Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ September 27, 2020 episode, where he flip-flopped on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination—first touting her, then attacking her as a "globalist" puppet while defending Barbara Lagoa. He falsely claimed the WEF’s Great Reset was a February hoax and misreported Louisville shooter Lorenzo Johnson’s charges to stoke outrage. Jones also peddled baseless election conspiracy theories, ignoring his own prior globalist paranoia, like robot trash trucks releasing bioweapons. His contradictory praise for Barrett—despite her pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine record—exposes the right’s fractured, self-serving narrative, where fringe loyalty trumps logic, leaving even his hosts baffled by the farce. [Automatically generated summary]
what's your bright spot today my bright spot today jordan is that uh i mean hey look everyone's tired of uh plant stuff but uh my cucumber are they Has anybody said they're tired of it?
And I thought that we needed to find out what Alex's response to this was because immediately when Ginsburg passed away, Alex said that the inside scoop was that Coney Barrett was the choice.
This shan't be analyzed by Alex, and so we will leave it aside for now.
Of course.
But one thing I thought was really interesting was: okay, so that announcement came, and so Saturday, Alex usually, whenever there's big news, will have a Saturday episode.
He didn't have a Saturday episode, so we had to wait until Sunday.
So we're recording this fairly late to see what his Sunday reaction would be to the announcement of Trump Trump nominating somebody that he and his buddy Barnes, who he respects greatly and is a great constitutional lawyer.
So, before we get down to business on that, Jordan, let's take a little moment to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show.
But I thought I'd start with something that's really at the heart of it.
Remember four years ago how InfoWarriors took over all the live events and said Bill Clinton's a rapist and pointed out that Bill Clinton and Hillary were globalists and tied to Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile island.
We would talk about Jeffrey Epstein on national TV and take over live events.
So much so they canceled most of their live events the last few weeks.
It's like on Good Morning America, whenever they had the window open behind you and all those people were standing kind of like waving at the camera and shit.
Instead, imagine a bunch of people with rocks just like slamming on the glass during the broadcast.
Alex didn't go really hard about Epstein back then.
He was doing some Pizzagate stuff, though, that's for damn sure.
But the thing that I think is really interesting is what Alex is describing is that in the last election cycle, he literally paid people to go yell Bill Clinton's a rapist.
As soon as he said that, my eyes rolled back in my head and just like, there was a download of all the things he's been wrong about cascading before my eyes.
And it's like, okay.
I know that you're going to try and relish in being right about the Amy Coney Barrett selection.
I mean, at the Devos group, they put out a report in February saying we're going to use COVID-19 to lock down the economy, bring in global digital tracking apps on everybody's phones, shut down all small businesses, and start the third world to death, lower carbon emissions.
They call it the Great Reset.
They were saying in February, this looks like the big reset that Devos has been calling for to shut down the world economy and consolidate power for them.
So Alex is making up a lot of the specific details there.
We got into this on a past episode, so I'm not going to break down again how all this stuff about using COVID-19 to take over shit is that's just completely made up.
However, I'd like to point out how little Alex seems to remember or care about the details of his own stupid conspiracies.
He says that the Davos group put out this document, The Great Reset, in February.
The reality is that the thing that he's referring to is a huge online presentation that you can access yourself if you'd like to, which was hosted by the World Economic Forum, not the Davos group.
It was posted online on July 14th, not in February.
The thing here is that the Davos group isn't really an actual title of something.
The World Economic Forum does hold their meeting every year in Davos in Switzerland, which is colloquially referred to as Davos, Davos meeting.
If Alex were interested in accurately conveying information or even new, he would say that the World Economic Forum put out this report, not Davos, because it's imprecise, it's inaccurate.
And the people who put out this great reset presentation is a real thing.
It's the World Economic Forum.
He's sloppy with his language on purpose.
Yeah.
This great reset presentation was released by the World Economic Forum in July based on a publication written by Terry Mallaret and Klaus Schwab.
And it was basically about exploring the ways in which COVID-19 has revealed fixable problems and how things are structured across a great swath of things, like ecological issues, economic issues.
