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 what these gents do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says 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.
The world government bio-attack we always knew was coming from the very medical tyranny deep state mad scientist led by Dr. Faust.
unidentified
Are we looking at living with some sort of social distancing guidelines, essentially until there's treatment or a vaccine?
For example, people looking forward to the summer talk about going to baseball games, going to concerts.
We have political conventions over the summer.
Are things like that possible or safe without a vaccine or a treatment in place?
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 solution to a virus that might keep coming back would be a vaccine.
But, I mean, the clip of what Fauci was explaining makes perfect sense to an adult listening.
But it's interesting because, you know, you listen to enough Alex Jones that I think you can hear that and see the points where he's going to take things.
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 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-CoV-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.
Scrubble while you sing this song Wash, wash, wash, wash, wash, wash It's kind of fun This is a banger, man Then the places in between Using soap and water Make sure that's okay Wash your hands Reach out your eyes The creator of Elmo, the guy that first played him, is a pedophile.
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 bio-attack.
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 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.
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 No. 2 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.
Wow.
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...
From the piece, quote, How to persuade the housewife in Zinnia, 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.
So here's the wider context of the quote about paying in blood and money from this paragraph.
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.
It is a specific virus in that umbrella grouping, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
Also, the cold is caused by many other things, like rhinoviruses.
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.
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 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.
To use viruses, mutate, and then sometimes get deadly, rarely, and then they quickly burn themselves out.
This baby seems to be getting worse.
Well, I said that nine weeks ago.
I said, these universities say it's man-made, it's got all these different systems put on it, it attacks four different parts of the body at least, and it comes back.
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, like, 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, there's only so many places that 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.
The strategy is stupid, and it doesn't make sense.
But there are some caveats, just because me saying scientists can't predict these things, it gets into complexity.
And I don't want to just make that blanket statement.
Because scientists can use the principles of natural selection to guess what sorts of mutations would be favored by nature to be more successful.
A mutation that would make a virus less debilitating, for example, would make it more likely to be passed on to new hosts.
So you would expect that in the case of that kind of a mutation happening, it would become a more prevalent strain of a virus.
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.
Most importantly in that clip, Alex is saying that the virus is very bad and it keeps coming back.
This is a direct contradiction to his narrative from March 24th of this year where he was saying that it wasn't a big deal and how if you get it, you're just going to be sick for nine days and then you're good.
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.
So I found a post on Alex's buddy Tom Papert's website, National File, titled, quote, Fauci and Birx 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.
Quote, Gates has a lot of pull in the medical world.
He has a multi-million dollar relationship with Dr. Fauci, and Fauci originally took the Gates line supporting vaccines and casting doubt on chloroquine.
The only other evidence provided is that in 2019, it was reported that Gates and the NIH were also both providing funding Again, what's the conspiracy?
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 kinds of 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 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 any to remind you that nothing Alex says means a thing.
Last night the press conference says, oh, we're going to have surveillance systems that know we're going to catch it and we're going to have people locked down.
I watched the whole press conference last night.
And we're going to probably have to cycle this and throttle it.
And, oh, oh, you can't go out here.
You can't go out there.
They're going to have a county-by-county thing at first.
And just getting us all trained that we can't go out until we're told.
unidentified
And that's the way it is to keep us safe from the virus.
I would relate it to 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 walking towards the deeper end and you get to that point where you realize your feet can't touch.
Hospitals are empty all over the country because most surgeries are elective and things and people hypochondriac and people do constant medical stuff because they want the pain pills.
There are whole industries where they're doing constant surgeries per finger, and people get, you know, surgeries every month, so they get their pain pills.
Of course, every time they put you under, it causes brain damage.
Now, the reason there's so many brain-damaged people everywhere is the average person's have like 15 surgeries by 50. I was just like, uh-oh, uh-oh.
That being under anesthesia doesn't cause brain damage unless something goes wrong.
With a 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.
...
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.
So, that article, 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 a long-term follow-up study found only 1% of elderly patients suffer from persistent POCD with preoperative cognitive performance, which is to say mild cognitive decline, possible or probable Alzheimer's disease, that's a better prediction.
Right, right, right.
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 patient's pain pill prescriptions.
If that's the case, there's literally zero chance they would use general anesthetic, which would require someone, you know, they'd 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, uh, 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, and 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.
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.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 Vinant 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.
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.
But 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.
But they also know that it's bullshit and everybody should still be doing all the same stuff.
But they are just trying to be like, they just think Alex doesn't want to shake.
It's weird.
Everyone seems to be doing it for each other or something and Alex is confused.
And we've gone along with it, and so they're going to take everything you've got, folks, and they're going to slowly kill you with the coronavirus vaccines.
And coronavirus vaccines have already been developed, and they're going to roll them out after you beg for them.
