Today, Dan and Jordan take a look at Alex Jones' response the day after Trump assassinated a high level Iranian general to see where he lands on the issue. Also, one of Alex's oldest guests decides to celebrate the occasion by dabbling in some Holocaust revisionism.
But unfortunately, you know, we've got to keep up with this stuff, because there's developing situations, and Alex's positions on them are interesting to note.
And before we get to that today, we've got to take a little moment, Jordan, to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show.
So before we get into today's show, I want to give a little bit of a disclaimer.
I'm not an expert in geopolitics.
I can really only go on the information that's available and I can find, which is oftentimes limited, particularly in the case of evolving and ongoing situations.
Some potentially major events unfolded over the course of the last week, and though those things will come up on this episode, I want to express that I'm going to try my best to stay away from overanalyzing things too much, since that would probably be a little bit irresponsible of someone like me to do.
There are many other great places where that kind of work is being done by far more competent hands, and I would encourage people to rely on those sources for more nuanced discussion of the geopolitical scene.
I don't know what Iran is going to do to respond, and I don't want to speculate, since that could easily veer off track into you and I playing guest.
That being said, I want to offer two very strong positions that I hold.
That are probably best to acknowledge up top before we get into anything.
And after I say this, you're welcome to speak your piece as well, Jordan, your position.
The first is that I'm absolutely categorically opposed to a war with Iran.
And I'm equally opposed to the actions that make such a war more likely.
I understand that many would see the invasion of a U.S. embassy in Iraq as grounds for a response.
And I understand that position and where that's coming from.
But I think that this level of response seems way out of proportion and reckless.
Second, from everything I've read on the subject, Trump crossed a very serious line by killing Soleimani, in that Soleimani was an official of the Iranian government.
This is an official of a sovereign government who Trump has openly admitted he ordered the assassination of, which is a really fucked up thought.
I have some discomfort with the idea of drone warfare, generally speaking, but when it's being used to commit political assassinations on government figures within countries that we are not at war with, it is a very serious matter.
In an article in The Atlantic, Ona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, opined that the strike to kill Soleimani was a breach not only of our Constitution, but also international law, because Trump did not inform Congress, nor did he approach the UN Security Council before making this decision.
These problems could be resolved if the attack was done to stop an imminent attack, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has claimed, but no one has produced any proof to support that assertion.
It's my feeling that, leaving aside how bad a guy Soleimani might have been, or may have been, probably was, what Trump did was wrong and profoundly dangerous.
Given all the information I have at my disposal, I don't see any gray area there.
And Trump's actions since the killing have only made me feel deeply concerned even more so.
It's probably debatable if the assassination counts as an act of provocation that would justify Iran declaring war, for example.
But what's not debatable is that after all of that, Trump took to Twitter and literally threatened to commit war crimes.
He said, quote, Let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we've targeted 52 Iranian sites representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago.
Some at a very high level and importance to Iran and the Iranian culture.
And those targets and Iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard.
The US wants no more threats.
The part about Iranian culture being targeted is a massive red flag.
Targeting cultural sites is universally considered a war crime, and not for nothing, the people you'd generally be killing by attacking cultural sites are non-combatants.
So the very idea that a president would say something like this is absolutely unacceptable territory for us to be in.
The way Trump is behaving is villain shit.
This is authoritarian-level shit, and I just don't even know what to say about it.
There's obviously more to this story than we know right now, and putting singular blame on Trump I think would be foolish.
He's ultimately responsible for the decision, but I think it would be naive to think it was a decision that was made in a vacuum.
There's obviously advisors around and people steering him in directions.
But for me to speculate on the precise aspect of that, I think at this point would be just that.
Speculation.
One thing that strikes me is that I feel like Alex and I should be on the same page on this one.
The fact that Trump would kill a government official from a state we're not at war with without notifying Congress should be everything Alex is against in an executive.
Alex is an anti-war guy, or at least pretends to be, so it should be pretty clear as a case of Trump stepping way outside the bounds of acceptable action and doing things that tend to make war more likely, not less.
This should be a slam dunk for Alex as a way to leave Trump, but I think we all know how this is going to go.
So, these are sort of the positions that I'm coming in with.
And I don't want to necessarily litigate a lot of the, like, but what about...
Right.
No, the angles of it, I think, leaving everything aside, this is not an acceptable action.
I suppose the only thing that I can say now that makes me feel, I guess, sticking true to my principles is that W, Obama, and Trump should all be prosecuted for war crimes.
I guess there's no other way to make sense of this.
Sure.
If we hadn't done anything, if we did something to prosecute W for his war crimes...
Like I said, I don't want to overanalyze stuff because I'm not equipped to do that.
I would be putting on airs.
I'd be pretending some sort of capabilities that I don't have.
So, without getting too deep into anything until things come up along the way, I do want to say that this episode is a total mess.
But honestly, only half of the situation that makes it a mess is because of what's going on with Iran.
As you might expect on a day like this of international intrigue, Alex has Steve Pachenik on to get his expert opinion on things.
And that interview deteriorates into territory that even shocked me.
Which is saying a lot, considering Steve's recent appearances on the show, where he said that representative government should go away, due process is stupid, and that he was involved in the death of Yitzhak Rabin.
The Infowars servers are laboring right now under record.
Traffic.
As the world tunes in to hear what myself and my guests are going to break down and say and what callers to this broadcast are going to say about the historic, incredibly bold move that we witnessed yesterday by the president.
I'm saying that the Hezbollah militias, All over the world are the most expansionist arm of Islam and are working with the globalist deep state against President Trump and America.
And so that's not being discussed in the news why this happened.
Obviously, Hitler had a plan that involved Aryans and racial purity, but I'm not entirely sure there was ever such a thing as an official plan called the Aryan plan.
I can find no references, really, to the Aryan Plan and any official writings or serious places.
The only place I can find where that term comes up is some neo-Nazi blogs and a book called The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler.
For some context, that book was written in 1952 by James Lerat Battersby, who was a British fascist who believed that Hitler was Christ returned.
One wonders if that's one of the 50,000 books about World War II that Alex claims he's read.
A lot of the stuff Alex brings up in that clip is just complete muddying of historical concepts and linguistics that I don't really have the patience to address.
Because there's a larger point worth mentioning.
