July 9–11, 2020 episodes of Knowledge Fight dissect Alex Jones’ baseless claims: his failed Roger Stone interview pivots to censorship conspiracy theories, misquoting the CDC’s COVID-19 data despite 16.8% positivity in the South Central U.S., and falsely framing a tribal sovereignty ruling as protecting a "child rapist." Jones amplifies anti-Semitic tropes like the Kalergi Plan while mocking his own credibility with unfounded "psych warfare" narratives, including Wayfair’s alleged pedophilia ties. The episode underscores how Jones weaponizes fearmongering—from Goldman Sachs "coup" theories to armed protest justifications—while hosts expose his patterns of cherry-picking and performative outrage. [Automatically generated summary]
And I kind of, like, in my heart of hearts, in my deep down, I didn't think he was probably going to go to prison, but I also thought it would be pretty wild for Trump to do it.
Yeah, yeah.
To commute his sentence or pardon him or...
Give him clemency.
And so I thought there was a chance that that would be too much.
But it shows that you shouldn't really second guess those sorts of things.
And it makes total sense when you really think about it to string it out a bit.
So, yeah, a lot of people were suggesting, you know, I got some messages on Twitter and around to people were saying, hey, emergency episode, Roger got pardoned.
The narrative of, like, Roger Stone has been vindicated, shows up on a white horse on InfoWars to tell everyone to kiss his ass, that's not going to happen.
So, before we get down to business on that, though, Jordan, we're going to take a moment to say thank you to some folks who have 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 to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show.
I don't have a whole lot to announce about the year of the Seltzer, but I do need to point one thing out, and that is that I did get a message from Bailey, listener Bailey, who pointed out that I may have ranked a single Seltzer twice.
So, we start on the 9th, and one of the reasons that I kept this in, as opposed to just focusing entirely on the 11th, is because I think that there's a little bit of a narrative arc to it.
Roger Stone joins us coming up at the bottom of the next hour, and he's got big news.
It's so big that I just think I'm going to let him cover what he wants to cover.
And I'm not even going to give you any preludes or any hints.
But let's just say this, in the next six days before he's scheduled to be sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit as a political prisoner, he's going to work to make this the exclusive first place he comes on.
Now, if he gets pardoned or gets clemency in the next few days at 6 o 'clock at night and I don't answer the phone immediately and if I can't get a crew down here in 20 minutes, we won't get the exclusive.
And it just came out, the lawsuits from a decade ago are just now winning, where the FDA was paying across the nation hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars total, for quote, fresh baby parts with still beating hearts.
Berkeley, in one particular filing that just came out last year, said, we want beating hearts.
And so, they would deliver them a bag.
Actually, in a box.
And they would butcher them right there on the spot.
Just like, I can pick up and order some hot wings or whatever.
Now, where is PETA not caring about all this?
And by the way, if you're new, this is all on record.
This is from that batch of edited videos that were released in 2015 by the Center for Medical Progress, which was that anti-abortion outlet that engaged in Project Veritas-style undercover video propaganda pieces.
What this comes down to is an erroneous claim that's made in that Center for Medical Progress videos, which is then exaggerated and distorted.
The video claims that a procedure that's being done by Stanford University researchers, not Berkeley, this procedure is called a Langendorf perfusion.
They say that it requires a beating heart to be done.
Having established this erroneous piece of information, the video makers then try to demonstrate that heart tissue had been provided to Stanford, which they're able to do.
Which is then used to present as evidence that beating human hearts have been delivered to Stanford.
They uncovered that the FDA had a contract worth $96,000 between the time of 2012 and 2018 with a company called Advanced Biosciences Resources, where they would be provided with fetal tissue for experiments.
From everything I can tell, this is just about stem cells and there's nothing wrong going on here.
They've uncovered nothing other than something to anger their anti-abortion base.
So this is not a case of Facebook just kicking off fans of Roger or Bolsonaro.
In both cases, the company found that employees of Bolsonaro's government and Roger Stone were operating networks of accounts to push coordinated misinformation.
Now, the way that sentence came out of my mouth sounded bad because it sounds like those two networks are connected, and that was not what I was implying.
Bolsonaro and his government has a network that was being used to push false information, as did Roger Stone.
According to BBC reporting on the matter, quote, Facebook said it had removed 54 accounts, 50 pages and 4 Instagram accounts that it had linked to Mr. Stone.
These pages would pose as a person not connected to Roger and then promote things that he wanted to promote to give the appearance of organic engagement.
Again, from the BBC, quote, In total, those behind the pages spent about $308,000 on Facebook advertising.
And then an editorial note on my part.
Three times what the FDA spent in six years for those contracts.
From this piece, the sense you get is that the network that Bolsonaro was running was more focused on political maneuvering, whereas Rogers was mostly geared at self-promotion.
Roger claims that he's going to sue.
So if I had to guess, he's going to yell about his innocence on any platform that'll have him on, he'll use the attention to try and raise money, and then he'll admit that he was running all those pages in about five years in some sort of an interview with Playboy or something.
This whole COVID thing is not going to work with the narratives that you have, although I do appreciate Alex trying there with the, like, prison food's bad.
Yeah, that is an okay way to try to make this work, but it's just foolish.
But that's the kind of angle that Roger needs, because it's the kind of thing that people who don't like him would still kind of have to begrudgingly be like, yeah, you are a non-violent criminal, you're not really a threat to anybody, you probably should be in house arrest if there is a real danger to your health.
He knows that that's a really difficult argument to rebut, even if you don't like him.
That's why he was employing it, but it's stupid for Alex to join in with it.
He's trying to do too many things at the same time.
