Today, Dan and Jordan take a look at the Alex Jones Show from April 2, 2020 (baby!) In this installment, Alex fails miserably at proving some of his theories about Globalist plans, and has a profound on-air meltdown after one of his earbuds falls out.
Yeah, if you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I enjoy the show.
I'd like to support with these gents, too.
You can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button to support the show, or finding a local charity in your area that supports people who are in need in these trying, difficult times we find ourselves in.
Yeah, I think if we get to the part of the curve that Dr. Burke showed yesterday when it goes down to essentially no new cases, no deaths at a period of time, I think it makes sense that you're going to have to relax social distancing.
The one thing we hopefully would have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who's infected, isolate them, and then do contact tracing.
Because if you have a really good program of containment that prevents you from ever having to get into mitigation, we're in mitigation right now.
That's what the social and physical distancing is.
The ultimate, the ultimate solution to a virus that might keep coming back would be a vaccine.
In fact, I was on the weekly conference call with the WHO-sponsored group of all the health leaders in the world who are dealing with this.
And we all came to the agreement that we may have cycling with another season.
We'll be much better prepared.
We likely will have interventions.
But the ultimate game changer in this will be a vaccine.
The same way a vaccine for other diseases that were scourges in the past that now we don't even worry about.
That is a one-minute, 21-second clip that you're going to hear me play probably 10 more times today on air because we're going to analyze every facet of that.
That is the final confirmation that it's all absolutely staged with a real virus and it's the globalist takeover.
So Alex is severely misunderstanding what was being said about the future reaction to the coronavirus in the post-distancing but pre-vaccine landscape.
What Dr. Fauci was saying in that clip that we listened to up top is that there are two distinct phases of response to an outbreak where different strategies are effective.
When there are not many new cases and no real community spreading of the disease, you can isolate individuals who get sick and track down the people who they've been in contact with and have them also self-quarantine until the incubation period for the disease is passed.
This strategy can work well in those circumstances, but once there are as many new cases and as much community transmission as is happening now, you have to adjust to mitigation tactics like what we're seeing now with social distancing.
Alex seems to imagine a world where self-quarantining will be used as punishment against anti-vaxxers or some dumb shit.
I don't know how he got that from Fauci's comments, but I would bet that when this is all over and the country has gone through this deeply traumatic experience together, if you're actively trying to get people not to be vaccinated and risk all of this happening again, I bet a lot of people will distance themselves from you socially.
As for that mutations thing, Alex has no evidence or reason to suggest that the coronavirus mutates more than flus do.
He's just making that up.
But even if it were true, it's not necessarily a good argument against vaccination.
The issue of mutations and vaccines are not a clear-cut black and white issue.
Alex wants you to think it's a thing where you make a vaccine against the coronavirus and then it mutates and the vaccine doesn't work anymore.
But of course, the issue is more complicated than that.
For one, just because a vaccine or a virus has undergone a mutation, that doesn't mean that an existing vaccine won't be effective against it.
This isn't really accurate, since mutations that happen with viruses are random events, and often the mutations that occur aren't really relevant to the immunity that a vaccine will create.
It's entirely possible there could be multiple strains of the coronavirus that are all prevented by the same vaccine.
On March 24th, the New York magazine Intelligencer reported on how the coronavirus actually has a very low error rate, which is to say that it's mutating very slowly, considering how many times it's been transmitting and replicating.
Peter Thielen, a Johns Hopkins molecular geneticist, said, quote, that's a relatively small number of mutations for having passed through a large number of people.
At this point, the mutation rate of the virus would suggest that a vaccine developed for SARS coronavirus 2 would be a single vaccine rather than a new vaccine every year like the flu vaccine.
What Alex is really doing here is just some basic ass anti-vax stuff, and it's pretty uninspiring off the top.
And this is uninspired levels of shit that Alex is doing.
I would want him to be a little bit more creative or crazy with his ideas that he's bringing to the table instead of this basic ass shit.
So one of the big things that everyone, of course, is being bombarded with and probably for good reason and well, you know, justifiably, is wash your hands.
Everybody, you know, there's messaging about wash your hands more.
So Alex is talking about Kevin Clash here, and I think Alex just committed slander.
There have been accusations about Clash in the past, and I'm not entirely sure what the reality of that situation is, but Alex isn't saying that there were accusations.
He's saying that Clash is a convicted pedophile, which is not true.
Now, in the last segment of this hour, we put together an extremely informative, powerful report that is going to premiere here that lays out admissions by the establishment technocrats that by 2020 they would launch the bioattack.
When Alex says something like that, that means I don't know what I'm talking about.
So this is a little bit of a lie, which shouldn't surprise anyone because it's Alex Jones talking about a quote.
One thing that's important to point out is that it doesn't mean anything for someone to say that something's in the congressional record.
If they're saying that to say it's proof that it's real or proven, there are countless examples of weird editorials and opinion pieces that Congresspeople have just read into the record over the years.
As for the actual quote Alex is referencing, he appears to actually be mixing up two quotes.
The first is a comment by James Warburg in front of the Senate in 1950, which was, quote, we shall have world government, whether we like it or not, or whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.
This is in the context of a speech about the need to create peace with the Soviet Union and about how international law and relations need to have a positive aspirational goal, because if that wasn't the focus, things will remain the same, which is to say they will tend towards war.
So we talked about this in the endgame episode in much greater depth, but that quote is completely out of context.
Somebody really close to a post-war situation watching the Korean War about to break out all over again was probably like, maybe less war would be a good idea.
So the other quote is, quote, we are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.
This is said to come from an article by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the Foreign Affairs Journal.
The citation that's listed with it says that the article is called, quote, Back to the Womb, Isolationism's New Threat from Volume 74, Number 2 of the Journal.
JSTOR has the full catalog of foreign affairs available to you to read if you'd like.
