Knowledge Fight’s #375 dissects Alex Jones’ November 29, 2019, interview with E. Michael Jones—a neo-Nazi-adjacent anti-Semite—where he promoted claims like Jews orchestrating Middle East wars, pornography as "psychological warfare," and even framing the ADL’s origins around Leo Frank’s lynching. Jones dodged direct bigotry by blaming "globalists" or "the left," yet amplified E. Michael’s Jewish Revolutionary Spirit book, echoing classic anti-Semitic tropes. The hosts conclude Jones either enables extremism or fails to recognize it, risking normalizing dangerous conspiracy theories for his audience. [Automatically generated summary]
knowledgefight Dan and Jordan I am sweating knowledgefight.com it's time to pray I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys.
I'm from southern Illinois, which is not too far away from...
Yeah, whatever.
But yeah, I remember all of them were about fishing, because my grandpa was huge into fishing, to the point where he took my grandma fishing on their honeymoon.
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I enjoy what these gents do, I'd like to sign up and support the show, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show, we would appreciate it.
So, Jordan, today we are going over November 29th, 2019, and actually we're not going over the whole episode because a lot of it is not nearly as important as an interview that Alex has on that show.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
On our last episode, we saw Alex go pretty hard against the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, and in the process of doing that, some of his callers called in expressing a kind of more overt anti-Semitic idea.
Alex, within a matter of days, four days, in fact, three days, if you count 25th as one day, or whatever, three business days, Alex has E. Michael Jones as a guest on his show.
And there's some really problem, I don't know, I don't want to say problematic, because that seems trite.
There's some real problems with him having him on the show.
So it should come as no surprise that Alex is lying about this Virginia bill.
This is reporting that he's basing on a story that was originally put out by Mike Adams at Natural News that argued that a proposed bill would outlaw all firearms training and all martial arts.
You could get that sense from the bill if you don't read it.
Since it does say that it would be unlawful if you, quote, That could definitely include a lot of martial arts and definitely would cover pretty much all shooting range classes.
At this point, when I was looking into it, it's still a proposed bill.
I have no idea.
The thing that's notable about this is you can find tons of right-wing blogs picking up this story and reporting on it as tyranny coming out into the open.
They all have a very similar tone.
There's a write-up about this on tacticalshit.com, which includes a picture of an Instagram post about the bill saying, quote, You want to start the bug?
This is how and why you start the bug.
A comment on Political Bullpen says, quote, This just might be what kicks off the Second Civil War.
These two people are saying the same thing, since Boogaloo has recently become shorthand that right-wing extremists use to flippantly discuss the coming Second Civil War.
It's just another in a long string of ways that these dangerous fucks have tried to normalize their fantasies of justified violence and turn discussion of them into catchy memes that can minimize the idea of killing each other.
In one clip, my worst fears about the direction of Alex Jones' show, the way it's trending, were completely confirmed.
The very idea that he would have E. Michael Jones on as a guest, and given that sort of introduction, is so revealing about the way things are going.
For one thing, E. Michael Jones is a well-documented anti-Semite.
When Alex says that this guy is an expert on societal collapse, it would probably be worthwhile to point out to his audience that he thinks society is collapsing because of the Jews.
In his publication, The Jews and Moral Subversion, E. Michael Jones says there is a group that is responsible for virtually every social ill in our day, from the wars in the Middle East to pornography and gay marriage at home.
Namely, the Jews, around whose evil machinations the axis of history turns.
When Alex went off on his jag the other day about the ADL and Sacha Baron Cohen's speech, you could very clearly see that his audience took that as a green light to bring some hardcore anti-Jewish talking points into the conversation.
That in and of itself isn't really surprising, nor was it really that surprising that one of his callers would suggest that he should interview E. Michael Jones.
What is surprising is that Alex not only said, that sounds like a good idea, that he followed through with the booking in a matter of days.
This tells me a number of things, any of which could be possible.
It may be the case that Alex knows who this guy is and still wanted to have him on, which would be fucked up.
It may be the case that he didn't know who he was, but decided to book him without doing any research.
Which would be also pretty fucked up.
But even if that is the case, that means that there's literally no one working at InfoWars who decided to step in and say, Alex, this is not a good booking.
I know you're mad at Sacha Baron Cohen right now, but this is not the way to go about doing it.
I'm inclined to believe that if you're considering having E. Michael Jones on your show, there's no way you can possibly claim ignorance of who he is and what he stands for.
His track record is long and very overt.
In 2007, he gave a speech at the DC Press Club at a memorial for Samuel T. Francis, himself a profound racist alleged journalist.
This event was supposed to be aired on C-SPAN.
It never aired, according to people who were in attendance, because E. Michael Jones gave a shockingly offensive speech.
I should point out, the people who called the speech shockingly offensive were people who worked for organizations like the white nationalist publication V-Dare.
They were at a memorial for a man who once wrote, quote, breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction.
And E. Michael Jones made them say, well, that's a bit much.
Quote, if what's left of the WASP establishment or the paleoconservatives or other men of goodwill want to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is in this battle.
In case you're curious, he later clarifies, quote, the real enemy, it turns out, was the revolutionary Jew.
This was a big deal in conservative circles 12 years ago, and Jones has not toned it down at all since that point.
There's literally zero excuse to have him on your show unless you're an anti-Semite, or possibly in the rare circumstance that you think you're capable of having a confrontational interview with him, even though I really don't think that's even a great idea.
Ever since he was kicked off social media, since his feelings about Trump have started to waffle a little bit, it's kind of been like watching a coin flip.
Heads, he goes back to being a coded speech conspiracy guy who's mad that three people voted in the Federal Reserve and he gets to hang out with Ron Paul's brother.
Tails, he becomes the worst version of himself possible.
When I was doing some research for a 2013 episode, I came across an article in the Daily Beast about the tendency of people to subscribe to conspiracy theories.
The main thesis is a familiar one.
Basically, by ascribing guilt for a largely random event to a defined enemy, you can subconsciously feel more in control of your life.
However, the article included a quote from Stephen Lewandowski, a professor of psychology from the University of Western Australia, who has dedicated a good bit of his time to studying the conspiracy community.
And I think his comments are particularly relevant right now.
