Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a couple episodes from this week on The Alex Jones Show. In this installment, Alex continues his coronavirus games, decides that maybe the world doesn't deserve to know who Q is, and dips his toe into a hot new viral conspiracy sensation.
Today, my bright spot is, I don't know what I was listening to, and it might have been even a ways in the past, but it jumped into my mind, and I love it.
An expression for a length of time, when you call it a cup of coffee.
I intended just to do the 5th and the 6th, but Alex was only in studio for the first hour of the 6th.
He jumped off air to take care of other business, and I was like, well, let's check in on the 7th and see what happens.
So, we will be going over that, but before we do, Jordan, we're going to take a little moment to say thank you to some folks who've signed up and are supporting the show.
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 over to our website, knowledgefight.com.
Click the button to support the show.
We would appreciate it.
Or you could find a local charity in your area that's helping out people in need and take that generosity over in that direction.
But that's why I'm keeping things like Polar and a lot of the LaCroix and a lot of those that have tons of varieties, keeping that as an option for later as those dog days of summer come.
However, Savage is not a medical doctor, so no one should be listening to what he says about vaccines or medical decisions that you would take on yourself.
Savage has a bachelor's in biology, two master's degrees in botany and anthropology, and his PhD is in nutritional ethnomedicine.
His dissertation was on the botanical and nutritional health practices in Fiji, including an enumeration of, quote, the medicinal applications of 188 plant species found in Fiji.
It's a cool area of study, and I am sure Savage had a lot of fun researching it, probably getting to go hang out in Fiji back in the 70s.
Still, he is not a medical doctor, yet Alex is just pretending he is because it helps him make his predetermined conclusion, which is doctors are coming out saying these are bad needles.
So under his real name, Michael Allen Wiener, Savage has published a ton of books about non-medicine medicine, and weirdly a 1984 book called Getting Off Cocaine.
So these books were published between 1972 and 1995, but also from 1991 onward, he published his hate-filled right-wing screeds under his Michael Savage alias.
Starting with 1991's The Death of the White Male, A Case Against Affirmative Action.
Anyway, my point here is that Michael Savage is not a medical doctor, and his concerns about the potential future coronavirus vaccine are completely meaningless.
So, Alex talks about something that is pretty normal on his show at this point, pretty normal piece of rhetoric and argument that he's been making, and that is the whole, all deaths are being counted as COVID deaths.
So that's absolutely not true on a number of levels.
First, the thing about calling all deaths COVID-19 is just something Alex is making up based on him misrepresenting something Dr. Burke said a while back.
But leaving that aside, his claim that there is a normal number of deaths is demonstrably not true.
And he had Francis Boyle on his show not two days before this explaining that very fact.
Boyle pointed to a couple of articles in the Financial Times where they analyzed all cause death statistics in 14 countries that they could get data from.
And they found that the number of deaths in almost all of them were hugely outpacing the long-term averages for the same time period.
Italy saw a 90% increase.
Spain, 72%.
The UK, 61%.
Belgium, 60%.
Netherlands, 52%.
There were some big jumps found, and these jumps got even more extreme when they focused in on local regions where there were higher concentrations of people and they had seen outbreaks.
New York City reflected a 386% increase in deaths compared to the long-term average, which was still behind the Bergamo province in Italy, which had a 496% increase.
These numbers require further study, but the biggest point to be made is that Alex trying to say that death numbers are the same as they always are is a complete lie.
There's no way around this.
He's telling his audience something that's the opposite of reality.
Like when Alex is coming on air and just literally saying something that is the opposite of reality and at the same time the opposite of something he's had a quote-unquote trusted expert on saying.
It's very disheartening.
So we get into this next clip here, and Alex sets up something that he's going to pay off later.
And I'll be honest, the payoff to this, I basically fell asleep.
Lay out a large spectrum of official graphs put out by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, by the...
Royal society over in England, all of them giant, complete frauds because they're lying on purpose in a systematic way to create as much fear and control as possible and to force a forced inoculation as early as 2020.
So it's all fun and games for Alex to get on air now that most of the country has followed the recommendations that would be needed to avoid the worst-case scenarios that are depicted in those graphs and predictions and do a whole big show about how the graphs and predictions were an elaborate fraud.
It's all fun and games for him because nothing means anything on this show.
Also, if these graphs and projections that were being put out were intentionally designed to increase fear and to force a vaccine, what does Alex think about Mike Adams' self-made projection which Alex reported on on his show?
Mike's model showed 2 million people dead by July if nothing was done.
