Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ January 12–13, 2020 episodes, exposing his baseless claims—like California’s "vampirism" textbooks (debunked by a 220-follower Facebook group) and vaccine cover-ups tied to discredited figures like Andrew Wakefield. Jones pivots from mocking Richard Spencer’s extremism to amplifying his racialized nationalism, then escalates to violent calls for executions over fentanyl while ignoring his own libertarian contradictions. Callers peddle fringe theories (e.g., Navy anti-gravity patents), which Jones fails to correct, reinforcing patterns of sensationalism and uncritical conspiracy-mongering that blur fact with outrageous fiction. [Automatically generated summary]
Legitimately, that's the only thing that I've ever found.
I mean, I guess like in past times, things like meditation and mindfulness have yielded some positive results, but I would be kind of putting on airs if I use that as like an actual actual piece of advice since it's not really a consistent part of my life.
But yeah, just keep making things, keep moving forward.
It was something impressed upon me in some, I believe it was some like creative writing class I took long ago.
It was like you can't control the quality of what you create.
Sometimes things will be good, sometimes things will be bad, but you can control the quantity.
And so if you create a hundred things and three are good, that's better than sitting around and trying desperately to create that one good thing and not allowing yourself to do anything, get anything done unless it's as good as you want it to be.
So I would say that's probably the best.
Just keep doing stuff, keep working, and eventually exercise some, you know, oversight of what you put out or what you release.
So we're starting on the 12th because I was listening to the show, and it's interesting because this is a Sunday show that is absolutely in the mold of the we're going to soft launch some narratives.
Sure.
This is definitely that sort of Sunday show where he's doing a trial run.
You know, we're not on the main show.
We're only on the stations that carry the Sunday show.
So this was a difficult story to tell exactly what Alex was talking about because of the phrasing of it, it's you know, that's not super easily Google-able.
Even if you believe everything that's in John Bown's article, which I do not, Alex is still wrong.
He's here on air saying that this stuff is being taught to eighth graders when the article specifically says that it's part of curriculum for ninth through 12th graders.
Alex Jones cannot help himself.
He just reflexively embellishes literally everything he talks about.
Now, as to whether or not California students are being taught about blood drinking for sexual pleasure, I'm not sure that this article that John Bown wrote establishes that.
According to Bown's article, he saw a Facebook post on a page for a group.
A post on this Facebook page for a group called Informed Parents of Washington that claimed that there was a book called Sex that was on the suggested reading list for high school students.
I'll accept your Bown writes, quote, the textbook allegedly contained a chapter on anal sex and vampiric sexual practices known as blood play.
First of all, this is not a textbook.
And even according to that article, it wasn't required reading.
It was just on a suggested list.
And if you know anything about high schoolers, most of them are not going to do much reading or homework that is not required.
Also, blood play is not inherently satanic or vampiric, though some participants may lick or even drink each other's blood.
But my position on this is sort of like, if they're doing this responsibly and both parties are into it, who cares?
Alex pretends to be a libertarian, so he should care even less than I do.
The issue here, and one of the reasons I could see this being very valuable as like some information, you know, being there in a sex ed program that's available to the students, is that kind of play can be pretty dangerous if you're not engaging in it responsibly.
Sure.
It's a pretty widespread kink, like not super universal, but it's one that a number of people have, which tends to imply that it's not just going to go away if the right wing pretends it doesn't exist.
So the best thing you can do to make sure people who are drawn to that kink, the best thing is to have them make sure they have all the information they need.
I could see why you definitely don't need to make blood play front and center in your sex ed curriculum, but it feels appropriate to have some resources available for people if they want.
So I went and checked out the Facebook page for Informed Parents of Washington.
And let me begin my review of it by saying that I would probably be a bit embarrassed if I used this as a primary source.
As best as I can tell from scrolling all the way down their timeline, this page first posted on December 9th, 2019.
So it's been around about a year.
And it only has 220 followers.
It's completely anonymous and seems just to be obsessed with anti-sex education news.
There's very little emphasis even on Washington.
So your theory about it just being informed, but not about Washington might be accurate.
This is barely even a real group.
And Infowars has picked up this Facebook post from them and relied on it to source their reporting.
This is really embarrassing stuff.
And later, I even learned that I think the John Bown article is based on an article on National File, which again is run by Alex's employee Tom Pappard.
Man.
So they're even laundering it through a second thing.
But it all traces just back to this Facebook post.
She's not saying there's a cover-up, just advocating that the international health organizations do a better and more comprehensive job so anti-vax people can't wiggle into the gray area.
Right, right, right, right.
She does say that there are deaths that can be traced to vaccines, but no one disputes that.
Alex is pretending that this is some kind of a giant admission when it's literally just how medicine works.
There isn't a medicine or treatment on this planet that I'm aware of that doesn't have some death toll.
So this is definitely not her slipping up and revealing there's some kind of a cover-up going on.
So Alex is pretending that he and his crew have been pouring over hours and hours of footage from this World Health Organization summit where this woman gave this speech.
But in reality, the only thing he ever produces is a video that some anti-vax group that he doesn't name created, which includes a very short clip of Dr. Swamanathan out of context.
I find this narrative super uncompelling.
And if Alex really had some kind of a smoking gun like he's claiming he has, he would have released the entire raw footage of this meeting.
Like, because he's saying that they're not putting it out.
We have copies of it.
We've been going over it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason he's not doing that is because he knows that the context of the larger conversation would tend to contradict the narrative that he's building.
Yeah, there's actually more to this that I looked into that we'll get into a little bit later, sort of trace down some of the roots of where this is all coming from.
But for now, I just found him bringing this up.
This is a very uncompelling narrative, just sloppy work in his anti-vex crusade.
But little did I know.
See, I work quite a bit on this show.
I do a lot of reading, a lot of preparation, editing.
I do a lot of just sort of, and I'm not complaining.
So I was growing up, and I would hear the leftist propaganda that, oh, there's all these squares that don't want you to have a girlfriend, don't want you to drink a beer, don't want you to have fun.
Even though law enforcement was reporting it, there were thousands of convictions of human sacrifice, murder, Satanism.
They would say, Geraldo Rivera, he's putting out hoaxes.
None of it exists.
The Satanism hysteria, the Satanism panic, those files get declassified 30 years later and it's everything that the police were warning us about was real.
You're just going to have to trust me on this because Alex isn't explicitly saying this in this clip, but I know from listening to his show that when he says that the FBI declassified stuff that proves this satanic panic was a real thing, what he's talking about is the recent release of the files on the Finders.
This is just shorthand that he brings up all the time.
And any consistent listener of his show would know that when he brings up the FBI releasing files that prove this stuff, it's generally accompanied by discussion of the group, The Finders.
Last October, the FBI released their file on this group.
They were a group that was one of the central focuses of the last big satanic panic.
I'm absolutely certain that Alex has not read these files since it's 324 pages long and there aren't any dank memes in it.
So according to conspiracy lore, two men were arrested in Tallahassee, Florida back in 1987 on child abuse charges.
They were found with six children who weren't related to them, and they were uncooperative with the police when they were asked about who the kids were or to provide their identities or anything.
These men were part of a cult called the Finders, who were based in Washington, D.C., and they were run by someone who was called the game caller.
The feds would go on to raid the Finders and find proof of how they operated as a child abuse ring with kidnapping and grooming and taking in children.
Somehow, U.S. intelligence is involved as like using them as cutouts or something.
Probably Congress is in on it too, since they're in D.C.
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
So the FBI files on the Finders, they're pretty much a dud.
And it actually reveals how much of this narrative is based on paranoid fantasies that were very common in the cultural psyche back in the 80s.
There was a full investigation of these two men who were arrested in Tallahassee.
The police were able to find the parents of the six children, and quote, the mothers were all aware that the children had been taken to Florida on a trip.
