Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a couple days of this week on The Alex Jones Show. In this installment, Alex fails in a valiant attempt to make a point, possibly warns the world of a fake alien invasion, and gets a little too specific about what movie he pretends he was offered a starring role in.
It's nice to have those moments where I can go back a little bit to something that maybe I couldn't enjoy as much as I originally did because of overexposure to it.
But before we do, you've got to take a moment to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show and to check in with the Year of the Seltzer.
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I enjoyed 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, we would appreciate it, or if you'd like to take that generosity and funnel it towards a local charity that helps people in need in your area, that would be wonderful.
But for anyone that actually studies the globalist and how they operate, and what their endgame is, and what makes them tick, and what their philosophy and ethos is...
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
It's like 2 plus 2 equals 4. It's absolutely elementary, my dear Watson.
But you've got to have the courage to admit what's coming at you.
There is an extended metaphor he's trying to make, but he gets really distracted because he starts talking about the capitalism allowing amateur astronomers and shit.
Amateur astronomers do not discover most of the near-Earth objects that are found each year, and in fact, they barely even make a dent in the tally.
That's why it's always a big story when an amateur does discover one, which gets a lot of press and leads people like Alex to assume that this must be always the case.
If professionals at the big telescopes were finding comets all the time, how come I only read headlines about amateurs finding them?
You can easily see how that selection bias that Alex's brain uses to land on a narrative, and that's what's going on.
One of the things that makes headlines is the anomaly, the case that is not like the others, but if you only see headlines that are pointing out the anomaly, you'll think the anomaly is the normal thing.
Exactly.
unidentified
And a lot of this perception that amateurs find more than the professionals, it's probably partially due to the fact that, like, Hale-Bopp was found by amateurs.
That high-profile nature of that story could have easily left people with a different perception According to a 2015 paper co-written by members of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Minor Planet Center, and the Universities of Hawaii and Helsinki, quote, Of the 10,044 discovered near-Earth objects were found by the amateur community.
While the NASA-supported professional astronomers discover the vast majority of near-Earth asteroids, amateur astronomers provide many of the follow-up observations needed to pinpoint the orbits and predict the future motions of the asteroids.
Once a new near-Earth asteroid is discovered, the efficiency with which amateurs provide these follow-up observations allows larger professional telescope facilities to continue scanning the skies for more new discoveries.
There is that cool professional amateur collaboration that does go on in the field of watching the skies, but it's very, very clear that what Alex is saying is not true.
It feels true to him, though, because he never reads past a headline about the many discoveries that are made, and he never reads headlines about the discoveries that are made by scientists and professionals at the labs because they don't make headlines.
So I think the larger point that he's trying to make is that he's the amateur astronomer who sees the metaphorical comet heading towards us, which is, of course, the globalist's evil plan.
Back in 1993, I had to go down to a university warehouse and pay $25,000 for a 12-inch refractor telescope that had just come out that had the McDonald Observatory technology in it.
that it cost tens of millions of dollars, but now it was miniaturized.
unidentified
And I could aim it at Jupiter, aim it at Saturn, aim it at Uniris, aim it at Pluto, aim it at Venus, aim it at Mars.
So I would say that's pretty clear that this is either a lie or an indication that Alex's parents were super rich and he basically just got whatever he wanted growing up.
The other people who pick up and start looking at the planet are the people who he's indoctrinated into his cult and the conspiracy theory followers that he has.
It's faint praise, but in terms of it, I get what you're saying.
He usually gets so lost, and Grant, he did get lost in that a little bit, but he usually falls completely off track before he's able to make something kind of make sense.
For instance, what if you're an amateur astronomer and you find an asteroid you insist is new, and of course it's on its way to hit Earth?
And when you tell the professionals about it, they don't take you seriously because they've known about this asteroid that you think you've discovered, and the calculations you made about its orbit are wrong.
I imagine you might respond to that by lashing out and saying that they're just trying to cover up your work, but it's also possible that you did a bad job of seeking asteroids, and they're just not impressed with what you bring to the table.
Or, what if you tell astronomers that an asteroid you found is secretly an alien attack, as evidenced by some weird engine you imagine you found, and then they take a look at your evidence and tell you that you're mistaken?
That's a rock formation, and you think it's a jet engine, and your imagination is fun, but you're just making things up.
So this is about how Mark Cuban owned a company that was in talks to distribute the 9-11 film Loose Change.
This documentary, in quotes, was not created by Alex.