Of course, Alex reported that as an official model showing 2 million dead by July, and then he had to be corrected by Mike that this was a model that represented what would happen if no one did anything to mitigate the virus's spread.
When Alex covered this model Mike had made, it was back in early March, when the editorial line at InfoWars was to lean into the virus is going to kill everyone narrative.
So, pretty much all that stuff Alex was saying about Governor Northam and the salaries of neonatal nurses comes straight out of his imagination, so I'm just going to ignore that shit.
The thing I want to focus on here is Alex's claims that there were a ton of organ harvesting scandals in the 90s, which is what he's using to lend credibility to the outlandish claim he's making about current-day organ harvesting happening at hospitals under the guise of abortion.
I've looked into it a bit and from what I can tell, this is Alex misrepresenting something that I suspect he never actually understood in the first place, which is organ donation standards.
The whole, don't sign an organ donor card because if you do, they'll let you die in the ER to take your organs thing, that's a super old urban legend.
And it's honestly probably the actual basis for Alex's narrative here.
He said in the past that his dad told him that at hospitals they do that, so you can chalk that up as another point on the board for weird things he believes just because his dad said so.
So beyond the urban legend aspect, I was able to find a New York Times article from 1997 that deals with some of the controversy that was happening in the field of organ donation that I think Alex is misrepresenting and misremembering.
Maybe both?
Probably both.
Traditionally, the standard that had been used to determine when a person who'd consented to have their organs given to others in need, the point when it could be done was after their heart stopped beating and it didn't resume.
So that was traditionally the point back in the past.
Then, in the 1970s, the standard changed to being when the patient was declared brain dead.
That's not, you know, brain dead is a term that gets thrown around, but there's a specific medical definition that's used there.
Then, in the 1990s, it became more prevalent for doctors to discuss donation options with families of dying patients who had already decided to take them off life support.
So this is an entirely ethical practice, provided that the decision to take the person off life support is not influenced by anyone suggesting they do so to provide organs for donation.
And this shift has actually led to a greatly increased number of donations and it saved countless lives.
It creates that image of doctors trying to con families into killing their loved ones so they can harvest their organs, which is more fantasy than reality.
This 1997 New York Times article discusses a Cleveland clinic which engaged in that form of organ donation, where patients who had no chance of recovery and were only being kept alive by machines, whose family had decided to take them off life support and consented to organ donation, they were being given drugs to prevent blood clotting and widen blood vessels, which would help preserve their organs for donation.
The controversy was surrounding whether or not one of those medications technically would hasten a person's death and would thus be considered euthanasia, which is a matter that this article clearly shows is not, it's a question that doesn't have a consensus answer.
There's some people who are saying like, yeah, it would make your death more quick, and therefore the doctors are making them die sooner.
So I'm pretty sure that this is what Alex is talking about because this 1997 article also mentions a doctor who, quote, said she could not comment in detail because she had signed an exclusivity agreement with the CBS News program 60 Minutes, which is to air a broadcast on the dispute tonight.
This is the news program Alex vaguely remembers seeing and has no idea what it was actually about.
Alex is telling his audience a story about doctors killing patients or at best maliciously letting them die to steal their organs and sell on the black market.
The reality of the story is very, very different.
And I can't find examples in the modern American hospital system of people engaging in that sort of practice.
The logistics of it, too, like how many hurdles you'd have to jump over in order to pull off something like that would be ridiculous.
If you were found to have been negligent in care that leads to someone dying so you can take their organs, you could be sued.
It's an absurd thing for Alex to believe, but it's what he's pushing.
And I really sincerely think that it's just that 60 Minutes thing from 1997, that he does not understand what the issue was, mixed with his dad telling him these urban legends about, don't sign the organ donor card, so take your organs!
And they already said before anything opened up here in Texas, for example...
When Abbott said, well, we're going to let people open up 25%, 50%, but they said, already, look, we've had a spike.
Now, what they're telling everybody, what they're preparing everybody for, is the new narrative is going to be, see, you opened up, and now everybody's dying, so we've got to lock you down hard, and we've got to keep you locked down.
That's the likely outcome of trying to force a reopening of many places where people congregate in large numbers prematurely.
It's very likely that the number of cases will go up if states reopen everything before it's safe to do so.
And the only thing that's a preemptive narrative here is what David Knight is doing.
This is his preemptive rationalization that his propaganda needs to somehow try to wiggle around the reality that infectious diseases spread.
