Today, Dan and Jordan check in to see how Alex covered the New York Times story about Trump's taxes. In this installment, Alex allows David Icke to say profoundly dumb things on air, Alex reveals that he knows nothing about history or the constitution, and Alex nearly overdoses on chills.
This mailbag experiment has been full of some things that you expect, like some nice seltzers show up from time to time, and then sometimes things that are completely out of left field that are pretty cool.
I'm not entirely sure how to pronounce this, but it is a humorous role-playing game about Japanese schoolgirls in a school full of conspiracies and the unexplained.
It was a creation of a listener named Aaron Clooney.
It set this in, and I'm tempted to want to try and play it.
Dear Dan and Jordan, whilst doing background research into possible ideas for a text adventure, I came across the enclosed item and instantly thought of you guys.
This is an original flyer for a concert in honor of ex-president George Bush Sr. by the lake at the Bohemian Grove the weekend after Alex Jones gate crashed the place in July 2000.
I imagine the security detail at the Grove was far higher than the weekend before.
Probably.
All the best, Dan from Newcastle, UK.
unidentified
If you look behind you, it's up there on the wall now.
In terms of things like to decorate the space in the studio, I can think of a few things that are cooler than, you know, like we've got a painting of Leo Zagami.
No, this is turning into one of those like, oh, accidentally I've been working on figurines for my entire life, so my entire room is just filled with nonsense.
So thank you so much, Dan, Aaron, and Mary Catherine.
We appreciate these delightful gifts.
So, Jordan, today, what we got in front of us is a little episode where we're going to be talking about what Alex Jones was up to on September 28th, 2020.
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I enjoyed the show, I'd like to support these gents, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button that says support the show, or...
Or, Dan, what you could do is you could take that generous spirit, alright, get yourself a mortar and pestle, put some herbs from the garden in there, maybe get a little wormwort, alright?
Ground that all up into a tiny little paste, alright?
Alrighty, so what you do is you get that and you grind it into a little bit of a paste, turn it into a poultice, Dan, and you use that poultice to heal the ills of society via giving your...
This morning, when I got up at 5.30 and read the Paul Joseph Watson article and then clicked on the actual document, I had electrical chills run up and down my spine for about three minutes.
Angie Pelosi prepares for House of Representatives vote to elect the president under the Constitution if they cannot decide the election according to problems with the voting by January 20th, and they will hold a vote.
The day after on who the new president is and the House of Representatives will elect the president.
That's never happened before in our 244 years of history.
So Alex is reporting on a story that was covered in NPR, where they discussed how Pelosi sent out a fundraising letter urging people to support Democratic candidates in battleground districts through the House Majority Political Action Committee.
She only sent out this letter in response to comments Trump made at a rally in Pennsylvania where he said, quote, I don't want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go to Congress.
It's counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage.
According to the Constitution, the House vote for a presidency does not go by actual House members.
The representatives from each state combine to form a delegation, which then gets a single vote.
As it stands now, if things broke down on purely party lines, the GOP would win a contested election that was decided by the House, which is what Trump was talking about, which is what Nick Pelosi was referring to with her fundraising letter.
It's her trying to raise money to elect more Democrats by warning that this is clearly something that Trump may try to use to his advantage in the case of a contested election, but that if there were a majority of Democratic delegations, this plan would not work.
As always, Alex is taking the Democratic response to something Trump says and claiming it's proof of their own.
Yeah.
Now, to what your response was.
For a scholar of American history, Alex certainly doesn't know much about American history.
This experience, along with other frustrations about how elections were carried out, led to the passage of the 12th Amendment, which, in addition to other issues it resolved, it made it so electors would cast separate votes for president and vice president, whereas previously they just cast votes and whoever got the most was president.
Whoever came in second was vice president, which is a dumb system.
So after the passage of the 12th Amendment in the 1824 election, the House elected John Quincy Adams, who actually ended up second place in the Electoral College behind Andrew Jackson.
Jackson believed he was the victim of a conspiracy between Adams and Speaker of the House Henry Clay.
Which will ultimately be the argument of anyone who loses an election that ends up in the House of Representatives.
Leaving that aside, Alex would be right if he said that the House voting for the president has never happened in modern American history, but they did come into play in past elections more than zero times.