Alex is literally saying that last century we had a guy who called himself an Aryan who wanted to rule the world and that it's happening again.
He says that he doesn't want war, but everything he's saying justifies war as being the only possible outcome.
These are the words of a warmonger who's also too much of a coward to be pro-war when he feels that's his position.
You didn't even know that they were going to be the next Hitler yesterday, and today, all of a sudden, you're bringing out Zoroastrianism to prove that we need to bomb them.
I am not going to come on this show and choose a side of I'm for this strike or I'm against this strike.
And I'm not doing that to be lukewarm and to not take a side.
I'm doing that because I want to look at this for the perspectives of the Iranian government and the individuals running our government and talk about the different players that are involved and what has brought us to this point.
Then, at the bottom of the hour, I am going to give you my personal view and what I think about this situation and where I think it's headed.
And what my discernment and spiritual gut level sight is on this.
Yeah, this is an endlessly complicated topic, and I would be a little disingenuous if I were to present myself as an expert on the topic, but I can tell you that I've read up a bit on the relevant literature surrounding this, and I think that the assertion that these attacks were faked is offensive.
Alex believes that the rebels in Syria attacked themselves with chemical weapons in order to sway world opinion against the Assad regime and prompt U.S. attacks on Assad.
This is not based on any evidence, really.
It's just kind of Alex's gut feeling and the gut feeling of some of his guests.
It's kind of the same thing as when Alex predicted that the globalists are going to pull off some false flags because that's what he would do.
Absolutely.
It's kind of how it feels.
And the real giveaway that Alex is talking shit here is that he says that the UN has had to admit that these chemical weapons attacks were staged.
That's a bald-faced lie.
The only sliver of truth to it is that Russia has consistently vetoed measures in the UN Security Council to form commissions to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which seems weird.
All Alex is doing is repeating Russian government talking points.
Going back to at least 2013, Russia was arguing that the chemical attacks were being staged to sway public opinion against Assad, which makes sense given that he's a major ally of theirs in the region.
All credible investigations done by groups like the Human Rights Council and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons do not support Alex and Russia's conclusion.
And the UN has not had to come out and admit because Alex was so bold and reported the truth.
Yeah, when these guys talk, you can see how much damage is really possible when Alex starts talking about foreign policy.
Because, you know, when you...
Sure, he can fuck up our ability to get Medicare for all, and that's going to ruin a lot of people's lives.
But when he starts saying nonsense about foreign policy, this is how we get into a fucking war where hundreds of thousands of people die in violent conflict.
Thankfully, I think he's irrelevant enough that he probably isn't having any actual impact on decisions that are made.
But there is, you know, if he has a considerable audience, he's leading them as a block, as an electorate, or, you know, some sort of a voting block that enables.
I know we've touched on this in the past, but Alex is parroting a disingenuous Trump talking point here that just is unacceptable to let stand.
He's trying to present the idea that Trump is above the fray because now the U.S. is energy independent, so we don't even need to worry about the Middle East, which is kind of a fucked up notion on its face, and it does seem to imply that our only interests would be that, which is, I find, grim.
But the reality here is that we're not energy independent per se.
Alex is confusing that with our trend towards becoming a net exporter of oil, which isn't the same thing.
According to foreign policy, we still imported approximately a million barrels of oil per day from Saudi Arabia in 2018.
The generally agreed upon definition of energy independence is that we would be producing more energy than we consume.
And during a couple months of last year, that was something that we achieved.
But this isn't a Trump thing, though.
It's been a long trend in the process with steady rises in energy production and relative stability in energy consumption going all the way back through Obama's entire presidency.
I don't believe that Alex is using the term energy independence in that context, though.
It feels more like he's saying that we don't import anything and we can just create all our energy ourselves, which is definitively false.
That is the image that he's hoping to present, and that's just not true.
We export a whole lot of the energy that we produce, so in order to meet our consumption needs, we still bring in a ton of foreign energy products, without which we'd be completely fucked.
I mean, again, that comes back to this type of shit where it's like, if you are incapable of understanding the nuance, just like, you know, neither you nor I are going to claim to have good policy-making ideas or experience for foreign policy in countries that we have no history with.
Hillary Clinton, Fiona Hill, the General McMaster types, they have been working publicly in shadow diplomacy to derail everything that Trump's trying to do to bring real detente and a stalemate and an armistice and a ceasefire in Africa and the Middle East and end the globalist strategy of the Arab Spring, of breaking Europe's borders, of flooding Turkey, and of destabilization.
That's a big piece of it, but I think the larger thing is that vagueness is a weapon for someone like Alex.
He can just rattle off a list of his enemies' names, make some meaninglessly vague accusations about things they're doing that match whatever the hot-button topic of the day is, then he can move along, acting like he knows everything and he's said something, but he hasn't said shit.
And Trump is letting Iran know, just like the situation.
With North Korea, that carrot or the stick, if you stop all this, the sanctions will go away and we'll work with you.
If you keep escalating and working with the deep state, the international globalist system through the CHICOMs to embarrass America and to sabotage us and to bankrupt our military and our country, we're going to confront you when you're militarily expanding.
And when you proportionately start attacking us, we proportionately attack you.
It's going to escalate until we use bunker buster bombs to kill the mullahs in Tehran.
And that's something these individuals understand and get.
Like, for one thing, Alex is saying that these countries are working with his globalist enemies, so Trump is putting sanctions on them, which will go away if they play ball.
And if not, Trump's going to drop a big bomb on them.
That seems like a pretty far cry from the sort of anti-interventionist posturing Alex used to engage in.
Shit, it's a far cry from his constant, reasonably fair attacks on the United States government over the sanctions that were applied to Iraq that killed so many civilians.
Alex brings that up all the fucking time.
This seems very not in line with that.
As for North Korea, I don't see how that's a good analog here.
If you look at the real world, Trump's meetings with Kim Jong-un have not really done anything.
There's no positive outcome in it for the United States and only positives for North Korea.
Just the other day, on January 1st, NPR reported on a speech carried by the Korean Central News Agency, where Kim Jong-un had announced that he, quote, no longer feels bound by a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile testing.
The story goes on to say, quote, KCNA quoted Kim as saying there was no reason to remain committed to his moratorium because the US had not reciprocated, but had continued to hold joint military drills with South Korea and send advanced weapons to the South.