They were familiar with and thoroughly trusted the men in whose care the children had been placed.
The men would go on to spend about 10 days in a local jail and then were released.
The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute the case largely because there wasn't strong evidence of any specific crime.
A special agent whose name is redacted from the files, quote, advised that the media blew the case out of proportion.
And that's basically what you find happening throughout a lot of the issues in the Satanic Panic.
But I mean, you don't even have to go back that far.
I mean, if you just look at that, like, yeah, no, every 30 years.
It's more easy to relate to being in the 80s as opposed to the 1600s.
So I've read over most of the Finders files, and it seems like the conclusion one should come to is that this was a group of people who wanted to live an alternative lifestyle, sort of a commune kind of vibe under the leadership of a weirdo called the game caller.
Apparently, what he would do is he would tell people in the group things to do in order to gain experiences because he would learn through their experience.
It's entirely possible that some abuse was taking place in that environment.
And I am not saying that there wasn't, but also FBI investigation failed to produce any proof of it.
The rest of the shit, the stuff that Alex believes, it's all just cultural exaggeration due to what was happening at the United States at that time with that book Michelle Remembers being released and the McMartin school trials creating a fever pitch of fear around satanic child abuse in particular circles in our country.
Then Alex said that he's having him on because he believes that Spencer is controlled opposition, which could look like Alex having him on for a confrontational interview.
But I assure you that Alex is not equipped to have that kind of interview with a slick, media-polished bigot like Richard Spencer.
Do you not think that Spencer's been called controlled opposition like a thousand times by now?
Do you not think he has a million deflections and rebuttals to that criticism at this point?
I've seen Richard Spencer in a number of debates and conversations, both friendly and in hostile environments.
And when I heard Alex tease this interview, all I could think is that this is going to be a disaster.
Spencer is much better at rhetoric stuff than Alex, and Alex is very gullible.
I just imagine Richard Spencer becoming the new geopolitical expert in Alex's whackpack after that.
Like back in 2017, 20, maybe even some 2018, 2016, Richard Spencer would have seen himself as being so far above going on Alex's show, he would not have done it.
Yeah, and at the same time, at that point, Alex wouldn't have seen himself as being in a position where having Spencer on could be anything worth doing.
Interestingly, Alex talks about that, about how, like, Spencer, Richard Spencer is probably the most famous white supremacist in America outside of David Duke.
Richard Spencer, other than David Duke, is one of the most famous white nationalists, white supremacists in the world.
And I do not believe David Duke is a fed.
I do not believe David Duke is an operative for the deep state.
I don't agree with David Duke on a lot of things.
But for the media to demonize David Duke and call him the worst person on earth because he is racially based when all the minority groups are being taught to be just as racist, but that's supposedly acceptable is a fraud.
You might recall that in August 2015, Alex had David Duke on the show in an interview that I'm sure Alex thought would be his big chance to prove that he wasn't like Duke.
It was a miserable failure because David Duke is a guy who's been attacked for his horrible positions for decades.
And through that, he's gained a little bit of an ability to out-argue people who aren't prepared for debates.
What I find very interesting is that here in 2020, Alex is saying that he doesn't agree with Duke, but that Alex is against the media saying Duke is banned for being racially based when all the other races are racially based.
This is interesting because when David Duke was on Alex's show just four and a half years ago, Alex made the exact opposite argument to him.
Alex's big disagreement with Duke was the fact that Duke was racially based and that focusing on race was a globalist distraction.
That's all changed now.
And Alex is okay with racially based identification and grouping.
This is a fundamental important pivot that Alex has made, whether or not it reflects his true opinion or not.
In 2015, prior to joining up with Trump, Alex's show was explicit in its position that grouping based on race was a globalist trick.
Now, Alex thinks it's cool for David Duke to do what he does because he feels that other races are doing the same thing.
Alex's show has always been profoundly racist and white identity heavy.
But that change in presentation, I think, is important to note.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that means that Alex is going to spend all of his time agreeing with Richard Spencer, but still being like, yeah, but you're here to make us look bad.
But yeah, I think the theme is pretty well spelled out in that clip, and that is that I have a vague accusation to make, but I have nothing to base it on, and that would be very easily dismissed.
And the reason that I'm taking one from the 12th and here one in the 13th is that when he was talking about it on the 12th, I didn't really know how to get a handle on what he was talking about.
I don't really understand where this information was coming from necessarily.
But when he brings it back up on the 13th, he gives a little bit more detail and he gives me a way in.
So Alex here is saying that he's gone over this 20 hours of footage from the World Health Organization summit about vaccines and that he's going to link the videos on banned.video.
Del Bigtree is one of the producers of the pseudo-documentary Vaxed, which pushed the discredited Wakefield Vaccines Cause Autism narrative.
Big Tree has no medical education or training.
He is a TV producer who formerly worked on the Dr. Phil show, who eventually learned about Andrew Wakefield and was swayed by that bullshit and went fully down that road.
In March of last year, Big Tree caught some heat from Jewish organizations after he gave an anti-vax speech wearing a yellow star, meant to compare the plight of the anti-vax community to that of Jews during the Holocaust.
Big Tree is the founder and CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network, an anti-vaccination group, one of the most prominent in the country.
He started the group in 2016, receiving a $100,000 grant from the Sells Foundation, a charitable organization run by Bernard Sells and his wife Lisa, who coincidentally is the president of the Informed Consent Action Network.
In 2012, the Sells gave $200,000 to Andrew Wakefield's legal fund, which kicked off a rash of big dollar contributions to anti-vax efforts and went on to provide much of the funding for that pseudo-documentary of his, Vexed, which was produced by Del Bigtree.
It's also important to remember that 2012 is two years after Wakefield was convicted of professional misconduct and had his license revoked.
So it's not like he was a guy in good standing that these people just wanted to support.
According to Business Insider, $1 million or three-quarters of Del Bigtree's budget came from the Sells Foundation in 2017.
And that isn't even close to all the anti-vax stuff the Sells Foundation has supported.
They've given millions more to other outfits that spread misinformation about vaccines to the point where it would be pretty fair to say that without their money funding a lot of this stuff, anti-vax shit wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is.
It's unclear exactly what their motivation is in spending millions of dollars to push debunked and discredited science.
But what is very clear is that these are the people who are largely behind the popularity of anti-vax narratives.
People like Alex love to pretend that it's all just a grassroots thing where normal everyday people were given a voice through social media and that's why the conversation is happening.
But it's not.
It's well funded, backed by these multi-millionaires.
That's so frustrating that we always get, you know, like so many people like to mock that white lady who's like, oh, I don't want to, no, no, no, I don't believe in that and home birth and goop and all that shit.
Whenever it's fucking these people who are the issue, it's, it's.
It boils down to like, who is astroturfing what and why are we making fun of the people who got tricked by it instead of going after the people who are tricking people?
Yeah, that why that's one of the reasons why I generally try to um approach some of this stuff with more empathy than some people think is appropriate.
And uh, you know, i'll take that, i'll take that criticism as uh being fine, but I disagree yeah that's, it's one of the things I mean.
Like obviously, that person that that's been tricked by this is still perpetuating and pushing, you know, narratives that could have the real world effect of people being heard, or absolutely, absolutely.
It's something to take seriously.
Yeah, they're not absolved of all right yeah, so Alex didn't watch 20 hours of footage from these hearings.
He watched that nine minute video released by Del Bigtree and pretended that he'd done the work.
He accepted the out-of-context snippets from Big Tree's video without question and presented this as a gigantic bombshell.
And on top of that, Alex is presenting this and like as investigative work that he's doing, when in reality, he's just regurgitating propaganda put out by a multi-millionaire funded anti-vax front group stud's the worst.
Like in one instance, there might be a recall on a specific batch of a vaccine due to internal quality assurance testing indicating there might be a contamination or some other concern.
