Today, Dan and Jordan give Alex Jones a mulligan and pretend that this is his first show back from vacation since his Saturday "emergency report" was such a dud. In this installment, Alex's commitment to the second amendment wavers and Ted Nugent threatens Dan's will to keep on keeping on.
So, before we get down to business, Jordan, we're going to take a little moment here to say thank you to the folks who have signed up and are supporting the show.
Yeah, if you're out there listening and thinking, hey, I enjoyed this 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.
So Eric Bolling did an episode of his show where he interviewed the woman from Plandemic, Julia Makovitz, and they did a ridiculous conspiracy piece about the allegations that Dr. Fauci created COVID-19.
It was straight-up InfoWars shit, and they probably felt really good about it when they shot the video, but unfortunately they'd flown too close to the InfoWars sun, and people like Oliver Darcy at CNN took notice.
Darcy wrote an article on CNN pointing out how embarrassing this episode of Bowling's show was, and in response, Sinclair decided to postpone the episode and, quote, rework it.
They thought that they could put it out and just fly under the radar, but it turns out that people noticed, and Sinclair rightly realized that putting out this episode would probably be damaging to their brand.
Yeah, this is just an example of a brand that enjoys a certain amount of mainstream appearance going one step too far and realizing they're probably in jeopardy of being seen for what they are, which is another Infowars.
CNN didn't tell them not to air the piece.
That's just dumb spin Alex is putting on this story to make it possible for him to report.
And reporting on this story is going to be a challenge for him.
And the reason for that actually has to do with that episode of Bowling's show.
Alex has to be in support of McCovitz because she's stridently anti-vaccine and she's spreading all the COVID-19 conspiracies that are Alex's bread and butter right now.
For those of you who don't keep up with our sundry weirdos who populate Alex's world, Larry Klayman was a friend of Alex's back in the Obama bashing days, but in more recent times, they've become bitter enemies.
Most recently, Clayman, along with Jerome Corsi, filed the defamation lawsuit against Roger and Alex, which is likely doomed to failure, but isn't the sort of thing you expect to see going down between allies.
Alex is going to have to somehow dance around the fact that Clayman is Makovitz's lawyer.
And you've got to assume that this is going to preclude her from ever appearing on InfoWars.
And that article is not going to help Alex as much as he wants to think.
This is a real post on the NIH's website, and Alex is reading the title correctly, but he's neglecting to mention that the date is December 19th, 2017, which falls just outside the conspiracy timeline.
Fauci was supposed to have done this back during Obama's administration, so if this lifting of the pause on gain-of-function research is happening during Trump's presidency, that does nothing to help perv Alex's case.
This article begins, Today the National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting the funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses.
Gain-of-function research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.
The funding pause was lifted in response to today's release of the Department of Health and Human Services framework for guiding funding decisions about proposed research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.
If you go and read that paper from the Department of Health and Human Services, you'll immediately realize a few things.
The first is that the head of the HHS at that time was Eric Hargan, the fourth of five people that Trump has appointed to that position in his term as president.
The Department of HHS, which is run by a Trump appointee and is a department in the executive branch of the government, which Trump is in charge of, put out this framework, which led to the NIH lifting the pause on funding this research.
All of this traces back to Trump.
The second thing you notice is that this framework would never justify or enable creating a bioweapon.
There are a bunch of criteria about what kind of research was justifiable, and the idea that that matches up with Alex's theories is just laughable.
The third thing that jumps out here is that there's an entire section in this document, this framework, about oversight.
Any research that was funded because of this lifting of the pause was subject to review by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The entity that was funding the research would report on their intention to the HHS and the Office of Science and Technology Policy who would evaluate the legitimacy of the research in question.
The HHS would then, quote, This is where it's just such a huge problem for Alex that he doesn't read things past headlines.
He has an NIH headline that he thinks is a smoking gun, but literally everything about this story doesn't match up with the narrative that he's presenting, and the actual source he's pointing to really complicates the narrative.
Once you understand the review process and the oversight that's built into the funding process of these NIH grants, it becomes comical to imagine that what Alex is saying is even possible.
There would be so many people that would have to be in on this, and an impossibly long paper trail.
The headline sounds good to Alex, though, and that's all that matters.