If Alex wanted to say this, it would be a hugely out-of-the-ordinary event to have happen.
He could do that.
Yeah.
But he doesn't know anything about history, and he wants to really overhype this as a...
Never before kind of thing.
So he ends up just sounding like an idiot that even, like, I'm not saying that you're stupid, but even you just casually listen to that and be like, nope, boom, next, next!
Fortunately for Alex, pretty much all of his listeners have no idea about history either, so they don't have that same response that you do, like, oh, fuck yourself.
Familiarity with that part of history makes you admire certain aspects of history and historical figures, but it also erodes the American exceptionalist idea.
And also, when you know you've got a chance to bring the enemy down, your spirit resonates, tells you, danger, danger, or tells you, this is key, this is key.
Right, so you have Goblin Cleaver that's giving you chills forever because you have a chance to destroy the enemy, but you yourself have already made clear that you're only able to stop plan A. There's still plan B. Even he would be like, listen, I was just in a bad mood, okay?
I was in a bad mood, so I made up plan B. You're still on plan A. Well, I would suggest that he should do that, because that would be taking responsibility for the fact that he, like...
When I get in a bad mood, I say the Globals are going to murder everybody.
So we can move forward with that awareness that sometimes you talk about the apocalypse when you're bummed.
That would be helpful context for people to navigate this sort of material with.
Anyway, the document that Alex is talking about and he's having a chill fit about is an article in Tablet Magazine titled, quote, China's global lockdown propaganda campaign.
Alex believes that it's about how China made up the idea that public health measures should be taken in response to COVID-19 and how the globalists are using the virus for social control.
Naturally, I don't think that Alex has read this article, which is actually about how the Chinese government has been waging a campaign on social media to promote their own response to the virus.
And make themselves look better in hindsight.
Right, right, right, right.
It's an interesting article that drifts from pretty concrete stuff, like how the Chinese government clearly paid for bots to promote their response to the virus and attack critics.
And then it gets into some pretty speculative territory, like the idea that Xi is paying those bots to promote the locking down of the world in order to help bring about a socialist world with China at the center of it.
Is that it's interesting, it brings up some interesting things, and it's definitely wise to be wary of the Chinese government, but a lot of the speculations in the article are not earned.
All of his tweets, just everything since then has been about China being bad.
Interestingly, you can find his LinkedIn page fairly easily, and it turns out he's a, quote, federal and international tax lawyer, which makes his expertise just slightly outside the realm of China's trying to run a PSYOP to control the world theory.
That law would draw you to that conclusion, you know what I'm saying?
Like, is there a certain tax code that's like, if you violate this tax code, we know it's a propaganda campaign to try and turn the world into a socialist.
I don't have anything to go on here outside of, like, just everything I can tell makes me think that this guy writing an article doesn't have that much weight.
The first is the idea that as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the presidency after the Vice President in the event that there needs to be a transference of power.
The second thing is that idea that the House may vote on who wins the 2020 election if it's not decided by January 6th.
Alex knows literally nothing about history or civics, so he's just pretending that Nancy Pelosi could install herself as president because she's in the line of continuity of government.
This is stupid because there are rules to how the House can operate when they're voting for president.
This is very clear if you know anything about American history.
The House can only vote for candidates who are the top three vote receivers in the general election, so it wouldn't even be possible for Pelosi to vote for herself in the case that the decision goes to the House.
Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were the two top vote getters, but people were concerned that Henry Clay would be able to win it once it went down.
the House because he was the Speaker of the House and he was a pretty powerful congressional figure.
Sure.
unidentified
However, Clay wasn't able to even be considered since he'd come in fourth in the general election and was thus disqualified for a House vote.
So anyway, it's literally spelled out in the 12th Amendment that only the top three vote receivers can be considered for the House.
In the case that they have to vote for the president.
We've seen it play out in past elections, so this is not unprecedented.
Alex just seems to know nothing about the Constitution or history, because if he did, it would be incredibly embarrassing for him to get on air and suggest that somehow Nancy Pelosi could install herself as president by way of this House vote.
She couldn't be considered for that vote, and even if she could, the GOP would win a House delegate vote in the current House, so this would never happen.