This happens not super regularly, but you can find plenty of examples of it.
In other cases, a vaccine might be discontinued because a better vaccine has been developed or it's just not effective anymore.
Other times, there are reactions that are not anticipated and oftentimes can't really be anticipated that are discovered after a vaccine begins being used.
For instance, in 1976, there was a fear of a potential epidemic strain outbreak of swine flu at Fort Dix in New Jersey.
Scientists at the CDC went to work on creating a vaccine due to the severity of the possibility of what could come once flu season came.
After administering the vaccination program, it was found that a small number of people who got the vaccine had come down with Guillain-Beret syndrome.
And the timeline of the condition made it possible that there was a connection between the syndrome and the shot.
There was no causal link established, but the perception was made by the media that the shot had caused the Guillain-Beret.
By December, according to the CDC, quote, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association with Guillaume-Beret syndrome and the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization.
There are other examples, but there's one of them.
So what Alex is saying is a lie.
Health officials are absolutely willing to pull or discontinue use of vaccines.
Nothing Alex is saying is based on anything.
He just feels like they never pull vaccines because that better conforms to his dumb worldview that everything is against him and everything's a plot.
Oh, and it's the same left saying open the borders and bringing people from the third world absolutely infested with communicable diseases.
And then when there's outbreaks of those in vaccinated populations, they point their finger at us and say it's our fault.
Even though later you read the fine print, they go, well, the big outbreaks in New Jersey and New York were from illegal aliens brought in from Central and South America.
If you actually read the actual fine print, you'll know that Alex is just spaking up a part about undocumented immigrants causing outbreaks.
We've been over this a bunch, but what he's talking about is that measles outbreaks, those ones that happened last year.
Some of them were thought to be caused by people who had traveled overseas to areas where there were outbreaks.
For instance, the Orthodox Jewish community in New York's cases were, quote, brought on by travelers who'd been to Israel, according to the Pan-American Health Organization.
There's a big difference between people traveling and immigrating.
Alex doesn't care about this distinction.
He just sees what he decides to pretend is fine print, saying that there may be a foreign origin to some disease in the United States, and that's automatically understood to be undocumented immigrants being carriers of disease that the left is bringing into the United States to attack white people.
If Alex were really interested in these sorts of issues, I would expect that he should be covering how there's severe overcrowding in detention facilities near the border that's led to internal outbreaks of mumps and chickenpox.
But I never seem to hear him caring too much about that.
I don't know if I've ever even heard him bring it up.
Alex has a really interesting angle here on pharmaceuticals and China.
I'm going to read to you here from an article on InfoWars.
Quote, if we are dependent on China for thousands of ingredients and raw materials to make our medicine, China could use this dependence as a weapon against us.
While the Department of Defense only purchases a small quantity of finished pharmaceuticals from China, about 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients, APIs, used to make drugs in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India.
Oh, wait.
I'm sorry.
I mixed up my notes.
That was from an article on the Council on Foreign Relations website published on August 14th, 2019.
Whereas Alex just yells about these sorts of issues, his big villains, the CFR, explore them in far more meaningful ways.
For instance, this article points out, just in that quote that I read, that these raw materials are coming from, quote, China and other countries like India.
That 80% number is not all just from China.
It's the amount of APIs that are imported as opposed to being domestically sourced, which is totally different.
This article discusses how we're almost certainly also overestimating the number of these ingredients and the amount of it that's coming from China, saying, quote, as of 2018, China claimed 13.4% of all import lines defined as distinct regulated products within a shipment through customs among countries that export drugs and biologics to the United States.
Alex knows damn well that ad got pulled because it said that Trump was quote looking for strong women like you.
It had nothing to do with the women part.
It had to do with the you part that was counter to Facebook's ad policy.
You can't target advertising at people like that.
And Trump's campaign had every reason to know that this was against the policy.
This is just intentional obtuseness because it plays better to argue that Facebook won't let Trump promote to women than it is to say Trump doesn't know Facebook's policies and he broke the rules.
But have you noticed that if you have a droid or you have an Apple, particularly Apple, that for a couple years it's been doing this, but now it's getting really good at it.
It takes your photos of, say, your baby or your wife or your husband or a certain trip you went on and it puts together really good timelines that are as good as a human could do.
I mean, some of these look like Steven Spielberg directed them with the music and just how they do things right at the perfect time.
And then your baby daughter says one little thing right at the end.
And I went back and looked on my wife's phone at this at the thousands of photos and videos.
And it, I mean, it really picked the very best stuff.
Very, very frightening.
It's not being done locally on the phone.
This is just the interface to the big AI system.
It's being done in Beijing, where the main computers for Apple are Apple.
I would assume the reason that they're the higher quality photos and it's like they chose the best stuff is because you've interacted with that stuff more than the photos that are like, ah, that was a mistake.
It's also because of Alex's misunderstanding of the, like, he thinks that all of our phone's information is in China as opposed to the reality of that story, which is still not good.
He has a big narrative about there was a Facebook glitch that revealed that Greta Thunberg's dad runs her Facebook page, and she addressed that by saying, Yeah, I use his account to use this Facebook page.
This clip just involves Alex talking about how climate change exists in order to create a priest class that will eventually lead to us sacrificing babies.
If you believe that carbon dioxide is so evil in trace gas, well, if China has unlimited release of it, nobody wants to cut theirs.
Why do we have to cut ours?
Because it's about economic warfare.
It's about control.
And it's about dumbing people down with the superstition like the ancient Aztecs and the ancient Druids and others did saying the sun didn't come back today because you've been evil.
So do what the priesthood says.
And people would believe that they were at fault and would do whatever the priest class said, even unto giving the priest class their children in every culture for human sacrifice.
In the Old Testament, Abraham.
Just a human sacrifice.
When God says, get your son up here and kill him, your firstborn, that son you wanted so bad.
Just things we can't see, but science now proves that there's something holding this dimension in that's many times stronger than the dimension that we're in.
If I understand correctly, not only is he denying climate change, but insisting that we need to pour more carbon into the atmosphere in order to fulfill God's plan of geoengineering to make sure that camels can be in the Sahara.
Yeah, I mean, the Sahara is a pretty interesting thing, inasmuch as, like, from some of the articles I was reading, they were saying it goes through like 20,000-year cycles.
And so Paul Watson links directly to the police department press releases and a newscast about Muslims being arrested and indicted for setting fires, they believe.
And they're laughing outside the courts.
And Muslims are posing in front of Notre Dame laughing.
And the Guardian says that's a fake photo.
Snoop says that that's a fake photo.
InfoWars puts on a fake photo that they got from Sputnik, the Russians.
Turns out Sputnik got it from a major photo public library, paid for it, and we carried it too.
When I first covered this narrative on Alex's show, I read Paul's article about the Australian fires, and he didn't link to any police reporting.
It was just one tweet from Seven News that he was using as a source.
Now, however, the narrative is pivoted, and he's blaming Muslims.
So I thought, why not see if Paul's written a new article and see if there's any updated information?
I went to Summit.news and the only thing I could find is a new video that Paul shot with the title, Who Started the Australian Bushfires? with the subtitle, quote, the question the media won't ask.
It's just, you know, Paul's standard mopey-ass stuff.
The first five minutes of the video is Paul getting really defensive about how people criticized him for writing that Muslims celebrated the Notre Dame fire when he had strong evidence, like Facebook comments.
He then weaves in a Breitbart article that involves some official from Israel saying that arson can be considered terrorism, and a Daily Mail article about ISIS using fire as a weapon in Syria.
All of this is to imply that the fires in Australia are Muslim terrorism.
After rambling about ISIS using fires as a weapon, Paul, as if he's a man working for a dude who's getting sued by literally everyone, says, and I quote, it's not to say there's any evidence that this is taking place in Australia.