Lewandowski is discussing the dynamic at play with conspiracy peddlers like Alex or Glenn Beck, and how the conspiracy economy is comprised of both these peddlers and of consumers of the information.
And these groups, their motivations for engaging with conspiracies might be completely different.
He suggests it's possible that these people like Alex and Glenn Beck may be motivated by money or attention, going on to say, quote, I can't look inside their heads, but there's a lot of suggestive evidence that people say crazy things sometimes just to be noticed.
I know this from my work on climate change denial.
Because if no one is listening to these guys, or fewer people are listening to them, the more over the top they go, and the crazier their pronouncements become.
I think they're watching themselves being ignored, and that's the one thing they hate.
So they crank up the volume and spread their falsehoods and nonsense.
I think that might be some of what's going on here as well.
He's talking about Glenn Beck's behavior after the Boston bombing and Alex's as well.
In many ways, we've already seen this playing out on his show.
In the past year, his rhetoric has escalated in a lot of horrifying ways.
The disgusting, over-the-top obsession with delivering elaborate fantasies about kids being murdered and his demon voice is just one of many manifestations of that.
I don't know how else to describe so much of what Alex is doing these days other than him cranking up the volume.
He seems to be being ignored and he can't tolerate that.
And I think that this interview, accepting it, doing it, I can't see it as much else.
Other than that also.
Because you can't really claim ignorance.
I mean, you can, but I'm not sure I believe you.
Before we get into this, I need to make clear that Alex Jones and E. Michael Jones are not capable of having a coherent conversation.
Because they're both playing games, but they're kind of different games.
Alex Jones is super into white identity and Christian identity.
He extols the virtue of the West, which we've heard him explain repeatedly as more or less just code for white cultures.
There's a heavy racial element to what drives Alex.
While it's true that his worldview is structurally supported by historical antisemitism, Yeah.
In fact, he believes that if you identify by your race, you're falling for a Jewish trick.
As he put it, quote, He adheres to a fundamentalist version of Catholicism and views most of the world's history as a battle between Judaism and the Catholic Church, where all of the criticisms you might have about the Catholic Church are really just things that the Jews were at fault for.
Sure, there was that whole thing about priests molesting kids, but they only did that because the Jews sexualized society.
One of the hallmarks of Jones'rhetoric is the idea of logos.
If you listen to enough anti-Semitic-leaning right-wing content, like Owen Benjamin, for instance, you'll hear the word come up a bunch.
Generally, as someone saying that logos is rising.
And when you do, that's a reference to E. Michael Jones.
The foundation of his worldview is that the Jews killed Christ, who was a pure manifestation of logos, essentially reason in the universe and that kind of thing.
And because they did that, they're all evil.
He literally expressed this on a podcast called Red Pill Religion, saying, quote, the Jewish people as a group called for the death of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish people as a group killed Christ, and they are enemies of the entire human race.
I would say that he's had every opportunity in the course of his career to understand where his beliefs come from, and he has either refused to or never looked.
So, whatever the case is, it really doesn't matter.
The beginning of their conversation between the two Joneses, it centers primarily around the ADL, which adds an extra layer of difficulty in trying to parse out what these people are saying.
For Alex, when he complains about the ADL, he's really complaining about the globalists.
For E. Michael, when he complains about the ADL, he's talking about Jews in general.
There's even a further blurring that complicates things, and that is that E. Michael Jones plays kind of fast and loose when he's talking about what he means when he says the Jews.
He doesn't believe that Jewish is an ethnic identity, so his position seems to be that he's only against religious Jews.
But that doesn't make any sense, given that so many of the Jewish organizations that he's in conflict with aren't religious organizations.
It's all very complicated.
I promise I'm going to try my best to maneuver some of this pretty dicey territory.
But I want to apologize up front if I make any missteps along the way.
Ultimately, for Alex and E. Michael, both of their positions are rooted in historical anti-Semitism.
So they're able to have a conversation that on the surface appears to make sense to both of them.
But they're talking around different things.
And I don't know how much I believe Alex isn't aware of that.
My advice for Alex, if I was an employee at Infowars, let's say maybe his dad who works, I don't know if his dad still works in HR, but I'd like to imagine he still does.
Even if I didn't work at Infowars and I was Alex's dad, I would have told him, if you're going to go on the attack against the ADL, the last guest you should have on to help you is someone with decades-long history of overt agro-antisemitism.
You could make the argument, you know, like, if you just look at this from an external perspective, you could make the argument that Alex just wants to have this guy on the same way he wanted to have David Duke on back in 2015.
As a way of trying to debate someone who also, you know, they all believe in a grand conspiracy.
You have different ideas about the nature of the conspiracy.
If you listen to that intro, that is not the sort of thing Alex is doing here.
This is a friendly, very respectful introduction.
It is not confrontational.
And to me, this is a massive disappointment.
It was a couple years ago, Alex had David Duke on, and all he wanted to do was try and be like, hey, we both believe in this stuff, but you're bogged down in the race stuff.
So the first lie here is him saying that Sacha Baron Cohen's speech included him saying that there needs to be censorship online and demands that the ADL be in charge of that censorship.
You could probably make an argument that he was calling for a form of online censorship in as much as a platform like Facebook can very easily strike things like Holocaust denial from their platform easily, without infringing on anyone's right to free speech.
It's a matter of disentangling the idea of censorship from the idea of oppression.
Sometimes censorship is appropriate.
All of that aside, in his speech, Cohen was not demanding that the ADL be in charge of online censorship.
That's probably how someone like E. Michael Jones might feel.
Well, he was speaking to a Jewish-led organization, so naturally the only thing that he could assume is that he wants the ADL to control all censorship and all speech anywhere, Dan!
Second lie, Jones is very clearly trying to play fast and loose with who is doing what to whom.
Saying that Cohen was saying that if these tech companies didn't go along with the ADL's censorship demands, then we're going to throw you in jail.
That's specifically meant to subconsciously implant the idea in the listener's head that the ADL has the authority to send you to jail.
In reality, it's very clear if you listen to the speech that Cohen was advocating for the passage of laws or regulations that would place some responsibility on these social media platforms for atrocities that are facilitated by them.
I know, again, that to someone like E. Michael Jones, that feels like the ADL sending you to jail if they don't like your free speech, but it's a complete misrepresentation of what's being said.