It's very wide-ranging.
Alex is saying it's from February because that's when he thinks the Davos meeting was this year.
But it was actually January 21st and 24th.
But February is when he would have been mad about it.
He seems to know when it came out, but he knows also that that information doesn't fit with the narrative, that he's using high-level globalist documents to inform his reporting.
He wants the audience to think that he knew back in February that COVID-19 was a plot to control society because he read this Davos group document.
But if that document didn't exist in February, that falls apart.
The suspect in the shooting of the police officers in Louisville has been identified as Lorenzo Johnson, and he's been arrested.
According to an article in WLKY out of Louisville, quote, he's charged with 14 counts of wanton endangerment on police officer and two counts of assault on police officers.
He's pled not guilty, and a bond of $1 million was set.
Alex is trying to play games with his coverage here.
He's saying that the liberal district attorneys won't even charge this guy, presumably because they support shooting cops.
But that's absolutely not true.
He is being charged, which is why Alex then says he's not being charged with attempted murder.
So if anyone calls him out over his clear misreporting, he can say that he meant that the liberal district attorneys won't charge him with attempted murder, not that they weren't charging him at all.
Alex is making two separate claims in that sentence, that they aren't charging the shooter at all and that they're not charging him with attempted murder.
The narrative in the story only has weight if you accept the first claim because it's outrageous, whereas the second claim makes some sense.
It might be an issue where the punishment for first-degree assault on a cop is pretty steep, and if the evidence they have might not be successful in leading to a conviction on attempted murder charges, the prosecutors might decide that this is the best way to prosecute the crime.
Yeah.
The fact that Johnson isn't being charged with attempted murder is something that's very easy to understand without having to jump to the conclusion that the district attorney must love people who shoot cops.
The explanation that assault charges are far more likely to be successfully prosecuted makes total sense.
And rational people can understand why a DA would choose that route.
Conversely, it's much harder to understand how a DA would take someone who is suspected of shooting police officers and not charge them at all.
This is the sort of thing that Alex can use to drum up fear and anger in his audience because it seems like the only explanation for that would be people in the DA's office want to promote shooting the police.
Alex wants his audience to hear and respond as if there are no charges for this shooter, but he only wants to be held responsible for reporting that there are no attempted murder charges.
The final straw is letting Islamicists and communists kill and firebomb and rape people and not charge them.
And that's now happening across the United States.
It's unbelievable.
I got a stack of news on that coming up.
You hear what I said?
You walk up to a police line, pull a gun, and shoot two cops in the stomach and the leg, confess to it, and they don't charge you with attempted murder.
See, at the beginning, it's talking about people shooting cops and there's no charges.
Then they're not charged with attempted murder.
Sure.
Wants these two realities to be in people's heads.
Emotionally, you respond to the part about them being no charges for shooting the cops.
And then intellectually, if Alex has to argue it, he could be like, I was just saying they weren't charged with attempted murder.
Like, go fuck yourself.
You know what you're doing.
So in this next clip, we get to a little bit of a reveal, kind of, about Alex's, you know, he's days till the inauguration now instead of days till the election.
And that is because we have a new narrative.
That is the time between the election and inauguration.
President Trump has to listen to people about the Democrat plans for what I call 79 days of hell.
79 days in another brazen attempt, just like the Russia hoax, to claim that the election of Donald John Trump, the 45th president of the United States, the first time and the second time, is illegitimate.
They know they're losing.
Mr. President, you have the Podesta war game that even the New York Times reported on that they can't deny.
Where they say, we're going to contest it because we know we're going to lose.
And then we try to hold it up to Inauguration Day and hope the military takes out Trump.
The election is going to happen, and then any kind of time that's needed to count ballots and to go through the process is going to be the hell that is the hoax that is stopping Trump from getting elected rightfully, of course.
So, what Alex wants Trump to do, and he's basically begging him to do this.
He spends almost an entire segment what he thinks is a direct message to Trump.
Mr. President, you need to do this.
He wants Trump to come out with an ad or a series of ads that essentially argues that he's already won the election.