To translate, that means I have no reason or proof that Muslims have anything to do with these bushfires, but the only reason I have a career is to satisfy bigots.
So I need to try and make some kind of insinuation here to keep them happy.
This is legitimately sick shit.
And you can see how this pipeline works.
Paul does this mealy-mouthed, we got to ask the question shit.
And then that's taken by Alex, who pretends that it's reporting and that it was Muslims.
The only thing Paul has to go on here is a gateway pundit article about a couple of Muslim teenagers who were arrested for starting a fire.
Paul is walking that suggestiveness line, as always, trying to play with the edge of, are these kids or secret terrorists?
Unfortunately, he's super sloppy, and he accidentally flashes the article up on screen, including the portion of the article that says, quote, the brothers set off fireworks that started a park on fire.
Probably sounds like it's kid shit.
His big angle is that this picture of one of them, they're apparently laughing after they get out of court.
And also, I read the Snopes article about the Notre Dame misinformation, and they don't even mention InfoWars.
They don't even mention whatever picture Alex is talking about.
They're more concerned with an obviously doctored video that was making the rounds where someone put audio of people yelling a la hakbar over video of the cathedral.
I have no idea what Alex is projecting about here, but if I had to guess, it's the stress that's brought on by two decades of being full of shit.
Man, that reminds, because that's such the like they just put out the results of a poll where a massive amount of people think that Iran already has a nuclear weapon.
So I get this sense that Alex is like, he thinks that he's going to have like this gotcha moment where he's like, you work for the globalists, and then Richard Spencer is going to be like, I think he thinks that that's maybe a possibility.
Alex and guests like Steve Pieczenik, I mean, just like within the last week, Steve was talking about how bad Abraham Lincoln is.
The Infowars line is fucking Confederate.
This guy should understand, like, be like, oh, yeah, yeah, they're saying bad things about Trump, but you should see what they said about Lincoln back in the day, as if to imply what Lincoln did was good and misunderstood at the time.
So I think that's ludicrous for a number of reasons.
But leaving those aside, I want to give a real important caveat here in that some of the things that I'm going to end up saying sound positive about Richard Spencer.
So I play that because I think it's important to recognize, as slickly as he's going to try and come off in this interview, and as he does all the time, beneath that.
And if you listen to him, you can tell that he might be realizing that he is in no way prepared to have this conversation.
Alex legitimately thinks he can just say, what's wrong with Trump from a white nationalist perspective and think that's going to in any way get Richard fucking Spencer on his heels.
For one, labeling this guy a white nationalist is not going to tarnish him in any way from the perspective of Alex's audience.
Many of them probably think that white nationalist just means being a white person who's also a nationalist.
And the rest of them don't think that white nationalism is a bad thing.
I hear smugness in the way Alex delivers his question.
With just those two simple deflections, Spencer has completely neutralized these two accusations that Alex started the interview with, and he's given himself the high ground in the conversation, which that's going to allow him to deliver these talking points, which Alex can't really disagree with.
You can almost hear an uh-oh in Alex when Spencer stops talking and there's a long pause.
And all Alex can come up with is a comment about how Trump hasn't cut down visas for skilled workers like he promised.
Whatever Alex hoped to get out of this conversation is already gone.
He's failed right out of the gate because he had no idea who he was about to talk to and he underestimated his guest.
And again, to be clear, that's not to say that Richard Spencer is some kind of superhuman thinker or debater.
He's just someone with skill levels high, high above Alex.
No, and if you can't sort of predict that that is what's going to happen, that means that you're either terrible at the job you signed up for, or maybe you're not super terrible, but you just weren't prepared for the circumstances that you have allowed yourself to get in.
This is why you don't do conversations like this unless you are fully prepared, unless you take it very seriously.
Because like, I keep stressing, someone like Richard Spencer knows these things.
Like, he's thought through these question trees.
Like, the, like, okay, if someone asks this question, what's the best way to proceed?
Whether or not he sat down and actually diagrammed these things, I have no fucking idea.
But intuitively, through experience and repetition, he understands, okay, here's where an attack is going to come from.
Like, you know that there's only a certain number of types of things an audience member can yell at you.
Yeah.
So if you come up with like a standard kind of strategy to respond to mean thing that's said, unintelligible thing that's said, you'll be able to roll with it much better.
The same way Richard Spencer is able to roll with the way that Alex is trying to frame the conversation.
The framing failed.
It completely failed.
And now it is up to Spencer to just dictate the terms of what they're going to do.
So now that Spencer has realized he can take the upper hand in the conversation, he begins immediately with bringing up things Alex said earlier and that he disagrees with.
In this case, Alex's desire for more high-skilled and intelligent immigrants.
Alex is going to have a really hard time defending his position against someone who's willing to take the other side, which Spencer is.
So this is rocky territory.
And you can see how not great Alex's standing is when all he can come up with is smart immigrants made this country when Europeans came over.
Without any effort, without any force, Spencer has elicited a white nationalist idea from Alex.
So Alex has said that smart immigrants made America, and Spencer completely dismisses that comment by claiming to partially agree with it, then moving on to his talking point.
And he knows that Alex can't really disagree with it without contradicting his own positions.
That's kind of a silly thing to say for a lot of reasons, but the most important is because what we perceive as white today is not the same as the 1700s definition of white.
In the late 1800s, Italian immigrants were absolutely not considered white, whereas now you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who excludes Italians from the category.
Same goes for Irish, Polish, and Greeks throughout the country's history.
I mean, shit, Benjamin Franklin called the German people living in Pennsylvania palatine boars.
You could make the argument that the country was Anglo-Saxon in nature at the beginning, maybe.
But if you did that, you're kind of implying that the goal should be for us to make it an Anglo-Saxon country now, which is not a white one, because those aren't the same thing.
Current day white nationalists try and wave this idea away because their definition of white is not one that would be productive if you try and consult history.
Their definition includes people they feel they would want to be in a group with, which conforms to their underlying prejudices and hate.
The sleight of hand trick that they're doing is the part where they try to pretend that the definition of white has always been the same, and they're actually, they're just in line with the founders of the country.
They don't say that this country should be Anglo-Saxon as a country because that sounds fucking stupid.
And almost all of them would be considered undesirables, undermining the purity of the country, as they would have been in the 1700s.
Spencer says 1790 in that clip because that was the year that the United States passed the Naturalization Act, which made all male white inhabitants of the country citizens.
But again, what did white mean?
I guess that's an open question, considering decades later they still definitely didn't think Italians were.
My point here is this is a stupid conversation, and it doesn't really prove anything.
Even if somehow the founders of the country magically had the same arbitrary definition of white that Spencer does and they wanted this to be a white country, so what?
They had slaves and women couldn't vote.
I'm going to say that whatever their understanding of the world was, it had room for improvement.
But here's the thing.
Spencer's talking point that this is a white country is bullshit.
But Alex can't refute that without supporting some kind of multiculturalism.
Spencer kind of has Alex over a barrel where he has to choose between supporting minorities or going along with explicit white nationalism.
He's really having a tough time with this interview, and we're only like two minutes into it.
Well, I mean, the media says it's okay to hit you and attack you, and I don't agree with that.
And the stuff we hear coming out of the Democrats is way more racially based and aggressive, saying white people are inherently bad.
I mean, that's Michael Moore says whites are bad people.
Don't trust them.
They're inherently evil because of the color they are.
I'm going to see that turning white people into aggressive, race-based individuals because they're not going to have any other choice if the establishment organizes things into a race-based system than just like being in a prison.
I wouldn't want to have to go get in the Aryan wing of the prison, but if I didn't, I'd be killed because it's been made a race-based system.
I agree that there's a lot of toxic, nasty, anti-white rhetoric and even anti-white discrimination policies that are emerging from the Democratic Party.