It just starts to make no sense.
So when I said that the BBC was reporting that Roger had these accounts and Facebook said they did, you should notice that I did not say that Roger did this.
Again, that's why when I say we're all Roger Stone.
They're coming after everybody.
I could play CNN clips, MSNBC clips, New York Times articles where they say, after we get Trump and Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of Trump's friends, we're going to punish all these people at every level.
How many shows have I been on in the middle of fucking nowhere where all of a sudden the microphone cuts out and I just gotta toss it aside and continue doing the goddamn show?
Now let's say the 15th time it happens, you still can't handle it.
And somehow you haven't been able to talk to the manager or the guy behind the tech booth and figure out what the fuck is going on with the mic going out.
Planet rotations until we are in the middle of what will be a giant contested election, the cherry on top, the detonator to take this country into hot civil war.
Inside the Pentagon, everyone is being approached and being asked, will you support a coup against President Trump?
Naturally, Alex has not read this article in the Foreign Affairs, and honestly, probably he's just hoping no one in his audience does either.
It's a pretty savage laying out of the various ways that our country's structure and government have been usurped by Trump and the right wing's drive for power, and it's honestly pretty fair-handed.
The central thesis of this article is that erosion of norms and the structure of our society is a gradual process, but the collapse comes very fast.
It's very well articulated in this passage.
Quote, As James Robinson and I argue in our recent book, The Narrow Corridor...
Democratic institutions restrain elected leaders by enabling a delicate balance of oversight by different branches of government, the legislature, and the judiciary, and political action by regular people, whether in the form of voting in elections or exerting pressure via protest.
But democratic institutions rest on norms, compromise, cooperation, respect for truth, and are bolstered by an active, self-confident citizenry and a free press.
When democratic values come under attack and the press and civil society are neutralized, the institutional safeguards lose their power.
Under such conditions, the transgressions of those in power go unpunished or become normalized.
The gradual erosion of checks and balances thus gives way to sudden institutional collapse.
So this article argues that Trump has been playing a very authoritarian playbook since he began his presidency.
Quote, By dismissing concerns about Russian interference in the US election, refusing to disclose his tax returns, openly pursuing policies that serve his family's financial interests, vilifying Hispanic and Muslim Americans, propagating conspiracy theories, and relentlessly lying to the press, the president has left practically no norm of democratic governance unviolated.
These actions not only weaken the institutions that are supposed to restrain the president, but also further polarize the US electorate.
Creating a constituency that unconditionally supports Trump out of fear that the Democrats will take power.
The author, Darren Asmoglu, is a professor of economics at MIT that discusses how nothing is certain and that things aren't too far gone for us to course correct, but that probably is going to be, if it does happen, it's going to be a long, painful process, and it's probably impossible if Trump is re-elected.
His consistent pattern of behaving as a singular, dictatorish leader who's not constrained by any of the normal things that make our system function would continue.
And Esmoglu is of the opinion that in that situation, there's really nothing that could stop the administration and everything from collapsing.
A fair point is made that, quote, So that's a nice recognition of the fact that it's not an easy fix, even if.
The article has nothing to do with the contested election or the military being used to remove Trump.
Alex is saying those things as a clear indication that he didn't read this article or he has no interest in discussing what it actually says.
The line Alex is taking out of context comes from a paragraph that's discussing how Trump is not at this point completely free from all institutional constraints.
There are some judges who are pushing back on his clearly illegal executive orders, for example.
The article goes on to say, quote, The armed forces may be able to restrain him as well, as evidenced by the forceful rebuke he received from former Defense Secretary James Mattis after threatening to deploy the U.S. military and National Guard against protesters.
But it would be a sad day if Americans had to depend on the military to save their democracy.
And the trend is toward fewer, not more, checks on the President's power.
If the last remaining restraints give way, the fall towards autocracy will be swift.
I don't know.
That's not saying the same thing Alex is claiming it is.
Anyway, Alex is a liar, and this is a good but depressing article, particularly in the context of Trump just commuting Roger Stone's sentence for crimes he almost certainly carried out to advance the interests of Trump himself.
So this is actually an article that Alex found in the Stamford Advocate, not Stanford, and it's actually just a reposting of an article from the Washington Post.
This article is really just a legal analysis about how unlikely it is that Trump will refuse to step down if he loses in November.
The reason for that is because in order for him to pull that off, he would need to persuade the entire executive branch to do so as well, when doing so puts them in a very serious legal jeopardy.
The point of the piece is well summed up by the closing paragraph.
Quote, Nothing can, with total certainty, ensure a normal transition of power from as abnormal a president as Donald Trump.
But it's vital to recognize that if Trump tries to retain power illegitimately, he'll need help from his cabinet.
And even if he doesn't have an executive branch to fulfill the duties that you need to run a government, even if he still said, I'm the legitimate president, that causes just as big of a problem.
Anyway, this is something that Alex should support, the point of this article, because Alex is supposed to love America and the Constitution and all those things.
I have absolute smoking gun on top of smoking gun, on top of red flag, on top of hand and cookie jar, on top of just absolute ridiculousness that COVID-19 is a giant fraud at every level, every facet, every angle, designed for planetary takeover, AI takeover, depopulation, you name it.
And now, on the CDC's own website, They say that COVID-19 is not an epidemic.
And that actually it is a nosediving death curve.
And that's why every headline you see says, America's entered a black hole of COVID.
The National File article asserts that, quote, according to the CDC reports from March to May, COVID-19 deaths had a sudden spike and then immediately proceeded to drop.
And if the drop continues...
The viral disease will no longer be considered an epidemic according to international standards.