This research involved a virologist at that lab in Wuhan surveilling and cataloging existing Well, there's that.
It is true that Fauci supports gain-of-function research, and if you want to have a debate about whether or not the risks outweigh the potential breakthroughs, that's a valid conversation to have.
It's not the conversation Alex is having, so I'll leave that debate to be had elsewhere by people far more knowledgeable on the topic than me.
The point here, again, is that Alex just has a headline with nothing to go on that's any deeper than that, and it doesn't even match up with what he said.
So he goes on this, like, it's just really annoying to listen to him try to make points because it's so much just shit talk and then just reading headlines and being like, see?
This came to public attention on June 22nd, when Australian chess figure John Adams tweeted about being approached for a comment for the segment, which he responded to with outrage.
From what I can tell about this segment, it was planned as an exploration of whether or not this was something that had racist roots.
The ABC anchor who was working on this story, James Valentine, has since tried to tell his side of the story, which is basically as follows.
He saw a tweet from a parent who was musing about why white pieces always go first, based on a question that he'd received from his child.
All right, so they're curious.
Oh boy.
Valentine responded in a Facebook post that, quote, Yeah, sure.
This is a zero, and it's just yet another example of Alex lying about dumb, misconstrued, trivial human interest stories in order to amplify and spread white victimhood narratives.
A serious broadcaster with the level of importance that Alex pretends he has wouldn't waste their time with a story that's as dumb as this.
We need to standardize it in some way, so this is an easier way for us to just be like, instead of being like, well, this time black went first, so our annotation has to be altered for that.
So what's really going on here in the story that Alex is covering...
Poorly.
Is that a guy tweeted out a misrepresentation of a planned ABC Sydney story about the history of chess, and then white identity adherents got really mad about it.
I'm not sure what Alex thinks that this demonstration proves.
That was a guy saying that the police were arresting people he knew for expressing their right to assemble, so he was carrying his gun to exercise his Second Amendment rights.
He didn't say that he was planning on shooting anyone, and Alex would be reporting this very differently if he was protesting for some other cause.
The protester in question here is 28-year-old Garrett Foster, who was shot and killed by a driver in Austin on Saturday evening.
Witnesses have been pretty universal in their telling of the story that the driver was the instigator and aggressor in the situation, despite accusations that Foster shot at the driver first and was the driver's only firing in self-defense.
In reality, protesters didn't really even surround the guy's car, which was another accusation that was made to justify Foster's murder.
Videos have been released which clearly show the guy in the car turning at an intersection, specifically where marchers were crossing.
The protesters were marching and the intersection is blocked, which is inconvenient.
But this driver drove and accelerated specifically into a group of people, which is completely unacceptable.
Witnesses have told reporters that Foster kept his rifle pointed at the ground as he approached the vehicle and that he was not the only protester carrying a firearm at the march.
They say that the driver pointed a handgun through the car window and fired at Foster.
There were apparently two people who fired weapons, but Austin Police Chief Brian Manley has said that, quote, the first person who appeared to fire was the driver, and then a second person, not Foster, drew a concealed handgun and opened fire at the car as it drove away.
This is a tragic story, and there's no reason that Garrett Foster should be dead right now.
For Alex to justify this killing is ghoulish.
To say nothing of how much this implicates and calls into question his belief in a citizen's right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment is actually negotiable to Alex, which is maybe one of the things that we were considering the last domino that could possibly fall.
I have no idea what Alex is talking about when he says that he looked into Foster and that he's a creep.
I looked into it, I just don't know what he could be talking about.
And one of the only things that keeps coming up that seems like something Alex would be referring to in all of the coverage is that he was at the protest with his black quadriplegic fiancé.
Foster and his fiancé had been together since they were 17, and in 2011 she came down with a condition that nearly killed her and required her arms and legs to be amputated.
Since then, he's taken care of her, and to quote Foster's mother, quote, he loved that woman unconditionally.
I can find no reason to think that Foster was a creep.
Alex needs to justify this.
And until he does, I have to assume that Alex thinks there's something intrinsically weird or wrong about this guy.
I wish we had never even speculated on whether or not there was a bottom.
Like, from day one, on our first episode, we should have been like, just so everybody knows, no matter how long this podcast goes, no matter what changes, Alex has no bottom.