I would also say that the GOP does next to nothing to actually fight these.
Undoubtedly, you're a moderate compared to the Democrat leadership saying whites are inherently evil.
I mean, you're not saying black people are inherently evil or Asians are inherently evil.
So here's the deal.
I disagree with a lot of stuff, but I just want to say, if you're a villain for being race-based, then you're like a little demon compared to CNN that's Satan himself.
If we judge things as being race-based as evil, then you are a very small evil.
There's almost a dismissive humoring that's going on.
Spencer has so much more power in this conversation.
And I think that that's what Alex is doing.
I think he recognizes that Spencer has authority here.
And I need to bring us together a little bit.
But also, Alex realizes that the whole premise of this interview, he's said it multiple times already on the show, is that he thinks that he's false opposition.
If you're going to make that kind of an accusation or bring up that subject, I think you'd probably want to do it in a careful way as opposed to just blurting it out, which is what Alex does.
So for this whole episode, Alex has been saying he's going to confront Richard Spencer about how he thinks he's synthetic and working for the globalist.
Alex is so on his heels in this conversation, and Spencer is maneuvering him so well that the only thing he can do is blurt out, I think you work for the globalists comment.
You know, when they do those like those tense interview scenes where the guy's like, they're interrogating him and they're trying to figure out, those always start with, did you do it?
You can see how easily Spencer was able to take that as a sincere question and say no, then move on.
Spencer's in complete control of this conversation, and Alex has completely wasted the only arrow he thought he had in his quiver.
He thought he was going to ask about the white nationalist perspective on Trump was, and Spencer would say that Trump wasn't mean enough to the brown people, and Alex could work with that or something.
That didn't work out.
Now he's forced to throw his supposed knockout punch, the globalist accusation, and Spencer doesn't even flinch.
Well, so Richard Spencer starts talking about, like, there's an interesting thing with the globalist accusation, and that is that Richard Spencer does recognize that globalization is a necessary part of the modern world.
And the other problem, too, that I think is really intrinsic is that I don't think that Alex can really argue with a lot of the things that Spencer is saying because some of the conclusions about like, they just got to have all us whites together.
Well, Alex might agree with that, but wouldn't want to say it.
But a lot of the other stuff that he's talking about is right in line with Alex's rhetoric.
The concept that the coming war is going to be racial and cultural.
Like that is InfoWars 101 stuff.
Absolutely.
So, the fact that so much overlap exists here, it becomes very difficult for Alex to have any kind of a conversation that involves counterpoints, pushback, follow-up questions.
And that's why you see like Alex just rambles his nonsense about God transcending this stuff and then goes to, where'd you get your ideas?
Well, because he thinks that the global, he thinks that the race war is coming, but it's because the globalists are drumming up people from the other races to hate on us.
Obviously, the race war is coming.
And we all should fight together because white people are going to be able to get to the point.
And this is something that you should get because one thing that I really like about you, despite my criticisms, is that you are a bold, tough man's man.
And that's a good thing.
The white race needs to be like this.
We need to stop apologizing for ourselves.
We need to stop just beating around the bush on issues.
And we need to be proud of who we are and fight for who we are.
But in terms of how I came to these ideas, look, I come from a great background.
I had a wonderful childhood.
I have wonderful parents.
I could have just gone in and become a lawyer and made a lot of money.
I have no idea if Richard Spencer prepared for this interaction and knew that you can easily compromise Alex with flattery or if he's just intuitive enough to read the desperation and neediness in Alex.
But whatever the case, he comes in with the perfect compliment that Alex can't help but be won over by.
Okay, so Richard Spencer's here with us, and it's interesting to actually talk to him himself and hear things from his view.
So let's get into your ethos.
And the fact that, you know, I've got some of the background here, classic, you know, cutout type deal, and I can't prove that.
But then you guys had the Unite the Right rally where Soros sends in all these people.
There's this big clash, and then out of that, they blame Trump.
And then most of the leadership of it were like, I've had some mom, some of your bodies, like, well, it is true a year ago I was supporting Obama, but not now.
Or, yes, I supported Hillary two years ago, but now I agree with Richard Spencer.
And we're, and it just looks like the left creating a group to then identify with Trump to say, oh, look, he's a white nationalist.
So there's a rena mob out there saying that and doing that.
I mean, I'm not saying there aren't real white nationalists or white supremacists out there, but it seems like the media and the left and their attempt to say whites are inherently bad and do all this crazy racist stuff is to create this dialectic where you take the problems and you collide them together to create the synthesis.
This is a perfect example of why Alex needs to do his homework.
His big conspiracy theory about Richard Spencer working for the globalists to create some white nationalist stuff, this big event to tarnish the sterling reputation of Trump.
That conspiracy hinges on the idea that Spencer had something to do with the Unite the Right rally.
If that's not the case, the whole thing falls because Alex doesn't really know what he's talking about or who he's talking to.
He thinks Spencer was one of the organizers of the rally, and he's decided with no evidence that other rally organizers like Jason Kessler are secret globalists.
This conspiracy falls to pieces in five seconds when Spencer points out that he wasn't involved in organizing the rally.
He was just an invited speaker.
Every piece of Alex's suspicion about Spencer is easily dismissed.
And now it looks ludicrous to the audience.
It looks like Alex doesn't know what he's talking about.
And this sort of game would not be so easy to play if Alex had done any preparation.
It's interesting because I've looked into it and I kind of think that Spencer's lying.
I know for sure that Jason Kessler was the lead organizer of the rally.
And Spencer is sometimes credited in stories and places like The Hill as being an organizer, but it's tough to find exact confirmation on that.
The SPLC doesn't list him as an organizer, just as the headline speaker.
And in an article in the Associated Press from just after the rally, they credit him as an attendee of the rally.
That said, I find it pretty difficult to believe that he wasn't in some way involved in the organization of the event behind the scenes.
And thankfully, I don't have to go off instinct because right now, Richard Spencer is one of the people facing a lawsuit over the Unite the Right rally, which goes to trial this October.
In the course of the case proceeding, a number of Spencer's text messages were turned over to the court and appear in a filing.
The picture that's painted in these texts is one where Richard Spencer is far more than just a speaker at the event.
In one text, Spencer is requesting speaker bookings.
Like he's saying, hey, what about this guy?
He's getting in touch with Jason Kessler and being like, we should have this guy speak.
In another, Kessler is consulting with Spencer about needing legal help for an insurance policy for the rally.
These are not texts you'd expect between an organizer and a headlining speaker.
They imply a relationship that's far more than that.
Add to that the fact that Richard Spencer held a torch-centric rally in Charlottesville in May, about three months prior to the Unite the Right rally.
It's just kind of hard to accept that he was solely just a headlining speaker at the rally, but all of that will likely be sorted out later this year when his case goes to trial.
Considering the legal implications of him saying that he was an organizer, like if he said that on Alex's show, it makes total sense.
He would take the position that he's taking here.
So ultimately, the point that I want to make is whether or not Spencer was an organizer or just one of the main speakers is kind of secondary to the more important issue.
And that is that Alex's conspiracy hinges on Spencer being an organizer of the event.
And even Alex clearly doesn't know if that's true.
Spencer can dismiss that with a few choice words, and all of Alex's theories look like paranoia.
And Alex is made to look like he doesn't know what he's talking about in front of his audience.
This is really just a display of Alex being outclassed by a very slick, very horrible person.
He's being humiliated in front of his audience.
Oh, hey, you know, you and your fellow organizers at the Unite the Right rally, you know, a bunch of the other ones are clearly secret globalists, so that's why I think that you are a secret globalist.
If you read the texts that are in that court filing, they're horrible to Kessler.
They hate him.
Like, there is an exchange between Richard Spencer and this other dude where they are like talking about how they've discovered that Kessler's grandma is Jewish and they're going to blackmail him if they don't, if he doesn't leave them alone after the rally.