It was the work primarily of Jason Burmess and Dylan Avery, released in 2005.
The film was considered what they called a living document, which is code for things in it were constantly shown to be wrong, so they had to keep re-editing the film to make...
So, Jason Burmus would go on to be one of Alex's co-hosts on InfoWars in those earlier days.
And he even had a short-lived show called The InfoWarrior.
But from everything I can tell, his work on Loose Change predates all of that.
Dylan Avery, incidentally, has gone on to continue working in movies in the industry and not on conspiracy documentaries.
Probably because that was never his goal to begin with.
At the age of 18, Dylan Avery came upon a publication called The Terror Timeline, which was put together by a researcher named Paul Thompson.
This is a collection of articles that trace the roots of Al-Qaeda, Middle East politics, and the forces that led up to 9-11.
Many of the prominent early 9-11 truthers used inconsistencies that they found in these articles to demonstrate their conspiracy theories.
Avery was inspired by this book to make a movie.
According to an article in Slate, this was, quote, about a group of three friends who discovered a government cover-up.
Essentially, he was going to make a fiction movie about people discovering that the government did 9-11, but he realized that was too expensive, so he made a documentary about the government doing 9-11 instead.
So this article in Slate from 2011 was written by a guy named Jeremy Stahl, who actually spoke to Avery for it.
From the article, quote, He still says he supports the movement, but he also acknowledges getting, quote, sucked in deeper than he should have been into a hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off.
When he says he still supports the movement, he means that he still has some unanswered questions about 9-11, but that's not what Loose Change was about, primarily.
Dylan Avery was a bright, ambitious youth who channeled his energies into the world of conspiracy, and it's kind of heartening to know that at least to some extent he got out of it.
I found a 2017 interview with him in The Outline, which has some fun lines.
For instance, when the interviewer asks him where he gets his news, part of the answer is, quote, I never did rely on Infowars as a source, but I definitely don't now.
Anyway, it's just kind of funny that the director of the movie that Alex claims is his own, which helped really put Alex on the map as the face of 9-11 truth movement, has moved on from all that and definitely thinks Alex is an idiot.
So, one of Mark Cuban's companies was going to distribute loose change.
Unrelatedly, the SEC was investigating Mark Cuban for insider trading.
In the course of that investigation, Cuban released some emails that he'd received from a lawyer at the SEC who was talking some real mad shit about how Cuban was a, quote, anti-American ideologue.
This lawyer definitely sent these emails because of Cuban's almost distributing loose change.
But he had nothing to do with Cuban's insider trading investigation.
He was suspended for two weeks for his behavior and then eventually fired by the SEC for sending more emails to places like the Washington Post and an internal SEC email, which were determined to be inappropriate.
According to a 2012 article in Reuters, this lawyer, Jeffrey Norris, won a federal appeal in his case that he deserved to, quote, a chance to get his job back by presenting medical evidence that those actions won't happen again.
See, he argued that his life situation was chaotic back when he sent those emails, and that he'd been seeing a psychiatrist and the circumstances in his life had improved to the point where it wouldn't be that again.
Business Insider was able to find some internet comments that Norris made around that time of those emails, and it kind of seems like he just particularly hated Mark Cuban, partially because he was a big Mavericks fan.
In one comment, Norris suggests that Cuban threw a recent game against the Warriors for some financial motive.
It partially sounds paranoid and partially like a guy fucking around and just talking shit about Mark Cuban.
If it felt like he was a little more in control of what he was doing and he wasn't in a position of being an SEC lawyer, I might be more inclined to enjoy it, but I get what you're saying.
Anyway, this lawyer had nothing to do with Cuban's SEC insider trading case, but because it helps heighten the myth of Alex Jones, Alex has turned it into proof that the SEC admitted in emails that they were threatening to indict Cuban for distributing Alex's film.
So the first Guardians of the Galaxy film came out in 2014.
So presumably Alex was given this offer to star six years earlier, which would have been 2008.
Which unfortunately predates the start of pre-production by about four years.
At that point, in 2008, the script for the movie hadn't even begun to be written, so it's pretty weird that Alex would go see a movie and then realize it's the one he was supposed to star in, considering this movie didn't even exist as an idea at the point he's pretending he was offered the starring role.
No, that's totally the relationship that so many men have with women of just that, like, I want that so much and because I can't have it, it must be evil.
But he refuses to deal with this story on its real terms, because I think he recognizes that the way he would cover the reality of this story would be dangerous.