You know, basically, what's going to happen afterwards is I have rightfully won, and any attempts by Democrats to say anything is them trying to interfere with the election.
And if you think that that's kind of dictatory and kind of scary, Alex gets into talking about, you know, hey, if there's all of these protests, which are going to destroy cities, Trump might have to call in the military to put down protesters, and then they're going to call him a dictator.
When they activate the BLM and the Anti-Foot and the operatives they've got the BLM and Antifur just decoys for as patchies as cover, they're going to say when the military has to get deployed, when you've got 10 times the burning you currently see, that that's Trump's martial law, you see, and trick everybody, and then it's going to get even worse.
And so they believe the crisis will be so big.
Oh, here's the other part.
They're going to drop the stock market 10,000, 15,000 points during the 79 days.
I forgot that part.
And then they're going to say, all your pension funds are bad.
Nothing's worth anything.
And all the yuppies, even conservatives, are going to be.
I remember during the 2008 deal, they plunged the markets to get Obama in.
And I went to a soccer game with one of my daughters.
It's not steal the election with the fake ballots.
They know the landslide's too big.
It's hold it up and create a stock market crash.
But that's told us what the plan is.
Or the plan B is they that Trump's onto plan A, so they may go plan B and just say Trump loses, even though the numbers don't show it, and then have all the major media announce it and then say Trump's insane.
Look, this is all fun and games for Alex, but honestly, I listen to this episode as someone who's listened to a lot of Alex's work.
And if you believe anything he's been saying, there's no reason to think that this election matters.
There's no reason that Alex should be worked up about whether or not the globalists are successful in this imaginary plan to keep Trump from re-election because it's ultimately trivial.
Mere days ago on his show, Alex discussed how the globalists' plan A is to wait until robots are working the fields and shit, then they'll make us all like cattle with welfare and vaccines and tracking chips, which will lead to the population being killed off in a few years.
Of course.
However, Alex's life work screwed up plans in the timeline.
So it looked like the globalists, who work for the literal Christian devil, were going to have to go with plan B, which is the release of super bioweapons, which will just kill everyone, probably through the deployment of robot trash trucks that release electromagnetic weapons.
Only a few people will survive this, and when it's all said and done, they'll need to crawl out of the rubble and enact vengeance for the fallen patriots.
Naturally, Trump being elected or Biden being elected should not matter at all to anyone who believes Alex means a word he says.
Sure, you may prefer Trump, but him getting another four years means nothing when the globalists will just release super bioweapons if he threatens their plans at all.
The stock market crashing means nothing because none of it has any effect on what the actual outcome is.
If Alex meant a goddamn word that came out of his mouth and his show wasn't just a platform to push for Christian identity politics while scaring listeners into buying his dumb pills, this show would not be about politics anymore.
Every single minute of his show should be dedicated towards educating the population about how to survive in this post-super bioweapon release world so as to increase the chances that someone who makes it through will be able to recreate society.
He's been clear that the globalist plans are not something they can stop.
The extinction level event is going to happen.
So why the fuck is he on air rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
This may seem like a small point, but it's not.
The fact that Alex cares at all about whether or not Trump stays in office reveals that he doesn't believe his own conspiracies.
He wants Trump to stay in power because that furthers the white Christian identity politics that he supports.
And he's using the conception of all this conspiracy bullshit in order to trick his audience into thinking something bigger is going on to keep them on board.
That's all that's going on.
He can't even remember that a couple days ago he was fucking yelling about how plan B, we're all dead anyway.
There's a lot of useful information that he could be conveying to his audience.
I don't think it's as profitable as being like Biden's a demon who only cares about himself, so say it, Roger Stone's lawyer, and then trying to juice everybody up for this election that, based on his own worldview, is meaningless.
unidentified
All right, so here's what you can do: you can boil water.
You can also, and this is a thing not a lot of people know, you can put a little bit of silver in there, and that will also disinfect the water, make it a little bit drinkable.
Well, there's a real struggle that Alex is going through because, like, the Democrats are clearly against anybody Trump nominating anybody to the Supreme Court, and especially Barret.