In situations like this, what Trump is doing is not saying, hey, it's the carrot or the stick.
What he's doing is providing a pretext which rogue actors can use to justify horrible shit.
Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal unilaterally and imposed harsh sanctions on them when, according to all experts on the matter, Iran was complying with the deal.
Trump made some kind of a deal with Kim Jong-un, which Un feels has not been honored.
Both of these are examples of really shitty foreign relations, which make the possibility of an outbreak of hostilities more likely than they were before.
Trump isn't trying to create peace.
He's fucking with people.
Then the civilians are the ones who are going to pay the price, ultimately.
This is ghoulish stuff, and for Alex to cheerlead this sort of bullshit is pretty upsetting.
Trump just fucking presses a button and a dude dies and that means that because Trump is a fucking lunatic, now people who have nothing to do with that shit are going to die.
So the globalists wanted to embarrass Trump with the situation at the embassy in Iraq.
That was their plan.
But now, Trump has gone and done this.
Right.
Which ruined the globalists' plans or blocked it somehow.
Now, we're going to listen to this clip.
I would posit that the way Alex is framing this is very much a positive thing.
If his blood enemies are the globalists, and they were trying to embarrass his hero, and his hero stopped their plans to embarrass him through this assassination, it must be a good thing.
They want to use Iran to embarrass Trump, just like Jimmy Carter was in 1979, and Trump has acted decisively so far to block that, and for now is winning the political war.
But what will happen in the next phase?
unidentified
Are you afraid to go to the mailbox because of letter after letter from the IRS?
He taunted Trump before the Soleimani strike said, you can do nothing.
You can't do anything.
Now, why would he say that?
Again, think about the treason of people that claim they're American citizens, even though they're globalists, of John Kerry and Barack Obama, who travel the world from Korea to Japan to China to Iran to Israel to Germany to the UK to Canada Argentina, Brazil, saying, don't listen to Trump.
He's going to be gone soon.
He's a loser.
He's an idiot.
In fact, if you embarrass him by sinking some ships in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Persian Gulf, that'll help remove him back at home, and he's not going to get the backing.
So John Kerry and Obama are apparently not U.S. citizens because they're globalists who run all over the world like little Carmen Sandiego's whispering into world leaders' ears that they should embarrass Trump.
There's a part of our foreign relations community that almost certainly has been putting out a vibe of like, Trump's going to be gone eventually.
But that's probably because he's threatening long-standing alliances and relationships between countries.
People who've dedicated their lives to international relations work aren't going to see Trump get elected, watch him rant about how our closest allies aren't paying enough into NATO, and just shrug and be like, well, I guess he's the boss now.
Of course they would be trying to reassure people that they have long-standing relations with.
They're like, hey, please, look, I know, whatever.
But the accusation that any of them are going to go around and tell countries to commit provocative actions like sinking ships, that really needs to be substantiated.
And Alex is never going to do that because he's making this shit up.
Look, the issue is, too, that these Iranian mullahs, they're duplicitous.
And in talking about that, Alex drops in a phrase.
is when you share the links at infowars.com forward slash show, banned.video, and the Alex Jones section and more.
That's how we reach new people.
Remember, they're trying to ban this show because we're really covering real facts, and the establishment doesn't want you thinking about how the world really works, who the different factions are.
They just want you to mindlessly take a side.
Well, we do have a side, and it's called the truth.
So, Alex comes back from break, and he's talking about how Iran is muscling through the Middle East, and how eventually then it's going to be the West, essentially saying that this is a world domination plan.
When you're using rhetoric like this, and this is the way you're framing things, it really is a justification for a war.
It believes it can topple the other Islamic regimes.
And if that happens, you'll have an organized Islamic force even more deadly with 3 billion Muslims ready to take over what's left of the rotting West.
So long-term, taking Iran out of the control of the Islamicists that captured the secular country and 70-plus percent in internal polls hate it.
And if we could take that away from the radical Islamicists, that'd be a big victory for humanity, wouldn't it?
If you watch those videos of people screaming death to America and you don't at least go, well, I understand how we got here, then you're a disingenuous liar.
It's really kind of funny to me that as Brexit is going on, it's like Boris Johnson is trying to sell England into a United States colony, and at the same time, the United States has a bunch of people trying to turn the president into a kink.
Those headlines, one of them is on DrudgeReport.com, of Bill Clinton impeachs, bombs Iraq.
Impeachment vote in-house delayed as Clinton launches Iraq airstrike.
Siding military need to move swiftly.
But you see, nothing had actually happened in Iraq when he did that, or when he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan before that as a distraction.
And that was confirmed.
This is real.
We've been attacked.
The embassy was attacked because they've been probing and we've been putting up with it.
And so instead of bombing an Aspen factory, Trump boldly killed the leader of the organization that has sleeper cells inside the United States and inside Europe.
And now that's the gamble.
They may really strike, even though that'll blow up in their face.
And the U.S. will retaliate even bigger, and this could escalate into a wider regional war.
They're definitely going to try to block the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices.
That's already starting to happen.
And so this is a really bad decision.
But it's one of the best decisions you could make out of a list of even worse decisions.
So, largely, I would agree with Alex that this was a bad decision, but I'm going to take issue with the characterization that it was the best on a list of worst choices.
Considering there was an actual list, according to the New York Times, and it was supposedly the worst on that list, and almost comically the worst on that list.
The U.S. Embassy was targeted, and that's not good.
And you'd think that you'd need to do something to respond to that.
But assassinating an Iranian government official, I don't even think that should be on the list of possible choices, particularly considering that that standoff at the embassy had already ended by the time Trump ordered the drone strikes.
According to USA Today, quote, Militia leaders with the Popular Mobilization Forces ultimately ordered supporters to retreat, declaring the demonstration a win in the battle to expel U.S. troops from Iraq.
There was no immediate threat.
There was a situation to deal with.
So targeted assassination is probably not appropriate.
I'm not certain I know specifically what a good decision would have been, but that's only because I would never be in this situation we find ourselves in to begin with.
None of this would probably be happening if Trump hadn't arbitrarily exited the Iran nuclear deal and then applied severe sanctions, which kind of destroys the framework that was building for our two countries to have a stronger understanding and hopefully some sort of progress between the two.
After that point, yeah, I guess all options are bad.
But still, this was not the best of a list of bad choices.