Even if you just take that as true, then Alex is still misreporting this story.
He's saying that the CDC says that this is currently not an epidemic, whereas the story he's covering is talking about a possible threshold that might be reached in the future, which is bad work.
The link that the national file provides is to a page on the CDC's website reflecting data for the week ending on July 4th.
On the very top of the page, in the Key Updates section, they say, quote, The percentage of specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, decreased slightly from last week.
However, this past week included a holiday, which could impact both testing and reporting.
Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold, but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed.
They're just making stuff up by misrepresenting things that are on this CDC update page while not offering the proper context that's on that page, which is called lying.
There are other things that are on this page too that should worry people.
I mean...
There's a slight total decrease of national numbers for percentages of tests coming back positive, but there's a couple of regions in the country that are really pushing those numbers up.
The South Central region, which covers Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, were showing positive test rates of 16.8%.
Also, the Southeastern region, covering Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Florida, was reflecting a 14.1% positive rate.
These dudes are just cherry-picking whatever sort of out-of-context line they can find to help make their arguments, but the totality of the information on the very pages they link to as sources refute the things that they're saying.
So, in this next clip, Alex gets to talking about the big Supreme Court decision of the last week that gave Oklahoma, a large portion of Oklahoma, to the tribal lands.
Now, as for the stuff about Oklahoma, his story is not true.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that about half of Oklahoma is technically Creek land and somewhat sovereign to the state of Oklahoma.
It's really complicated, but essentially what will end up happening is if there's major crimes committed by a native person inside the area considered Creek territory, they cannot be tried by the state of Oklahoma.
It has to be handled by the federal government.
Smaller crimes like misdemeanors or civil matters, those involving native persons, will be handled by tribal courts.
According to NPR, this is already the case in large parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana.
Sure.
This is not an attempt to protect someone who sexually assaulted a child, but it's easy to create that misinformation out of the case.
The case in question was McGirt v. Oklahoma, where Jim C. McGirt was a member of the Seminole Nation, was convicted of sex crimes against a child on Creek Land.
The appealing of the case was never about getting him acquitted.
The argument was that the state of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to try the case, and he needed to be tried in federal court.
Alex loves sovereignty, so you'd think he'd be in favor of it for others, but what a shock.
He's trying to turn this story about a treaty between the United States government and the Creek people being honored into a story about protecting pedophiles.
He's really getting to be a one-trick pony these days.
He doesn't get to that point, but he's just trying to pretend that it's a thing where they're trying to get this guy off the hook by getting him into tribal courts that'll let him off.
In reality, he'll be tried by a federal court and almost certainly convicted.
When I talk about monkey see, monkey do, I meant to hit this yesterday.
Guys, search engine this.
Monkeys now adopting wearing masks.
In India?
In Africa?
In Southeast Asia, monkeys have all now been seen picking up masks out of trash piles and putting them on.
Now, we're a lot smarter than our fellow primate, these different types of monkeys that are doing this, but they think of humans as more advanced, as successful.
I think it's entirely possible that it's a coincidence that doesn't mean anything, that a couple people might have seen monkeys putting on discarded masks.
So, Alex, in this next clip, he takes responsibility for a decision that Trump made that I'm going to present without comment, though I do think this could look real bad in hindsight.
So Alex has sort of given the impression that his content getting to Trump has inspired him to sideline the sort of medical experts in the middle of a pandemic.
Hope that doesn't...
End up looking real bad in the present or even worse in the future.
So I parked a little down the street by a residential area, and I get back in my car, and I see what looks like some joggers, walkers, about 100 yards away.
And by the time I roll up the window and, you know...
Turn on the car, they're about 50 yards away, and I'm on my phone, taking a call, and I notice that they're waiting and pointing at me, but they've got a whole sidewalk and everything.
And so I get off the phone, and I'm sitting there watching them, and I go, they look about like Chinese.
So it's interesting how many assumptions he makes in that story that are completely unfounded.
Like, he decides that they must be Chinese citizens here working for a tech company, and they're used to being monitored by cell phone and having their credit score go down, and so that's why they're pointing at him.
I think it's entirely possible that they knew it was Alex Jones and they're like, look at that fucking asshole!
Or even, let's take a benign version of it.
They just see him and they know who he is and he's a famous person.
I just kept thinking during that story, the next thing that Alex should say to some other human being is like, why do these wolves have so many pads on them?
The man you always see standing behind him is Texas Chief Nim Kid.
You always see Nim Kid.
Behind the governor wearing his mask.
And he says, do not leave your house without a mask, but also in your house wear a mask because you're such a bad person.
You're so evil.
You're so dangerous.
Here it is.
unidentified
Today is we need to do that when we're in our homes also.
As you know, I'm a lifelong San Antonio and grew up there, worked there for many years, and I know how many multi-generational families that we have.
And while we believe the community is doing a great job of following the rules when they're outside of the home, We really need to be thinking about doing the same thing when we're inside the home.
All of us are capable of catching this disease.
None of us are immune from this.
And the fact that we need to get across this in order to protect ourselves, we need to protect our families and our loved ones.
We really need to be thinking about the care that we're providing inside the home right now to make sure that we're not spreading this disease inside the home and then making it come outside the house.
What you're effectively saying is that people should be wearing masks inside their own homes now?
Ryan, I'm saying if you can't socially distance and can't socially isolate, or if you've been out in public and exposing yourself and you haven't decontaminated yourself good enough when you get home, if you have someone that has underlying medical conditions at home...
And if he allowed the guy to talk any longer, it was going to be completely clear what he was talking about.
Here's the version that Alex wants his audience to believe is what Kid is saying.