So Alex refuses to cover the other aspects of the COVID-19 in the White House.
Like, he's very consistently been dismissing the story as just being eight Secret Service members testing positive, which is bad on its own, you know?
But there's more to it than that.
There's at least two staffers in the executive branch who have tested positive, and one of them is Stephen Miller's wife, who is Mike Pence's press secretary.
That's someone who would have close contact with Pence, who's married to someone who has close contact with everyone.
As of May 11th, CNN was reporting that the person who Miller caught the virus from was unknown, which doesn't inspire confidence that the number is actually just two people.
The White House has now mandated that staffers have to wear masks at the office, and apparently morale is not high.
Trump's economic advisor Kevin Hassett was on Face the Nation and said, quote, it's scary to go to work.
Shit is not good.
Also, by the time Alex is on the air about this, the number of Secret Service members who tested positive was 11, not 8. He's not doing a good job of tracking any of these stories, which is just amazing.
He's minimizing the old news, while since last he's heard, even more Secret Service people have tested positive, and that's not even counting the 23 others who had tested positive who have since recovered.
It kind of feels like him remembering a bit he hasn't done in a while and just giving it a try.
This is that old bit where he plays some video of one of his villains, but he also realizes that they aren't saying what he constantly says they say.
He's built up this image of them as arch-villains, so when he tries to actually play longer clips of them, he runs into the problem of them not sounding evil, and they're actually making their points fairly well.
The way Alex gets around this is with constant interruptions, cutting off the clip over and over again so the listener never actually hears Fauci's words in complete sentences.
Along with that disruption technique, Alex also breaks in over and over again to reframe the words that Fauci uses as being evil and he distracts the audience with references to completely unrelated aspects of his conspiracy narrative.
Things that have no bearing on what Fauci's saying at all.
I've been listening to Dr. Stephen Greer for 20 years.
And I've read a couple of his books and I've followed what he has to say.
And I never got into UFOs and all of this because I knew a lot of it was real, but I couldn't get able to admit there were FEMA camps and shadow government and the CFR and all of this.
But the public now is ready for this.
And so he'll be with us the whole next hour and hopefully come back again for a couple hours next week.
One of the other reasons that I am not focusing on this right now, other than to say that this interview happened where they're talking about a fake alien invasion.
It's because I listened to the next day and this whole thing is fucking dropped like a hot potato.
It's not...
I think it was just a weird interview that Alex did because this guy has a new documentary coming out and he wants to try and get some juice off of it.
So he'll be like, yeah, let's play around with the idea that the globalists are going to do a false alien invasion.
And I got on my knees at about 3 a.m. this morning when I woke up.
I just asked God to give me the guidance and the direction to not get angry on air and to just calmly report this information to you as best I can and give you the evidence.
So the whole thing on this episode is going to be that the World Health Organization and all these folks have admitted that they put sterilants into vaccines in order to make people unable to reproduce and what have you.
So that will be a large thesis.
Over which the rest of Alex's episode will go.
But also, of course, because he's Alex fucking Jones, there's going to be a bunch of weird other shit going on.
I don't really know what this UK group is, and I don't really care, because as it's being reported, they're talking about talking to a whistleblower.
I have no idea.
I'm not going to chase that rabbit trail down.
So the World Health Organization does not admit on their website that they put HCG and vaccines to sterilize people.
In fact, if you go to their website and read their materials, you get a very easy-to-understand explanation for how this misinformation works.
Julie Milstein, P. David Griffin, and J.W. Lee released a paper called, quote, Damage to Immunization Programs for Misinformation on Contraceptive Vaccines, which explained the dynamic at play.
There was a campaign to attack vaccines that conflated a 1994 study in India, which was, quote, not sponsored, supported, nor executed by the World Health Organization, which was a, quote, clinical trial carried out to assess the effectiveness of a prototype anti-fertility vaccine designed to provide protection against unplanned pregnancies for a period of one to two years.
The active ingredient in that birth control was HCG, or human chorionic gonadrophen.
Which is a hormone necessary for a pregnancy to begin.
In order for this hormone to be delivered, it needed a carrier.
And in this Indian study, they used diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, which were produced in a way that they wouldn't get anyone sick, but just serve as the carrier.
Anti-vax proponents took this study and conflated the details into being a vaccine trial where they put in a sterilizing agent.
They went on to test this tetanus vaccine in labs.
The vaccines were sent to hospital laboratories and tested using pregnancy test kits, which were developed for use on serum and urine specimens and are not appropriate for a vaccine.