But she has a lot of ideas that Alex doesn't like, but he's got to support her because the Democrats don't like.
See, whenever you create your politics that's basically just oppositional defiance, you end up in holes like this.
But again, the Democrats are already saying kill her.
They hate her.
Blah, blah, blah.
I don't like them.
I'm not trying to join them.
I'm not saying don't confirm her.
I'm just saying, my God, I wish I'd have been on this earlier and we'd have been hammering this harder to get to the president because I know the president means well.
And now they've got, well, they're going to have five justices.
She's going to join the Democrats.
He enforced inoculation and lockdowns, which she just ruled on.
Well, another piece of it, too, that I think, especially in this case for Alex, is that like, obviously he believes that Soros pays all the protesters and he runs BLM and Antifa and everything.
And so the real function of that is to invalidate left-leaning arguments that you hear or socially responsible, social equity type arguments.
You have this, like, anytime you hear people talking about Black Lives Mattering, there's an element of, hey, this is paid.
Anytime there's protest, it's paid protesters.
These aren't valid opinions that people would have if they weren't coerced into having them.
And he's spent so much time with those narratives that, you know, if you're listening to him, you could be forgiven if you believe on some level that anybody who believes anything to the right, or I'm sorry, to the left of Rand Paul is being paid to believe those things.
It's all astroturfed protests and all this.
It's an illusion.
It's a foreign takeover or whatever.
So for Alex, there's a position that needs to be called artificial, and that is opposing Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice.
All of this has to be another thing that's like it's ludicrous for someone to believe it, but it's not.
And Alex himself should be opposed to it, and he can't.
He can't be opposed to it, not because that's him joining the left, but because that's having the same opinion as them and being a free thinker.
It opens up Pandora's box where the audience could start to realize, like, oh, you believe the same thing.
You're not getting paid to believe.
Maybe they aren't getting paid to believe their beliefs.
So what they told Trump is that she would support him in the election because she was part of the Bush v. Gore team, and that's how they got Trump to go along with it.
Trump's not been following the lockdown lawsuits in any detail or the forced vaccination case.
Also, the undercurrent there of Barnes' comments are that Trump got bamboozled into electing or nominating a pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine mandatory vaccine candidate because he was told she would hand him the election.
I really love the idea of nominating a Supreme Court justice, ignoring everything that you disagree with her about, simply because she is more than willing to help you steal an election.
Like, they said that Barr was a terrible choice, and then he was elected, and they're like, and they knew why, because everybody knew why Barr was appointed there, because he had previously helped people cover up fucking crimes, and so he was hired to help people cover up crimes.
But before we do, we have to wrestle with a really difficult thing here, and that is that the Koch brothers, well, the one who's still alive, and the Koch Foundations have supported Amy Coney Barrett.
And that is something mic down for this, because this is going to probably piss you off.
Yeah, so the Koch brothers are a psyop, and they mostly give to Democrats.
This is going to be a really difficult thing for Alex to unwrite a lot of his career, considering the Citizens for a Sound Economy was Koch funded, and Ron Paul was the first president of it way back.
And then Koch brothers, through Freedom Works, funded and AstroTurfed a ton of the Tea Party, which, I mean, that alone, it's tough to understand how they're pro-immigration.
But what that means is that even then, you know, whenever, if we elect Biden and that actually works, ballots are great, that we were going to have to reckon with the Supreme Court anyways.
Now it's just so blatantly obvious that we have to either pack the court or, frankly, remake the entire system that it's like it's not too much different to me in terms of what's going to or what needs to be done to correct it.
And I don't know what the answer to that is, but I do want to offer this slight insight from looking at these worlds.
I think that this could be a critical misstep on Trump's part.
Amy Coney Barrett is somebody who, specifically because of these pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown type positions, is someone who's highly susceptible to attack from the fringe right.
There is a possibility that this could have such backlash on people who are like Ted Cruzes, like these types of people that they might end up not being able to support her nomination for fear of pissing off the QAnon crowd or those people, the anti-vax crowd who have such loud voices within their coalition now.