Saying that the governor fled to New York, whereupon the Jewish media turned him into a hero, is a bit of a red flag on its own.
If Alex didn't realize it already, only a minute into this interview, he has every reason to think he's in deep trouble.
This guy is clearly a much bolder brand of anti-Semite than he's used to dealing with, and he's also very slick.
There's a real important piece of the case of Leo Frank that E. Michael Jones is just kind of glossing over here, and that's that after these men that he's talking about, and as far as I can tell, there were less than 2,000 of them, but the way he's putting it, they quote, approached the governor's mansion.
After that, they broke into the prison Frank was being held in, seized him, and lynched him.
They were proud of themselves, even posing for pictures along the way in a disgusting display of mob activity.
While it is true that Leo Frank was convicted of the murder of this 13-year-old Mary Fagan, and it is true that his appeals were rejected, it's the almost universal consensus among historians that he was probably innocent, and at the very least did not get a fair trial.
The case of Leo Frank is endlessly complicated, and it would be pretty impossible for me to lay out every detail about it here, so the best I can do is point out some places where E. Michael Jones' version are less than honest.
He says that the ADL was, quote, founded to protect a pedophile.
In this case, Frank is the alleged pedophile.
There's no evidence other than rumor that Frank was sexually involved with this girl.
Though he was convicted of murder, sexual assault charges were never brought against him, and that's never been proven.
Jones is further saying that the ADL was founded to defend Leo Frank, and that's somewhat disingenuous.
It is true that the ADL was founded after Frank was convicted, and that his conviction was one of the issues cited when they formed.
It wasn't like they created this organization specifically to protect him, and now it's grown into what it is today.
If you look at the history of the case and the trial that led to the conviction, you can easily see how this is the sort of thing that could be a signpost about some dangerous societal attitudes, regardless of the outcome or even Frank's personal guilt or innocence.
For instance, as the trial was proceeding, groups of people would rally around the courthouse chanting, Hang the Jew.
The environment in Georgia was so openly hostile to Jews that according to the Times of Israel, after Frank's lynching, half the state's Jewish population left the state.
Yeah, this is more what the ADL was formed in response to, and it's absurd to imagine that E. Michael Jones doesn't realize that.
He's creating a scapegoat out of Leo Frank in the same way that lynch mob did back in 1915.
Interestingly, Jones seems to ignore the other group that grew out of this case, which is the second Ku Klux Klan, which was relaunched in Stone Mountain, Georgia at a meeting slash cross-burning that was attended by some of the very men who lynched Leo Frank.
These are elements of the story that E. Michael Jones is intentionally leaving out because he's trying to recruit.
This is the stuff that's fine to know once you're in the door, but you don't want people to know it when they're just first taking in the message.
You want to ignore the fact that Leo Frank was probably innocent and was lynched by a number of people who would go on to be a part of the formation of the second clan because those details would tend to turn uninitiated people off from the message you're trying to push.
So weird for E. Michael Jones to use Meyer Lansky as his next example of a Jewish criminal the ADL tried to defend.
Mayor Lansky was a big-time mob figure who was associated with people like Lucky Luciano and was in deep with organized crime, to be sure.
He was mostly operating gambling rackets and made a ton of money in that hustle.
In 1970, facing prosecution, he fled to Israel, which is exactly what neo-Nazis say all Jewish people get to do.
Because of the right of return, they can just commit whatever crimes they want, and when it gets too hot, they go to Israel and they can hide out there.
But that's not what happened.
Israel deported Lansky back to the United States to stand trial where he was acquitted.
And most sources I can find say it was because he was too ill to stand trial.
I guess the fact that he got extradited is what Jones means when he says it didn't work that time, but honestly, I think his point is just incoherent.
It might be worth noting that the neo-Nazi crowd really, really doesn't like Mayor Lansky.
I have a suspicion that these folks might be a little biased about the guy, because outside of being a famous mobster, he spent a good amount of his time busting heads at American Nazi rallies.
Here's Lansky describing how he disrupted a brown shirt rally in Manhattan.
Quote, the stage was decorated with a swastika and a picture of Hitler.
The speakers started ranting.
There were only 15 of us, but we went into action.
We threw some of them out of windows.
Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out.
We chased them and beat them up.
Interestingly, you can see how publications like the National Vanguard spin this.
Lansky's gang took time off from clipping suckers and murdering rivals to break up perfectly legal meetings of the pro-white and pro-national socialist German-American Bund.
They even presented it as a case of these white rally-goers being deprived of their free speech.
Which, that rhetorical strategy, of course, has deep roots and continues to this day in these.
So, you know, you can even see overlap with that, like this national vanguard idea of, like, you know, hey, these Nazis just wanted to have a rally, and then these Jews deprive them of their free speech.
So far, the two criminals E. Michael Jones is saying that the ADL was set up to protect are a probably wrongly convicted man who was subsequently lynched by future Klansmen and by far the most prominent person who fought back against the American Nazi Party during World War II.
He has a third example, a guy named Moe Dalitz, who is a bootlegger and eventual casino guy.
I don't really understand the point Jones is trying to make about him.
I think it's just that the ADL awarded him their Torch of Liberty Award, and Jones is convinced that it's just because he gave them a bunch of money.
Something that bears mentioning is that what E. Michael Jones is putting out unchallenged on Alex's show right now is identical to what's put out by the National Vanguard.
Their article about the ADL uses all of these same examples and has almost an identical tone.
The National Vanguard is an explicitly neo-Nazi organization.
Alex legitimately might as well have the National Vanguard as a guest on his show.
This is a group set up by mafia, knowing that Americans don't want to persecute people for religion or for race or anything.
To then, as you said, be a money laundering operation for international mafia, international crime, to go after anyone that exposes any of these criminal activities.
And now this mafia wants to arrest the big tech heads.
This is extortion.
It's a racket.
Just like the mafia says, I'll burn down your grocery store if you don't pay me protection money.
They're saying to Mark Zuckerberg, who, by the way, is Jewish, is a Jewish man, being threatened with arrest if he doesn't give this group of pirates full control over his company.
That rebuttal is really dumb, but the only reason Alex is saying this, I believe, I think, is that he can tell he's talking to an antisemite about the ADL.
That's why he's stressing that he's not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel and how Zuckerberg is Jewish.
I suspect that that's a subtle way for Alex to hint to E. Michael to speak in the Queen's English, if you will.