Inevitably, when you see the number of cases go up after these states reopen, now you have a handy little piece of bullshit to help you explain how that's a conspiracy as opposed to the exact thing you'd expect to happen.
We've already seen this play out multiple times this year.
On March 23rd, CNN reported on how Hong Kong had done a really good job of containing the virus, only having approximately 150 cases by the beginning of March.
From the article, quote, Now, however, Hong Kong is providing a very different object lesson.
What happens when you let your guard down too soon?
The number of confirmed cases has almost doubled in the past week.
They eased their containment measures and the number of infections rose considerably.
They have the situation largely under control now thanks to reintroducing, quote, a raft of new measures.
They had, quote, draconian new controls put in place, including electronic tagging of all new arrivals who must undergo a strict 14-day home quarantine and could face criminal prosecution if they're found in breach of it.
Over the weekend, police could be seen patrolling nightlife districts looking for those violating quarantine, arresting at least five people, two of whom had cut their wristbands off in order to go out.
Right, but that was what they had to do in order to, because they let down the guard too early, you have to introduce even stricter measures than you would have done in the first place.
Experts in the field are pretty universally warning about this phenomenon and how it's pretty much inevitable that if we loosen things up prematurely and irresponsibly, we could see case numbers explode.
According to an article in the Denver Post, one of the most important benchmarks for knowing that it could be okay to ease restrictions is a, quote, 14-day downward trajectory in new illnesses and infections, which we do not have.
And even if we did, easing restrictions in that scenario is only advisable if there's also a robust testing system in place to be able to catch new outbreaks before they become big new outbreaks.
We don't have either of those basic components for doing this safely.
From this article, we also see the pattern of Hong Kong playing out in our states.
Quote, cases have continued to rise steadily in places such as Iowa and Missouri since the governors began reopening.
This stuff is pretty clear.
Experts have warned us about what the most likely result of premature opening is, and all you see Alex and David Knight doing here is creating a preemptive excuse for why the thing they're calling for is going to end up killing a lot of people, but it's not really because it's a conspiracy or something.
Alex might not be on air to deal with them, so maybe that'll work.
So, Alex, you know, we've heard a lot over the course of the last few weeks, him yelling about people at stores telling him to wear a mask, and he yells at them.
So I've been tracking Alex's stories about him getting into fights with people who ask him to wear a mask in their stores for a while now.
Mostly because I thought those stories were probably not true, and even if they were, they were kind of just funny glimpses into how much of an impotent man-child he is, raging against people trying to help because it inconveniences him slightly.
And then, last Friday, Calvin Munderland, a security guard at a Flint, Michigan family dollar, was murdered, in retaliation for earlier telling a woman she could not enter the store without a mask.
He was a father, and it's an absolute tragedy, all following pretty much the exact pattern of all the stories Alex braggingly tells of his own exploits at stores, just carried much further.
I'm not saying that Alex's rhetoric caused this woman to return to the store with her husband and son who then murdered this dude.
I have no reason to suspect that there is even a concrete connection or that she was a listener or anything like that.
The reason I bring up this story at all is because the underlying behavior of fighting and arguing with security guards who are enforcing rules about masks is something that Alex fundamentally supports and he's been very, very clear about that in the past few weeks.
I'm sure he wouldn't advocate someone go so far as murder, but Alex is normalizing one of the steps down that path.
He celebrates lashing out and berating people who are trying to uphold public health measures, and the consequence of that kind of thing is that his audience is trained to view that as a positive thing.
A noble thing, even.
This is a story that I haven't heard Alex bring up, and I would be surprised if he ever does.
I'm just not sure that there's a way he can cover the story without kind of supporting the murderer, which I'm sure he'd rather not do.
What you saw was an inside takeout of General Flynn.
By the inside, and we're seeing now all the scales of corruption they went to and that's being uncovered and discovered.
But they took out General Flynn to make President Trump vulnerable so that he had none of the white hats around him that he needed at times exactly like this.
Russiagate doesn't happen if they are unable to take out General Flynn.
Ukrainegate and impeachmentgate doesn't happen except for their security.
And in the process, in the time frame, continue to target them for political harassment, legal harassment, every other form of harassment, publicize false news stories, hide true news stories to have this continuous campaign because InfoWars keeps managing to jump over that gate and get back in and undermine the institutional narrative.
So the big powers of institution, the gatekeepers, have to come and escalate the attacks on InfoWars and those who personify it.
And the six degrees of separation comes from just the theory of six degrees of separation, of social distancing, and it's a psychological system of control, and it just so happens to be a foot is six inches and six inches.