Because they were using something that was a test that wasn't made to analyze this, they found results that were confusing, and they were able to twist.
They found, quote, low levels of HCG-like activity in some samples, and that was enough to create a narrative.
Actual researchers followed up and, quote, when the vaccines were tested in laboratories which used properly validated test systems, the results clearly showed that the vaccines did not contain HCG.
This was validated by six laboratories in five countries, but it doesn't matter.
The erroneous science confirmed the conclusion these folks were looking for, so when there's stronger evidence provided that they are wrong, they just ignore that and yell about the erroneous stuff that they wanted to believe to begin with.
That's the root of what a bunch of this they're putting sterilants in the vaccine stuff comes from, and even though the explanation for where the confusion comes from is super easy to understand, this narrative just keeps popping up over time.
Africa check traced how this same misinformation was being used in 2014 to claim the world health organization was conducting a quote mass sterilization exercise in Kenya.
And the part that makes it even more insidious is a lot of these vaccination programs surrounding tetanus are focused towards women of childbearing age because one of the concerns is the children dying from tetanus early.
And so there's that frustration that I've known so much information for so long that I just get up here and I tell you, yeah, there's sterilants in a lot of the vaccines.
People go, oh, that's just Alex saying that instead of going, hey.
Here it is.
Here's the URL on the UN website.
Now, as soon as we point this out, Google will bury it.
That's why you want to use Yippee or something else.
Alex doesn't provide a URL there, but I went and watched the video, and he does flash up on screen the image of the title of a study.
Quote, HCG found in World Health Organization tetanus vaccine in Kenya raises concerns in the developing world.
This is a paper that was published in the Open Access Library Journal, and let's just say it has an interesting history.
Firstly, it's just based on the same debunked nonsense about the tetanus vaccine that conflates the Indian birth control shot study with the tetanus vaccine, so right off the bat, it's not great.
In 2016, they put out a paper in the journal Vaccine, which purported to show a, quote, link between the vaccine for HPV and behavioral issues.
This article was subsequently retracted by the journal, with an announcement saying, quote, This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor-in-chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article.
Review by the editor-in-chief and evaluation by outside experts confirm that the methodology is seriously flawed and the claims that the article makes are unjustified.
This was Shaw and Toml Genovic's third study related to vaccines that had been found by peer review to be, quote, seriously flawed.
Their history is littered with papers about vaccines that have been reviewed and shown to be poorly done in the generous interpretation and anti-vex pseudoscience in the less generous version.
So they were two of the main co-authors of this paper, whose headline Alex flashed up on screen, and he's presenting as on the World Health Organization UN's website.
So their basic plan is to try and get something published for at least a little bit, then it's retracted, then they get to use it for right-wing propaganda.
Another important variable to remember is that even if these vaccines did have HCG in them, it wouldn't sterilize anyone.
It would make you temporarily unable to get pregnant.
Many people opt for the Depo-Provera shot as a means of birth control, and you have to get that every three months to control reproduction, so I have no idea what kind of permanent sterilization Alex is imagining is going to go with this, but whatever.
It's just his fantasy, supported by the long-discredited work of anti-vax zealots.
Also, the Open Access Library Journal is not a credible outlet that you should accept as legitimate if you're trying to make an argument like this.
The fact that Alex has an article, that this article is his primary source that he relies on, that claims that he's taking information from the World Health Organization or UN's website, is just the definition of dishonest.
And so that's what a lot of this is based on, where it's coming from.
So, I don't know how Alex thinks he comes off when he says that he kind of understands the argument of sterilizing or killing off people in the developing world, but he has to be against the plan because it's actually about targeting people like himself.
To me, that sounds like someone who would be totally fine with exterminating people in the developing world if he felt entirely comfortable that people like himself were not going to be affected.
Someone who has the principles set that Alex pretends to have would never say something like that.
That sounds like someone who would be very comfortable in a white supremacist authoritarian state.
The story that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation were kicked out of India is completely not true.
It was something that made the rounds on conspiracy blogs back in 2017, which prompted India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to release a statement saying, quote, Some media reports have suggested that all health-related collaboration with the Gates Foundation with the National Health Mission has been stopped.