It's kind of a way of saying, don't say the things you want to say without having the discomfort of that actual conversation on air.
And if you know anything about the case of Leo Frank, like the fact that he's describing the events that way and leaving out the part where he was lynched, I think that speaks volumes on its own, too.
I remember when I was in my really early 20s, like 2022, something like that, watching C-Lab 2021, which is one of...
I loved that show, and there was an episode that centered around all these conspiracy theories, and the joke was that the people controlling everything were the five Jew bankers, right?
And I thought that was funny, because that seems so over-the-top and stupid to me.
So, also, Tim Cook was given the Courage Against Hate Award by the ADL in 2018, but it's complete bullshit for Alex to claim that he got it because he silenced Alex.
The reasons cited for his receiving the award were that he matches his employees' donations to charitable organizations, the fact that he responded to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville head-on with the employees at Apple in condemnation, and that he's been a voice of support consistently for LGBTQ and immigrant rights.
All the reasons that Tim Cook received this award are things that Alex stands against.
That is fair enough.
But Alex trying to turn this into some transactional thing where the ADL wanted Alex silenced and Tim Cook did it for them so he gets an award, that's childish bullshit.
I have no idea what he Michael Jones said recently to draw this rebuke, but based on the sort of things he said in the past, I really don't think it was an undeserved rebuke.
So he can claim all he wants that it's just this Jewish organization that's out to get him, but it's not.
It's everyone except anti-Semites.
In 2004, the Catholic League put out a statement saying, quote, the Catholic League condemns Jones's anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Catholic theology.
One thing is clear.
There are many choice terms one can use to describe Jones's view of salvation history.
See, I just don't see any Catholic voices out here denouncing this kind of behavior.
I don't see...
Why is it that every time we have some kind of radical Islamic terrorist, all of Islam comes out and announces to everybody that we don't support this kind of behavior, but then a Catholic does it, and I don't hear any voices.
If you need to really cut through the bullshit, I should probably tell you that in 2003, E. Michael Jones put out a CD called Watching MTV, Neo-Ethnic Songs and Dances, which included a track called Fear the Jews.
This man is not interested in any sort of corruption in the ADL or not being able to respond or anything like that.
He's a pure, to his core, anti-Semite.
And what Alex is doing here is selling him to his audience.
It's a disgusting display, and I honestly generally would say I can't say I'm super surprised, but I am kind of surprised.
So if you listen to that clip, one thing that's very important to point out is the only evidence for E. Michael Jones' theory is his imagination.
He's decided that it's the case that this is pushback because he thinks that the tech companies are getting mad at the ADL for being so controlling and letting them look like the bad guys for censoring people.
Jones is just assuming that because of his own feelings.
Nothing else.
That clip is a clear instance of Jones pushing a sort of Jewish puppet master narrative, which is a hallmark of traditional anti-Semitism.
From the protocols on down to everything Alex Jones says about George Soros, the notion that a shadowy group of elite Jewish people control things from behind the scenes, your five Jewish bankers, is one of the most lingering characterizations that's used to incite people against Jews.
It preys on resentment and unfulfilled desires, transforming what isn't going right in your life from being a product of circumstance into the result of Jewish meddling.
That's a worldview that's being perpetuated by Jones on this show, and it's being supported, seconded, and sold by Alex.
This is something I want to make crystal clear.
E. Michael Jones is an outright anti-Semite.
Alex Jones may or may not have actual feelings about Jewish people, but has a worldview that's structurally built on anti-Semitism.
That is why these two can have this sort of a conversation where they see eye to eye, so long as things don't get too blunt.
So long as E. Michael doesn't bring out his rhetoric about synagogue shooting victims deserving it, Alex can hear everything he's saying as being about the globalists.
And because he can do that, he can allow his audience to do the same.
Whether intentional or not, Alex is feeding his audience to this man.
And no matter what the reality of the situation is, Alex has a responsibility not to do that.
Situations like this are ones where Alex has the greatest responsibility, because these are the situations where the most damage is possible to his audience, and Alex is failing spectacularly.
To me, this is like a situation where somebody who's older who can't hear as well wants to watch Downton Abbey, but they can't understand him, so they're like, we gotta watch subtitles whenever we watch this British show.
Just can't understand him the same way.
Like, on the broadcast of this...
These guys need subtitles to explain what they're actually saying.
You should, but the difference between that example and Alex is that you're talking about Mark Moreno being booked on Fox News where there's competent staff.
You can't have this type of basically tyrannical rule over the internet and then say, well, we're a private organization, even though you basically have the force of law.
You can overturn laws.
We've entered a new era of history where basically the oligarchs, if they want to overturn your law, they bring in the shock troops, mainly groups like the homosexual activists that overturned the law in the state of Indiana.
They're doing the same thing in Ireland, and they're doing the same thing in Silicon Valley.
So we're in a war.
There's no news to you, but I mean, we're in a war, and these are one of the people who are the directors of that warfare against the people of the United States of America.
A lot of times when you're dealing with people like this, one of the strategies that they use is making valid criticisms and then perverting what the point they're making is.
So I can't find the article that E. Michael is talking about here, but I did find an interview he did recently about Ireland with a noted far-right provocateur named Rowan Croft.
It's trash and seems to be circling around the idea that Jews are sending immigrants to Western countries to attack Logos.
The things that E. Michael is talking about happening in Ireland are very specifically things that he has blamed the Jews for in the past.
For instance, as it relates to homosexuality, he's said that the Jews are responsible for promoting marriage equality in the United States many times.
He then says that Ireland has passed laws providing access to abortion.
In a video he posted to YouTube, Jones said of the United States, quote, The examples he's using of what he thinks are evils that are befalling Ireland are curiously exactly the same things he blames the Jews for having promoted in the United States.
It's painfully obvious what he's saying here is that the Jews have taken over Ireland.
Alex is letting him, because Alex can pass that off as E. Michael just saying that the globalists are taking over Ireland, and he can agree with that.
E. Michael Jones is not saying that.
He's saying that it's the Jews.
And because Alex is allowing this and agreeing with it, it has the risk of mainstreaming E. Michael's shit to a large portion of his audience.
Also, the Irish Constitution doesn't guarantee free speech.
Until last year, it was illegal to publish blasphemous content.