So I think that there's a possibility that this nomination could get stalled to the point where it might not go through.
And we end up with getting to the election with an opening.
Now, if I'm the Democrats, there are other people that could have been nominated that wouldn't have had that difficulty that I think could have put us in a much more difficult position.
And I think it is a tool that is in the left's disposal.
And the Democrats, if they should like to delay this or make this not happen, I think that's the best way to go about it because there are a lot of people, and Alex rightfully recognizes a couple of the attack points that could be used.
Like, I don't know, because I'm not a legal scholar, I don't know if Jacobson versus Massachusetts is really as evil as their second.
I know that the underlying case was about a guy in 1905, was when the decision happened.
There's a guy named Henning Jacobson, and he opposed this law in Massachusetts where vaccines were mandatory, but if you refused to get one, they'd fine you $5.
And he didn't like that because he didn't want to pay that $5.
So the case went up to the Supreme Court and they ruled against him, finding that the Massachusetts law was not unconstitutional.
And it was up for legislatures to decide this stuff as opposed to the courts.
That kind of makes sense.
You know, like not getting vaccinated, it creates a public health burden, and that translates to public expenses a lot of the time.
It is a kind of dicey, hairy territory when it's like forcing people to get vaccines or any kind of medical thing, you know, bodily autonomy kind of decisions.
I don't want to litigate that because I can't, but I think a fine compromise could be that if you don't get a vaccine, you pay to help society deal with the potential consequences.
And, you know, anyway, that's what Jacobson is.
Now, whatever the reality of how it's been used subsequently to that, I don't know.
But I think the bigger message is we need Trump elected now more than ever because the effect of Barrett being on the bench means that the only thing stopping forced vaccines, the only thing stopping another national lockdown, the only thing stopping these sort of George Soros, Koch family, big money elite agenda, Bill Gates agenda, will be Donald Trump getting re-elected.
So Trump did, by himself, make the decision to nominate this person for the Supreme Court.
And them being on the Supreme Court is going to make forced vaccinations and lockdowns happen.
And that is why we need to re-elect the person who nominated that person for the Supreme Court because he's the only thing that's stopping forced vaccinations and lockdowns.
And what if, like, you know, in the next four years, there's another opening on the Supreme Court, we might need Trump to have a third term to fight whoever he nominates the guy.
I think whenever Trump nominates fucking Bernie Sanders to the bench, we're going to have to elect Trump for a third term in order to keep him from becoming a socialist.
Like, you're bending over backwards to blame, like, oh, the Federalist Society was actually the leftist Koch brothers are the ones as anything other than fucking right-wing dingbats.
Yeah, and if Trump is as strong of a leader and as brave and smart as you all say he is, then the Federalist Society doesn't get to take credit for a nomination that is only Trump's to make.
I think we educate him and warn him on this lady so that he gets concessions and behind the scenes upfront.
She gets hit with some real questions by Republicans instead of fawning at her so that we can get her position to not be a total traitor.
Because I think she's a follower.
Barrett is.
And I think overall she has some good ideas, some really bad ideas.
I think just her M.O., now that I've had a chance to look at her, maybe I'm wrong, is that if there's enough pressure put on her at the hearings and by the culture that she won't be the creature of the Koch brothers and that Trump can cut her out.
Like, based on his narratives, the election doesn't matter.
The globalists are going to release super bioweapons.
Who gives a shit?
Politics is meaningless.
Who cares?
Supreme Court doesn't matter.
Let's leave it alone.
Trump has fucked us because he nominated somebody who's into forced vaccines.
I am a man who has a breaking point, and this is it.
Listen, ladies and gentlemen, I believed in him.
I was given assurances that all this stuff was Machiavellian games, but I can say at this point, the law of the land is determined by the Supreme Court, and you cannot take lightly who someone nominates to be on the Supreme Court.
And if he's going to put somebody in who's in favor of vaccines and forced lockdowns, I say no.
Well, but the only way to thread that needle and what they're trying to do, which is just transparent and sad, is, yeah, this is a bad nomination from Trump, but it's not Trump's fault.