I know someone very close to me in Houston who's a nurse, and all the time, lesbian couples come in and demand their three-, four-, five-year-old sons have their balls chopped off, and the hospitals refuse.
I saw it this weekend of a new movie out where the guy has his consciousness put into a computer and then it's wonderful once he does it.
I mean, this is all just absolutely sick, folks.
It's not going to be your consciousness.
You're going to be killed.
The AI would have recorded your every move, how you talk, your voice print, what you do, to where then the avatar that will be on the computer will be able to fool your family.
The computer will have a relationship with you and your family and it's just the next level of fraud.
The whole point of the movie is that humans can use these Na 'vi hybrids to learn about Pandora since the atmosphere is poisonous to humans, and they need to find the unobtainium.
At the end of the movie, after Sully realizes that...
The humans are the bad guys, and they're going to destroy the Tree of Souls, which would amount to genocide against the Na 'vi.
He fights alongside them to overcome the human attack.
After that, he's beloved by the Na 'vi, and they do some magic to make him and his avatar into one being permanently, and honestly, I have no idea if the movie handled what happened to his human body at that point.
I assume it definitely died because humans can't breathe on Pandora.
Either way, the ending of the movie is totally about his soul being transferred by the magical Tree of Souls!
So, it turns out, the reason that there's so many people with coronavirus and COVID-19 is because if you've ever had a cold in the past decade, you're going to test positive.
In the United States, we've run a little over 8 million COVID-19 tests at this point.
If what Alex is saying were in any way true, then you'd have to assume that just under 7 out of 8 of the people tested haven't had a cold in the past decade, which is pretty fucking absurd.
So there's a reality here underneath what Alex is lying about, and that is that our current tests that we have, particularly for antibodies, aren't at a great level of accuracy yet.
They're nowhere near as bad as Alex is pretending, but they're not sure shots.
According to a May 4th article in Discover Magazine, the three currently available antibody tests have between 83% and 96% accuracy rates in terms of specificity, meaning that between 4% to 17% of the positive results that they come to, they might be false positives.
These are not the results of the test picking up antibodies to other coronaviruses, though.
It's just a matter of us not having developed a more accurate test yet, but we will.
The question of the test calling antibodies to the common cold antibodies to coronavirus or the COVID-19 antibodies, that's an absurd thing to say.
That's one of the most elementary questions that people coming up with the test had to deal with when they started designing it.
If you create a test that always just returns positive results, you can easily see how no one would consider that a worthwhile test.
This is a childish oversimplification of what goes into creating a test for a particular antibody.
If tests for coronavirus, COVID-19, as it were, antibodies always turn out positives for people who previously had a cold, why didn't everyone test positive for SARS and MERS?
unidentified
Is it possible because scientists understand that tests that can't tell the difference are useless?
So they only use the tests sometimes, and the other ones are fake tests that don't test positive, and they only use the tests that test positive on some people.
You need to get Austin Steinbart QAnon on the show.
You know, a few weeks back, you announced that QAnon would come on the show, and Austin Steinbart is Q. He's a DIA agent, and he was arrested by the FBI last month, just like they did.
You know, they're trying to railroad him like General Flynn.
QAnon is a real military intelligence project, and Austin Steinbart is Q, and he needs the overwhelming Democratic mandate to arrest the deep state.
So, Alex on the 6th, when he starts up, he announces that he's only hosting the first hour, and then Paul Joseph Watson's gonna take over, because he's got big projects to deal with.
So Alex didn't look up or confirm that G's daughter goes to Harvard.
And I know that because he's using the present tense.
On a number of occasions when Francis Boyle has been on, he's complained to Alex that G's daughter currently goes to Harvard and thus the whole school is full of commies.
In reality, Xi's daughter did study at Harvard between 2010 and 2014, under an assumed name.
This makes total sense, to grant her a certain amount of anonymity, because otherwise it would be impossible for her to get anything close to a normal education.
She ended up getting a Bachelor's of Arts degree in psychology and English, and so I don't really know what the nefarious conspiracy is here, but if this is where Alex wants to plant a flag, go for it, man.
So you can find Business Insider articles about G's daughter from 2012 and an article in the New Yorker from 2015.
None of this is anything close to new information.
And here's the thing.
Xi wasn't even the president of China until 2013, so by the time he was the head of state, she was almost done with her degree.
What I'm getting at here is that none of this matters, but it's a huge deal to Alex because any possibility of attacking China and higher education simultaneously is basically catnip.