And it's still an offense to publish content that's deemed to be seditious or indecent.
They have a group called the Censorship of Publications Board that reviews content referred to them as objectionable.
They have a film censors office.
Ireland is a really bad country to choose if you want to talk about free speech being eroded.
So they have a very long history of being a country that's pretty into censoring things.
If you want to learn more about that, look into the Troubles.
But when the ADL says they're going to destroy you if you don't submit, we bend over.
Well, I'm done bending over, ladies and gentlemen.
I've tried to stay out of this.
I'm trying to just unify Americans around freedom and justice.
I don't care if you're old, young, black, white, Jewish, whatever.
If you care about freedom and you believe in the Bill of Rights Constitution and you like the free market, hey, you're great.
And then hopefully you don't want to kill babies.
But our guest, E. Michael Jones, Was a university academic, becoming a professor, and he got removed at a Catholic university because he was pro-life.
That was decades ago.
That's where this reign of tyranny is, ladies and gentlemen.
That's where it is.
And we need to get upset and motivated, but Americans are so used to, oh, don't want me to say the N-word?
Sure, I'm not saying N-word anyways.
Then it's, oh, don't say homosexual.
That's a scientific name for it, like heterosexual, but okay, it hurts your feelings, I won't do that.
And then it's don't say mother or father, don't say there are two genders, don't say America should exist, don't say illegal alien, do what we say, do what we say, do what we say.
And our guest points out the shock troops aren't the gay lobby now, the homosexual lobby, it's the pedo lobby.
Alex is rewriting comments Jones made earlier in the show to make Jones' comments more closely fit his worldview.
He's not trying to find areas of disagreement to distance himself from Jones or clarify things.
He's seeking to make him more compatible with the rhetoric that Alex puts out on his show which is terrifying.
Also, when he says it's the same group that took over the Catholic Church and that sort of thing, he should be aware of what E. Michael Jones thinks about that subject.
Alex also largely in that clip seems to be conflating the ADL with literally every problem he has with modern culture.
I don't think that the ADL has anything to do with people telling him that his language surrounding gender is offensive.
No one is saying that he can't use the words mother and father like he's talking about in that clip, but the imaginary people chastising him for that have nothing to do with the ADL.
Quote, their youth has grown stupid on classicism from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents, by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others.
Or we could go to protocol number nine.
Quote, we have fooled, bemused, and corrupted the youth of the goyim by rearing them in principles and theories which are known to us to be false, although it is by us that they have been inculcated.
And he's spreading his propaganda about Jews introducing pornography into the world as an attack on the Catholic Church, because that is a position that he has.
He could have just stopped with, the problem happened around the end of World War II and then finished, because Germany lost, and they would have been like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you got it.
The theory that Jews are behind the propagation of pornography is super popular among the close-to-neo-Nazi areas of the online right wing.
They believe that pornography itself is a Jewish conspiracy meant to make white men less interested in sex, basically as a long game towards white genocide.
It's a very strangely commonly held belief in those corners of the internet, but basically it's just repackaged Nazi shit.
Hitler believed that Jews were responsible for prostitution, which was preventing the Aryan race, sorry, perverting the Aryan race and spreading disease among it.
He talks about it a little bit in Mein Kampf.
Quote, the moral devastation which this depravity brings with it are sufficient to destroy a people slowly but surely.
The Judaization of our spiritual life and mammonization of our mating impulse sooner or later befouls our entire new generation.
I don't really care to hunt down this teen magazine from the 70s in Germany that Jones is talking about here.
I don't really trust him, so I'm going to let that go.
I only kept that clip in to illustrate how compatible Alex and E. Michael's worlds are.
Alex spends a lot of time yelling about how Jocelyn Elders was trying to teach kids how to masturbate, which is part of the globalist plot.
And here you have a guy who Alex is refusing to realize is a gigantic anti-Semite talking about a columnist teaching German youths how to masturbate as a means of corrupting them.
Doctor, I want you to have the floor, and I'll have you back again soon, because you're right on about this.
I want to explain to new viewers and new listeners, or liberals that will make a joke about this.
We're not scared of women, and we're not scared of sex.
The point is, this is a real psychological warfare plan.
George Arwell wrote about it in 1984, because he saw the plan as a top propagandist in OSS.
And then MI6, and that was later declassified, to totally break down society and end the family.
And that's what he wrote about in 1984.
So this early sexualization and all this is about people not developing the higher centers of their brains and having dreams.
It's about destroying them while they're young, destroying their innocence so they don't have time to flower and fully develop.
That's why they're now targeting in the U.S. And saying, we're going to teach your children how to masturbate at age 5, sexualization of children, pedophilia, and you're not going to stop us.
So it's, again, a psychological warfare plan developed.
Inasmuch as it could be said that it's realistic, Orwell himself has explained that the book is based on his imagination of a Stalin-like government based in totalitarianism being in place in a Western country instead of Russia.
It wasn't that he came upon a secret globalist plan and he decided to get the warning out to the masses through the book.
I know that Alex likes to play that game.
Making references to the fact that Orwell died just after the book was released, but that's because he'd been dying from tuberculosis for years at that point.
In 1947, Orwell wrote a piece called Why I Write, which describes some of his formative experiences, like dabbling in writing, a stint in the Indian Imperial Police, becoming impoverished, and coming to a greater understanding of the working classes.
He was undecided on a lot of issues, at least until 1936.
Quote, It seems to be nonsense in a period like our own to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects.
Alex believes George Orwell was revealing some secret plan of the globalists because the text of 1984 is a dystopian imagining of a totalitarian government in Britain.
This imagined government is very similar to the paranoid ravings of Alex's intellectual predecessors, the anti-communist Cold War weirdos like anybody in the John Birch Society or W. Cleon Skousen.
Alex is unable to engage with 1984 because he thinks it's real.
He is unable to detach it from the anti-communist propaganda that he was raised on.
So to him, it reads like just another book from the John Birch Society talking about what the globalists have planned.
Also, as I recall, pornography didn't play that big of a role in 1984, and the proles were totally allowed to have it and fuck all they wanted.
All that control stuff was just for the party members.
Yeah, I was gonna say, like, I'm trying to go through all the possible dystopic, and I'm like, you know, Huxley, they were all about sex, but then you have, like, The Giver, and it's like, you're not allowed to have sex, and all that stuff is rigidly controlled, and it's like, you're gonna get a dystopia.