If you find yourself, like, I don't know, quarantined with a whole lot of time to kill.
So if you pull up volume 74, issue number two of the journal, one thing you'll find is that there is no article by that name in it.
There's no article by Schlesinger, even.
That's because most conspiracy sites give the wrong citation.
It's actually from volume 74, issue 4 of the journal.
And the title is actually Back to the Womb: Isolationism's Renewed Threat.
Very bad citation work here.
Anyway, first, I will say that the quote is actually in the text.
The article is about the push and pull in the United States between isolationism and internationalism, and how it seems like, except when we're in a crisis that appears to directly affect U.S. interests, we forget about international matters or any responsibility we may have to help facilitate world stability.
From the piece, quote, how to persuade the housewife in Zenya, Ohio, that her husband, brother, or son should die in Bosnia or Somalia or some other place where vital U.S. interests are not involved.
Nor is it just the Zenya housewife who must be persuaded.
How many stalwart internationalists in the Council on Foreign Relations would send their own sons to die in Bosnia or Somalia?
Dying for world order when there's no concrete threat to one's own nation is a hard argument to make.
For understandable reasons, our leaders are not making it.
So here's the wider context of the quote about paying in blood and money from this paragraph.
Quote: Despite two grievous hot wars, a draining cold war, and a multitude of smaller conflicts, the Wilsonian vision is as far from realization today as it was three quarters of a century ago.
In the United States, neo-isolationism promises to prevent the most powerful nation in the planet from playing any role in enforcing the peace system.
If we refuse a role, we can't expect smaller, weaker, and poorer nations to ensure world order for us.
We're not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money.
The point he's making is that the dream of a peacekeeping system detached from material and concrete interests is possible for the United States, but it's probably unlikely due to our tendency towards isolationism, which was on the rise back when this was written in 1995.
Schlesinger wraps up his essay with this thought: quote, Perhaps our leaders should put the question to the people: what do we want the United Nations to be?
Do we want it to avert more killing fields around the planet, or do we want it to dwindle into impotence, leaving the world to the anarchy of nation-states?
From that sentence, you might draw the conclusion that he's super opposed to nation-states.
But if you read a little further, he says, Quote, if we cannot find ways of implementing collective security, we must be realistic about the alternative: a chaotic, violent, and ever more dangerous planet.
Maybe the costs of military enforcement are too great.
National interests, narrowly construed, may be the safer rule in an anarchic world.
But let us recognize as we return to that womb, we are surrendering a magnificent dream.
If you just take the original quote about paying for the new world order and blood and money, you can make it sound like the author is talking about some villainous shit.
But if you read the full editorial, you'll understand the context and what he's talking about.
Alex has never read this article.
He doesn't even know who wrote it.
He's just seen a quote on some dumb blog, and he's pretending like this is from the congressional record.
So it is true that the cold can be caused by viruses that are part of the coronavirus family, but that's a severe oversimplification to try and pretend that this 2019 novel coronavirus is in any way really similar to the cold.
So two human coronaviruses, OC43 and 229E, are responsible for the common cold, or are ones that are responsible for the common cold.
Coronavirus NL63 is also thought to cause some cold symptoms, but it's a slightly different situation.
HKU1 is another virus that causes mild symptoms generally.
And then you have the big ones, SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.
That is it in terms of known coronaviruses that can affect humans.
It's a big family of viruses, but there are only seven that we know of that can affect people.
This isn't a science show, so getting into the nitty-gritty details of it are probably beyond my capabilities, but there is, you know, a taxonomy of viruses, and this is just one family of them.
They share distinctive characteristics, like the fact that they have single-strand DNA, but past those similarities, there's pretty substantial differences between them.
One of the problems with Alex's claim about the deaths from the common cold is that there's no way he could have a good stat on that.
Cold and flu symptoms are often almost indistinguishable, and you're not going to be able to find isolated numbers of deaths caused by the common cold.
From the sources I was able to find, it appears that those numbers would most likely be lumped in with, quote, influenza-like illnesses stats that Alex already uses poorly regularly.
Like, when you say, oh, you could die of the common cold, that's like saying you could die of any virus that exhibits, that causes humans to exhibit common cold-like symptoms and just say that that's the common cause.
So some of the data is tending to show a higher incidence of men being folks who have died from this virus, but it's way too early for anyone, including myself or Alex, to definitively say they know why that's the case.
The earliest numbers pointing in this direction came from China, where they showed a 2.8 fatality rate among men compared to a 1.7 rate among women.
The first hypothesis that was offered was that men smoke way more in China, so this might be the cause.
An article in The Guardian cites a stat that 50% of men in China smoke compared to only 2% of women.
However, as data has come in from other countries, this loses some of its potential explanatory power.
In Italy, more men than women smoke, but the divide isn't nearly as drastic as it is in China, and the trend of more men dying of coronavirus still holds there.
Numbers are showing that people who smoke are at a higher risk of having severe cases if they contract the virus, but it doesn't look like a good explanation for the difference in death rates.
An article in the Independent quotes Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, who pointed out that this difference in death rates was also observed in the case of SARS and MERS.
So it might be a distinct feature of coronaviruses in general.
Right now, no one has a good answer about this, but in time, more information will come out, and hopefully it'll be better understood.
For Alex to come on his show and pretend that he knows what's up here is basically him saying that he understands science better than literally all of the scientists in the world, which is a little bit full of hubris, as he pronounces it.
So the rest of that clip, I think he's just trying to sell his zinc.
It's an interesting strategy, and I wonder if you can get in trouble for aggressively selling one of your products because it has zinc in it, then stopping doing that and pivoting to just presenting zinc as a proven prevention for the virus.
Also, the government didn't make anyone stop having diving boards, and it wasn't the government suing anybody.