U.S. and U.K. intelligence warn China is trying to hack biolabs working on COVID.
So they can put out false numbers to create a panic.
That's how U.S. intel, now controlled by patriots partially, is telling you that China's behind the whole damn thing and behind the hysteria in the media and behind all the false diagnoses and all behind the actuaries set up in the coding at the hospitals by the NIH under WHO control, which is under Bill and Linda Gates control.
So Alex isn't making up that there have been warnings made by intelligence agencies about this subject, which is the possibility of Chinese state-backed hackers attempting to gain access to sensitive areas.
That warning did go out early this week, primarily about attempts to, quote, obtain intelligence on national and international health care policy and acquire sensitive data on COVID-19-related research.
Alex is completely fabricating the part about China's motive for the hacking being to put out inflated COVID numbers.
That's just his imagination being added to the real story, which all This is a really good example of one of Alex's primary tactics.
What he will do often is take a real story, then make up a fictional telling of that story to report to his audience.
This is actually a fantastic strategy for him, because he knows that his listeners are not big readers and don't really know how to find information.
So in this case, if one of his listeners thinks to check into this story, they'll Google it and they'll find that there was a joint US-UK advisory put out about hacking related to the coronavirus, and they'll take that as a confirmation of all the other completely made-up stuff that Alex has just attached to the narrative.
Also, if you read the actual advisory, at no point do they say that these hackers are from China, just that they're advanced persistent threat groups.
APT groups are not unique to China, and while it is possible that these hacks are coming from China, there's no indication in the advisory that they couldn't also be backed by another country like North Korea, Russia, or even just some group that's not necessarily state-aligned.
So, to be clear, it very well may be the case that the Chinese government is somehow involved in this, but given the available information that Alex could be operating off of and is pointing to, it feels like reporting that as definite is a little bit premature, but it doesn't matter, because Alex will take any opportunity to...
I don't know further details about this, so I'm not going to say this in reality.
But based on the way that the United States is acting, or Trump is specifically acting in regards to not sharing information, I'm kind of on the side of people hacking and getting maybe life-saving information.
But if it's like, okay, either a giant pharmacy is going to fuck this whole thing up and charge everybody a shit ton of money for this, or the United States is just not going to release this information, then I'm for information sharing.
Okay, so you can always tell when someone is a dishonest actor when they demand that someone prove a negative.
It would be impossible for China to satisfactorily prove that the virus did not leak from the lab, so demanding that they do so is just a rhetorical way to make an illegitimate argument.
In theory, the way you would demonstrate that the virus didn't leak from the lab would be to show evidence supporting the natural progression, like from bat to intermediate animal to human.
However, even if you did do this, it totally wouldn't satisfy someone like Tom Cotton.
He would still say that even if the virus had a natural trajectory, they still haven't proven it didn't also come from the lab.
This is basically what elementary school kids do on the playground, demanding that the target of their bullying prove that they don't pick their nose or some shit.
It's really childish levels of communication, and it's coming from a member of Congress towards another country over something that could lead to hostilities between the two countries, which is...
They're scapegoating racism to try and both ignore blame that they absolutely deserve as well as whip up their followers into trying to win elections is going to get us all killed.
That's how fucking racist they are.
They would rather we go to a world war than accept responsibility for being shitty at what they do and trying to kill ourselves.
Some people believe that the origin of that rhyme is actually a satire about Charles I dissolving Parliament in 1629, but this is not a consensus opinion.
And even if that were the case, it still doesn't make sense in the context Alex is using the rhyme.
Earlier, I read to you out of the Financial Telegraph, major insurance companies in South Africa have openly come out and said that COVID-19 is not causing mass death, that the lockdowns dwarf it massively.
29 times more destructive than the COVID-19 deaths.
The first is that even if you accept this conclusion, that's not a figure that's in any way applicable to other countries than South Africa.
At best, this was an analysis specifically about the factors in that country, which are different than in other countries.
Second, their model has a...
Iffy element that's built into it that represents a massive asterisk.
From the Financial Mail article, quote, Since South Africa's COVID-19 data is so sparse, the researchers used New York's public extensive data overlaying the percentage of people who died in each age range into a model of South Africa's population.
there's no reason to assume that this kind of data overlaying would create a representative glimpse of the actual situation in south africa population densities and distributions are different city patterns are different levels of access to health care are different responses to the virus have been different this may not be a wholly bankrupt way to gather some data for the sake of conversation but as far as i can tell that's a pretty big hole in the model which mysteriously doesn't come up in paul joseph watson's art That's really odd.