It doesn't matter what flavor of fucking you're dealing with.
It's when the state has control over it that we wind up getting fucked over.
It's not like, oh, it's moral to have pornography or not have pornography.
The larger point, too, about what Alex was saying there, about him saying you're right on about this sexualization issue, is that E. Michael Jones 100% believes it's the Jews doing that.
That are responsible for the sexualization of culture in order to corrupt the minds of everyone.
So when Alex says, you're right on about this, he's tacitly, or not even tacitly, he's explicitly supporting something that he maybe shouldn't.
I find it incredibly difficult to imagine that he just doesn't understand.
How do we counter what this pedophile cult is doing?
Because the ADL has also come out and said drag queen story time is a must if you don't let big fat men dressed like clowns have access to your children unannounced.
But you also see this tendency that he has that he keeps trying to bring back his drag queen story time narratives because I think it feels safe to him.
I think that he recognizes on some level that, like, I need this ball to be in my court.
And if I don't somehow control where this is going, it could get out of hand really quickly.
And this became clear when the Israelis invaded Ramallah in 2002.
They come into town, they take over the TV stations, and they start broadcasting pornography.
Now, wait a minute.
I thought pornography was freedom.
I thought it meant freedom.
So does this mean the Israelis want to bring freedom to the Palestinians?
No.
This proves that it's a weapon, okay?
That it subjugates the people, it's supposed to derail them, it's supposed to derange them, and it's also supposed to block any type of rational response to what's going on.
First, it's amazing to me how Alex is just letting E. Michael Jones just keep on barreling through with every single example he says about anything negative surrounding all of the issues they're discussing coming back to the Jews.
Every example of individuals he's brought up are Jewish people.
And now the proof that he's giving of the claim that pornography is a weapon is Israel airing porn when they took over Ramallah.
Alex legitimately has to be the most oblivious person in the world or else he knows he's talking to a gigantic anti-Semite and he doesn't care.
Now, about that case of the Israeli porn broadcasting in 2002, I'm obviously opposed to that, but I think my reasoning is a little different from Jones's.
Here are the relevant reasons that broadcasting porn is bad, but porn itself is not.
One, the Israelis specifically did this because it was offensive to the residents of the West Bank.
I believe that motivation is an important factor in this equation.
Here's what I mean.
I don't think pornography is intrinsically bad, but I do think it would be an immoral act to hijack Jim Baker's compound cable network and air pornography for all the Sunnyside residents.
One part of it is because you have a reasonable cultural assumption that what you're doing would not be appreciated.
But the other part is that it's never appropriate to force pornography on somebody.
That doesn't make the pornography itself bad.
It makes the act of hijacking stations that would otherwise be playing family-safe programming to air pornography wrong.
I'm not an expert on this matter and it's hard to trace down concrete facts on the subject.
So I'm going to leave some of the questions here alone about that specific incident.
Mostly because they're not really relevant to the matter at hand.
This incident is not proof that pornography is a weapon.
It's proof that it can be used in ways that are meant to cause discomfort and disturbance.
This is not the same thing.
For instance, heavy metal music has been used as a tool of torture.
So they said, well, we're going to take back our own minds.
We're going to take back our own bodies.
We're going to take control of our lives, rational, moral control of our lives.
And they organized this boycott.
Well, guess what?
The pornographers are upset.
The people who instituted this regime are upset.
And there was actually an article in Rolling Stone in which the author says that these people are anti-Semites.
If you don't masturbate, if you boycott pornography, you're an anti-Semite.
I didn't make this up, okay?
This is in that Rolling Stone article.
So what you're seeing here, in general, is the oligarchs losing control of the narrative.
One of the most powerful subjugating narratives of our time was pornography.
It made an entire generation docile to the commands of their rulers and now people are waking up to understand that sexual liberation is a form of control and they don't like it and they're breaking up their own chains and escaping from the jail that the culture has created for them.
This article is basically about how there's a weird overlap between enforced non-masturbating and right-wing groups.
For instance, the Proud Boys make you not masturbate if you want to join.
Most of the article is about a meme that had been going around.
It sort of dances around whether or not there's a bigger meaning to the meme.
And honestly, the article itself seems undecided on the issue.
I don't really feel like it has any concrete conclusion about it.
The article doesn't say that people who abstain from porn are anti-Semitic, though it does accurately point out that people like David Duke believe that pornography is a secret Jewish attack plot.
It talks about how there are some people in the porn industry who have received November-related harassment that was also deeply anti-Semitic.
That doesn't mean that the entirety of the mission, I guess, is rooted in anti-Semitism, just that there's an overlap.
The contents of this article are not things that Jones wants particularly to be looked at realistically.
He would prefer that the uninitiated not know that he does think that the Jews created pornography as a weapon because that makes him look like what he is.
Instead of dealing with the article as it exists, he creates a fake version to discuss.
They said if you don't want to look at porn, you're anti-Semitic.
And just like that, he diffuses the rightful accusations of his own anti-Semitism and dodges the question brought up by the article.
It's literally the exact strategy you see Alex employ constantly.
When news breaks in 2013 that one of the Boston bombers was a fan of his site, instead of seeing that and questioning what that means, he pretends that people are saying that he inspired the bombing, thereby creating his straw man.
They said I caused the bombing.
That's so much easier to defend yourself against than What does that mean?
Also, when E. Michael Jones says that pornography, quote, made a generation docile to the command of their rulers, it should be pointed out that he literally means the Jews.
If you listen to that clip, you have two men contradicting each other.
Alex is saying that Hitler wanted sexual liberation because he's operating from a place where he's supposed to be attacking sexual liberation as a means of bringing social degeneracy, but also still thinks Hitler is bad.
So Hitler must have been for sexual liberation, which is 100% not true.
The things you generally might associate with the types of sexual liberation Alex is talking about were things that were brutally repressed by Hitler's government.
Tens of thousands of gay men and lesbians were imprisoned, many of them sent to camps, some being subjected to experimentation to change their sexuality.
The Nazis shut down clubs, banned gay publications, and overall had an attitude that the Jews were to blame for these cultural perverts.
Conversely, prior to Hitler's rise to power, the Weimar Republic had a very sexually liberated reputation.