I just feel like Alex is trying to rationalize the possibility of an upcoming war.
I don't know what would be the best reaction, but I know if I were somebody who went on air every day and screamed about Jesus and God for several hours, I would at least look into what Jesus would feel about...
I don't know if you know this, Jordan, but Gallup keeps historical data of presidential approval ratings week by week for pretty much all modern presidents that you can easily look up, which I decided to do.
Alex is going on about how Trump isn't wagging the dog because he's super popular, whereas Bill Clinton was because he was super unpopular when he went out bombing.
So, right now, Trump has a 42.5% approval rating with a 53% disapproval rating, according to the aggregate compiled by 538.
According to RealClearPolitics, they have their listing of recent polls.
Literally, none of them have Trump with a net positive approval number.
The average of their polls have Trump at a negative 7. And the only glimmer of hope is a recent Rasmussen poll at the end of 2019 that put Trump at even numbers 50-50.
And it should be pointed out that this was not a poll of registered voters, just people who said they were likely to vote.
So Politico has Trump at negative 15. NBC Wall Street Journal has him at negative 10. The Economist at negative 9. His numbers are not good.
These approval ratings are decidedly underwater, and with the level of dislike Trump has, it's pretty high, so the odds of him turning things around aren't good.
There's just not many people he could sway at this point.
So, we get more talk of how bold this was from Trump here, and then after this, Alex starts taking calls, and I think this is where the show starts to get a little bit like, oh no.
So here's our last sort of normal period of the show, where Alex is pretending to be covering the Iran situation, but not really doing much of anything.
Well, President Trump did something very bold yesterday.
Instead of blowing up some Shiite militia in response to their attack on the U.S. Embassy, he killed Soleimani, who's basically the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
They say he's the number two guy, but he ran the show.
So I think that this caller does something really interesting, which is a rebuttal within Alex's framework.
Because even if you do believe that the globalists are trying to manipulate this shit, the answer within the framework is, well, the only way that that is successful is if Trump goes to war.
So don't support this shit.
Even within Alex's constructed world of intrigue and conspiracy, still he's doing the wrong thing.
I think this caller, I mean, he's wrong about stuff, and I feel bad he spent all that money at the store, but I think his point that we've come a long way from Ron Paul is accurate, and that Alex's behavior is a contradiction of so much of what you would expect his brand to be if you've been a fan of his for a long time.
And it would be completely different if Alex one day had gotten on air and been like, look, I know we've been one thing for a really long time, but I realize that's not it.
That's, like, what I was saying along, like, if he invalidated a large portion of his past intentionally, to be like, I have recognized that the true path is through antagonizing the Muslim world.
You know, like, if he had something like that, then it would make it a lot more understandable for the fans, because they could then, like, assess, do I want to come along for this, or do I want to say, hey...
This isn't for me anymore.
And Alex isn't allowing his audience that opportunity.
Just imagining what it would be like to be one of his listeners.
If you are somebody who has a modicum of awareness and thinks a bit, it would be very difficult to experience this constant dissonance between what this was supposed to be and what Alex is doing.
And I think it would be really difficult to not feel like if Alex isn't going to say enough.
At some point.
When do I?
What is the point at which I realize that this is off the rails?
Anytime I try and put myself in that mindset, regardless of the beliefs or opinions or anything with no context there, it just has to be an identity crisis.
That's the only way that I can empathize with an Alex Jones listener.
Imagine if all of a sudden Bernie Sanders is like, actually, this war is fucking great.
So, this caller claims to be the child of a former Iranian counterintelligence couple.
Like, his parents were counterintelligence in the Iranian regime.
And they were driven out of the country when the Ayatollah came to power.
Right.
I have no idea if that's true or not.
This is just a random person calling into a very dumb radio show.
So, take that claim however you feel like taking it.
Whatever the reality is, I'm certain that Alex would have argued against his parents immigrating to the United States if he'd had a chance to back then.
The only reason I cut this clip is because Alex, at the end, there is voicing support for something I've not heard him express support for, which is the Restart Iran movement.
Restart Iran was started by Saeed Mohammed Hosseini, a former game show host who wants to restart the country.
According to a 2018 piece in Bloomberg, he hasn't been to Iran since 2011, and quote, today he lives in America and urges Iranians to burn mosques and deface police stations.
Ultimately having his account removed after encouraging people to throw rocks through government buildings and film it to post with his hashtag, which Telegram considered a, quote, vandalism contest.
That just got him a warning, though, after which point he raised the stakes and told his followers to throw Molotov cocktails into mosques.
I don't particularly want to litigate the properness of violent protest in the face of an oppressive regime, since I accept there are good arguments on both sides of that discussion.
However, I do think that someone like Husseini trying to encourage that kind of behavior while living in the United States and not having been to Iran in about a decade is something that I find to not be a good model for positive social progress.
I think that Alex just likes Hussaini because he has publicly compared himself to Trump a number of times in the past, highlighting how they're both former TV stars who want to improve their countries.
Alex is painfully susceptible to people who make their brand I'm X countries version of Trump.
And then this person, the conversation steers into divine provenance.
unidentified
We can't just say, okay, look at this one issue and say he's made a bad decision.
Now, you know, should I vote for him?
Should I not vote for him?
We cannot waver because there's so much he cannot tell us that intel can't tell us.
There's so much going on that if we did know everything that's going on, we would say, oh, I completely understand.
We need to have trust and faith in God.
I personally believe that God has chosen Trump to be the President of the United States, and he will lead us down these dark paths, but soon to come there will be light.
And this guy's instant assumption is that, like, well, yeah, everything that we don't know justifies all this, and that's why we gotta keep supporting the God King.
Outside of a couple of callers who are expressing the thing like the guy who's like, we've drifted from Ron Paul type stuff, there's not as much negative expression.
And when it does come, it comes in really fucked up ways.
Like, the next caller, let's just go ahead and get to that.
Because this is kind of a negative, like this attack wasn't good.
But the way it's expressed is deeply, deeply troubling.
unidentified
First off, with Iran, we need to treat Iran like a bee's nest.
What do you do with a bee's nest in your yard?
You have two options.
Either stay away from it or wait until the evening comes, let every bee come home to nest, and then spray it, kill every single one, and destroy the nest.
These Iranians, they literally believe that it's up to them to bring the apocalypse and the end of the world.