There is likely going to be developments on this story, so we'll see what comes of it.
Like, if anyone who fired weapons will end up being charged, I don't know.
But for now, the available information does not in any way support Alex's reporting on this story.
He's just providing coverage that justifies the killing of a protester on the side that he disagrees with.
And then he's using the fact that they had a gun to prop up that justification, which is probably the most cowardly and hypocritical thing I can imagine him doing, and he should be deeply ashamed of himself.
He should be getting protested by all the gun weirdos that have been his allies for the entire time of his career.
Larry Pratt should be calling for him to be off air.
Trying to pretend that this guy was pointing his gun at these folks, this guy in the car, in order to justify that it's like, you know, you're going to get shot.
And I mean, it's interesting how that isn't applied to the people in St. Louis who were pointing guns at protesters.
Here's the Austin protester with his AK-47 who runs out.
And again, we've got paused still shots on Infowars.com from the video showing him when the rifle up to the window of the car with people beating on it, screaming, going, he's white, he's white, trying to pull the white person out.
It shows Foster near the car, with one arm back, but the angle of his gun very clearly appears to be pointing down.
It's difficult to explain this without the imagery, but from the angle this picture was taken from, there's literally no way that his gun could be pointed at anything further up than the bottom of this car's tire.
And the reason for that is there are things behind him.
Also, the image is not of protesters surrounding an innocent person's car.
It's the aftermath of this car driving directly into a group of people.
Perhaps at that point, the driver felt worried about people surrounding his car, but the car would not have been surrounded if he hadn't turned and accelerated into a group of people.
This is a very disgraceful display Alex is putting on here.
He's defaming a guy who was killed, and I think that there's probably a pretty decent chance he might be opening himself up to some kind of legal action.
I don't even know, like, I guess if he had come to bat for the guy.
Maybe I'd be like, well, at least he believes in the Second Amendment or something.
If he came out and was like, look, this guy was a protester and I think these people are disgusting and what they're fighting for is bullshit, but the man was carrying open, it was registered, he was doing everything right, and he got murdered.
I guess I'd be like, well, there's something.
But now it feels so empty.
When the Second Amendment is gone, For Alex and me, it feels empty.
And all these armchair leftists, like the mayor of Portland, went out to support them burning down the courthouse, and then they attack him because he's an old white dude.
They go, look, he's white!
They don't even know he's the mayor under Soros commanding them.
Wait, so you're telling me that they don't appreciate the guy who ordered the cops to mercilessly terrorize them for 45 days, and then showed up and tried to make it into a thing about...
Because here's the same thing that would happen if Lori Lightfoot, Chicago's miserable, terrible mayor, showed up at a protest here and got tear gassed.
Everybody would be like, we still fucking hate you!
So this is Alex returning to a story we covered a while back.
This is about a man in Alamosa, Colorado who was shot by a guy at a protest.
When we discussed the story, my position was that the shooter was way out of line and it did not appear that this driver was endangering people or threatening to hurt anyone.
I don't know any information that subsequently come out that would make me revise my position, but I remember covering this and the video does not show anything even close to justifiable.
That said, I pulled this clip because I want to demonstrate how Alex is a complete and casual liar.
In that clip, he said the last he'd heard that this guy who got shot was in critical condition and brain dead.
Weirdly, if you look for an update on Danny Pruitt, who was the shooting victim, you can find an Alamosa News article from June 26th, which says that he was discharged from the hospital on that Wednesday, and his lawyer said, quote, he's very pleased to have been released and very excited about getting to see his daughter.
That's not to say that he's fully recovered by that point, but he's on a great path in that direction to the point where the doctors could release him to recover at home.
I don't think I need to say this, but if you're brain dead, you can't do that.
Alex is making up details about this case because it makes his political targets look worse.
He doesn't care at all about factual, actual reporting.
He's just, like, trying, but he's trying to make his enemies look worse by making damage that they've done seem worse when just shooting the guy is terrible.
I mean, in a court, I guess, when you're determining sentencing, you're like, he shot him in the leg, so that's not attempted murder or something, I guess, as opposed to shooting him in the chest.
I don't know.
And the punishments are different.
Fine.