This is inaccurate and misleading.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continues to collaborate and support the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The propaganda around this traces back to India stopping an HPV vaccine trial that the Gates Foundation had a part in funding back in April 2012 after there were reports that seven of the youths in the trial had died.
subsequent investigations found that the deaths were not related to the vaccine from science magazine quote one girl drowned in a quarry another died from a snake bite two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides and one died from complications of malaria investigators deemed the other two deaths unlikely to have been related to the vaccine but not as easily ruled out as the other five it's still very sad but yeah it's not from the vaccine.
unidentified
This is just absolutely fake propaganda narrative that Alex probably read on some dumb conspiracy blog he thinks is credible, and now he's repeating to his audience as fact.
That's the level of work Alex brings to the table, because he's dumb, layup, Also, I think he's just making up the part about Pakistan.
Because in September 2019, Philanthropy News Digest reported that, quote, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has signed a memorandum of understanding with the government of Pakistan and will commit approximately $200 million in support of the AHAIS initiative, a comprehensive effort aimed at combating poverty and improving health, nutrition, and financial inclusion in that country.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, said, quote, I'm pleased that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will assist with a range of activities, including accelerating stunting reduction programs, supporting financial inclusion initiatives, and investing in public health systems to improve health and reduce maternal, newborn, and child mortality.
So this one, the claim that Bill Gates was kicked out of Pakistan, just seems like a demonstrable lie that Alex is making up on the spot in order to malign his imagined enemy.
Which he's presenting to his audience as fact, which is just unacceptable.
So Alex rambles a little bit, wants to try and make mocking arguments in order to minimize the COVID-19 situation, and he touches on one of his favorite things, which I find disgraceful.
This is such a demonstrably false claim that I have no idea how Alex thinks he can get away with it.
On May 8th, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the second death that had come from people infected at a local meatpacking plant.
This person's, quote, condition declined so quickly that he couldn't receive advanced treatment records show.
That same day, Business Insider reported that at least 48 meatpacking plant workers have died with COVID-19.
If you consider that, as Business Insider also pointed out, quote, employers are not required to track coronavirus cases among workers per recent guidance and does not require on-site inspections for worker complaints related to the virus.
If you consider that, the number of infected and possibly related deaths could be much higher than the numbers we know.
Alex has latched onto this story out of Missouri, where 373 workers at a Triumph Foods pork plant tested positive for COVID-19, but the stories about the case were quick to point out that they were asymptomatic.
This is an interesting headline, but it also fails to capture a lot of the relevant information about the story.
This story came out in the first week of May, but it wasn't the first time this plant made headlines involving coronavirus.
On April 24, local news reported that 16 workers at that plant had tested positive for COVID-19, which was prompting them to go ahead and test everyone.
This article implies that they were going to change their strategy to testing, quote, individuals who are not showing symptoms as well as those who are.
Which would lead one to believe that previously they were only testing people who had symptoms.
These original 16 cases are completely foreign to Alex.
He has no idea about this part of the story because he just saw a headline about asymptomatic cases at the plant, decided it must mean no one's sick, and looked no further into the case than that.
Also, at least one employee at that plant who tested positive for COVID-19 is now dead.
What Alex is saying has no connection with reality.
He's just making up all the details he feels like in order to prop up his predetermined conclusion.
No sincere person would do that if they were interested in the truth.
He's a fucking liar.
And I wish he'd gotten cast in Guardians of the Galaxy.
It's so cowardly and so into being slaves that it's avalanched into mass hysteria.
And thank God Trump now understands this and is bucking it, but if you don't have storable foods, and if you don't have a buck out of your family, I don't care if it's five acres in the middle of the water, you're insane.
Because the New World Order is here.
And if you're in a city, you're crazy.
That's all I'm saying.
We have storable food ready to ship out to you at Infowarsstore.com.
Almost no one else does, or they're lying to you, or it's crap.
Like I said, I'm particularly prepared for today's show.
I'm the one telling David Knight not to kill himself, but doing five, six hours of preparation every day for his show, and I've done that much myself today.
They are really planning to execute this thing to the hilt, so...
I had really hoped they'd back down.
I'd really hoped that...
It was all just a bunch of crazy eugenicists trying to one-up each other, but they're going to carry this out.
You better start getting ready to decide what you're going to do, folks.
And it's going to get really bad.
They're going to carry out false flags and blame it on us.
It's going to be interesting, but just thank God and your lucky stars that you, for whatever reason, are awake and aware and have a relationship with God, the living God, because these guys worship the God of death.
Alex is pointing to this, implying that this was a study where they added HCG to some other vaccine, but it was about a trial for a vaccine that would work as a temporary birth control option.
It says literally nothing to do with the point he's trying to make.