And if they can do this, they win.
They believe that the 12th imam is just going to show up in Iran and save them.
One, it's a horrible perspective that this caller has.
And two...
When Alex allows callers to call in and express these sorts of things and not push back on them and not discuss why that is a dangerous idea, it has the effect of normalizing it.
It has the effect of like, oh, that is a position that Alex deemed worth entertaining.
And for any impressionable listeners, they're going to be much less shocked by the concept of extermination.
So let's take a little break from the show and enjoy a commercial.
So I was listening to, I accidentally left it on during the commercials, during the feed, and it turns out that Ted Anderson, the guy who runs Genesis Communications Network and formerly Midas Resources before he had his gold sale license revoked by the state of Minnesota, and Alex had to probably help him pay off some legal fees.
So George Norrie from Coast to Coast AM has cut a commercial for them that airs, and so that seems to be maybe the scam that Ted is on more these days.
In the article, it says of Alex's second appearance on Rogan, quote, the podcast has since accumulated over 16 million views on YouTube, making it the most viewed podcast in the entire world in 2019.
Elon Musk's episode with Rogan has 28 million views, but in fairness, that was in September 2018, so it doesn't count for 2019.
For some comparison, Gordon Ramsay, Shaq, and Billy Eilish's episodes of Hot Ones all have way more views than Alex did on Rogan.
Billy Eilish is sitting at 29 million views, and Gordon Ramsay at 49 million.
So, I don't know.
I guess it comes down to what you call a podcast.
I'm sure there are other examples of shows that got way, way more views than Alex on Rogan, but I don't have the patience to come up with more examples.
Suffice it to say, there's a little bit of a scale there.
Anyway, the National File post, it really is just an absurd act of navel-gazing, being carried out by an organization with explicit ties to Alex himself.
It's just a puff piece that really comes off looking desperate, since all it really covers is how many people watched Alex on Rogan.
It also includes a graphic that Rogan put out that includes the most liked and disliked episodes of the year, which the post comments on, saying that Alex's appearance was, quote, the most liked Joe Rogan experience YouTube video of the year.
Of course, the graphic also shows that Alex's episode is the fifth most disliked.
Also, I don't trust the last line of this article.
Quote, Though websites are often vague about releasing the total number of plays of individual podcast episodes, National File was able to confirm that Alex Jones Returns was the most listened to and most downloaded Joe Rogan experience podcast of all time.
How exactly did they confirm that?
The only person who gave comment for this story is Alex himself, so I'm guessing that maybe he confirmed that for them on background, because I just cannot imagine Joe Rogan giving this kind of...
Private business detail away to the fucking National File.
Alex does this any time there's some bad press about him.
He starts talking about how they're trying to assassinate his name before they kill him.
This is really...
Tired stuff.
He says this a lot.
He has for quite a while now.
But it's really extreme now.
The level of the way he's delivering this, the pressured speech, there's a mania to it that I don't normally see.
It doesn't strike me as meaning that he feels it more.
There's more of an extremeness to the performance of this narrative that he's used.
Yeah.
Whenever he was going through his custody hearing, he was saying that all these stories about him, it's all just a setup to make him look bad before they kill him.
It's just constant over and over.
But this is narcissism.
That's all this is.
It's fully on display.
The CIA planted stories about Alex having to pay $100,000.
for doing a bad job in the deposition being like really an affront to the court, more or less.
I would venture to say, anybody listening to this show, if you take the first, let's say, hour so seriously, where Alex is getting into the geopolitical scene and Trump made a bold move, and then out of nowhere he just starts talking about how the CIA is going to kill him and have a false flag, you should really step back and be like, is this someone who is healthy?
Those are two things of equal historical importance.
They say in an infinite universe all things are possible, but a malignant narcissist admitting that he is at fault for his own demise doesn't seem like one of them.
I gotta be honest, when I look at stuff like that, and the way Alex is presenting all this, like the CIA is going to kill me and do a false flag because I'm too right about everything and they hate...
How popular I am, and I made a deal with God literally years ago that I was going to trigger the end of the globalists, but I would be destroyed in the process.
As much as I've criticized the issues of going on, particularly 9-11, a lot of the problems that arose as a result of the Iran hostage feeds 9-11 really has come to fruition right now.
And I'm not going to interrupt you in a moment because I want you to be able to roll because you are a leading expert on this, but you're saying my gut level visceral reaction is right thing to do, lets the deep state know they're not going to play double deals with Iran against the U.S. is a message to North Korea on so many fronts.
So, like, even leaving aside the level of that stupid parallel, like, recent data sets that were put out by a Iran poll and the University of Maryland found that 86% of Iranians have unfavorable views of the United States, as opposed to 13% who have favorable views.
The favorable number has been steadily heading downward since a high of 31% in August 2015, and the unfavorable number has been similarly spiking since a low that same month at 67%.
No matter how bad the ruler in Iran is, it's absurd to imagine, particularly at this point in history, after all we've been through, that any country is just going to be like, hooray, the U.S. is here to liberate us.
That's just not a response you should be selling to people because people around the world have had plenty of examples when things didn't quite go that way.
First, Alex says that Steve left the Council on Foreign Relations after 9-11 because he knew they were involved in the attack.
This is complete...
Bullshit.
And it's wildly irresponsible for Steve not to correct Alex immediately.
In Steve's first interview with Alex from April 24, 2002, Alex asks Steve about being a member of the CFR.
Steve replies that it used to be an elite organization like 15 to 20 years prior, but, quote, I haven't attended a meeting in well over a year or two because it's become very much a rotary club.
Basically, it's the same people returning saying the same thing, and eventually I found it of very little help.
It was an organization basically designed not to influence or direct everything.
Steve clearly was telling Alex that he hasn't been to a CFR meeting in well over a year or two, and even if you take the most conservative estimate of time that he's describing, that would be pre-9-11.
So what Alex is saying is bullshit.
Maybe it's bullshit that Steve has since told Alex, and Alex doesn't realize it's a contradiction of Steve's original story, or maybe Alex is just making it up, knowing that Steve probably won't correct him.
They have the bond of two liars who are both totally aware that the other person is just as full of shit as the other.
It's the safest relationship in the world.
Two people who know the other one can fuck the other one.