For one, rhinovirus is responsible for most colds, not coronavirus.
The reason there isn't a vaccine for the common cold is 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 can 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 of 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 from a 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 son Wait.
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.
Alex is literally friends with someone who paled around with the inspiration for the villains.
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 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 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.
Three, countries, international organizations, and global transport companies should work together to maintain...
I don't think that's a good idea.
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 priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response.
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 they should release bio-levels and plagues on the population to reduce their numbers.
But Malthus is not the father of eugenics.
The father of eugenics is Plato, who over 2,000 years ago in his republic wrote about herding the poor into compact cities and releasing plagues upon them.
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 resources.
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.
unidentified
husband constantly in interviews saying he wants to come back as a deadly virus reincarnated to humanity 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 agent or dpa august 1988 We recently talked about that Prince Philip quote.
It was just included in the foreword of a book called If I Were an Animal.
That voiceover you hear 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 Agentur 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 forward of that book, and it got mixed up in translation or something, but all of it traces back to the forward 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 Winfrey, 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...
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...
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation put out a lengthy white paper that's public, and I suggest you go read it, called Lockstep, and it predicts an authoritarian world government will rise and crush the general public in the name of security and safety.
Alex thinks the document is called Lockstep because he's only read little dumb blurbs about it on stupid blogs, so he only knows about one scenario in the report.
That's cringe-level stuff, particularly when he says, I suggest you go read it.
I suggest you read it, Alex.
The report is actually called Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, and we covered it in depth on a recent episode.
It has nothing to do with the plan to bring in authoritarian rule and crush the public.
That's all just the paranoid delusions that Alex has picked up, most likely from its coverage on Jim Fetzer's blog.
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.
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 Lawfare, 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 Pens, 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, acknowledging that it didn't have the authority to tax it.
Wits goes on to say, 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.
Fourteen 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.
They will see on the news, the 6 o 'clock news, that there's long lines.
People are everywhere.
There's people on 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 Bandot 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 parts 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.
Also, it's really funny to remember that Alex declared war on QAnon in the April 1st episode of his show, which is the day before this episode, because a lot of these videos he's claiming to have researched were created by QAnon followers with the hashtag FilmYourHospital.
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 dumb-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?
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 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's just like, that's why maybe he skips from topic A to B to C. Because it's...
This is not Samantha Bee'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 everyone, screw this country.
It's just, you know what it is?
It's a perfect encapsulation of his impotent, angry baby.
It is a 100% undebated absolute fact that they have never guessed the right flu virus for the mutation of what the main flu is the next year and it's always a whole bunch of flus, dozens and dozens of them.
And it does nothing to protect you from the next flu if it's not the exact flu!
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.
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 really spinning out a bit.
I think he's gotten his earpiece back in now, but he's just...
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 they The manufacturer of the vaccine and the who said, that's patented.
This story that Alex is talking about is about two anti-vax folks from Italy named Antoinette Gatti 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 of it that I found were not even scary to begin with and are a little dubious, and some of the metals they claimed that they found in vaccines could easily have been found due to methodological errors that led to themselves being the Almost certainly.
I can't find any reliable sources of their offices being raided, but I can find a ton of blogs claiming without evidence that that did happen.
Alex has no idea what the actual story is here.
He's just seen articles about them on dumb anti-vax blogs he skims headlines on.
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?
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.
unidentified
And you all want to die and you're going to get tortured to death like those babies.
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, and we deserve what's coming, 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 with my boyfriend.
I mean, not in terms of blackmail, but there are some social stigmas that people probably feel about their...
Their sexuality and public and private life.
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, 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 fact 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 Bibleists 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.
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.
It's great, you know, if you want to demark time based on your religious beliefs, but if we're all going to share the common reality that this is the year 2020, baby, there's no reason to not secularize it a little bit.
So, Common Era and Before Common Era are completely acceptable compromises, unless what you're angling for is a strictly religiously based society.
This is one of the little clues that might be what Alex is into.
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.
He's not even getting his fake history right.
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 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...
So that's not true, and it's also really dishonest.
For one, we're only in early April here.
This year is not even close to over, 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 the 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.
I 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 was 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 suit 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.
So he's got this video from Twitter that he's now reporting as real, and Rob Dew has given him some other pieces of information that he knew days ago, but he's mad because he hasn't done it or covered it or anything.
So here's one of the reasons I don't trust this reporting.
Alex is going off a story on National File, and here's one line from the article.
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 hot links 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.
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 InfoWars or Fox News or any of those places, you have to think that I gotta stop working here.
Yeah, 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 puzzled in with that.
He already referenced that it was in the London Independent, the Daily Mail, and the Guardian, and then he brought up, and now the last thing, The Daily Mail!
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.