jews secretly run the world.
He began to have a very anti-U.S. government stance to the point where people around him took notice.
While it isn't necessarily fair to say that InfoWars is responsible for radicalizing Tamerlan, it's equally unfair to pretend that it's not part of the equation, according to Tamerlin's ex-brother-in-law, not Misha, the way Alex is trying to present.
The fascination with conspiracy theories, particularly anti-government ones, runs a very parallel track with getting into InfoWars.
Believing that Jews run the world and becoming interested in the protocols of Elders of Zion is absolutely compatible with the themes disseminated by Infowars, even if Alex doesn't say the Jews are secretly behind everything.
The themes are the same.
The anti-Semitic tropes are used to characterize the globalists to an extent that most people who are getting into anti-Semitism could be forgiven if they heard what Alex said as code.
This is why an interest in InfoWars is relevant and an interest in Spider-Man is not.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that InfoWars or Alex radicalized Tamerlan.
I don't have anywhere near the amount of evidence I would need to make that kind of claim.
I am saying that if Alex were a sincere actor in the world, he would respond to things like this differently.
He wouldn't get defensive and create multiple defense narratives about why it means nothing that Tamerlin liked Infowars, and he probably didn't, because that's just coming from Misha, who's probably CIA.
He would reflect on what he's doing and ask hard questions, particularly, what is it about what I do that makes it attractive to people who subscribe to ideologies I profess not to support?
What unexamined parts of my work are compatible with toxic and abhorrent beliefs like those expressed by the protocols?
And what can I do better to make sure my message that I'm sending isn't misunderstood as support of those ideologies?
Alex can't reflect because to reflect is to introduce the possibility he's wrong about something.
And if he's wrong about something, that introduces the possibility he's wrong about everything.
It's so important for him to protect those sorts of things because they're on the edges where he's most vulnerable.
He has to protect his infallibility, which drives him to do absurd, childish nonsense like this, like making his writers put out articles about how an interest in Spider-Man is equivalent to an interest in an extremist right-wing propaganda outlet.
it's not transparent and it's not the like the thing about that is that it is not the it's not like info wars makes him hate the government or whatever it is like that like Like, I'm extremely anti-U.S. government.
The pathways that you take are evidence of InfoWars' influence, not the initial starting point.
You go to InfoWars because you're already anti-U.S. government.
And fantasies, delusions about those movies being real.
And so it's just, you know, it all makes total sense.
And the way Alex is doing this makes total sense, too, because Dealing with these things in a more realistic way is very, very threatening to the way he presents his show and his business.
So, obviously, the most threatening thing to him is people treating him realistically.
It's not a threat for them to attack him in the ways that, let's say, the virulently anti-Semitic people do when they say that he works for Israel as a shower of the Jews.
A nuanced understanding of the thematic connections between him and the ideologies that do underlie people who end up committing extremist acts is very threatening to him.
So I went and found the full version of this episode and I listened to the Lindsey Williams interview.
It seems pretty par for the course for him, actually.
Oh, but it's also pretty embarrassing.
Williams is just doing his normal shtick of pretending to have this elite insider information that he uses to issue dire warnings about the coming financial collapse.
All of his predictions that he makes are stupid and they're very clearly, his appearance is very clearly, explicitly about trying to sell his DVDs.
I suspect, however, in this case, Lindsey Williams went too far.
Alex is fine with Lindsay selling his DVDs as a byproduct of him coming on the show to give Alex quote-unquote inside information from this quote-unquote elite source of his that is, of course, imaginary.
But Alex can't accept the inverse.
He can't allow the appearance to be that Lindsay is primarily there to sell DVDs and that he's doing that by pretending to have this source.
And I think Lindsay crossed the line.
Here's how that interview ends.
I think it speaks volumes and why it got cut out of the episode that got released.
Also, I should say that what we listen to here is the third time in like 15 minutes that Lindsay launched into a sales pitch.
Because he says there at the end that, like, I infomercial for Longevity sometimes because I believe in that stuff, which seems to imply that he doesn't believe in Lindsay's stuff.
So when Alex says that it won't cure cancer, that's referencing back to just like a little bit earlier when he was saying about Lindsay, I'm not into the cancer cure.
I think this is really very fascinating to me because you have the first thing, you know, you got the Tamerlin is a fan of InfoWars, and that's fascinating.
Seeing how Alex responds to that is really interesting.
But then out of nowhere, you got this Izvestia story, this Russian news story that you see how Alex changes it.
You see how he manipulates the details.
He's so vague about the sources.
People can't, like his listeners can't verify anything that he's saying.
He turns it into proof, documents released.
Everything is proven that Tamerlin was recruited by the CIA in Georgia.
Then he brings back the Tamerlan was a fan of InfoWars narrative, connects it to this Misha character, and integrates that with the Isvestia story in order to make it so everything is the CIA.
They're the ones who are saying that Tamerlin was a fan of InfoWars in order to satisfy Alex's prophecy that they were going to find a way to blame the Patriots.
But that's the same thing he's been doing with his whole bombing.
He's been on the seat of his pants for quite a while.
And I think that element of it made this episode a little bit more interesting than some of the last couple days because those have been so like standard Alex.
Yeah.
Whereas this is a little bit more, it feels a little more improvisational.
You can see the instincts a little more than just the like, all right, boring, dumb propaganda, whoop-de-shit, dumb conspiracy.