So what this model did was it took the data that they put together and they assumed that on average, because of the older average age of patients with COVID-19, each coronavirus death represented a loss of life of 5.4 years.
They then assumed that because of the projected job loss of between 3 and 7 million jobs, quote, 10% of South Africans will become poorer and as a result will lose a few months of their lives.
Alex is trying to pretend that this model shows 29 times the death coming from the lockdown as opposed to the virus, but what it actually shows is something quite different.
And the reason that he doesn't know that about what he's talking about is because he hasn't read the underlying article about it, and Paul Joseph Watson's article covering the Financial Mail article doesn't paint the full picture.
The actual information is going through two filters before it's delivered to the audience, which at that point is just pointless.
A major point is that, according to this model, the loss of months of people's lives will be due to poverty, which is a condition that we could do significant work to remedy, even within the context of a coronavirus lockdown.
Directly addressing those issues is a policy decision, and not addressing them is as well.
So, if you want to use this model to strike up a conversation about battling poverty, great, I'm all there for it.
Even before any of the virus concerns were around, more than half of South Africans lived below the poverty line, so presumably their lives are being shortened by that before this ever happened.
Alex only cares now because he knows he can use this flawed understanding of this analysis to help bolster his arguments that everyone in the United States should be forced back to work.
He doesn't care about the actual details, nor the people being discussed in those details.
Also, considering the fact that Alex is in the middle of a narrative where he's attacking the whole institution of statistical modeling, Where the virus models were all corrupt and frauds, it seems weird that he'd be so willing to accept another model without really digging into the methodology of it.
I knew this was what was going on 12 weeks ago, but I wasn't sure about it until I saw it, and then when they said two weeks, I said, it's never, it's not two years, it's not 200 years, it's the end of civilization, and now they're bragging, hey, this is shutting off the economy, hey, this is going to stop the people producing, this is going to save...
But really, it's just taking over with modern feudalism.
Absolutely incredible.
Please remember that we have a lot of great products that have been out of stock, back in stock.
Here's the beginning of a report that's at man.video where Bill Gates becomes what appears to be sexually excited.
I mean, just pure joy and ecstasy on his face.
And his eyes gleam like he's a red-eyed demon when they talk about the global collapse that they now admit is going to kill more people this year than World War II did.
Alex is reporting on a Paul Joseph Watson article about how stupid these celebrities are and how pointless their statement is.
I had no idea these celebrities did this until I heard Alex complaining about it.
He may be one of the only people who actually really seems to care about this symbolic statement, and he's clearly furious about it since most of the beginning of this episode and a bit later in the episode is whining about it.
I looked into it, and it's not just celebrities that signed on to this statement.
Sure, there are people like Madonna and Robert De Niro in the mix, but there's also Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed Yunus, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner Aaron Chechenover.
Anyway, their point wasn't that nothing can ever be good again or we gotta shut down forever.
It was more of an optimistic statement urging people to use this as an opportunity to recognize the parts of our old normal that were destructive and unnecessary.
And if we can get past this hurdle, Let's not just check out and go back to that same old normal for no reason.
You've got hundreds of thousands of people from all over the countryside starving enough that come to town, a giant raging horde wanting food, and you're just hopping around at Versailles playing badminton.
So Alex's story is nice, but it's also probably not true.
The story of an obviously oblivious queen responding to news of people starving and saying they should eat some expensive food, that long predates the time of Marie Antoinette.
The first time the specific phrase about let them eat cake, which is let them eat brioche, which ends up being let them eat cake, the first time that specific phrase is used is derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, book six.
The instance of it doesn't say that Marie Antoinette said it, but was attributed to a, quote, great princess.
Marie was a child at that point in 1767, so scholars do not believe that he was talking about her.
As to Alex's theory about this being picked up and used against Marie Antoinette, I'll read to you here from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Quote, since Rousseau's writings inspired the revolutionaries, it has sometimes been supposed that they picked up on this quote, falsely credited to Marie Antoinette, and spread it as propaganda, as a way to rouse opponents in opposition to the monarchy.
Cool, cool, cool, cool.
It sounds like something they would have put in pamphlets attacking Marie Antoinette, but there's just no evidence of it.
But because it sounds good, Alex assumes it's true.
This is how he operates, because he's very dumb, and he doesn't do even basic looking into the ideas that he has.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica again, the first instance of this quote being attached to Marie Antoinette comes from 1843, and it's a guy debunking some rumors that she'd said that, which were circulating at that time 50 years after her death.