There is a 1985 patent filing for this that's assigned to the National Institute of Immunology, which kind of sounds close to the entity Fauci is the head of, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but it's not the same thing.
Primarily because the nation in question in the National Institute of Immunology is India.
It doesn't have anything to do with the testicles.
I guess you could make something of a case that the ovaries are related, but that isn't really accurate either.
According to hormone.org, HCG, quote, is produced by the cells that are surrounding a growing embryo, which eventually forms the placenta.
The ovaries themselves do not produce the hormone.
It comes from the cells that actually go on to become the placenta.
It is true that the pituitary gland also produces low levels of HCG, so you pretty much always have a small amount in your body, but not to the level that it would normally affect pregnancy or anything like that.
I've made the decision to go whole hog against these people, but I'm begging you for my sake, your sake, our children's sake, do whatever you have to get this out, okay?
It's a journal article that's housed on the National Library of Medicine's website, though, which is also at the...
NIH.gov address, so it's easy to misunderstand that.
It was a 1993 article in the journal Annals of Medicine.
It was written by Gursaran Talwar, and it discusses his work in terms of developing birth control shots.
Even the abstract of this article makes clear that the birth control vaccine he was writing up, quote, has previously been demonstrated to be reversible in its effect, and it requires a booster every eight to nine months.
Article number one has nothing to do with the point Alex thinks he's making and does not show that the evil globalists are putting sterilants in the vaccines.
So this is an April 2002 review article in the journal trends and immunology that's being posted on cell.com This is literally just an article that discusses recent developments in the field of vaccines that could possibly be used for birth control in humans It has nothing to do with adding sterile lens to vaccine It does nothing to establish Alex's point at all unless his point is that birth control should be illegal I guess if that's the argument he's trying to make those I don't know if birth control is
So this PBS article is specifically about the programs in the United States in like the early 1900s that were enacted on non-white populations through the country, as well as whites who are deemed, quote, feeble-minded or mentally ill.
There's also mention of incarcerated persons being coerced into having their tubes tied in more recent days, which is all awful.
The thing that connects all of these cases is how reproductive justice was infringed by taking self-determination away from the people who were subjected to these programs.
These cases are used to support the argument that people should have access to all of the family planning and reproductive health care that they choose to use, which Alex should strongly be against based on what's happening.
There's an ugly history in our country of this stuff, and I'm not going to deny that, but I also don't accept this as any kind of evidence that the globalists are putting sterilants and vaccines today.
That relies on the kind of thinking that's basically, you know, what he's doing is just basically winking and nudging you, saying like, hey, people did awful things way in the past, they're probably doing it all now.
It's a way of trying to insinuate something and then pretend it's proof.
Showing that humans and, gasp, Americans are capable of a particular evil doesn't prove that they are doing it.
However, it's the kind of evidence you would provide if you were trying to convince someone that something is possible.
It's a lowering of the bar to the point where whatever you're proving is ultimately meaningless to the actual conversation you think you're having.
So India is a country that has a rough history with sterilizations.
Dating back to the 70s, there have been some scandals about mass sterilization.
There's a lot to the picture, and a lot of it is not pretty.
However, none of it has to do with putting sterilants in vaccines.
It has to do with things like paying poor people to have their tubes tied.
So this particular article Alex is citing is from 2014.
It has to do with some deaths at a sterilization center.
This is completely unrelated to the point Alex is trying to make, and like you clearly saw, he's contradicting his own narratives.
I thought Bill Gates was supposed to have been thrown out of India because of this vaccine stuff in 2009, but apparently he's also running these camps in 2014 and onward.
All this stuff is internally inconsistent, and that's because Alex makes up this shit however he wants, just to make whatever point he feels like.
I don't mean to diminish the issue of safe reproductive health in India at all.
There's definitely questions to raise there and a conversation to be had.
But it has nothing to do with what Alex is talking about.
He is 0 for 4. Unfortunately, you're 0 for 1. Because Alex makes it to 5. Damn it!
So, I don't know if that's from many years ago or years ago.
It's from 2017, that article.
This article is about a larger trend that was going on in the Indian government that involved taking partial control of the Immunization Technical Support Unit, which was formerly fully funded by the Gates Foundation.
The decision is seen as part of India's broader clampdown on non-governmental organizations to assert control over decision-making in key policy areas.
Last year, India ordered the dismissal of dozens of foreign-funded health experts working on public welfare schemes.