There have just been people who've been hurt on diving boards who then decide to sue whoever the pool.
It's led to some people choosing that it's not worth the risk to have a diving board or not wanting to pay for liability insurance for diving board related injuries.
That's a factor for public and at-home pools alike, but it's a choice you can still make if you want to.
I don't understand.
Anyway, scientists can't predict what mutations viruses are going to have.
That's absurd.
These mutations are caused by random errors in RNA replication, which isn't necessarily a predictable process.
To be clear, there are a certain number of replication errors that can possibly be made.
You know, it is there's only so many places where replication errors could be made.
If you know what mutations that it could make 50 to 60 replications down the line, then that suggests that when you created the virus, you knew how it's going to mutate, giving you a depth of knowledge that would give you the ability to keep it from mutating.
unidentified
Well, the entire purpose of a bioweapon gain the correct outcome.
What Alex is talking about is the idea that scientists engineered this virus because they knew how it would end up mutating, which is just not within the range of what scientists can do in the real world.
They can take an existing virus and with some accuracy predict what sorts of adaptations would be the most successful.
It's just not even close to what Alex is saying because he's just making shit up.
That seems like a real no-brainer, considering he's the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and a ton of the Gates Foundation philanthropy surrounds issues of infectious disease.
But I think Alex is getting things a little twisted.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease is a government agency.
It's funded by tax dollars, not grants from Bill Gates.
It's one of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health, which is contained within the Department of Health and Human Services.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease is really in the same kind of lane as the Gates Foundation in that they both fund research.
So it's pretty easy to connect Fauci and Gates that way.
A simple Google search will pull up articles about joint ventures between the NIAID and Gates, but it doesn't prove that Fauci got money from Gates or that he works for him.
I've looked into it a little bit, and I don't really see what's so suspicious about their connection.
So I consulted right-wing blogs to see if I could get a better sense of what the proof was.
So I found a post on Alex's buddy Tom Pappert's website, National File, titled, quote, Fauci and Burks both have big money Bill Gates conflict of interests.
One thing I thought was really interesting was that the image they chose for this post was just of Bill Gates when it's super, super easy to find a picture of Fauci and Gates together.
No idea why they didn't use that for heightened effect.
It doesn't go to the only other evidence provided is that in 2019, it was reported that Gates and the NIH were also both providing funding for initiative to develop gene-based therapies for HIV and sickle cell.
How dare this article is legitimately so pathetic that it ends by trying to smear Fauci by showing a picture of him with Hillary Clinton and a screenshot of someone tweeting an email released by WikiLeaks that shows that, quote, Fauci is a Hillary Clinton admirer.
I really feel like these guys are going about it all wrong.
Somehow I feel like they're still trying too hard because it seems like you could write a program that, look, all you need to do, here's what you need to work on if you're in a right-wing blog, the headline.
Then just write a program that copies and pastes all you shit.
I don't know what the newest information about the Pentagon Cloud deal with Microsoft is, but the last update I saw was from March 13th.
And it was about the Pentagon.
It was about a bunch of stories about how Microsoft had been awarded this contract, but the Pentagon was asking courts to give them time to reconsider it.
This was because Amazon was claiming that there were irregularities with the contract awarding process, so they wanted time to sort it all out.
Either way, it's really strange to hear Alex say that Trump giving a contract to Microsoft instead of Jeff Bezos is bad, which implies that it should have gone to Bezos, who Alex also hates.
I don't know, man.
This is a good time as I need to remind you that nothing Alex says means a thing.
You ever get that feeling of like, I don't know, I would relate it to like maybe when you're a kid and you're in the pool and you don't really know how to swim, but you can swim a little bit.
And you're like, you know, you're walking towards the deeper end.
You get to that point where you realize your feet can't touch.
And we're so domesticated and so soft and such TV heads waddling around now on average that people are getting into it now because they don't want to go to work.
And most people and most jobs aren't even working anyways.
No, hospitals are empty all over the country because most surgeries are elective and things and people hypochondriac and people get constant medical stuff because they want the pain pills.
There are whole industries where they're doing constant surgeries per finger and people get surgeries every month so they get their pain pills.
Of course, every time they put you under, it causes brain damage.
Another reason there's so many brain damage people everywhere is the average person's had like 15 surgeries by 50.
I should tell you that being under anesthesia doesn't cause brain damage unless something goes wrong with the procedure.
That seems like something the health ranger must have told Alex, and now he's just repeating on air without looking it up.
There are some caveats, though, of course.
A 2019 article in the Journal of Anesthetics does point out that studies have shown that, quote, multiple rounds of anesthetic exposure in children under two to four years of age are associated with learning difficulty and academic underachieving in childhood and adolescence.
The same was not true of single exposures, though.
And generally, a doctor would not anesthetize someone whose brain was still developing multiple times unless there was very good reason to do so.
Even so, this article makes a really good point about the limitation of retrospective studies that could be done about the effects of anesthetics.
And that is that no one just takes anesthetics.
There's another variable that's always in place, which is the surgery.
And it's pretty difficult to ignore that when you're looking at the data, which is why most of these studies will not talk about the effects of anesthetics on development or brain.
Well, I think anybody who is is dead because they're very difficult.
So that article, there's also, there's a couple conditions that are common in elderly patients who undergo anesthesia called post-operative delirium and post-operative cognitive dysfunction.
The prior is a short-lived condition that will usually pass within days, whereas the latter can linger for a long time.
However, quote, clinical evidence attributing POCD to surgery and anesthesia exposure are inconclusive.
As long-term follow-up study found only 1% of elderly patients suffer from persistent POCD with pre-operative cognitive performance, which is to say mild cognitive decline, possible or probable Alzheimer's disease.
That's a better predictor of post-operative cognitive trajectory.