I guess my take on this would be a solid who gives a shit.
People do dumb things on social media, and this is just one of them.
It's kind of embarrassing to be a 46-year-old dude who takes time on his supposedly very important radio show to shake your fist at teens fucking around on TikTok.
But if that's what Alex thinks, that's how we're going to defeat the globalists, he has every right to be upset about it.
The right is a long history of this sort of trivial performative outrage, though.
Like, you can easily imagine Rush Limbaugh being terrified the kids were posting videos of them doing stuff inspired by jackass, and how that was evidence of the generation's complete collapse being imminent.
So, like I mentioned when we started here on the 7th, there was something that I knew was happening in the conspiracy world that I hadn't heard Alex bring up, which I found surprising.
And that is, of course, the plandemic documentary that was going around in the circles.
So Alex does get into talking about this documentary here, and he ends up playing quite a bit of it on this episode, in the same way that he played a ton of the David Icke thing on the period that we covered on our last episode.
It's the same thing.
He seems to just want to be off air, and playing a bunch of this documentary gives him the ability to do that.
So, Doctors in Black is part of the name of the plandemic quote-unquote documentary that's going around on social media, and I guess getting kicked off from stuff, too.
It's a garbage coronavirus conspiracy theory documentary, and from everything I've been able to tell, most of the actual content of it just covers the same kind of ground that Alex does regularly, so I'll be perfectly upfront with you guys.
I have not watched it, and God willing, I'll never be bored enough to.
I can't imagine sitting, I don't even know how long it is, but I know from my time, Back when I used to watch everything.
So the hook of the film, as Alex pointed out there, I mean, it's the only thing that anybody is talking about in terms of this documentary, is that one of the talking heads in it is presented as being a Fauci whistleblower who the man tried to throw in jail for speaking the truth.
Which is all a load of bullshit, because of course it is.
This is Julie Makovitz, who is in the film to tell her tale of persecution and talk shit about Fauci.
Weirdly, she has a new book coming out about how bad Fauci is, so it's probably amazing press for that, but I'm sure that's not part of this at all.
In 2009, Mikovic was one of many co-authors on a study where they connected a retrovirus called XMRV with chronic fatigue syndrome.
This was published in the journal Science, but as people tried to recreate her experiment and reproduce her results, they were finding that this retrovirus did not appear to have any connection with their chronic fatigue patients.
And no one seemed to be able to arrive at the same data she had in her paper.
This led to, at first, a partial retraction from the journal, and then, in December 2011, they published a full retraction.
From the retraction, quote, Hmm.
there's evidence of poor quality control in a number of specific experiments in the report.
At that time, Mikovits was a research director at Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuroimmune Disease, which is a private business, not a part of Fauci's operation or anything.
In the fallout of science retracting the paper, she was one of the authors that strongly defended her conclusions, even after some questions popped up about misused figures, which is a very serious thing in terms of published research.
It's unclear if it was related to this or not, but she was fired from the institute very shortly after.
Then she got sued by the Institute because they claimed she had, quote, wrongfully taken lab notebooks, a computer, and some proprietary data after she was terminated.
She was eventually arrested because she was a fugitive from this suit, not because she was releasing any damaging info or anything like that.
From that point on, she kind of became a careerist in the anti-vex world.
Tying her discredited work regarding XMRV to all sorts of things like autism, vaccines, and what have you.
She's just yet another in a long line of two who can't work in the actual field anymore who decide to take their appearance of credibility and sell it the only place they can, in the science denialism market.
She doesn't seem too interesting to me in that sense, and the only thing people keep bringing up about her is how the man tried to arrest her because she was putting out this whistleblowing shit, and that's nonsense.
There's no cover-up of any discussion about XMRV.
It's just that her conclusions are not supported by any other research.
And she may or may not have fabricated results in her initial paper.
And this kind of seems like a situation where he's speaking specifically enough that he could probably go find that video that Tyler Nixon made and figure out what hospital he was at.
And man, if you happen to be a doctor at that hospital, you might be able to force a retraction out of Alex.
Trying to search for that video is difficult, though, primarily because there's also a porn star named Tyler Nixon, which makes it so if you search for Tyler Nixon Hospital, you get a bunch of very unhelpful results.
I tried to find the video and I can't figure out where it is, but if anyone works at a hospital and is recently in a video Tyler Nixon put out, Alex just called you an actor.