All you Texans need to wear masks when you leave the house and now also at home.
We're mandating you to do this and if you don't submit, you'll be in trouble.
However, the further that clip played, it became more clear that what he was saying made sense.
Kidd was not saying that anything about mandating people to wear masks at home is just a suggestion that people should consider.
And it's not something that everyone needs to consider.
It was a suggestion that was specific to people who are living in multi-generational homes and may have people in their house who are at a higher risk from the virus.
If you're in such a household and you're not able to protect yourself when you go out in public, then it might be a good thing to consider to wear a mask inside to save your grandmother's life.
This was a big slip-up on Alex's part that could have easily been avoided if he did any preparation for his show.
If he even gave a single shit about the things he covered, he would have pre-screened that clip and known where you need to turn it off so it doesn't contradict your narrative about it.
So Alex says he's going to play this clip, and there's some nonsense that he said in that clip already, but I'll play Alex's thing here before getting into any of that.
Here's the head of the UN Global Emergency Response to Disasters and Medical Crises, Dr. Ryan, and he is through this...
UNWHO, down to the NIH CDC, the state of Texas, who this man takes his orders from, the Texas Division of Emergency Management head, Chief Nim Kidd, who says, don't leave your house without a mask and you need to wear one in your house.
And then already in Australia, already in Spain, they begun coming to the houses, taking the families away, breaking them up.
And at the moment, In most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that's actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household, at family level.
In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units.
Now, we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.
There's a lot of local jurisdictional focus in terms of the Texas emergency planning structure, and it gets a little messy, but ultimately it all goes back to the governor.
I was able to find the 2020 Texas Emergency Management Structure document, which discusses the Texas Emergency Management Council.
This is, quote, composed of state agencies and non-governmental organizations appointed by the governor.
The council was established to advise and assist the governor in all matters related to disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
This has no formal connection to the body that Dr. Michael Ryan is the executive director of, which is the World Health Organization health emergencies program.
That clip that Alex played probably sounds kind of scary, but Alex is taking it entirely out of context.
This is from a media briefing on the virus from March 30th, and the particular steps that Dr. Ryan describes are not relevant to our situation at all.
In the full context of his comments, Ryan is discussing a monitoring methodology that could be put in place if cases went down to very low numbers.
If you only have a few cases identified a day, a state or country could have the ability to trace their contacts and monitor them for symptoms, and if someone gets sick, provide them with a safe place to quarantine away from the home so they don't get other people sick.
and keep spreading the disease.
If you listen to the full response to this question, he even says that it isn't something you can really do effectively when you have thousands of cases a day, and the U.S. has been currently tracking over 50,000 new cases a day, so it's pretty safe to say that most of the country is not in a position where anything Dr. Ryan says Ryan was saying back in March is relevant.
I mean, you can get scared about this out-of-context clip of this World Health Organization guy, or you can recognize that it has nothing to do with the situation.
So what I'm going to do is I'm going to do this right now.
I'm going to mention this.
I'm going to hit this coming out of the gates at six after.
They'll be in studio with me.
We'll talk about this at first, and we'll move into the subjects they're on.
But you understand, I've got a stack of news articles and video clips where they're officially saying how they're going to have a coup against the president physically with the U.S. military.
Alex hasn't gotten to his top story, so he's going to tease it.
But he doesn't have the right piece of paper in front of him, so the show just grinds to a halt and he decides this is a good time to do an ad.
Alex's entire thing with Goldman Sachs attacking Trump would probably make more sense if Trump hadn't made former Goldman Sachs executive Steve Mnuchin the secretary of the treasury.
His campaign hadn't been run by former Goldman Sachs employee Steve Bannon and his original chief financial advisor wasn't former Goldman Sachs COO Gary Cohn.
There's no conflict between Trump and Goldman Sachs, despite what Alex might want to pretend.
This article that Alex can't remember anything about has to do with Goldman Sachs advising investors to hedge their positions through the end of the year since they predict market volatility around the election.
They're now predicting a contested election the same way Alex is trying to use the term where both candidates say that they're the rightful winner.
Goldman Sachs is saying that there are certain variables in play which could delay the announcement of a winner, which could lead to some market fluctuation.
the time it takes to count those, and the virus possibly affecting voting schedules, as reasons to be a cautious investor.
There were a bunch of ups and downs in the five weeks between the 2000 election and the Supreme Court naming Bush the winner, and this is more or less just a financial business advising investors that some similar shit is probable this year.
What I think they may do, though, they may have television media come on the night of the election and say, oh, Biden won, Biden won, even though Trump did win, and they'll just have the whole censorship grid rolled out just like they did with COVID.
They'll stop, just like they stop any doctors from talking about hydroxychloroquine or stop any doctors from talking about the fake testers.
So Savannah Hernandez comes in, and she's got some dumb shit to say about how, like, oh, all these ideas that Trump's not going to leave office, it's just because of Hillary.
unidentified
They've been laying the groundwork for this since Trump got into office.
Hillary Clinton has already come out so many times and said that, well, what if Trump loses in 2020?
He's not going to leave the White House.
So she's been already laying the groundwork, planting the seeds for this.
It's all good and wild to talk about people like Hillary raising concerns about Trump not leaving office, but you're kind of being dishonest if you don't point out that Trump has a long history of quote-unquote joking about how he's not going to leave office.
There was that speech he gave in December 2019 at the Israeli-American Council National Summit where he said, quote, when they all scream four more years, four more years, I always say make it 12 years and you'll drive them crazy.
Or there was his tweet from June 2019, quote, A poll should be done on which is the more dishonest and deceitful newspaper, the failing New York Times or the Amazon lobbyist Washington Post.