You don't need to add anything after shoots a guy for me to be like, fuck that guy!
By the way, last time I heard that guy you shot was on live support.
Is that person even alive?
And you look at the guy, he's been given a mugshot for capital murder and he looks like he's having an orgasm because he believes he'll be released from prison after the communist overthrow and he'll be in a gulag over you and your family.
Well, they simultaneously have Frontline coming out with a multi-series show of complete fiction.
Because I've talked to people that have been involved in the production.
Unbelievable.
They're actually going to say, I'm told, that Russians fund Infowars.
I wonder how much they had to pay people to say that.
Look at this headline.
United States of Conspiracy examines how three men, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and President Trump, helped to lay the foundation for the conspiracy theories to take center stage in America's national conversation.
So the only thing that he can get out of this is people who don't know anything about him who are like, how dare PBS be mean to Alex Jones and Roger Stone and Donald Trump, and then maybe check him out.
Anyway, Alex, like I told you at the beginning of this episode, about three quarters of the way into this, I lost my will to live.
And that's largely because Alex is rationalizing.
The killing of a protester based on the fact that he had a gun, that Alex is claiming he was pointing at people, but the photograph that he provides as evidence of this doesn't show that, which really, really hurts his Second Amendment positions.
But I was just returning from New York, where another great family spent a fortune to get me and the good senator, good congressman Clay Higgins, to a pro-law enforcement rally, a pro-law and order rally.
The biggest one, it was purported to be the biggest pro-law enforcement, law and order rally in the history of America.
They were expecting over 10,000 people because Uncle Ted was going to bring my six-string weapon of mass construction and perform a fire-breathing banners for the troops in Bulu.
their morale at a time where the Marxist Democrat Antifa, MS-13, Black Lives Matter monsters have destroyed the morale of the law enforcement sheepdog heroes across this country So Ted Nugent's on to complain about losing a gig.
So that rally still went on just as planned, but people were mad about Ted Nugent being booked to appear, so they complained, and his invitation was no longer there.
The organizers released a statement saying, The purpose of this demonstration is to bring people together in support of the men and women of law enforcement.
While we wholeheartedly appreciate anyone who supports the men and women in blue, including Mr. Nugent, the controversy over his appearance is contrary to the objectives of this demonstration.
Who knows exactly what it was about Ted Nugent that made him unpalatable for people?
Everybody who's bitching about cancel culture now needs to go back in time and see what people got away with, which is the same shit they're getting away with now!
Yeah, and I mean, every time that I said N in the article, it's Ted Nugent saying hard R's.
Weirdly, later in the article, Ted explains that whack is specifically a word that he uses to describe killing animals, and that his, quote, hunting buddies are known as whackers.
Nugent, of course, is the whack master.
Seems like Jap Whack becomes a really weird name for a tour, given that context.
I mean, no disrespect.
Also, for all of his false and faux performative patriotism, this passage about Nugent dodging the draft seems pretty ironic.
Quote, Nugent wanted no part of Vietnam.
He claims that 30 days before his draft board physically stopped all forms of personal hygiene.
The last 10 days, he ingested nothing but Vienna sausages and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants, caked with his own excrement, stained by his urine.
That spectacle won Nugent a deferment, I think he's full of shit.
And I think you've kind of touched on my main point, and that is that Ted Nugent is a racist, predatory monster who has the brain of a weapons-obsessed child.
And hasn't even ever had an album or single reach the top ten on the charts, and has never had a number one single, and his highest-peaking album was Scream Dream, which reached number 13 40 years ago.
He's a worthless sack of shit who's not even relevant in his primary occupation, which is music.
So yeah, it makes sense that people wouldn't want him booked at an event, regardless of the event's character.
He makes your event look bad, because if he's there, it implies that you paid him to be there.
And if you paid him to be there, you're an asshole.
Whiny-ass Ted coming on Infowars to complain about losing a gig because of his long and very overt past of being a piece of shit.
So toxic that even a pro-cop rally had some reservations about being associated with him.
And I literally was threatened by Governor Cuomo And his hand-picked Marxist health department Nazis, that if I set foot in New York to play the national anthem and thank the law enforcement heroes, if I dare enter his communist New York area,
I would be put under house arrest and quarantine for 14 days, thereby destroying the only chance to have a morale boost by the heroes.