Anyway, the point is here that there are obviously some people who can be negatively affected by anesthesia.
And anyone can be if the surgery is mishandled.
But Alex has absolutely no right to say that getting anesthesia causes brain damage every time.
So also, the sort of surgery Alex is describing where people are getting a little surgery on their finger to scam pain pills, that doesn't require general anesthetic.
That would 100% just be a localized anesthetic situation where you don't go under.
If I understand the conspiracy here, Alex is saying that these doctors are in on the scam and they're performing these trivial pointless finger surgeries to justify their patients' pain pill prescriptions.
If that's the case, there is literally zero chance they would use general anesthetic, which would require someone, you know, they need another person there who's specially trained in anesthesiology and they have a ridiculously high liability.
Or are these doctors not in on it?
If that's the case, then most of these doctors would probably do an x-ray or look at the person's medical chart and see all the recent surgeries and probably report them for drug-seeking behavior.
One thing they probably would not do is give under, they would never give them generalized anesthetic for a finger surgery.
Also, according to a 2008 analysis by the American College of Surgeons using data from Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, it was estimated that the average American will receive 9.2 surgeries in their lifetime.
But this number is based on an assumption that a person lives to 85.
And obviously, there are way more surgeries that will happen in the elderly portion of your life.
Also, the range of what counts as a surgery in that study is pretty wide.
So it's kind of silly to even be talking about this.
My point is that Alex is just making shit up about people getting 15 surgeries by the time they're 50 and that anesthesia gives you brain damage.
Like, legitimately, that was where I was like, we are in cuckoo land now.
This makes no sense.
It's barely connected to anything that we were talking about.
So I had already read a bunch of articles about anesthesia and brain damage, but I realized after that clip that I didn't Google the exact words, anesthesia causes major brain damage.
So I did that.
And I found an article on the website patient.org.
I'm sorry, patient.info.
And here's what this says: quote, brain damage as a result of having an anesthetic is so rare that the risk has not been put into numbers.
So the story that Alex is talking about with that murderer who was released in New York is a bit of a sticky situation.
This is a story about Pedro Vinent Barcia.
And the issue is that he's been charged with the murder, but he hasn't been tried or convicted yet.
So he doesn't have a sentence.
At the same time, he almost certainly killed his girlfriend.
I don't know about the daughter that Alex is talking about.
That wasn't in the story.
But the New York Post reports, quote, the gruesome attack was captured on surveillance video and witnessed by numerous bystanders, according to court papers.
After cops nabbed him, he allegedly asked, quote, is she dead?
I hope so.
We, as non-state actors, can see this information and say that, yeah, he did that murder.
But it would be a completely different thing for the state to do that without first having a trial.
To treat him as a convicted murderer prior to trial would go against some of the very basic rights that the Constitution Alex professes to love all the time protects.
To make matters slightly more complicated, this dude is 63 years old and, quote, has cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and type 2 diabetes, which basically puts him in real danger zone in terms of being exposed to the virus.
He has a real high likelihood that if he gets it, it could kill him.
And on a certain level, putting him in prison where he could be exposed to it would be tantamount to a death sentence when he has not been to trial.
Obviously, this is messy, but there aren't a lot of options here.
He would have gone to Rikers, where 231 incarcerated persons and 223 staff have tested positive for the virus, according to an April 2nd article in Slate.
He hasn't been tried, so it seems like the only thing the state can do is put him on some kind of a supervised release program or house arrest or something like that.
It's a mess.
Listen, according to the constitution that Alex loves, he should not be in favor of this.
According to an article in the Mercury News, it says that he was out surfing and was quote seemingly teasing the cops and lifeguards like he was going to get out of the water only to spin back out towards the ocean and ride more waves.
There's this weird tension that Alex is describing, wherein he's talking to people a bunch in his daily life who are like, We don't want to shake hands.
The only people who are not begging for a vaccine right now are zealots.
Regardless of religion or political ideology, there's a certain zealotry that goes along with that anti-vax all of just like, oh, you people are fucking crazy.
For one, rhino viruses are responsible for most colds, not coronavirus.
The reason there isn't a vaccine for the common cold is because the virus is constantly.
It's not because the virus is constantly changing.
It's because there's a bunch of different viruses that cause what we call the cold.
We already talked about this a little bit, but a cold is really just a collection of symptoms, not a specific condition.
And because it could be caused by so many different things, it would be really unwieldy to try and vaccinate against all of them.
The CDC says they quote: more than 200 viruses can cause a cold, and many of them are from different virus families.
So trying to come up with something that would prevent them all would probably be impossible.
Plus, most colds are pretty mild, so the demand for a cold vaccine is pretty low compared to other pressing medical research.
Although there are people who are working on some similar things, and there may be a breakthrough at some point, but it's like there are other things that most the funding goes to.
A newly elected government seeking power and control develops a secret bioweapon and launches it against its own population to establish authoritarian rule and to blame the attack on their political enemies.
Taking pages right out of the 20th century, we see this fictional dictatorship, not just seeking to dominate and control the population, but to be seen as saviors of the very people that they are dumbing down, enslaving, imprisoning, and killing.
Hashtag problem care.
Deep, historical well to work from in just the 20th century with monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Un, who don't just seek to dominate and control the very lives and thoughts of their minions, but who also want to be seen as the savior by the very people who are their slaves.
So it is true that the government in V for Vendetta is inspired a bit by some real-world fascist and authoritarian states.
However, story is intended to be more specific than that.
V for Vendetta was based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore, who's been pretty clear that he wrote it with a strongly anti-Margaret Thatcher message.
He felt that the government depicted in his book was the logical extension of where British conservative politics were heading.
Also, Alex, if he's so concerned about how the movie is reality, I certainly am excited for him to get to the part about how the government scapegoats vulnerable populations for the problems in society.