They are both a disgrace to our country, the enemy of the people, but I can't seem to figure out which is worse.
The good news is at the end of six years after America has been made great again and I leave the beautiful White House, do you think the people would demand that I stay longer?
Keep America great!
Both of these horrible papers will quickly go out of business and be forever gone.
Or there was the closed-door speech that he gave in front of Republican donors at Mar-a-Lago in March 2018, where he discussed how the president of China just gave himself a lifetime post.
Quote, he's now president for life.
President for life!
No, he's great.
And look, he was able to do that.
I think it's great.
Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday.
A Slade article has a listing of at least 27 times Trump has made comments about how he should get more than two terms since he's taken office.
There's a couple of reasons why someone would act like this, and I'll get to that in a second.
But first, I think it's important to point out that there's a massive difference between the behavior of someone like Hillary and someone like Trump in this circumstance.
Hillary is not a person who's able to make any real decision in this situation.
She's a commentator who's expressing concern that a person will make a very bad decision.
Conversely, Trump is the decision maker.
Legitimately, he's the only person who can decide whether or not to throw this country into an even deeper existential crisis when the election results come in.
He alone is either able to accept or reject a win or a loss, and the ramifications of that choice are almost impossible to overstate.
When Hillary discusses these concerns, she's well within a right to do so, and you're welcome to have your opinion about her opinion.
When Trump quote-unquote jokes about insisting on staying in office after two terms, There are only two possible explanations I can really come up with for why Trump would so consistently joke about this.
The first is to piss off his political opposition.
In that case, we have a president who's such a dick that he'll create the impression that he wants to overturn basic institutional norms in order to troll people.
That alone is disqualifying for a person to be a leader, let alone someone worth taking seriously.
The other possibility is that Trump thinks he should be president for life.
I don't think you can really, but what about Hillary this?
I think about, you know, is it time for Alex Jones and Infowars to declare war on the deep state and literally say, okay, if we don't have arrests by October 31st, 2020, we call for 50,000 armed men to meet us at the Texas Capitol, and we'll set up our own autonomous zone.
And we'll go wherever we need to go and drag out whoever we need to drag out by the scuff of their neck until we start to get some arrests or we start to get some action.
I don't want to do that.
I know you don't want to do that.
That's why we take political action.
That's why we come on air every day.
But it's reaching a point where, yeah, there's an active coup going on.
Clemency is a perfect middle road for corrupt shitheads, because then Roger doesn't have to go to prison, and you don't have to open up the box of what could happen if you pardon him.
So, the larger thing that I think here is that if Alex knew that Trump was going to pardon Roger for the last week, what's his excuse for engaging in the absurd and embarrassing radio play about how Roger's going to die in jail because he's such a hero?
You know, all that shit.
If the whole point was to plead his case to Trump for the pardon and you already knew it was coming, that kind of makes the whole thing seem like an act.
Almost like if you were just building up to the payoff that you knew was coming.
What better way to heighten the drama of a pardon than to pretend it might not come?
How many people are going to tune in to all of those different shows that Stone was just on that he just happened to start going on really frequently in the past couple of weeks?
And everybody's going to tune in.
Is tonight the night that Stone announces he's been pardoned?
It's weird because you can say there's enemies of freedom, but that's not...
To me, the correct psychological approach.
Because I don't sit here and see them as my enemy.
I don't see them as an enemy of freedom.
I think if you ask them, they want to be free too, just like anybody else.
But what they've become unwittingly is obstacles of freedom.
They've become obstacles of freedom.
And as soon as Americans in mass are willing to fight for their freedom, like you said, Alex, it's a trap.
You're now an obstacle.
You're going to get run over.
Use the cars running these people over in the streets as a physical example.
Now, and Alex, we were talking off air.
The problem is, they've got the whole left-wing activists in control of all the justice.
You know, 10,000 people can be surrounding your vehicle, threatening to kill you, smashing the windows and everything, and if you plow through it, you're the bad guy.
So, that's a very interesting way for Owen to dehumanize his opposition and take away any reason to care about what they say, what their positions are, or even pretend that they have any agency.
They aren't enemies who have political goals or points.
They're merely obstacles.
The two sides that exist in this narrative are Alex and his team, who are supposedly the good guys.
Then there are the globalists, who are the bad guys.
Everyone who doesn't agree with Alex, like, let's say, someone who might demonstrate for reproductive rights or protest against ICE, they aren't people with real positions or thought-out convictions.
They're just zombies who've been brainwashed by the globalists, and they're not the enemy.
The InfoWarriors are the only people who actually are on a path that involves making choices or having agency, which naturally leads to some pretty sickening conclusions.
This is the same mentality that Alex expresses all the time when he talks about how killing a globalist is like killing a bug.
You don't want to do it, but sometimes you have to.
That kind of rhetoric, and the sort of thing that Owen is expressing here, are means of giving tacit permission to enact violence on your political enemies by reducing them to being human obstacles.
Recently, USA Today reported that since May 27th, there have been at least 66 instances of protesters being hit by cars.
Undoubtedly, not all of these were cold-blooded attempted murders, but at least some of them definitely were.
Seven of the incidents were police hitting protesters in just over a month.
You know, that's a short period of time.
At least two of these people have been killed and countless others have been hurt and traumatized by these events.
This is not something that deserves to be mocked, even if you disagree with the politics of the people who are being targeted by these attacks.
I wholeheartedly despise Trump and his dumb rallies, but if there had been 66 instances of Trump supporters being hit by cars at his rallies since May 27th, I would absolutely show some reverence to the subject and entertain the possibility that something had gone wrong with the opposition to Trump.