And Steve's assessment of it, like being a Rotary Club, where people make connections and stuff like that, that's not too far off from a lot of people I've heard talk about it.
Now, Steve does not refute Alex's, they did 9-11 and that's why you left.
In fact, he says, I did leave because of 9-11, which is not true.
So why does Steve feel the need to call Haas a paramount, pathetic Jew?
How is his Jewishness relevant to the conversation about the CFR at all?
I didn't bring this up before because Steve is Jewish himself, and sometimes it hasn't felt as pronounced as this.
There's a bit of a trend lately where Steve's pointing out people's Jewishness, particularly when criticizing or insulting them.
I'd given it a pass, but in this instance, it's really glaring.
There's no reason to bring up whether or not the head of the CFR, who you're painting as a nefarious international cabal at war with America, is Jewish.
And there's no excuse for making it a compound insult, as Steve does.
Pathetic Jew.
I don't know what this means, per se, but it really worried me when I heard that.
I was disappointed that that's the angle that it took, but I kind of should have known because the guy was saying, I'm being surrounded by brown people.
It's clearly a racist farmer.
Of course, he's going to be like, you just work for the Jews.
It's like, this isn't good.
But Alex is very sensitive to those sorts of criticisms.
Especially on a high-tension day like this, he has a bit of a response to this.
Like, it doesn't happen immediately, but it throws him for a complete loop where he has to get super defensive about, like, ah, look, I do not work for Israel.
I mean, I disagree entirely with this caller, but this is the problem when you have this America first obsession and this nationalist focus.
It becomes very difficult to have a meaningful...
to you why you should care about foreign affairs, why you should care about what's going on in other countries, because it does appear to be not nationalist to the adherence of it.
And so Alex is trying to walk this line of, like, we have interests elsewhere, even if it is America first.
And this caller does not give a fuck about this.
It's still bad that he thinks that Alex is just doing this because of Israel, though.
Well, I think what Pachenik's saying is if that regime goes down and they get a populist regime in Tehran, that will absolutely stabilize a lot of the Middle East.
I mean, like, I disagree with the caller about everything.
It's the same thing with the other caller who was like, well, within the framework that Alex has constructed, that is the response you're supposed to have.
And this caller is more true to what Alex has presented and preached for a very long time.
And so there is this dissonance between the callers being like, this is what we were.
This is what this was about.
This is the logical endpoint of this shit.
And you are now no longer on board with what you have left the audience.
It is kind of funny to listen to these callers because it's a little bit like...
And I think what we should do is switch to a socialist form of government based around economic safety for all of its people and not just focused on the few.
I mean, that's another danger of doing business in this weird conspiracy space, especially when so many of your narratives rely on anti-Semitic shit from history.
A ton of this stuff is going to appeal to people who are not just politically against some of the things that the government of Israel does.
They're going to have a much larger view of that in the conspiracy space, and that's dangerous.
Yeah, it's especially dangerous now because of a certain listlessness, you know, on the left of somebody who's very much, I'm anti-interventionist, I want to follow news sources that give me this anti-interventionist rhetoric that I like, and it turns out that...
The anti-interventionists are also Nazis.
You just wandered in and now you're like eco-fascism.
But I am going to insist, like, you should give me the benefit of the doubt, and when you start responding, and clearly you're not, I'm going to talk over you and hang up on you.
I mean, it's one thing to have, like, a little bit of dissent and stuff like that on the show, but when you're not really even engaging with it, it doesn't really...
Count for much.
But they go to commercial, and they come back, and Alex gives a very defensive rant about Israel.
And it's pretty standard stuff for him.
It's kind of along the lines of, like, everybody's obsessed with Israel.
They always accuse me of, like, just because I do X, Y, or Z. It's pretty standard stuff.
And I don't find it notable at all.
He goes on that rant a bit.
I've heard it many times.
It's only notable because Steve is there.
And this makes Steve start talking about some of his feelings about Israel.
Now, beyond that, I don't want to put this too bluntly, so I'm just going to come out and say that...
The more Steve is talking, the more worried I am.
I don't know too many people outside Holocaust denial communities who talk about the Holocaust as a myth.
I know that he's not saying that it didn't happen, but what he's engaging in here is very standard behavior you would see from more savvy Holocaust deniers or revisionists.
How many people are suddenly, you know, you used to be a Republican, and then three years later, we need a religious theocracy, and we need to, you know, it didn't take long for a lot of people to get fucked up.
Also, how could you possibly square the events of his earlier career in the State Department with the ability to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen?
At the time, the area was the Mandate for Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine, and it was run by the British.
The British government put in place restrictive immigration policies in the form of the White Paper of 1939, which said a maximum of 15,000 immigrants who could enter the mandate each year.
If you look back at that period with present-day eyes, you would think that the countries of the world would immediately open their doors to these people who were being systematically killed, but that was not the case.
There were very few countries that were willing to take in a vast number of refugees fleeing from Germany and Austria, and this continued even after the war.
Hundreds of thousands of people who'd just survived something unthinkable were put in displaced persons camps, having nowhere to go and very few options.
Then, in 1948, the State of Israel was established.
And in the first few years, approximately 140,000 Holocaust survivors immigrated there and were let in.
David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel, but until its formation in 1948, he had no formal office in the government in the mandate for Palestine.
He was just a prominent figure in the Jewish community there.
He would have literally no authority to negotiate immigration deals with Eichmann.
Who, incidentally, was living in hiding at that point in rural Germany before fleeing to Argentina.
What I'm saying is that there's no real point in history when Ben-Gurion and Eichmann could have had a reason to negotiate something like this.
I was trying to find places where this 300,000 number might come up, because he's saying they had this conversation, this offer of 300,000 people from the camps.
And one of the only places I can find that number is in an interview that Ben Gurion did in March 1960, published in the spring 1997 issue of Israel Studies.
In it, he says, quote, 12 years ago, the Jewish state was established.
First, we took in 300,000 European Jews from the displaced persons camps.
It's basically the opposite of what Steve is saying.
You can definitely make an argument that the non-Axis powers did not step up to help refugees who were in desperate need during World War II, and that argument has been made by many scholars, like David Wyman in his book The Abandonment of the Jews.
That's a fine discussion to have, and honestly, having that conversation should really make someone like Alex or Steve rethink their current positions on immigration.
What's not okay is what Steve is doing.