Also, a big part of the vibe of the graphic novel is about the National Front, the rise of the National Front, which incidentally is a group that was associated with the English Defense League, which was founded by Alex's friend Tommy Robinson.
The beginning of the entire event was carefully choreographed.
Two years ago, the United Nations announces that Disease X will soon arrive and that global government will be needed to counter the international crisis and that basic human liberties will have to be permanently erased in the name of global health.
So in March 2018, the World Health Organization did list Disease X as one of the on their list of top concerns.
This wasn't them scripting out an eventual release of a bioweapon.
It was an attempt to focus attention on the fact that the next big problem that we will likely face from a public health standpoint was something that was completely unknown to us before it happens.
They weren't saying that we need to give up liberties because of the Disease X. When potential outbreaks are handled correctly, they don't become big outbreaks.
You know, there were multiple cases of Ebola in the United States in 2014, and it didn't spread because appropriate steps were taken to contain it.
That's what the World Health Organization was advocating in the discussion of Disease X, not letting an outbreak get bad and then trying to play catch-up so you can take people's rights away.
So Alex is making shit up there about the Event 201 to make it better fit his narratives.
The exercise wasn't related to this coronavirus outbreak.
It just happened to use a mock coronavirus as its hypothetical illness because they're easily transmittable and because the world had already seen a SARS and MERS outbreak in the recent past, thereby making this scenario more realistic to the participants who are in it as an exercise.
Alex is also, he's just making up the recommendations that the exercise arrived at.
There's literally a webpage dedicated to their recommendations, which are as follows.
One, governments, international organizations, and businesses should plan now for how essential corporate capabilities will be utilized during a large-scale pandemic.
Two, industry, national governments, and international organizations should work together to enhance internationally held stockpiles of medical countermeasures to enable rapid and equitable distribution during a severe pandemic.
Okay, counterpoint, what they should do is buy up all the medical supplies and then force governors to bid for them and then dole them out as personal.
Three, countries, international organizations, and global transport companies should work together to maintain travel and trade during severe pandemics.
Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic.
Four, governments should provide more resources and support to the development and urge manufacturing of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics that will be needed during severe pandemic.
Five, global business should recognize the economic burden of pandemics and fight for stronger preparedness.
Six, international organizations should prioritize reducing economic impacts of epidemics and pandemics.
Seven, governments and the private sector should assign a greater response, greater priority to developing methods to combat myths and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response.
Certainly, the Wachowski brothers produced a vivid and rich film that is a masterpiece, but they weren't the first people in Hollywood or in popular culture to notice what was going on in official white papers.
Well, it turns out it goes back to Malthus, more than 250 years ago in England, who coined the term Malthusianism, where the elite believes that they should release bio-weapons.
As far as I can tell, Malthus didn't say that we should release a bioweapon to get rid of people.
He was most closely identified with what's known as the Malthusian catastrophe, a hypothetical event that happens when population growth outpaces the supply of resources.
It was his belief that after that point, people would be in really terrible shape, and so we should avoid it.
He also had a feeling that population was going to be kept in check one way or another.
Either we could do it ourselves with birth control and family planning, or nature would end up doing it with famines and resource wars that would come after this hypothetical catastrophe.
A lot of folks are not a fan of Malthus' work.
And actually, if Alex is a critic of his, then he'll find himself standing side by side with Karl Marx and all the communists he likes to yell about all the time who also hate Malthus.
Honestly, I could get into the Plato stuff, but I don't think Alex has read it, and it seems stupid to try and even engage with him when he's talking about philosophy.
Well, from the Club of Rome and public documents they put out in the 1960s calling for global forced depopulation.
And of course, we have folks like Prince Philip, Prince Charles' father, Queen Elizabeth's husband, constantly in interviews saying he wants to come back as a deadly virus reincarnated to constitute humanity.
unidentified
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, reported by Deutsche Press Augentur, DPA, August 1988.
We recently talked about that Prince Philip quote.
He didn't constantly say it.
It was just included in the foreword of a book called If I Were an Animal.
That voice over you here reading the quote is from the movie Endgame.
He's just cut that out of Endgame.
And it's actually a misattribution and incorrect quote.
I can find no primary source from the Dutch press Agent Tour from 1988, but that book about what you would like to be if you were an animal came out in 1987.
So unless Alex is a primary source on this, I have to assume this is a bad game of telephone, and maybe there was some German press that reported on the foreword of that book and it got mixed up in translation or something.
But all of it traces back to the foreword of that book.
As for the Club of Rome, that specific text Alex is obviously referring to is their publication, The Limits to Growth, which came out not in the 60s, but in 1972.
Alex should know that because the Club of Rome wasn't founded until 1968 and Limits to Growth was their first release.
They did not put out anything in the 60s.
I've read Limits to Growth, and it doesn't recommend or support forced global depopulation.
It's more of an analysis of how continuing unrestricted growth would be unsustainable past approximately 2070, after which point we're in for a disaster.
The authors have released multiple follow-ups, like the 2004 Limits to Growth 30-year update, and in 2012, they put out 2052, a global forecast for the next 40 years.
None of them say that we should have forced global depopulation, but do recommend people have less children.
It's totally up to you to decide if that's good or bad advice, but it's supremely dishonest to pretend that these texts in some way prove that the authors wanted to depopulate the world.
Their main point was that population growing is self-limiting.
Under the assumption that there are finite resources, population has its own limit.
The goal is not to find a way to kill people off.
It's to find a way to continue some kind of growth that averts the disastrous consequences that they foresee coming from unbridled growth past the point that the resources can't sustain.
You cannot trust people who spend all of their time analyzing past events and synthesizing current information together in order to create a forecast for what could happen.
Obviously, as we saw with all these Bill and Melinda Gates things, those guys have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Listen to those recommendations.