The messaging of that movement if people thought that running civilians over with cars was an appropriate way to voice your political opposition.
And Alex and Owen can sit here and play the game where they pretend that these people are all just looters and rioters who are threatening the people in the cars who hit them in self-defense, but even they know that's bullshit.
On some level, these dudes know that what they're doing is trying to help normalize the enacting of lethal violence against their political rivals.
And that's why Alex talks about helicopter rides.
That's why he talks about how his listeners can be instruments of God's vengeance.
There's a concerted effort of dehumanization of political enemies and of normalizing the conversation of enacting violence on this show to a level that I'm consistently uncomfortable with.
So, Owen starts talking about how these people in the New York Police Department, the detectives, what they need to do is they need to release all the dirt that they actually have on Hillary and all this evidence that she chopped up babies and stuff.
I really think that the New York cops and the New York FBI that are good people but are actually going through the process of this, it's time to just release it.
The thing that was about disarming the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War to avoid a nuclear war that Alex believes is about actually taking his gun away, which it's not, and it never was.
I've been studying the United Nations, who set it up, how it operates for a long time, and a lot of you have as well.
And they tried to launch plans back in the 60s to disarm the military and the police and then only have a UN force around the world.
And a lot of people ended up, you know, in the government, quietly having to be gotten rid of to stop that at that point.
And you go to the CIA website.
And look up State Department memorandum 7277.
If you type in State Department memorandum 7277, you'll notice it'll pop up on Wikipedia and places like that.
You can actually go to the CIA has got a flyer from 1963 about FBI agents and CIA operatives that were creating a newsletter called On Target about a list of people in the government that they were planning to kill.
If they continue to go along with the plan.
So the government knows all about this ongoing battle.
So we've talked a ton about Memorandum 7277 in the past, so there's no need to rehash that.
We've also talked about this page on CIA.gov that Alex has found about the memo and how it's not a CIA product.
It's the copy of a newsletter called On Target, which was produced by the Minutemen.
This is intensely disturbing to hear Alex say that the operatives for the CIA and FBI were creating OnTarget, because that's not true.
It was the publication of a violent, aggressively anti-communist militia group.
The Minutemen were an organization out of my home state of Missouri, founded by a real dickhead named Robert DePue.
He also was the person who wrote the OnTarget newsletter.
After gaining financial stability by inventing a dog vitamin, DePue lost his shit in the early days of the Red Scare Cold War paranoia.
He set up shop in Norborn, Missouri, and started putting out his newsletters, hoping to find like-minded patriots.
He gained a small following, who he trained in paramilitary tactics.
He constantly exaggerated the size of his movement, which was then repeated by people in the media, which lent his group an outsized sense of relevance than it probably deserved.
When you're a lone anti-communist wacko, it's all good and well for you to accuse everyone of being a communist and then say they deserve to be killed or whatever.
When you start to create an image of holding sway over a large following and you're also building weapons caches and doing military training...
And you're going to attract law enforcement attention with that kind of behavior.
Depew was not a mastermind, and thus the FBI was able to infiltrate his group and found that he had a bunch of illegal weapons hidden in various spots for a war that was coming against the communists.
He was convicted in 1967 of National Firearms Act violations, but fled before being sent to jail.
After two years, he was captured and sent to prison for four years.
According to the Columbia Daily Tribune, In 1991, he was arrested on child pornography charges that stemmed from an alleged modeling shoot he had with a teenage girl, but he was not convicted.
Just to let you know, he would have been 68 at that point, and not a photographer.
Another thing about Robert Depew is that he was big on naming names, or as some might put it, making kill lists.
This was part of the reason that that issue of On Target is part of the documents included in the CIA reading room, because they had it on file as a part of monitoring his activities, because he was making hit lists of politicians and private individuals that he had decided were communists, and he was publishing their names and addresses.
The subtitle of this newsletter is, quote, Words Won't Win, Action Will.
The thing that's particularly disturbing to me is that I think from the way Alex is talking, it sounds like he legitimately thinks that this document was made by good guys in the government who are trying to warn the patriots about globalists and their rank.
That's really fucked up, because that's not what this is at all.
And if Alex knew anything about the subject he talks about, it's every reason to know that.
That this basically doxing kill list that was put out by an anti-communist militia leader in 1963 is the good guys in the government telling all these people about who the globalists are.
I think that's why Alex thinks it was CIA instead of it being part of a dossier that they put together because they were observing him because he was a dangerous dude.
The belief of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about the clergy plan is about a rich cabal of Jews that want to replace white men and white people with non-white people from foreign countries.
That is the immigration angle that's being discussed here.
And that's why there is so much anger at the ADL that's being mixed in here.
Because their view of immigration is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
That all traces back to basically this Kalergi plan stuff.
In this hour-plus long transmission, we're scheduled to have ManCal Muller, who's spent the last long-time friend of mine, syndicated talk show, last week with Roger, to give him support.
A lot of exclusive videos, interviews with Roger.
We're going to premiere.
ManCal's already sent those to me, but we're going to get him on the Skype or the Zoom here in a few minutes.
I just love, I can't begin to stress how much I love it whenever Wonks on Twitter or something are like, oh, I can't wait to see what Alex says to this because in my head, all I see, all I hear is just like...
You're looking forward to being disappointed, I guess.
No, it's just anyone that's a patriot, anyone that believes in God, anyone that believes in the Constitution, you know silly things like this, they're going to get you.
Man, Cal, that's what I started this special transmission with today, is that there's a stack of news articles, Washington Post, Council on Foreign Relations, all of them saying, we're preparing the military to remove him under the 25th Amendment.