Unless he can cite his source on this alleged negotiation between David Ben-Gurion and Eichmann, then I have to assume this is just bullshit that's designed to rewrite the events of the Holocaust.
What's happening here is more of Steve blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.
It's coming out here, which is not good.
I think he might have taken a real serious turn, or maybe he's just been in the past better able to hide this part of his beliefs, because I'm shocked by this.
I wonder where he's looked into this, because it's absolutely 100% bullshit, and it's a theory I've definitely heard put forth by some fairly neo-Nazi sites.
However, the theory that his father was a Rothschild is based solely, and I stress solely, on a rumor that his mother, Maria Ann Schickelgruber, she'd been a servant for some unspecified time at the home of Baron Rothschild in Vienna.
There's no proof that she had actually ever been a servant there.
There's no evidence that this timeline would match up, even if she had.
And there's no proof that Maria got pregnant by Baron Rothschild giving birth to Hitler's father.
This is fantasy stuff.
And it was kind of tabloid rumor shit in the 1930s that is not true and has just continued as conspiracy bullshit to the present day.
This story got a little bit of credibility after the Nuremberg trials, when Hitler's lawyer, Hans Frank, told the tale while waiting to be hung.
So as the story goes, Hitler confided in Frank that he was being blackmailed by his nephew, that the nephew was going to reveal that Hitler was Jewish.
None of this story matches up with historical records, though.
As historian Ian Kershaw points out in his book Hubris, this would have been in the 1830s, but Jewish people weren't allowed to live in Gros until the 1860s, so there wouldn't be any Jewish families of wealth living there at the time.
There was also no family named Frankenberger living there at the time, and the next closest thing was Frankenreiter, but they weren't Jewish.
No serious person takes this story as being anything close to accurate.
And this story has far more credibility to it than the Rothschild one, since at least it's a fake story being told by a real associate.
The Rothschild thing is just completely made up.
DNA tests have shown that Hitler probably did have some Jewish ancestry, but that's not surprising, given the time period and the geography, the area, and it doesn't prove anything close to what Alex is claiming.
I've seen this argument presented in some neo-Nazi-leaning circles, and that immediately doesn't quite make sense.
So believing that Hitler was secretly a Jew allows you to retain that anti-Semitism while still having a handy reason to not feel so bad about the fact that Hitler lost World War II.
So I think that there is a certain subset of that community that scapegoats the loss of World War II on the fact that Hitler was a Rothschild secret Jewish person all along.
So he was just leading all us noble whites down the path of destruction or whatever.
I thought we were going to be digging into an episode where Alex just talks about how Trump is totally cool to go to war, and then Steve shows up in this fucking thing turned super-crypto-Nazi.
To put it plainly, Alex is completely losing control of his show, and it's steering ever closer to being an out-and-out, openly anti-Semitic program.
His inability to screen guests, his unwillingness to break ties with Steve Pachanek, and his underlying bigotries that he refuses to examine, they're really starting to come to a head, and I find the result to be fucking ugly.
That's what we're seeing here.
This next clip.
Steve says that Israel came up with the lie or the myth of the Holocaust in 1965.
All I'm trying to say is these ignoramuses call in and magically go, oh, you're doing this for Israel when they don't even know what they're talking about.
Meanwhile, you're talking to somebody who is engaging in Holocaust revisionism at best.
And Alex is too self-absorbed in his feelings about this caller saying he's working for Israel that he can't even push back on this very clear, super disturbing shit that's coming out of Steve's mouth.
You think anybody in the news goes back to the Carter administration or the Reagan administration or the Bush administration, all of which I was in and I was against, but nevertheless, I served my country.
So it's very easy for somebody in Virginia to say, oh, I'm disappointed in this and that.
It's much harder to be what you have to be, a citizen soldier.
I know Trump's not in full control of the government yet, but when they do these pushes on me with the fake Sandy Hook news, you know, that I've lost lawsuits and stuff, usually it's not even true, on every channel on New Year's Eve while the balls are dropping, who the hell is giving that order in your view and what is that?
She's been a guest on Alex's show Dating Back many years, but I haven't heard her on the show in a really long time, so the timing of her resurgence is pretty weird.
For years, Alex has relied on interviews with Syrian Girl to justify his belief that chemical attacks in Syria are false flags.
While the international community has arrived at the conclusion that Assad used these weapons, Syrian Girl has decided that is not the case and that rebels attack themselves in order to dupe the international community into supporting them.
Honestly, I think she's a horrible voice in this conspiracy ecosystem, but I've never really found her all that particularly interesting the other times I've heard her on the show long in the past.
I think part of the reason is that she doesn't seem to have any credentials to speak on any of the issues other than the fact that she was born in Damascus, though her parents moved to Australia when she was very young, and the fact that she was in a graduate program for chemistry, which she never finished.
I'm not sure this will make sense but I've kind of always seen Syrian girl as more of an Alex Jones caller who got elevated to the status of having an alias Kind of like Zack.
Though her primary area of importance on Alex's show is to deny that Assad had anything to do with war crimes, she's on the show today probably because her support of Assad goes hand-in-hand with Hezbollah.
Since they're fighting for Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in turn is an Iranian-backed militia, so by extension her support of Assad trickles down to his support of the Iranian regime.
So there is a weird dynamic at play here.
even though she's Syrian girl, there is an intersection where that support and that being on the side of the Syrian army and Assad's regime does come into play with an issue that affects Iran.
So Nancy Pelosi's father was named Thomas D 'Alessandro Jr., and he was not one of the founders of Israel, nor was he a member of a terrorist group.
He was on the Baltimore City Council from 1935 to 1938, then a member of the House of Representatives from 1939 to 1947, and then the mayor of Baltimore from 1947 to 1959.
So unless he was the mayor and moonlighting halfway across the world...
What is true is that D 'Alessandro was a very vocal supporter of finding a place for the displaced Jewish population to be taken in, which put him at odds with the policies of his president, FDR, who was pushing the opposite at that point.
Well, not the opposite, but certainly not what D 'Alessandro was into.
D 'Alessandro opposed British control over the mandate for Palestine, and he lobbied for the United States to prioritize saving Jews.
He was instrumental in helping get the War Refugee Board established, which helped in rescue efforts.
Dalessandro was a proponent of the creation of Israel, but by the time that was happening, he wasn't even in Congress anymore, having become the mayor of Baltimore.