Is that because he was, quote, reminded of New York State's quarantine orders and Nassau County's protest protocols.
Travelers to New York from over 30 states with significant community coronavirus spread are required to quarantine for 14 days, per Governor Cuomo's executive order.
Yeah, I remember that.
It's not specific to him.
He's from Texas.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is a convenient way for everyone involved to save face.
The quarantine rules exist, and Nugent is coming from Texas, which is an at-risk state currently, so the state of New York covers their base.
The city council in Long Island obviously didn't want Ted coming, so they solved that problem.
The rally organizers realized that they were going to look real bad if they have Ted at their rally, so that solves that problem for them.
Ted probably would have liked to go, but this is just as good.
He gets to play the victim and yell about Cuomo trying to personally bar him from the state.
Everybody gets what they need out of this situation, and no issues are really resolved when there is a big issue that needs to be addressed here, and that is that Ted Nugent has no place in adult society.
If he wants to live out his days being a racist creep shooting arrows at animals privately, I can't stop him from that.
But there's no reason that anyone should ever accept the notion that he's a voice worth having in the public sphere.
His music career is embarrassing compared to his contemporaries, and his existence as a political figure is basically just him yelling that Obama needs to suck his rifle.
At this point, people need to treat him like who he is, a loser Infowars guest.
If some event is booking him, it's not because he's a draw or because he's good at guitar.
racist extremist politics.
So quite honestly, anytime Nugent has a show anywhere, it should get protested.
And stop it with this bullshit, too, where you can hear it in that last clip, and in this next clip it gets even worse, where it's just like, the real victims are the great policemen who don't get to hear me play the national anthem.
My buddy flew me back home, and I got out my bow and arrow and my fishing rod, and I spent a wonderful couple days with my dogs on my miraculous paradise here in Texas, so they didn't hurt Ted Nugent at all.
I mean, are you kidding me?
What can they possibly do to me?
And I'll tell you what, nothing.
But you know what they hurt?
They hurt the spirit and the morale of the New York Police Department heroes and their families.
Yeah, I would say that the fact that I can't find any articles that are like, Ted Nugent profusely apologizes for equivocating and supporting apartheid, saying it's not a cut-and-dry issue.
That leads me to believe that he maybe didn't have a personal evolution on the subject.
The rioters went berserk and burnt down their own city, this beautiful architecture.
So I have a good perspective of the goodwill and the positive brotherhood that existed amongst all of us in Detroit.
And then a lunatic fringe segment went nuts, much like precursors to Antifa then.
I was in Los Angeles in 92 when the Rodney King verdict came in, and once again the idiots committed cultural suicide and destroyed their own neighborhoods and lives and viciously attacked and murdered people.
So what I'm seeing today, it breaks my heart to admit, but it's bigger and worse and uglier and more evil.
Ted Nugent coming on, if he had any principles and believed in anything that he purports to believe in, he should be dressing down Alex about his argument earlier in the show about a guy having a gun at a protest somehow making it like, oh well, you get shot.
But it turns out Ted Nugent also seems to think that if you have a weapon, you're no longer a protester.
If we lived in a reasonable world, every time he went on a show, they would just play that clip and be like, so you don't believe in the Second Amendment at all?
I would not say that damage to property is inherently violence, but be that as it may, leaving that aside, his threshold seems to be that if you have a weapon, you're not a peaceful protester.
Now I want to hear what Rand Paul thinks about this.
Is Rand Paul going to defend the Second Amendment, or is he going to go along like a coward with Alex Jones and noted predator racist monster Ted Nugent?
Or noted predator racist monster Alex Jones as well?
You could not talk about it, or you could talk about it in a more robust way.
You could talk about it with a little bit more nuance, where you can protect your gun position while at the same time condemning protests if you so need to.
In a certain sense, my armchair bullshit on this is part of me thinks, That because they lived through Obama, and they're so racist, and they weren't allowed to just say, we hate him because he's black, and we don't like that, they made every argument in bad faith.
Every argument they made was in bad faith.
So they only know how to make bad faith arguments at this point.
They don't have anything that they believe in, because what they believed in during Obama's years was just, we don't like him because he's black.
And you're not allowing us to say that.