And so they're putting those talking points out that Trump is cracking, and I think a lot of that is hype.
I'm not saying the people around you are wrong, but regardless, this is, as Trump says, if they get through me, they're going to get you.
They're not after me, they're after you.
And so we've got to support the president.
I think I'm going to get on a plane and go to D.C. or to Florida and bullhorn the president's compound again to let him know that we support him.
We know that Alex has had private, personal conversations with Joe Rogan about how once he gets free and gets on Spotify, he'll be away from YouTube and he'll be able to attack the left.
Well, anyway, Alex is really mad because it turns out that some of the people who supply the things that go into his dumb pills maybe aren't going to be able to supply him anymore.
We have quite a few products we can't even get anymore.
People are like, where's my favorite product?
Where's this one?
They were good sellers.
We can't get them!
It's shutting down!
My God!
Excuse me, I'm getting pissed now.
You know, you already know what's going on with the COVID stuff, and I promised the family I'd get back by, you know, four or five today, so let's just, I gotta do this.
Let's do the COVID, then I'll come back into the Wayfair, which I know I'm right about it, and people are gonna get pissed at me, and I just, I don't care.
Well, so the conspiracy that's going around on QAnon and on the internet is that there are some suspiciously high-priced cabinets that have the names of people.
They have people names.
And so these folks online have decided that they must be selling children in those cabinets.
And they have no evidence of this and it's a lot of bullshit.
No, I know, but you ascribe to your enemy some sort of competence, so they think that it would be a smart idea if you were one of these people selling children.
Either it's a money laundering operation, and so they had these numbers, and what would be in the cabinet would be drugs or something, or you're paying more for something because you're using drug money to pay for it.
That goes on all over the place.
Online, it's happening every millisecond.
Okay?
Where you've got a $100 cabinet, a $200 cabinet.
I've actually bought cabinets like these.
That you add a couple zeros to or whatever, and now it is $12,000, $13,000, $14,000.
Or is it really that they're advertising this as a package, a container, symbolizing they're going to deliver you a child drugged up in one of these cabins?
I said there's three things.
Because that's the three things people are going to debate and say.
Yeah, the globalists have created this in order for conspiracy theorists or whatever to find and amplify as a trap in order to invalidate other stories about crimes against children.
I think that he's not considering a fifth option, and that is that the people who make up the large bulk of his audience are not very good at discerning information.
Not good at critical thinking, and they're going to Pizzagate all over again.
When you look at this, It's not just that they added zeros to it.
It's not money laundering, it looks like, because it's the names of girls.
And it's not like they have three cabinets or 20 cabinets.
It's all these products named after little girls, and a bunch of them are really weird names that are actual missing kidnapped children on the backs of milk cartons and in your internet warnings.
Now, why in the hell would they put out ads?
To really deliver you children in cabinets and then put the actual names of kids on this.
Top story on Drudge, top story all over the place.
Now, this broke for about a week or two, and then suddenly, out of the Podestas and out of the Democratic Party, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, all the same morning, came out and said, wow, bizarre claims that a pizza place has a dungeon under it.
And that they're killing kids and selling them, and they've got all these things out that look pedophilic.
And look at these other businesses they do as well, and it turned out some of the stuff was really creepy and weird.
And then we had Jack Posobiec interviewed about how creepy it was there, and we covered this a bunch, and they told people they needed to check it out, and it's really suspicious.
Alex has tried to delete them from the internet, but they're still there.
Obviously, the argument that he's trying to make is that the Podesta emails and all these WikiLeaks things came out and they had a real code about trafficking people.
And then the whole thing with Pizzagate ended up just being a distraction from the real things.
And now that Ghislaine Maxwell, who he still hasn't figured out how to pronounce her name, has been arrested.
This is in order to cover up that.
As opposed to possibly just mass delusions.
People who feed into each other's internet behaviors, they go on these vicarious hunts where they think that they're doing something.
I think that that's a much easier explanation, because that's exactly what happened with Pizzagate.
I watched Pizzagate happen in real time.
I was on those Reddit conspiracy boards where people were...
Like, coming up with new pieces of information, and then some of it gets rejected, some of it, like, people explore more, and then, like, a couple days later, someone's like, remember three days ago someone said this, and we ignored it, and then they'll bring it back in.
Like, I watched that happen in real time.
This is a game, man.
Right, but the thing with Wayfair, that stuff happened much quicker.
And there are enough people who have such low standards for bringing things to the public's attention in QAnon accounts that can amplify things really effectively that you can go from nothing to, oh god, so fast.
From the real kids and the real farmhouses and the real $65,000 of hot dogs and the blood and the semen and the breast milk and the Aleister Crowley and the devil worship and all these photos and videos of little kids all scared and women dressed like witches and big vats of blood and Maria Brevanovich and her in Reddit posts saying, yeah, I do rituals for real.
And all of that got distracted by the media then focusing in on there was no basement in the pizza place.
And so there's a decent chance that he just thought, like, fuck.
Too close.
Too close on this one.
And that might be why he learned his lesson.
But he didn't learn it all the way.
So he...
It's not just Ghislaine Maxwell getting arrested.
It's also all of these stories that he's been talking about out of Germany.
For some reference, there are two stories out of Germany that Alex has been covering.
One of them has to do with, in the past, there were homeless children who were given to foster parents who were known to be pedophiles.
This is horrifying, and the studies of it and the reporting on it is unclear the scope to which this was taking place, but it does not appear to be what you'd call a widespread.
And the other story is about a soldier who was arrested fairly recently, I believe at the end of last year.
An investigation surrounding him has led to the uncovering of an online child pornography sharing network that does involve some crimes against children.