We're not doing any of those things and we're fine.
You see, Bill Gates and Ted Turner and Warren Buffett and people like Oprah Wemphrey, when they meet to discuss depopulation and world government, they're celebrated as wonderful good people.
When Bill Gates talks about getting rid of old people, death panels, so we all, quote, have more money.
Or Newsweek talks about the case for killing Granny.
Alex has some fucking brass balls complaining about that Newsweek article, The Case for Killing Granny, after he spent considerable time on his own show advocating that people go back to work and risk a ton of death because to not do so would hurt the economy.
Also, Alex is taking those comments from Bill Gates wildly out of context.
We've discussed it in the past, but those clips that Alex uses there are tiny slivers of Gates making completely different points than what Alex is claiming he is.
Alex knows what he's doing.
He complains about being taken out of context all the time, most likely because he knows that's what he does to people all the time.
If there was a good democratic operative, which there aren't anymore, but it would just be so easy to put side-by-side clips of the idiots now being like, go back to work.
We need the economy to go.
Look, some old people are going to die.
That's just something that we have to accept.
Juxtaposed with death panels are going to kill grandma.
My scary plan is the Kardashian-Cuban watch out for bees plan that was Mark Cuban and Kim Kardashian got together and they created a simulation wherein we all get eaten by bees.
And now, former British prime ministers and others are openly saying world government, a technocracy, an authoritarian rule of autocrats, is the only thing that will keep humanity and our precious old people safe.
But these are the very same individuals saying we should get rid of the old people.
Alex is getting a lot of mileage out of the phrase former British prime ministers and others when all he's referring to is a comment from a singular former British prime minister, Gordon Brown.
Gordon's not talking so much about calling for world government as he is calling for an emergency international task force to deal with the medical and economic crises that are popping up, largely because they are issues that don't have concern for national boundaries.
These are global problems that could be much more easily solved if you had heavy international cooperation.
If that's world government, I guess fine.
I'll let Alex have that.
But this is pretty weak stuff for him to hang his hat on.
At best, this is a tepid call for world government from a guy who hasn't been prime minister in a decade.
It was Benjamin Franklin that said, those that will give up their liberties for security deserve and will get neither.
Meaning, you always get enslaved when you come on board.
And if you study who's running this whole pandemic hysteria, it is known eugenicists that publicly say they want to reduce world population to at least 500 million.
So Alex is largely quoting that Benjamin Franklin saying correctly.
However, it's kind of interesting to understand the original context of the quote.
Benjamin Witts, the editor of Walfare, explained the context in a 2015 interview with NPR like this.
Quote, he was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar.
And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War.
And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto.
Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern.
And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety.
Very literally.
The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly is acknowledging that it didn't have the authority to tax it.
Witz goes on to say, quote, it's a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.
It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's always quoted as saying, but much closer to the opposite than the thing people think it means.
It's fine to use this quotation in the way Alex is.
People do it all the time, and it seems to resonate with people.
They just shouldn't quote Ben Franklin when they do, because he was arguing a completely different position.
And you can really tell from Alex's analysis of the quote.
Like, he derives a completely different meaning from it than Franklin intended, which tells me he's never read the original source material, but just read the quote on some dumb blog, which is basically all he ever does.
The Wachowski brothers and many others like Chris Carter and the X-Files were only telegraphing to you what they were experiencing at elite meetings around the world.
Bill Joy in 1999, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems and a major billionaire, warned the world in an article titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us that he'd gone to an elite meeting of top billionaires in Silicon Valley and that they had a consensus agreement to bring in world government and exterminate the majority of the world population.
14 years ago, I laid out the globalist plan from their own statements and predicted by the year 2020 they would begin executing their depopulation operation.
This is only the beginning to train you to be locked down.
So in the future, when the really deadly bioweapons are released and billions begin dying, you sit there believing governments and corporations are actually your savior and are going to shepherd you and protect you when in truth they're Judas goats leading you into the slaughter.
And Limbaugh is absolutely right that there are thousands of videos.
We started playing them two weeks ago of just empty hospitals everywhere.
But now more and more people from Alabama to Texas to New York to Wisconsin to Ohio to Idaho to Montana to Colorado to California.
I mean every state.
It's happening.
It's happening everywhere.
They will see on the news, the six o'clock news, that there's long lines.
People are everywhere.
That there's people in respirators.
Everyone's dying here at the hospital.
We've been posting videos that are like 30 minutes long, 15 minutes long, an hour long every day on Bandai video.
I mean, you can't even watch them all.
And these locals, you go to their YouTube channels, it'll be like a auto part store, or it'll be like a guy that owns a nursery, or it'll be a lady that is a maid or a cleaning supply.
It's just normal people, or it'll be a retired cop.
I mean, I'm going and checking their channels, and they have stuff with their kids at the beach and parties, and then suddenly it's all this investigative reporting.
And they say, well, I live a mile from this hospital, and they said there's long lines and people dying everywhere, but I noticed they weren't showing a wide shot.
And I've seen other videos.
And this is a sampling of what they say because they're all saying this.
All these videos are shot in front entrances of hospitals, which show no real traffic, which is supposed to demonstrate that there's no real coronavirus pandemic, and these stats are a lie.
What they actually show is pretty decent evidence that things are bad.
Most of the people you would see coming in those entrances to a hospital would be people coming in for minor things or visitors.
So the fact that there's no one milling about is indicative of there not being visitors coming, which is right in line with the current situation.
None of these videos show anything that's happening inside the hospitals, and people inside the hospital can't legally release those sorts of images of things that they're seeing because of patient privacy and HIPAA laws.
And honestly, I don't know what these dump-dumb conspiracy theorists are imagining should be happening outside.