In 2011, also, Tyler Nixon had his license to practice law suspended after police found a bunch of weed and 57 ecstasy tabs divided in plastic bags that were clearly for sale in his possession.
None of that stuff is at all related to what ended up being her fall from grace.
Even her anti-vax stuff later in her career has nothing to do with the research that she was doing that was in that journal article that got retracted and ended up pretty much...
Torpedoing her career.
It's all a late addition to the story, and it's how you change your hustle.
All these other groups have drills, and then they look at all the drills they've had, and they debate the scenarios, and they go, oh, let's create a new drill that, say, in 2020, 65 million people die from a coronavirus that escapes the lab.
That's in 2018, they had those drills.
And then, right as it starts, in November, October, November, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with John Hopkins, who created the main global models, With the Rockefeller Foundation that created the original lockstep document 10 years before, and then they had the disease X-UN drill two years before, and then right as they launch it, they call it Event 201.
Advancing Kissinger's plan of Event 200.
It's in Memorandum 200.
Look it up.
Memorandum 200.
U.S. Code Telephony Chapter.
U.S. Code Chapter.
Title 50, Chapter 32, Subsection 1528, Paragraph B. And that all legalizes lethal biological, chemical, and radiological testing on you if it is for research or law enforcement purposes.
U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, Subsection 1528, Paragraph B. And then later they got so much attention they changed Paragraph B to another subsection they still operate under.
Alex can't remember how to rattle off his favorite subsection anymore reliably.
That's a thing that he does like a party trick to impress gullible people like Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo and make them think he knows what he's talking about.
The end of that clip is one of the saddest things I've ever heard listening to Alex.
That's as sad as some of his really late night drunk things.
It brought to mind the idea of someone who rises to fame for doing some sort of trick that's really attention-grabbing, like Steve-O stapling his balls to his leg.
Then time passes, they're down on their luck and over the hill, begging people to be impressed by the trick that used to wow crowds.
People are just over it.
And to compound the sadness, they can't even really do the trick anymore, so it's just a pathetic spectacle of something that wouldn't be impressive anymore, even if executed perfectly.
It's a portrait in tragedy.
There's a whole lot of pathos in that moment of him trying again and again to land that line.
Also, the words Event 200 do not appear anywhere in the text of Memorandum 200.
That's just something Alex is making up, because as he was riffing, he realized that Event 201 and Memorandum 200 are really close in terms of numbers, so why not fucking make something up?
It doesn't say the stuff Alex is claiming it does, and I have no interest in breaking it down again.
I just wanted to play that clip to show his absolute fabrication of Event 200, and because the moment of him trying and failing to say his favorite subsection is a real sad, sad moment.
And while I don't want to get into schadenfreude, I'm not above publicizing things that really show how pathetic Alex is.
So, enjoy.
But, if you have questions about the drill thing, if that clip didn't spell it all out, Alex, he's got you covered.
But notice, the super genius kid thinks he's doing a drill to go to the top of the class, and really he's defeating the aliens.
And he thinks it's a drill he's running, and that's kind of a metaphor of the joke of how this is not a drill, this is not a game, this is not a simulation.
And of course, anybody who watches that movie knows how it's going to end.
They blow up the alien planet, which is supposedly the genius master move that no one had thought of when it's the elementary move of these psychotics to engage in genocide and total extermination, which is the purest form of war.
official which they could have done they could have and they didn't they just said hey come on let her out of it yeah and the judge said nah so then the state supreme court uh got uh you know they heard the case and they're like yeah you gotta let her out and so she's got she has been released by the time we're recording this episode right Which is good.
She shouldn't be in prison for that, particularly during this situation.
I don't know what the right answer is, but whatever the case is, Alex is trying to pretend that the situation is that the governor, Abbott, he commuted her sentence.
Now, one thing that I have read a million times, if I'm Alex, is the Constitution.
Well, is it four pages?
If I've read the Constitution, and I'm Alex, I've read it so many times, I've just memorized it, I keep a pocket Constitution with me at all times, and I can tell you right now that the Constitution says...
Trump is the king, right?
There are three not-separate nor co-equal branches of government that Trump runs personally.
Because back when Obama was in office, you know, whenever there were instances where Obama disagreed with the court, Alex did go to bat for him and say that Obama is more powerful than the courts.
The problem is that you have to find a way to retain a lot of the freedom of speech and a lot of the freedoms that we enjoy while taking things as seriously as they need to be taken.
And like I'm saying, I don't know how you do that, but...