I think Alex wanted to come off better, but I do think that the point was to platform a white nationalist as well as grab attention for having the balls to talk to a white nationalist or something like that.
Similarly, I think that there might be a kernel of it that is, I want to bring on someone who's demonstrably a white nationalist, white supremacist, and distance myself from them because everyone thinks that I'm that.
If I'm publicly disagreeing with this guy, then haha.
Right.
I think that there's possibly a very complex motivation.
I'm not saying I don't think it is simple by any means because there's so many different variables in having Richard Spencer on your show and you're Alex.
Yeah.
I could almost even see it being a setup.
The booker was like, I'm a white nationalist and I want to get these views out.
And I know Alex doesn't have a shot against this guy.
I accept all possible explanations for why this is happening as being possible, but I don't, I think the psychology that Alex consistently expresses leads me far more towards like he's gonna he wants to have him on to provide some sort of a distance between them or whatever.
Okay, well, if you're not going to say you are, go back to your beginnings, your ethos, and what made you become this person now that the media's chosen as kind of the new David Duke.
I think that you and I might have similar origins in the sense that at a young age when we were becoming adults, we realized that there was something wrong with the world.
Like, I think that, you know, like the flattery stuff, I think that would be something that someone who has some awareness of how people are communicating would pick up on and be like, all right, I'm going to flatter this guy, and he's going to roll over.
Yeah.
And if you have any understanding of Alex's talking points and his worldview, sure, you could tailor whatever you're saying to be like, this is going to be in line with you.
Or you could just be a white nationalist and say what you believe, and there's going to be a lot of overlap.
I wanted to understand why my people and our civilization have been so demoralized, why we are not able to stick up for ourselves and our people and think about our future, why we are so eager to unilaterally disarm, why we have this black cloud hanging over our heads, whether it's slavery or the Holocaust or so on.
And it's preventing us from acting in our own interest, from being great, from going to the stars, to put it most vividly.
And I will understand that, that guilt complex that is always weighing us down.
Alex's primary emotional driver is this desire to not feel that guilt that he feels like people are putting on him.
There's so much here that if you are a committed Alex Jones follower, you'll hear this guy and you'll be like, man, Richard Spencer's making some good points.
To go back a little bit earlier when you showed that image of me getting punched and you were saying, oh, they were creating a dialectic.
Well, the fact is Donald Trump created a dialectic.
Donald Trump was calling upon race, even if he wouldn't use that word specifically because he told us directly, particularly at the RNC, that I am your man.
I am going to stick up for Americans.
Americans have dreams too.
Immigration is out of control.
I'm going to be your guy.
This was implicitly, it was explicitly nationalist.
And let's be frank, it was implicitly racialist because America has been a white country for its entire political history.
That's what Donald Trump was about.
He was actually calling upon these energies in a way that no other reason is that.
He's just calling for unity and saying those that want to divide us and say America's bad or wrong, it's okay for America to exist.
And all of our traditions are good and we should celebrate those.
But it was a unification event as well.
Was up there at the RNC with a rainbow flag, but he also went and marched in pro-life events, something no Republican's done.
He's trying to, I mean, he really seems pragmatically trying to be a unifier, but also stand up for human life and get the IRS off church's backs because they have no place being there under the First Amendment.
They have the left being totally racist, and it's wrong and needs to be decried, but that's meant to have the autoimmune response of whites aligning upon race, just like a warden controls a prison through race.
I mean, quote, minorities are huge listeners and supporters of this show, and I run into them and they get what's going on and they want the American dream.
I just don't, I just don't, I'm not buying what you're saying.
I see the media trying it, and I see you as playing the part on the other side if you don't know.
We'll just come back.
Longer segment straight ahead.
I'll try to give you the floor for at least five minutes at the start and say what you have to say because I appreciate your courage coming on the show.
I think because of Alex's incompetent flailing, he's going to, I mean, to use the terminology of that community, he's allowing his audience to be kind of red pilled down this road of like, yes, Alex, these are problems, but sooner or later, you're going to have to accept the reality that you're not going to get some guy in here who's going to unite people.
And I think that whether or not Spencer is right about what Trump was doing, he is accurately describing how a lot of people heard Trump's message.
Yeah.
And Alex refuses to accept that.
He refuses to accept that a lot of things that Trump was saying was specifically tailored to be heard a certain way by white nationalists and white supremacists, probably because of the influence of people like Stephen Miller, who Alex has constantly said loves Infowars.
I want what you could call civilizationalism or identitarianism or racialism in the sense that we have real unified cultures that are part of an historical tradition and can look forward to a future that is connected to their past.
I don't want to turn the planet into a giant shopping mall.
I want Europeans to be European, to pursue our path.
I mean, let's say what it is and they can continue.
Let's say what it is and then you can continue.
The Christian Western ethos was the white man's burden to build a civilization, to develop technology, to go into all these countries and really not exploit people, empower them, build them up, give them science.
Those populations explode, then the modern corporation technocrats turn against that, exploit the third world, racially turn them against the Christian ethos, erase the Christian ethos, and then bring the whole thing down.
And so the white man's Christian quote burden of expansionism did empower in many ways the third world and explode their populations, but now that's being used as a weapon against what's left of the West.
It's scientific how they go and they study each group and only want the smartest from each group.
And then that's the excuse to recruit all the scientists for this project of further dumbing people down and things so they can just accelerate this program, get rid of the bad sons to make sure there's not a challenge to the hegemonic system of the technocrats.
And so Hitler was a creation, then set up to destroy Europe and then bring down that model, but then bring in the scientific behind-the-scenes model that IBM and others were there propping up Hitler.
So that's the real world.
And so if you don't think, Richard Spencer, and I'm not saying you're a Hitler, that you are controlled, you just need to watch out and understand that you might be more controlled than you think by the system, by how they promote you and other things, because you're helping create one part of that dialectic clash that they're wanting.
And what this demonstrates, I think, in some ways, is the way in which these narratives, like Soros is a Nazi collaborator and stuff like that, those are the things that are used as a mask in order to hide behind.
And once you're out and out and people just know what you are and what you're about, you don't need that mask anymore.
I've not heard really many, if any, I think there may be a few, but I mean, maybe like Dean Adell, Dr. Dean Adell may be one of the only people who's like really kind of smacked Alex down a little bit.
And it was a bit more joyful than this.
Whereas I've not heard many people, especially lately, come in and just be like almost patronizing.
Yeah, it is so stark in contrast to how simple, how simple, how much more simple your life and explanations get when you're just telling the truth of what you believe instead of hiding behind 300 different complicated conspiracy theory lies.
I think my immediate view of the future is basically more of the same.
The United States is suffering from a kind of white death, deaths of despair.
People who are hooked on drugs and have no sense of the future whatsoever and are literally and figuratively just killing themselves.
I think there is going to be more of this in the future, but there will be a reaction to this.
Here, I guess I kind of agree with you in the sense that there will be a point in which white people start collaborating together, working together as a team, and start forging their own destiny.
We stop unilaterally disarming ourselves, and we understand that there is power and collective action.
A team is going to destroy any individual opponent.
Well, I think people in general need to push a pro-human future because an anti-human future is being built.
I'm not trying to organize people against the machine, anti-human globalists take over that these technocrats admit in their own megalomania, which they're actually building because we've acquiesced our destinies, period, and are laying down as humans.
Then if you look at what you were just talking about, and the people committing suicide and the death and everywhere, and white's leading that, it is because there is a racial attack on whites being directed by the filth and the scum in Hollywood and the globalist combine who are the enemies of all humanity.
So what you have is Spencer laying out his view of what is going to come, and that is basically we need to have collective action in order to take over apparatuses of state power, and then whites will be in charge and run everything with that worldview in place.