There was a budding sexual reform movement where access to birth control and recognition of different sexualities and gender identities were taking hold.
They even passed a law in 1927 that made it so doctors would have to treat sex workers who came in with venereal diseases without judgment in an attempt to treat the actual issue of health as opposed to the fake one, which is marginalizing sex workers.
A large part of the scene in Berlin was thanks to the work of Magnus Hirschfeld, the very person E. Michael Jones just maligned.
Listen to the language that that dude is using.
Quote, if Magnus Hirschfeld didn't exist, Hitler would have to create him.
That's meant to say that this guy's actions, Magnus Hirschfeld's actions, justify Hitler's actions so well that if he wasn't there, you'd expect Hitler to come up with a fake version of him just to justify his actions, which did include a holocaust, in case you forgot.
Magnus Hirschfeld was a pioneering researcher into the recognition of gay, bisexual, and trans men and women, topics that were not being well handled at that point in history.
He was putting out work exploring the idea that sexualities exist within a wide range of intermediaries.
It's really hard to stress how far ahead of his time he was.
There's a lot of work being done regarding the acceptance of people who exist outside rigid views of identity or sexuality or gender, to the point where there were movies about gay characters being played in theaters at that time.
Like, look at that weirdo.
Months after Hitler became Reich's chancellor, he ordered Hirschfeld's institute to be raided, and the library was burned in a public spectacle.
The crackdowns came swiftly, and Hitler used sexual degeneracy, like what Hirschfeld was doing, as an attack on the Jews.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but it's very similar to the function of E. Michael Jones' rhetoric.
Then what he says is, quote, these people like Magnus Hirschfeld are let loose and suddenly the people are resentful.
They don't want the corruption of their morals.
When Jones says that, that's to say that there was a bigger plan behind the scenes that Hirschfeld was just carrying out.
Hard to not hear that as him basically saying that the Jews were corrupting German society through promoting sexual deviancy, which is exactly what Hitler said.
Jones saying that there was a backlash against someone like Hirschfeld, trying to say that that was the people's will, and Hitler was just carrying out the people's will, is very troubling.
But if I were somehow accidentally in this situation, and I'd been obliviously Mr. Magoo-ing my way through this conversation up to this point, thinking an anti-Semite is actually a coat rack.
Now, this could have happened, could have been stopped earlier.
The uncle of Pope Benedict, the great uncle of Pope Benedict, wrote a book called Judishes of Absleben, Georg Ratzinger, and he said, if the church doesn't step in and defend the people by enforcing the laws that protect the moral order, The German people are going to look for a leader.
Well, guess what the German word for leader is?
It's Führer.
And they found it.
They found their leader.
This is the type of reaction we want to prevent here in America.
And the way we prevent this is by open dialogue where we're able to criticize the people who have subjected us to this reign of pornographic terror.
I don't give a fuck about Jones' bullshit op-ed from Pope Benedict's uncle or whatever the fuck he's talking about.
I don't give a shit because this argument boils down to something along the lines of gay people were walking around in public so what do you expect to happen?
When E. Michael Jones says that a Hitler coming to power is the sort of result he wants to avoid in America, that is still a threat.
He's not making it clear on the show, but when he talks about, quote, people who have subjected us to this reign of pornographic terror, he's talking about the Jews.
So I guess what he's saying is that he doesn't want another Holocaust, but it will happen if what he's proposing doesn't happen.
unidentified
Which raises the question, what does he want to happen?
Well, if I understand so far his general vibe, demeanor, and actual meaning of his words, I would say his basic point is, in order to stop another Hitler for rising, we're going to need another Hitler.
I'm not sure I have a full answer to the question of what he wants to happen, but clues, maybe a decent clue, comes from that speech he gave in 2007 that even V-Dare thought was offensive.
Quote, The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected logos.
That means that Jews, to the extent that they accept, honor, and revere logos, are not our enemies.
They are Jews who accept logos fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth.
That statement seems to indicate that if all Jews convert to Christianity, specifically the extremist Catholicism that Jones is into, or accept that Christians are right and stay in a docile state, then things will be cool.
This seems like it would be Jones' version of what needs to happen in order to avoid another Hitler situation, which is so fucked up.
Alex is just going along with a guy who was more or less saying that Jews all need to convert or submit.
And I've listened to Infowars every day for the past three years of my life.
I can't even put into words how disappointing it is to hear this guy saying things that essentially boil down to Hitler did what he had to do.
And Alex's response isn't to push back or end the interview.
It's to escalate things to being about how they want your kids.
In the world Alex is pushing, the globalists are the ones who want your kids.
But Jones, E. Michael Jones, wasn't talking about the globalists.
He's talking about the Jews.
It's kind of easy to see how Alex would make that mistake, though.
When your whole worldview is based on anti-Semitic shit, it's hard not to accidentally agree with and get along with an anti-Semite.
Honestly, Alex pivoting to talking about them wanting your kids and then going off into a little bit of a rant about drag queen story time feels more like panic on his part than anything else.
It's almost like muscle memory.
He has nowhere to go with this conversation and this dude is pretty much applauding Hitler.
Yep.
He's too much of a coward to ask this guy, hey man!
Do you believe the Jews are the enemy of humanity?
And when you have that moment, particularly when you have this guy saying, That there was this sexual liberation that the Jews, like Magnus Hirschfeld, were responsible for carrying out.
They were let loose in Germany.
What are you going to do?
Of course, Hitler's going to come along and take care of business.
When you have someone saying things like that, after all of the other stuff he said on the show, you have no excuse to not know the type of person you're talking to and how...
You know your responsibilities in this circumstance.
And the only reason to fail in carrying out those responsibilities, which is to either push back or end the conversation, is that you support it.
And I know that my feeling on it is Alex retreating back to the Drag Queen storytime stuff is kind of a, like, I don't know what to do here.
But it would be delusional to think that his discomfort is in some way like, I want to end this interview.
I'm intrigued here, and I want to get you back on.
We've got to go to break.
I want to do five more minutes with you, Dr. E. Michael Jones, culturewars.com.
Very interesting.
I want to do five more minutes with him about the election, about Trump, where he sees all this going, and then I want to invite him back up in the near future.
I'm glad listeners recommended this fella.