Do they think that if it was a real outbreak, there would just be a couple hospital employees running around screaming for effect?
back to what I was saying here ladies and gentlemen God watching this country totally butchered and just how everyone's in a sleep state and And it's like I'm awake, and everybody's like in a sleep state.
It's like it gets worse and worse.
People are mesmerized, ladies and gentlemen.
It's absolutely out of control.
I gotta go, Rebra.
I'm not gonna do the show anymore.
Just screw this whole place and screw everybody.
It's gone.
We are a nation of devil-worshipping towers that have killed 62 million babies and we love it.
And that's why they're making their move on us because God is removing his protection from the planet.
So, in the middle of that rant, Alex's earpiece fell out.
So, the part towards the end there where he's growling and being like, I can't even do the show, is when he's trying to subtly put his earpiece back in, but he's really struggling with it.
I'm becoming more certain than ever that he's just getting like staged.
He's not getting just like, hey, it's time to go to break through the earpiece.
I think he's being fed lines through there because he's really freaking out when his earpiece falls out.
It's possibly one of the reasons he seems all over the place all the time is because he can't really integrate all the information that's coming to him through his ear.
And he just like, that's why maybe he skips from topic A to B to C. Right.
Because it's disjointed because he's getting disjointed information.
This is not Samantha B's husband from the daily show, Jason Jones, that Alex wants now.
I don't usually recommend watching the video of Alex, but this little segment is pretty funny.
Watching him try and fail to put his earpiece back in and just getting angrier and angrier to the point where he's like, everyone, fuck the fuck everyone.
Alex isn't really being honest there about the flu vaccine.
It is true that oftentimes flu strains pop up in human populations that aren't the ones that are covered by that year's vaccine, but it's pretty ridiculous to say that scientists have never guessed the right strain.
This is how an angry child who's afraid to get a shot but doesn't want to admit they're scared of needles acts if they're a little dumber than they think they are.
They can intellectualize their immature response, but the point they're making is childish and stupid.
That's all like, I mean, obviously, I'm not saying Alex is afraid of needles, but it's the same behavior that's on display here.
So Alex is still like really spinning out a bit.
I think he's gotten his earpiece back in now, but he's just all over the place.
They want you willingly to go take whatever it is that's going to be in there.
And when major German, Italian, and other firms have gotten things like H1N1 vaccine and scanned it, they go, This is super, this is like 10 years ago, super advanced bioengineered thing with a whole bunch of stuff added onto it.
And then they were SWAT-teamed was in the news by the Italian government because the manufacturer of the vaccine and the who said that's patented.
This story that Alex is talking about regarding is about two anti-vax folks from Italy named Antoinette Gotti and Stefano Montanari.
In 2017, they released a paper called New Quality Control Investigations on Vaccines, Micro and Nano-Contamination.
This paper was released on a non-peer-reviewed website, and no one has in any way confirmed their findings, which, according to a few analyses that I found, were not even scary to begin with and are a little dubious.
And some of the metals they claim that they found in vaccines could easily have been found due to methodological errors that led to themselves being the cause of contamination as opposed to the vaccine itself.
I feel like I could have like if when I was nine and my parents were like, we're having spinach tonight, you've got to eat vegetables.
I was instead of being like, I don't want to eat spinach.
I was like, actually, did you know that the government is using spinach to get inside your body to give you an abortion on top of the abortion that you already had?
unidentified
That's me, and I was born, and that's why we're all spinach eaters.
But Alex goes out to break after this like weird, just fucking fall into anger by just like, I think he's yelling at his audience that they're all going to burn in hell.
Everything they give you is for another thing to control you.
It's not so you can sit there and jerk off the porn or sit there and, you know, play Tetris.
It's to watch you and fry you and surveil you and in the future be your jail guard to tell you when you can go outside, how much food you can have, what profession you have, whether you can have children or not.
And you all want to die and you're going to get tortured to death like those babies.
So Alex realizes that, like, I think someone gave him a talking to during the commercial that was like, you just yelled at your own audience that they're going to burn in hell.
I know you do that a lot when you say it towards the globalists or something.
No, but also the idea that, like, I mean, I don't know what the reality is, but if he is just mad at people who rejoice in an abortion and that is causing him to yell at his audience, they're all going to burn in hell and all this.
I would suggest that maybe when Alex says that he paid for a bunch of abortions when he was younger and he's repented and made peace with that, maybe that process is not complete.
I mean, I remember just four months ago when suddenly on all the comedy major shows and all over the news and all the big feminist groups were like, I love killing babies.
I had a baby girl in me and I like to get pregnant.
And then I've done this three times, my boyfriend.
I mean, I'm sure there are some issues that come if you're a Republican.
I don't think it's unique there.
I'm sure that some people.
I bet that there are some, I mean, not in terms of blackmail, but there are some social stigmas that people probably feel about their sexuality and public and private life.
And I don't think that we're as evolved a society as we like to imagine sometimes, but to the point where it's like the 50s, you know, where it's like, if you are a hypothetically gay person, you must be blackmailed.
I've been around these globalists and they're so creepy and so unhappy and the sky is so bad and so empty and so dark that I couldn't join them.
But I do get that they trick the general public to be evil and accept abortion and devil worship.
And so the public kind of does deserve to be exterminated.
The blackballists are playing God, though.
They want to carry out the operation of God.
They're the ones that help people be evil, grease the skids, incentivize it, run the whole thing, but then they want to play God too at the same time and then exterminate everybody.
These kinds of just these behaviors are so unprofessional on a level that, like, no matter what you're doing, if you're like, if you have a job that's not running a show where you lie for a living and you act like this, you're fired.
It feels a little bit like maliciously laughing at a three-year-old for not knowing how to string sentences together where you're like, ha ha, you're so fucking stupid, you three-year-old.
Yeah, but at the same time, the three-year-old is actively trying to get the hundreds of thousands of people who listen to him killed.