The article goes on to quote senior health ministry official Sumia Swaminathan, who, quote, stressed that there were no instances of influence found, and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program.
Which is to say that, like, the reason for taking control of some of these things...
was a concern about influence of foreign people over policy, but upon review, there weren't any actual instances of that.
So after this decision, the Gates Foundation still funded the parts of the ITSU that were involved in tracking vaccination coverage and managing logistics.
So this is more of a government reorganization than anything else.
If Alex's story were correct and the Indian government made this move because they found out Gates was sterilizing everyone...
You probably expect that they wouldn't retain the Gates Foundation as a partner on vaccination logistics management, and he's supposed to have been kicked out of the country at this point.
The fact that the World Health Organization has a part of it that's dedicated to reproductive health and that some of their interests might involve birth control shots is not suspicious at all.
That makes total sense.
Alex isn't pointing to anything specific.
He's just saying the name of a group and patting himself on the back for a job well done.
I can't really disprove anything here because there's nothing to disprove.
It's about backlash in India surrounding research into birth control vaccines.
It's an article from 1998, and it legitimately has nothing to do with anything other than opposition to birth control.
The shot.
Alex is weaving HPV in for some reason, probably just because he wants to make it sound more damning or something, but HPV vaccines weren't even introduced until 2006, a full eight years after this Lancet article came out.
This is just about birth control and opposition to birth control.
I have no idea what Alex is talking about, and I don't care.
I don't give a shit.
I can't possibly imagine what Receipt Inc has to do with Alex's claim that the globalists are putting sterilants on the vaccines, and even what he's saying is 100% true, which I'm certain it's not.
So this article claims that a clinical trial of a tetanus vaccine laced with HCG was going to be run in India, which it claims was announced in the journal Nature Medicine.
There's no link to the Nature Medicine article, but the article that he's referring to is not about a tetanus vaccine laced with HCG.
It's the same thing about the birth control vaccine that uses a tetanus backbone as a carrier.
It's the same misunderstanding misrepresentation in this Sunday Guardian article.
The Sunday Guardian article is full of misrepresentations about the original birth control vaccine stuff, and the author is very clearly reporting erroneous anti-vax narratives, particularly about Kenya.
So I'm going to go ahead and say that this is just the same old shit.
Not always the same article, but he's been someone whose entire career has been about these birth control studies and research.
So he's someone who keeps coming up like in 97 and 2002 and like all of these points in time, a lot of them do end up tracing back to his research.
But yeah, all of it is Alex trying to make this argument that the globalists are putting sterilants in vaccines and none of this demonstrates that in any way.
But of course he thinks he's proven his point and he has not.
I mean, if you didn't, if you're just passively paying, like not paying attention with him saying, Anti-fertility vaccines, you might get this thought of like, oh, you know what?
They're probably putting something that'll kill my balls in the MMR vaccine.
And that's not at all what's going on there.
But just the words anti-fertility vaccine could be taken a lot of different ways by people.
And that's what he's banking on.
He's just banking on people not paying attention, being like, oh my god, listen to this guy.
If I didn't see people who fairly sincerely believe these things online and get messages from people about people they know who fall into these Modes of thinking.
I would have a very difficult time believing that anyone believed this shit.
Yeah, I'm gonna go fucking enjoy my opulence and, you know, you guys keep buying my pills and stuff, but I need to cut this commercial so you'll continue to buy my pills, but also, I don't want to do it later, so I'm gonna do it now, and then we're gonna get to how I hate Bill Gates.
So here's the thing that, like I said, I want to draw focus to.
Alex is very consistent, talking about how he doesn't want offensive violence.
And yet...
He does all of these things in order to make the argument pretty explicit in his audience's mind that any violence that you might do would actually be defensive.
unidentified
Because they're coming at you with these needles to sterilize you and your family.
It is an ironic thing that their version of self-defense is murdering people because the government is trying, but then the larger government is on his...
I'll just leave for a month, and just let everybody do whatever they want.
I can't sit here with stacks of UN reports on their own website how they're shooting Kenyans up to sterilize them and then turn on Snopes and they go, it doesn't exist.
And I believe that even more after this, because he starts to sort of ruminate about, like, I know how to take care of all this, and of course, that's shooting people.
It certainly seems more like he is having some sort of a gratification there than the times that he claims that, like, Bill Gates has a boner on TV or whatever.
But, look, dude, like...
I don't know.
I can't imagine working at Infowars and having this go on and be like, this is good stuff.