And Alex is like, well, what about, you know, they come down on you if you're into the Second Amendment.
You should know that you think that you're going to get your cool white guys in there for the government, but you know that it's just going to be used against you.
Which might be the only real way to have this conversation and not come out looking stupid.
Because, I mean, if you were to take some of these talking points that Spencer has and try and differentiate them from your own, you really need to get into theory.
You need to get into like a pretty deep, like, what's the distinction between your version of whites are under attack and mine.
Well, and then Alex would have to try and do some heavy lifting in order to try and rationalize why what he is expressing isn't white nationalism and what Spencer is saying is.
And Alex just can't do that.
Even with a ton of prep, I don't think he'd be able to do that.
The way that Alex has been operating in the present day, like having E. Michael Jones on and Steve Pieczenik denying the Holocaust and Alex not batting an eyelash, like there's a real trend that's happening.
And Richard Spencer being on the show and basically just being presented as an anti-racist compared to the.
There's a movement to end humanity, as we know it, a post-human move.
And that's attacking the little boys, attacking the little girls.
They don't care what color you are.
They're attacking the children.
And it's good versus evil.
And it's absolutely true that whites are under attack and that the left is pushing it with a Marxist-Leninist agenda.
But I believe we're smart enough to expose that and change that.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be proud of who we are, no matter what color we are, and stand up for ourselves when people try to guilt us into submitting to their political agenda because we're white.
Yeah, it's his fairly consistent spiel about how the globalists are attacking everyone, but let's focus on the white part of the equation.
I think this highlights a point that seems pretty important, and that is that Alex is only different from Richard Spencer in terms of how they see themselves.
Spencer's pretty open about how he's just focused on white people.
Alex pretends to care about all people, but weirdly, every single thing he seems to talk about, all the pressing issues he covers, seem to have to do with white panic.
The majority of people being brought in right now are being totally made dependent and brainwashed and used to drive down wages and to be racially based.
But people that have been here a generation or two now, I don't care what color they are.
They get what's going on.
And Generation Z shows that.
That is the least white generation in American history.
And in all the polls and studies, they're the most conservative.
It's because they're living in this clash and they see that it's a load of crap.
Now, that doesn't mean you become a leftist bleeding heart and run around apologizing, you know, you know, because you're white to counter this.
And you don't then run around and put swastika armbands on either, in my view.
You say, damn it, here's the scam they're running.
Don't we want to be smart enough to not do this and be a bunch of idiots?
And then if we fail, and 20 years from now, I'm in some white redoubt with my family because I'm white and a giant people that aren't white are coming to kill me.
I'm going to fight and fight hard.
Damn well, you better believe it.
They choose to be racial.
They choose to run their flags that way.
They want to fight.
They'll get one.
But that'll be a group of non-whites that have decided to come at me because I'm white.
It won't be all the other brown people that didn't choose to be with that pirate horde.
So in the past, I've found polls that show that there's some conservative identification among Generation Z folks, but also that the age group is overwhelmingly in favor of very progressive politics.
When I've looked at this question in the past, I've always come away thinking that there's a complexity in the younger set that polling must not be able to capture.
On the one hand, you can find like a Forbes article citing a UK study that found that 59% of Gen Z respondents had, quote, conservative or moderate views on social issues.
On the other hand, Pew Polling from last year showed clear progressive leanings among even self-identified Republican members of Generation Z. For instance, they found that 52% of self-identified Republican Gen Zers said that the government should do more to solve problems, which was far higher than any other generation.
Gen Z Republican-leaning people are far more concerned about climate change and are far more likely to believe that humans have a part in causing it.
Also, just generally, Gen Z is overwhelmingly on board with recognizing systemic racism, supporting people's pronouns, and a lot of stuff holds true, even among Republican-leaning members of that group.
What it looks like is this.
There are some people under 24 who identify as conservative or Republican, but that doesn't mean anything close to what Alex thinks it does.
One of the likely outcomes you might expect from this sort of data is that these people will grow up and realize that their politics are not Republican-leaning at all, and they'll stop identifying themselves that way.
Alternatively, if there are enough among the generation who retain their Republican identification and their fairly left-leaning ideas along with it, you could see a GOP being pushed to the left by that constituency.
I have no idea what to expect, but I can say definitively and confidently that Generation Z is not the most conservative generation.
And even if it's not as liberal as some like to imagine, it's entirely possible that labels mean a different thing to Gen Z than people like Alex want to realize.
His brand of conservatism is not popular among anyone, except maybe the silent generation who's still alive.
Regardless of party affiliation, there's going to be a difference in perspective from the baby boomer generation who knows they're going out real soon and Gen Z who knows that when they're 50, they're going to be dying in a giant hellscape earth.
That's going to change your opinion on future policies.
And the left have something called a broken coalition strategy.
All these atomized, alone people that they then throw together.
And right now they're using the attack training doll of white people.
And whites need to reject it and get in the face of it and get in the face of the left pushing racialism and a total abandonment of Christianity and Martin Luther King Jr. and everything and absolutely get in its face.
And if he'll talk, the racist left, then talk.
Spencer would talk.
I talk to him.
In fact, Lister should recommend the racist minority leaders we should get on, but behind almost all of them are white PhD Ford Foundation folks.
The broken coalition, every time I've heard Larry Nichols talk about it, this is a strategy that is specifically about prior.
One of the things that every candidate would do is prioritize straight white Christians as the largest demographic bloc that you're vying for.
The Clintons realized that you could fight for this demographic, or you could understand that there's a lot of people in the world who have different interests.
So you could bring in the LGBTQ community.
You could bring in the African-American community.
You could bring in Hispanic voters.
And the sum of those coalition that are disconnected, apparently, because of their individual interests, create a larger voting block than the straight white Christian bloc.
That is how it's always been described to me in the way I understand it.
And, you know, hey, if people come in to the country and they aren't completely subservient to my interests and my groups, I'm going to take out my knife and I'm going to fight to the death.
And notice they don't attack me when I say, hey, it's off-world entity manipulating humanity, trying to teach us how to destroy ourselves.
Notice they don't make a thing out of that because they all follow that.
They all know that.
They're not atheist.
Oh, it's interdimensions.
That's a freaking UFO cult out in San Francisco and in Silicon Valley.
They take huge doses of drugs to interface with these entities that are giving them the blueprints, the ideas of all this crap to build, and then how to make us racially fight with each other to take us down.
Let me explain it again.
Interdimensional aliens are attacking us to make us all kill each other.
Also, based on what we're learning more and more about Project Camelot stuff, people should be attacking more people for interdimensional alien stuff because usually underneath it is a shit ton of racism.
Yeah, it does seem like there's a weird overlap of that.
Yeah, and I also think that other people are mocking him for this.
But it might not be the most relevant thing that, like, let's say a publication like The Daily Beast would want to cover.
It kind of fades into the background when there's more pressing real world issues than Alex believes extra-dimensional demons are causing racism and giving globalists secret space technology.
I just want to start with some background that I believe based on my, you know, extensive research over decades now of, you know, world history and psychology and all that.
I don't want violence, but if they keep trying to force vaccines and people get their kids hurt and they get hurt, these vaccine heads and these corporate heads and the big tech heads are going to be fair game.
Open season on, I guess, doctors and the pharmaceutical people because of vaccines.
By that same sort of logic, you could really see somebody making an argument that people who push anti-vaccination stuff should be killed.
Like, there's open season on them.
If you could create some sort of a causal inference between people disseminating anti-vaccination information in various areas, or let's say increased numbers of people getting vaccine waivers on exemptions and then outbreaks of diseases happening.
If you could do that, then it would track that anti-vaccination is causing people to be hurt and killed.
So you just see like this sort of line probably feels good for Alex to say, but realistically, he's opening the door for people who are extreme on the other side to justify violence against him.