The same time, too, you know, acting like somehow so far above, you know, however he's operating is also a little bit condescending on my part.
Yeah, you know, I don't want to infantilize him to the point where it says like this is a child, but like these behaviors are fucking childish as shit.
According to all the data I can find, this is absolutely a made-up stat about 60% of births in Travis County being C-sections.
According to the 2017 Healthy Texas Babies Data Book released by the Texas Department of State Health Services, quote, in 2016, 34.4% of all Texas deliveries were delivered by a cesarean section.
That number is actually slightly lower than it was in the years 2009 through 2015, but right around the same level it was in 2008.
This report doesn't have a full breakdown by county every year, but it does include figures from 2015 putting the early non-medically indicated elective cesarean section rate in Austin at 21.3% or lower.
A 2019 article on the U.S. News and World Report had a county-by-county list of counties with the highest percentage of C-sections based on CDC data.
The highest was Rapids Parish, Louisiana, with 47.3%.
So there's no way I believe Alex's stat that he is absolutely just making up.
According to their data, Travis County was at number 176 on that list with 32.8%.
The stuff that Alex is saying about Cleopatra is even stupider.
There's a legend about the birth of Gaius Julius Caesar that held that he was cut out of his mother who had died while she was pregnant with him, but his mother wasn't Cleopatra.
She was Aurelia.
But this legend isn't true, mostly proven by the fact that Caesar's mother survived his birth and exists in the historical record.
In reality, the name is most likely derived from the same Latin word that Caesar seems related to.
There are some other theories, but what no one really takes seriously is the idea that it's actually named what it is because it became popular after Caesar or Cleopatra or whatever.
But by all means, Alex, it is fun to have a little history.
I was going to say, that was the first thing because I don't remember Cleopatra dying in childbirth.
And if I remember history, the history of the C-section, though, is one of the pioneers of the C-section that first successfully the mother and the child lived was actually a woman who was raised as a man in order to go to medical school because women weren't allowed to go to medical school.
So at the age of six, she was raised as a man, became a professional doctor, and was, by all accounts, incredible, one of the best doctors of her time period.
And they didn't find out that she was a woman until after she was dead when they dug her up and then performed an autopsy and realized that she herself had given birth to two children.
So using the number of deaths we've seen now to compare to a whole year's data is intrinsically dishonest.
You'd only do that if you're a liar and trying to minimize some piece of really bad information that you wish you hadn't just accidentally said on air.
Also, the flu isn't really a top cause of death in the United States.
Even if you accept a 60,000 a year estimate, that's still far below the approximately 650,000 deaths from heart disease or 600,000 from cancer, the 170,000 from accidents.
This is just absolutely shitty work from Alex.
And I'm positive he just was cold reading that.
Had no idea it was about to come out of his mouth.
Alex was in the middle of trying to minimize the virus at March 24th at that point, and he was on the party line of saying that everyone had to go back to work.
So he was invested in pretending that the Chinese had inflated the numbers so Trump would take it seriously while the Chinese went back to work or something.
Now the narrative has shifted again.
So Alex is pretending he was never reporting that the Wall Street Journal had admitted China actually inflated their numbers.
Now they're underreported.
Nothing Alex says means anything.
He's just making shit up as he goes along to sue whatever the party demands him support.
And that's fine, I guess.
That's what authoritarian propagandists do.
They prey on their audience and how willing they are to go along with constantly changing, self-contradictory narratives.
Now, what would be really abusive would be if Alex immediately after making this claim that directly contradicts something he reported as fact about a week ago, went on a rant about how the globalists don't want you to have a memory.
And a story that when I said Causes Belly earlier, this would be that if he was like, legitimately, there's no conclusion to this other than go to war with China, which is not an ideal outcome.
Quote, The United Kingdom reported of COVID-19 testing kits sent from China found to be contaminated with the coronavirus when they were being surveyed by a Luxembourg-based company.
That line hotlinks to a story on MSN News.
But if you read that story, nowhere in it does it say that these kits were being sent from China.
It says that the kits were bound for the United Kingdom and they were from a manufacturer in Luxembourg.
But if this source is what they're using for their claim that they're from China, that's absolutely fabricated from this source.
It's not in the article.
And based on the reading of the actual article, it seems like this was more of a lab error, not an intentional contamination.
I've read a bunch of other articles about this, and none say the kits were from China or that China was involved at all.
This is a pure fabrication, it appears to me, on the part of National File.
Because they don't have another source that substantiates this.
But I'm more furious because two weeks from now, Alex is going to be saying that we need to hold people down to draw their blood in order to test them for COVID and that America released this to attack China back.
So when you were saying that this is like murder, You know, the trend of Alex blaming Chinese people as opposed to, you know, having certainly some reservations or suspicions about mishandling by the Chinese government.
You know, the thought that I just had was that one of the big problems with not having universal health care and guaranteed jobs and basic income and shit is because if you are a person with a conscience and you worked at like Infowars or Fox News or any of those places, you have to think that I got to stop working here.
And, you know, like, I don't know, from that Josh Owens article about his time working there, he had, you know, there was the feeling of I'd be unemployable anywhere else.
So, I mean, like, there's also just, I mean, that's kind of parceled in with that.
He comes back from his special report and he decides he's going to really break this down.
And here I have just cut out the specific instances of him trying to prove the narrative that China intentionally sent contaminated tests to infect the world.
It's all just the same headlines about the same story that is being able to be turned into a narrative about China having sent these because of the manipulation of the National File headline.
So what you have here is a load of bullshit to end the episode.
But that's not how it ends because it's Alex Jones.
Well, that's the problem, like I'm saying, with the like the escalation of this rhetoric has nowhere to go.
Like he's already at the point of like any rational person listening to this that believes what Alex is saying, the natural conclusion is call for war.