So we have to make up some bullshit about he's grabbing guns.
That's a bad faith argument.
And so now when we're in this situation, I don't even know if...
He probably doesn't believe that.
If you were to...
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
But if you were to sit him down and just really get to the point in private, it's like...
You know you're making a bad faith argument to these people in order to justify the violence that you want.
I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree with you.
I would say that maybe people got accustomed to this kind of behavior throughout Obama's years, but the stuff you're talking about, those same sorts of arguments predate Obama.
Because Joe Rogan's one of the only things that makes me relevant to people who aren't completely nuts, and I really want to play up my connection to him.
Separately, ladies and gentlemen, we've got a solution to tyranny.
It's only one part of the overall solution, and it funds the InfoWarm.
Privacy pockets I have are almost 100% effective.
We've tested them out.
They're one of the best units out there.
Sometimes right up next to a cell tower, it'll still penetrate through and be able to ping your cell phone, track your location, and steal your data.
Stop Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and their global initiative with the NIH and the UNWHO running the contact tracers or beta testing in blue cities that are going to come as early as next year.
They've already got your data.
The apps are already on your phone, whether you take them off or not.
Google and Apple admit they're doing it together four months ago.
Everything is tracked.
And so when you put your phone in this, it's a way to control it.
It's a way to not let it run your life.
It's a way to not let it dominate you.
And it slips right in your pocket.
It's a thin Faraday cage.
They have units out there that are similar to this one or the same unit they're selling for $35 online.
Amazon sells them for, like, $22.
And, you know, they always try to have the lowest price.
Sinclair, bigger than Fox News, thousands of stations across the country, says it will postpone and rework segment featuring conspiracy theory about Fauci with the Eric Bolling show.
I personally sent bowling articles about this in the last few months.
He knew all about it already.
And what did he cover?
NIH.gov.
NIH lifts funding pause on gain-of-function research with coronaviruses.
Dr. Fauci backed controversial Wuhan lab with U.S. dollars for risky coronavirus research at Wuhan lab.
Newsweek.
Newsweek.
Look right there.
That's Newsweek.
New scientists.
Lab-made coronavirus triggers debate.
Obama and Fauci transfer weaponized coronavirus chimera from bats to China to 2015.
I predict they'll go spiking again when the numbers come in at the end of the month, because July is when the new doctors and nurses come in for their residencies.
And they call it the July Effect.
I get into real statistics, real information, real research.
The July Effect is a real thing that people discuss, but there isn't really a consensus on whether or not it is actually a real thing.
I'll read to you here from a 2017 article in the Canadian Association of Medicine's journal.
Quote, A 2016 analysis in the Journal of Patient Safety pooled data collected between 2011 and 2015 from nearly 120 academic medical centers and more than 333 affiliated hospitals from all geographic regions in the United States.
It concluded that there was no evidence to support the July effect on survival outcomes at U.S. academic medical centers.
Studies focused on specific specialties and patient populations have indicated mixed results.
Despite this lack of strong supporting evidence, a national survey of U.S. academic leaders in internal medicine published in 2016 in the American Journal of Medicine revealed that most internal medicine residency program leaders believe in the potential for a July effect.
A 2013 article in the Harvard Medical School Review says, A new study published October 23rd in circulation by researchers at Harvard Medical School, Stanford University Hospitals, University of Southern California, and the Rand Corporation has found that while the so-called July effect is negligible in most cases, it is a serious concern for high-risk patients.
That isn't too surprising, given that experienced doctors have more experience in high-intensity, dangerous situations, but also the discrepancy isn't something that should make people avoid getting health care in July.
Yeah.
unidentified
This is an issue that only relates to teaching hospitals, where there are residents.
Instead, maybe like he saw a meme about it and then wrote a story in his head about cartoonish versions of med students killing people at hospitals every summer.
I mean, because you would expect that for people who are in really serious conditions that maybe are more difficult to diagnose or difficult to handle, someone who is not as experienced could, even with supervision, could be less capable of taking care of that situation.
But I think that it's one of the beliefs that Alex has that's so central to himself that you could look at as a political belief that you could have a conversation about.
What's left is white identity and lies.
And both of those things, I think, have no place.
And so when the crumbling comes of the Second Amendment...