And there were 30,000 leads that the police had to go on.
And so Alex has those two stories.
And I believe...
His intention is to say that this Wayfair story is trying to somehow block that.
But he's treating those two stories as kind of the same story, even though they're not the same story at all.
It's really complicated, but the way he starts talking about this stuff in this next clip really kind of brought into focus something I found really disturbing about Alex's thought patterns.
Just type in, German psychiatrist, German government gave children to pedophiles.
And of course, they first reported, oh, it was just a few thousand in one town.
Then it turned out it was a spiderweb all over the country.
See how they limited that as well.
It's dw.com as well.
Okay, just boom.
So again, ladies and gentlemen, let's put that back on screen, please.
Understand what's going on.
The week that broke, I said, watch, next week it'll break that tens of thousands of children are involved.
Exactly as I said, it broke.
Why?
I read a British psychological warfare manual that just so happened to be being sold that I bought at Barnes& Noble like 20 years ago.
They talked about their techniques after World War II in Africa, and they said, if one of our corporations kills, say, 5,000 villagers, we need to get out ahead of it and say they killed 20 and put out our fake story, so that when it comes out it's 5,000, people will average it together in their mind.
So, because the head psychiatrist over CPS in Berlin was sending thousands of children to pedophiles, they first reported on his case and not how it was much larger, titrating the dose, preparing you for what was about to come out.
So Alex has just combined them into being about the same thing when they're not.
That being said, the real reason that I pulled this clip is because of how clearly it demonstrates a flaw in Alex's thinking patterns.
He believes that everything is psych warfare.
So he's gotten himself into a very bizarre mode where he's essentially given himself permission to lie about everything.
Because he's rationalized that the thing that he's lying about is just psych warfare to begin with.
Let's take this specific example.
Alex is lying about reporting about the German foster care story, but he doesn't see it as lying, because he believes that the original reporting is just the globalists getting ahead of the story in order to soften the blow when the real story comes out.
Another story justifying his embellishment has not come out, but an unrelated story about a similar topic has, so he's just good enough and he's claimed a victory about everything.
This kind of thought pattern goes a long way towards explaining why Alex can't report a straight version of any story.
He can't stick to reality, and it's nearly impossible for him to not exaggerate details to fit his narratives.
That's because he thinks reality that is being reported is just psych warfare.
So when he exaggerates a story, he thinks that what he's doing is just compensating the story match up with actual reality.
In fact, what he's doing is making things up and lying, but he doesn't experience it that way.
If that last clip at all accurately expresses Alex's beliefs, then it would be fair to say that his version of truth could be described as lying about things you think are lies.
So what he's saying is that the Wayfair situation is a hoax to distract from the...
Two situations that he has conflated into its own hoax that will distract from the actual individual circumstances that both stories are not dealing with whatsoever.
And all of this is fine, because sometimes the globalists are lying to you, and sometimes they're not, because of course I can quote New York Times and all of those things whenever they match up with what I think they should.
I don't want to say it gives me closure, but it definitely gives me a better understanding of why he's such a liar and why he doesn't think he's such a liar.
Because if you believe what he's saying there, if he actually believes that about what he does and how information works, you could justify coming up with any story you want and then just being like, no, this is the truth.
That story is the whitewash.
That's the fake version of the story.
I've made up a number that feels right based on me calling this a whitewash.
And the thing about that is, by no means do I experience any empathy for him in this way, but what that is essentially saying is that I will never accept good news because it doesn't conform to my version of reality.
Do you know what I mean?
Like, everything that provides good and joy he lies about in order to facilitate the continuation of this globalist conspiracy.
And he amplifies every negative news source as long as it helps with his conspiracy theory.
And any real news is negative because it helps with his conspiracy theory.
And so at any and all times, he is experiencing nothing but panic, fear, and rage.
How can you listen to this guy and take it seriously when he's...
Clearly expressing to you that, yeah, I read news stories and then I just make up stuff because it's like warfare.
That's ridiculous.
It's really sad.
The people who believe him and follow this stuff have just unknowingly essentially been tricked into a cult of Alex.
It's just whatever he interprets and experiences as true is presented as truth and he will harangue you with References to arcane and obscure documents you haven't read, and he hasn't either, in order to justify his positions, and it's all just a fucking parlor trick.
Yeah, I mean, you know, in the same way that his listeners are victims and participants in their own kind of miserable existence, Alex is visiting upon them and himself.
How could it even be possible that it's money laundering if it's an intentional plan by the globalists to make your side look bad and make it look like...
Do you really think that a group like this would ship thousands of kids around in containers, not knowing a truck's going to wreck or one's going to fall open or the kid's going to die in one?
No, folks.
No, it's not true.
It's not real.
That's why they are doing all of this.
They didn't make typos on hundreds and hundreds of items.
We're going over right now.
I'll have more tomorrow.
This was done as bait, and they used names of real children that are missing.
And to make people take the bait and say, oh my god, this is real.
But this is meant to discredit the real work that police are engaged in, in my view.
And maybe you disagree with me.
Comment in the comments below.
But if the globalists have gotten bold enough, and maybe I'm wrong, to ship kids actually in containers like this, psychos, when they don't get caught for a while and get away with it, a lot of them go crazy, even crazier, and start wanting to get caught.
And who the hell knows anymore.
I mean, this is just unbelievable.
But know this.
This was not an accident that they used a bunch of little girls' names and some of them missing girls.
Complete with first and last names.
That is not.
This was done to bait you away from all the other real stuff.
It's really just an attempt by the globalists to entrap me into covering this in order to delegitimize my already sterling, remarkable, unimpeachable record.