So, Alex goes to calls, like he promised, and he takes a call from a guy who scares me a little bit, and he wants to know if there's any way forward without war.
unidentified
Do you believe that there is any possibility of us having a presence in this platform without actually having to go to some kind of war over this?
No, sir, we're going to be completely taking off everything, and then they're going to start starving us to death, and they're going to send robots to kill us.
But at that point, their whole system is going to be collapsing.
Their people will be desperately trying to serve it more and more to prop it up, and the whole thing is going to go down.
unidentified
In today's world, violent crime can victimize anyone, anytime.
To talk to your audience, who are maybe not the most critical-minded folks, and they ask, is there anything possible other than war?
And your answer is no.
Because when you've already laid out all sorts of violence as being defensive in nature, I'm not for offensive violence, but defensive is totally cool, and a war is inevitable, what is stopping you from a reasoning perspective?
What's the difference between that and advocating?
You've got to do something.
Do you want the robots to come?
Do you want to be starved out until the robots come?
What are you going to do?
And that's the message that comes forth pretty clearly from Alex.
In 2019, Mother Jones reported on the Digital Soldiers Conference, which was organized by Rich Granville and featured General Flynn and Big Q promoters Bill Mitchell and Joy Villa.
The website promoting the event featured an American flag with the stars rearranged to make a Q. Boo!
Anyway, this dude is a queue profiteering weirdo who has this search engine.
If you remember the CPAC episode that we did, this is the search engine that Ivan Reiklin was trying to promote when it was his turn to give a speech.
If I understand the situation correctly, Rich and Yippee are big Flynn fundraisers.
That conference that he had, the digital soldiers, whatever, that was meant to raise money for Flynn's legal defense.
So that explains a whole lot.
It pretty well explains why Mike Flynn Jr. was at the CPAC event to begin with, since he was hanging out with a guy who was involved with a company that was putting on fundraisers for his dad.
And now, maybe they're sponsoring Alex's show, but probably not.
I mean, that would be really stupid.
That would be a real waste of money, even if you're a weirdo.
You've got to understand, it's not going to be a good return.
So the only way that we're going to get through this is through a God-chosen president like Trump, who is playing 3D chess at a level of superiority that no one else can even get to.
I mean, if he believed any of the things that he pretends to believe in, having this guy on, even if he believed in the same person as president that he does...
The guy saying he's a God-ordained king should be like, get the fuck off my show.
You can't support that.
Let's say it's 2012.
I'm doing a show like Alex is, but on the left or something.
I don't even know what that would look like.
I'm a big Obama supporter.
I think he's great.
I prove that he's in the office.
I think he's doing a lot of great things for the country.
Well, I mean, because Obama wasn't a bad dictator.
If you're insisting that he was a dictator and you're one of these right-wing guys, you have to be honest and be like, my life didn't really change that much.
We're gonna need to create some sort of stronger way to deal with these people, because right now it seems like all we're doing is just going, ugh, this shit again.
And making fun of them on Twitter and doing all that shit, and there's so many opinion pieces written and all that, and there needs to be some sort of united front against this.
We can't allow them to just threaten everybody with violence while we mock them on Twitter.
I don't know that anything that you can do would really be effective unless we first deal with a shared reality.
There's no real way to deal with anything while realities are so distinct from each other.
Alex can do that reading 14 headlines instead of 18 as promised and thinking that he proves the point that he makes.
And that being acceptable in one reality.
Nothing I could do.
None of the conversation that we've had could possibly make a difference to that.
They're just different realities.
And until they're merged, until those realities, we come to a consensus of what is and what isn't real.
that I don't believe are real, but you might, are acceptable for us to disagree about.
Like, let's say I'm an atheist and you're someone who believes in Christianity.
is a perfectly acceptable way for me to not believe in a reality of something you believe is real and us to be okay with that and move along in our lives.
The shared reality doesn't have to extend to everything, but there's some real basics, and we're not living in a time Or a place right now where everyone shares the same reality, and the issues that you're bringing up I don't think can be dealt with until we do.
Because I always say education and critical thinking skills, and yeah, those are important.
I think they'd still be helpful, and I think hopefully if you were to tackle some of those problems and work on them to an extent, I think that maybe it would help in making people understand shared reality.
But until that's more addressed, I just don't know what you can do.
And for now, there will be some people who think Trump is a God-appointed king, so who cares?
Indeed, and if you like down the show, go to iTunes, Patreon, if you would like, please donate to a local charity in your area, we would appreciate that.