So while it is fair to say that he was into the formation of Israel, it's a bit much to say that he was a founder.
And he wasn't involved in any terrorist groups.
He was potentially connected to the mafia, though, through a friend of his, which derailed his attempts to get re-elected as mayor, but I hardly think that that's what Syrian girl is talking about.
More importantly, you can kind of get a sense here of the level of shit that Syrian girl brings to the table.
Vague, misleading accusations about one political figure being used to justify a ridiculous conspiracy theory, like that Nancy Pelosi wanted to impeach Trump so he'd be forced to attack Iran.
It's just profoundly bad thinking, but ultimately, it's also meant to imply that it is Israel that's the reason that Pelosi does this stuff in the first place.
That's what this boils down to, which is, again, the same mentality that is not good.
That basically boils down to saying that Trump is so unaware of the world, so dumb, so malleable and gullible that he'll commit acts like political assassinations without understanding the stakes of his actions just because someone told him it was a good idea.
Their defense seems to be that Trump is a fucking idiot, which shows how thin the soup has gotten.
This is how ineffectual the defense has gotten in January.
I can't imagine how strained these people are going to be by the election.
Of course he's a moron who will kill members of foreign governments that he totally shouldn't just because someone told him to, but you've got to vote for him.
Also, when Alex says that the Ayatollah is a moron, reportedly, that's a reference to something that Steve told him earlier in the show in that interview.
Steve kept saying that back in the day he'd been to the Ayatollah Khomeini's house to negotiate things.
I would say that what needs to happen is he's a name that people need to know.
People need to be more aware of the dangerous, insidious influence that he is on a lot of this.
And one of the problems that I think is so pronounced with him is he is able to be a bit chameleon-ish.
He's talking like this on Alex's show, but I've watched his own live streams, or his streams that he does, his little videos, and they are of a pretty different tone.
When he goes on other shows, he adapts to the environment that he's in based on what would be appropriate there.
I kept that clip in because it's one of the times that Syrian girl is more specific about the claims that she's making that serve to deny Assad's involvement in chemical weapons use.
Following the release of the OPCW, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, their report about the Duma attack, WikiLeaks released some documents from inside the investigation that cast doubt on their conclusions, including an email from a member of the fact-finding team that had a dissenting view and felt that his perspective was ignored in the OPCW report.
These documents are used to argue that there was a massive cover-up in the OPCW, which Syrian Girl and Alex are now transforming into proof that this was a false flag, but none of these leaps of logic are actually earned in any way.
The OPCW Director General, Fernando Arias, came out and explained that, quote, the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team is to express subjective views.
While some of these diverse views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I'd like to reiterate that I stand by the independent professional conclusion.
I honestly feel like it would be almost more suspicious if there was absolutely no dissenting voices in an investigation like this.
That would either indicate them operating from a predetermined conclusion or a complete disinterest in other possible explanations.
The presence of alternative viewpoints, as best I can tell, is more evidence that the conclusion arrived at in the report is the result of investigation.
I've looked into this a little bit, and like I said, I'm not an expert, but from the credible information I can find, this appears pretty clearly not to be a false flag.
I would say I find very little compelling reason to believe that.
When I weigh that against people who are saying this is a false flag, like Assad, Alex Jones, and the Russian government, the picture of which side to err on I think becomes a lot easier to figure out.
So I just don't care for this much.
And when her example for what proves definitively that this was a false flag is those OPCW leaks, they don't prove that.
So if that's the tripod you're standing your camera on, Your camera's going to fall over, and I lost track of that metaphor in the middle of it.
I want you to ride shotgun with me, and I promise, if the hair didn't rise over Bear Creek, that's a combination of the hair lips, the Admiral, and water doesn't rise over Bear Creek.
Being that it's kind of making reference to people with cleft lips, I think it's probably a pretty insensitive expression that I don't think would be appropriate to use anymore, but I can't imagine that Alex is apologizing for that, that it's not politically correct.
If the water doesn't rise over Bear Creek is not a popular expression, though it's kind of a formulation of Lord willing and the creek doesn't rise, which is a slang term that was actually used as a title for Spike Lee's 2010 documentary about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The thing is, though, that those two idioms mean completely different things.
The first is an expression that no matter what, come hell or high water, something is going to get done.
The second is an expression that says that this thing is going to be done, provided that the creek doesn't rise.
By mixing these expressions, Alex is basically saying that he's going to get to calls come hell or high water, but not if there's high water.
It's super weird and probably completely meaningless, but I honestly find a subconscious truth buried in there.
It's like Alex's brain is just built to make bold pronouncements about what he's going to do no matter what while simultaneously baking in reasons why some of it's never going to get done.
Honestly, this accidentally, I think, is a pretty good idiom to describe Alex.
It reminds me so much of the Chobani lawsuit, where he was on air screaming out how he was going to win that case or die in the process, and then he settled a week later.
I'm not entirely sure what he thinks is politically incorrect about it, though.
But I really wanted to let you know that there was another thing that I was more concerned about that I got wind of from some of my military contacts in Africa.
That some of the FSA Al-Qaeda-backed operatives, about 700 of them, got flown out of Idlib and it got placed down into Africa.
And there's wind about them trying to collect Ebola and trying to use it.
The left is in a war against America is the thought that proceeds directly after his bullshit racist lie about being able to shoot white women in the back if you're an immigrant.
You see how all of this stuff is filtered and eventually comes down the drain, and the drain is white nationalism.
It is all of this, like, okay, ah.
What are we going to do?
We're going to come up with a narrative about how Al-Qaeda and ISIS are going to Africa to get Ebola to attack us.
I was thinking that maybe China, Iran, each state was all intertwined and trying to throw Trump off and make him look weak right before going into this first phase of the trade deal.
Now, at the same time, while you have these old-school people coming on, you have these old-school callers who are calling in, expressing this deep disappointment with Alex.
There is a real tension brewing, I think, in Infowars itself.
I think it's...
I don't know what it's going to lead to, and I just think, I mean, if I had to sum anything up, I'd say this show sucks.
He has no ability to push back on Steve saying wildly inappropriate and offensive things.
Syrian girl is probably someone who we should...
If she does end up coming back on the show, I think we should look into a lot more deeply because I know that she has a pretty fucked up set of beliefs.