It's all very stupid, and it doesn't take into account the reality of the situation.
It's just blustery nonsense that is only meant to escalate and make people not really understand the topics that are being covered, but feel intense things.
So here we find noted self-described libertarian Alex Jones expressing a desire for the state to enact lethal force against people who are engaging in a market interaction where they provide a dangerous substance that people can choose to take or not.
Why doesn't Alex believe that people have individual rights?
Why does Alex think that the state has the right to initiate violence?
This should be entirely against his basic political principles.
At least it would be if he were actually a libertarian.
But he's not.
He's evolved, as many libertarians do, into a full-on authoritarian.
The legal system does already recognize that selling drugs that result in injury or death require harsher penalties, like longer prison sentences.
What Alex is calling for is execution of drug dealers.
And even in his calling for it, he's cognizant that his position is in line with the horrible, oppressive states that he thinks are the big evil in the world.
And one of the main problems you're going to run into if you try and enact a policy like this is where's the line?
Many of the people who are selling opiates with fentanyl in them have no idea there's fentanyl in there.
Should these people be killed too?
How do you prove and establish that a drug dealer had foreknowledge of exactly what was in the drugs they were the middleman for selling?
It's almost an impossible case to make.
And I would assume that what you'd end up doing is probably just encouraging summary executions of people.
What's so special about fentanyl that makes Alex want to kill people who sell it?
Sure, it's dangerous and it can be lethal, but so can tons of other drugs.
And a death from an overdose is a death from an overdose, regardless of what substance people take.
According to the CDC, only 67.8% of drug overdose deaths in 2017 were even from opiates.
And that's not all fentanyl.
Approximately 20% of overdoses involved cocaine.
So it would be important for Alex to explain exactly what it is about fentanyl that makes it okay to kill someone who sells that, but not okay to kill a cocaine dealer.
This is the real issue.
Alex thinks he's making a nuanced, cogent point, like that fentanyl is just so much more dangerous and thus you have to kill people who sell it.
But this is just the exact same line of rhetoric that anti-drug people have used forever.
He has subjectively decided that fentanyl is so dangerous that it merits killing dealers.
But using that same path of reasoning, someone who's universally anti-drug could point to the 20% of OD deaths in 2017 involving cocaine and say that cocaine is so dangerous that you just have to kill people who sell it.
Plus, the opiate crisis is not just about fentanyl.
Tons of people who are dying are dying from taking prescription opiates, which can be super dangerous when they're abused.
Using Alex's line of reasoning, it would be possible for someone to advance the position that we should kill pharmacists, which kind of, I kind of hope this illustrates how absurd Alex's position is.
This level of baseline, childish, and violent positioning is really dangerous.
Alex is mad about stuff, so he's letting off some steam, saying drug dealers should be killed.
But the effect of this is normalizing positions that should be way far outside what's acceptable.
But then again, Alex has never really had a problem with Duterte, so this is probably just something he's been cool with for a while and just, you know, kept under wraps.
And then two, just this, like, because he was talking to this out-and-out white nationalist, his rhetoric is so much more violent and so much more based around extermination.
I think that that's probably, but I'm glad you brought that up because I think it could easily be heard by our listeners as like that being the natural conclusion.
So over the past few years, Salvatore Pius has applied for patents on behalf of the Navy for a number of very futuristic technologies, including a machine that would create electromagnetic fields, a zero-loss electrical generator, and a compact nuclear fusion reactor.
There's literally no reason to believe any of these things have been made.
They're just patent applications.
Anyone can apply for patents for whatever they want.
It's not required that they patent something that actually exists at the time of application.
Some people theorize that these patents are part of a misinformation campaign to make other world leaders believe that the United States either has or is working on particular things, which could have the effect of redirecting some of their research and lead them to wasting a bunch of money down rabbit holes.
It's people in the Project Camelot side of the equation.
Until there's any proof of any of this stuff other than patent applications, you know, once there is that, I'll start to give a shit.
But for now, this is really ignorable.
What this demonstrates very clearly, though, is that there is a basic lack of reality literacy in people like this caller, and to a certain extent, Alex.
The caller doesn't realize that a patent doesn't mean the same thing as an actual invention.
So he's using completely irrelevant proof to claim that the Navy has all this futuristic tech.
Because Alex doesn't really know the difference either.
He can't explain it to the caller that he's making a reasoning error.
These two people have different deficiencies, but they compound each other.
The caller has a basic misunderstanding, which he presents to Alex, who's supposedly an authority figure.
In his capacity as that authority figure, Alex completely abdicates any responsibility to set this caller straight about patents.
And in doing so, he allows his stamp of approval to tacitly attach to this stuff.
Well, I know there's a lot of hidden technology they haven't rolled out yet, and Trump wants to do that to innovate us out of this out of this bubble and do an even bigger one, a big, juicy one.
So the headline of this article in the Daily Mail begins: quote, U.S. Navy has been granted a patent on theoretical aircraft.
Theoretical being the operative word there.
The article literally says that a representative from the Navy has said that the tech described in these patents is not possible.
Quote, as corroborated by a letter defending the patent penned by the chief technical officer of the Navy, Naval Aviation Enterprise, James Sheehey, the mode of movement is, quote, beyond the state of possible.
Also, for someone who's made a career selling gold and survival goods, warning that the globalists are going to collapse the economy, it seems weird that Alex would applaud Trump for escaping the current economic bubble by entering a bigger, juicier bubble.
So that would be something that Alex should instill in his audience a greater understanding of how the world works so they can be better critical thinkers.
That's presumably what Alex's mission is.
He wants smart people out there living in the real.
But because Alex's main basic narratives and everything that he talks about doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny, he needs to have an audience that does believe that patents mean a real spacecraft exists.
He has to have that.
And so he will never do any of the pushing back on the callers in order to help them reach a more critical thinking-oriented space.
This unfortunately has the byproduct of having a group of people you've brought together to think uncritically, exposed to people like Richard Spencer dancing circles around you.
So when you have somebody like Richard Spencer on and you think, oh, just because I'm so great and awesome and smart, I'm going to have him on here and he's going to bow before me with my superior points.
All I do is interview mutual liars and collaborators, basically people on the same scam as me.
So I have a very over-inflated sense of my ability to make arguments.
And simultaneously, I'm surrounded by co-workers and employees who put up with me barging off set because I'm mad about a mic not being given to me or some shit.
I have outbursts all the time that people have to put up with.
I'm in an abusive situation with my employees.
And so, of course, I am going to be great at talking with this guy.
Guy comes in, completely dismantles all of the counterpoints, and the audience that is trained to be basically just sitting ducks for this shit.
And I take your position entirely as well in terms of like the functional difference is negligible.
It's not really important.
What the end result is, is you're presenting hardcore bigots to your audience under the auspices of pretending to push back against it or explore what they believe.
At the same time, presenting them in the most positive light imaginable.
The function of that is your sitting duck audience is going to think of them in a different way than they might have if they were presented based on what they actually believe and what they've actually done.
So, yes, I agree with you.
My only quibble is at all like from my perspective, if he's doing it intentionally, it does change what you should think about Alex.
If he's doing it accidentally and like because he's white supremacist Mr. Magoo just fumbling through his existence, I mean, you still look at him and think he was pretty bad, but it doesn't excuse his behavior.
Like, the New York Times shouldn't need that to know that you don't give this fucker a because they're doing that, you know, and you shouldn't need Brett Stevens' most recent column to know that he's a fucking Nazi too.
Like, you don't need all that stuff for functional purposes, as opposed to, I'm not going to say that I can prove that a tape like that existed until one, but functionally, it might as well have.
I think I would be surprised if Richard Spencer came back, not because of anything they talked about, but because Alex either is going to recognize that he got his ass roundly handed to him.