I've been so busy, I didn't really put it together, but I actually read one of his books years ago.
We'll tell you about his upcoming book as well.
Please remember, without you, we're being shut down.
I have heard him riff over the Helter Skelter music about how we're coming down, but we're miles above you to imply that when we land, we're on top of the globalists.
So in this next clip, we see them come back and talk, and I think that this is a good illustration that Alex is still trying to pretend that they're talking about the same thing.
But as you said, all they ever do is summon their own destruction, though that summon destruction normally wrecks civilization as well.
So I can see what you're saying, that the wrath of God, like giant thunderheads rolling in in a typhoon towards the shore, isn't long from colliding into civilization.
Alex is really keeping up this facade that he thinks E. Michael Jones isn't talking about the Jews, and it's fascinating.
Alex is pretending that Jones said that the left summons its own destruction, and unless he said that off-air in the commercial break, that's not something he said about the left.
What he did say is that the sexual liberation in Weimar, Germany, summoned Hitler, which was the Jews' fault for promoting sexual liberation.
This is absolutely not the same thing.
And this is the second instance of Alex taking something he said and repackaging it in Infowars...
Sort of language.
When the shock troops or the gays, the homosexuals they put out on the street, Alex turning that into, it's the pedophiles.
Then he does this here with the Jews summoned their own destruction in the form of Hitler because of their sexual deviancy or whatever.
Alex is taking it.
The left summons their own.
It's weird.
Jones does this a lot.
E. Michael Jones.
Saying that the Jews summoned their own destruction.
He's blamed the Jews for the Holocaust and the pogroms before.
He talks about this a lot, particularly after Jewish people are targeted for attacks.
I mentioned on our last episode that after the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, he said, quote, you have undermined the moral order and now don't be surprised if people start acting out their aggression towards you.
Which I guess is kind of his answer to what happens if people don't submit or convert.
He has a long history of blaming the Jews for things that people do to them, and he justifies it by saying that, you know, they should have just converted to Christianity and accepted this whole Logos idea.
This is, I think, because we've talked about him on the day of the Isis up his dirty asshole, and more recently his drag is changing things, that, like, there is an arc for him to take back away from where he is headed.
I don't think there's any more.
Even if he tries, this fucking episode should be a stone around his neck.
I've been talking about just the very public stuff that E. Michael Jones has said.
But even beyond that, Alex has every reason to know about him because Alex used to employ Owen Benjamin before he got into these E. Michael Jones ideas and went down this road.
Alex knows because he doesn't have an employee he used to.
And they've had a public feud about the idea that Alex doesn't get into the Jewish stuff.
So Alex has every reason to understand that this man who he's now talking to is an inspirational figure for a lost quote-unquote friend of his.
He has really no excuse.
And as I'm finishing up this interview, I couldn't help but be struck by a few things.
Because we're pretty much done with the interview now.
The first thing I'm struck with is how very clear E. Michael Jones was, throughout this interview, what he believes.
A lot of it was just non-specific enough to fly under the radar, but he was pretty overt, particularly when he started ranting about how Hitler was the leader Germany needed to set the people right from who were perverting the country.
It would be very difficult to hear him say the things that he said and not ask a clarifying question.
You'd almost have to make yourself not do it, because you already know the answer, and you'd rather keep that from the audience.
The second thing I'm struck by is how Alex seems to be going out of his way to repackage the things Jones is saying and put it into the language of Infowars.
Jones is consistently talking about the Jews and how they're up to no good, but Alex pretends that's not what he's saying.
Jones says that the perversions that the Jews engaged in in pre-war Germany summoned their destruction, and as we said, Alex will say, like you said, the left always summons its own destruction.
I was really wrestling with these thoughts, and to get a better handle on things, I wanted to see what some of the internet response to this interview was in communities that maybe don't believe the same things that I do.
I came across a site called Occidental Dissent, which had some comments about the interview.
I don't have much interest in reading much from the site itself, since their recommended blog links include David Duke's website, Stormfront, and American Renaissance.
So that kind of gives you an idea what the editorial line was here.
The author of this piece says, quote, I'm watching this and E. Michael Jones is dropping tons of red pills.
Alex Jones is sugarcoating and delivering them to his audience.
And the ability for me to convince myself that it's not in some way intentional is quickly leaving my body.
I have a habit of generally blaming so much of Alex's behavior on him being dumb and not having anything but toxic information streams or he curates headlines from, but I don't think I can accept that as an explanation for what I've seen here.
Prior to the booking, Alex or anyone at Infowars had every opportunity to know exactly who E. Michael Jones was, and during the show there were tons of red alert sirens that should have been going off, but none of it fazed Alex.
For the majority of the time that we've been doing this podcast, because it took a little while to figure out the lay of the land, I've held a firm position that when you get past the bullshit headlines Alex found on Drudge or 4chan, when you push aside the science fiction books and movies that Alex thinks are real, the bedrock of Infowars content is historical anti-Semitism being repurposed and renaming the villains the globalists, while retaining a lot of the major themes.
We've talked a lot about this with the heavy overlap with the protocols and how Alex's conceptions mirror the histories of the blood libel and well-poisoning narratives.
I've long believed that one of the more dangerous aspects of Alex's content and the worldview he disseminates is that it prepares his audience for harder core things.
Because Alex has built a worldview that's so thematically reliant on historical antisemitism, but he's insistent that he's not, he allows his audience to internalize these themes without realizing where they come from.
When he does so, they're likely to see the same things being echoed in the rhetoric of people like Michael E. Jones, who, unlike Alex, does not deny that he thinks the Jews are the problem.
And they're at a far greater risk of being hooked by them.
Or you'll hear Alex have an interview with E. Michael Jones where they agree pretty much across the board.
Maybe you'll start looking at some more of E. Michael Jones' content and you'll start to see like, oh my god, this guy believes the Jews are behind everything.
Maybe you'll look at some message boards and some comments of people.
Saying that Alex Jones is just too afraid to say this.
And you'll be like, when he did have this guy who believes that the Jews are behind everything, they agreed on everything.
Alex was really thrilled to...
It is something that because the worlds are so identical, you have a greater responsibility to protect your audience from people like this guy.
And now the other piece about it that's really disappointing is you can just see very clearly how the delusion of Alex's sort of ideas His worldview isn't based on anti-Semitism.