Well, the brutality that's being directed at protesters at David Icke rallies, he seems to be in favor of it when it's against people in Portland or Black Lives Matter protests.
Man, it seems like he should be very aware, though, that he has also been the victim of exactly that situation.
Like, he was supporting Trump because he thought he was going to be taken along with the right, and then Trump abandoned him and tossed him to the wolves.
Does he not draw a one-to-one parallel between those two things?
I think that this is really sad when you think back to those old videos of Alex where he was like, someone like David Icke is a turd in the punch bowl.
You're celebrating the exact things that you used to say were meant to make your world look bad.
Your conspiracy right-wing patriot world.
You are now the turd in the punch bowl, and it only makes sense that you're spending your time celebrating David Icke's dumb speeches.
Yeah, I mean, if you're also a turd in the punch bowl, there's nothing that can make you look worse than a turd in the punch bowl, so you and the other turds in the punch bowl might as well get together.
Disturbing thing that anybody, like any news outlet, regardless of their level of credibility, would have the brazenness to be like, well, right, they've been wrong all the time.
The notion that self-respect is the thing that's broken down all tyrannies is such a stupid and meaningless idea that I have no duty to even address it as a serious thing that someone's saying.
If you believe that all tyranny is destroyed by self-respect, then there's never been a situation where tyrants have existed except in cases where the people they were tyrannical over just didn't respect themselves enough.
This is a pretty nice version of victim blaming, and if I were Alex, I would ask this follow-up question.
Did the Jews in Nazi Germany just not respect themselves enough?
Did the Native Americans here in our country just not respect themselves enough?
Is the actual problem with the Chinese government currently that the Chinese people just don't respect themselves enough?
You can easily say how this mentality is painfully childish and has no relationship to the real world.
All this is is an attempt by David Icke to paint himself as the only person with the real answer to the problems of the day, but his answer's meaningless.
Sure, we should respect ourselves, and others, but if you think that's the one thing that's required to topple tyranny...
You're gonna find yourself subject to tyrannical rule really quick.
I legitimately was listening to this with the expectation that, like, I'm not even gonna cut any clips, because whatever he says is just gonna be stupid David-like shit.
And when I look at Bill Gates, I see no human energy.
I see no human life.
I see no human sparkle in his eyes.
I see a cyborg.
And what I would say...
Like an AI.
But what I would say is very important to emphasize is when I use terms like, you know, they're a form of AI and that they're a form of non-human kind of...
It's an interesting clarification because, like, what he's saying is, all right, look, just to be clear, I'm not talking about anything anybody knows exists.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think machine learning, the way that machine learning has tackled Go and turned it into something that is inconceivable and that it just wins all the time against the top Go players in the world.
I figure, you feed all of human history into an AI and machine learn it, and it's gonna be like, hey, the only time good things happen is when people cooperate with each other.
So...
I don't think it's going to make the pull the trigger kill all humans thing.
I think it's going to be like, we can't allow them to govern themselves.
And the empathy these psychos don't have is a group defense for all of us that we see something happening to somebody else.
We understand that can happen to us, but these psychos wear it as a badge of honor, and these sociopaths, they don't have that, and I know a lot of that's genetic.
I would lay the foundation, Alex, by citing a survey, which again has received basically no mainstream media attention, despite the fact that it's been out now.
unidentified
For a good couple of months, we're basically the only outlet to report on this from a media perspective.
The headline was, survey Americans think coronavirus has killed 30 million people in the U.S. 220 times.
So, if you want to know why many media outlets have not reported on this survey, but InfoWars has, it's because the report reflects misleading information.
This was a report that was released by a consulting firm called KextCNC, and if Paul was curious at all about this, he could find write-ups about why the methodology here was flawed.
The biggest error that they made was that they used the mean of responses to determine the average as opposed to the median, which would be the appropriate way to reflect data like this.
When you take something like the data this survey is meant to report and you use the mean average to determine the results, your figure is going to be heavily affected by outliers in the data.
Whereas if you use the median average, your number will far more accurately reflect the average that the data set represents.
For instance, in this case, Full Fact looked at the underlying data for the KextCNC reports, claimed that people in Great Britain believed that 7% of the population had died from COVID-19.
In the United States, the number that they had was 9%.
So what they found was that over 50% of respondents answered 1% or lower, but the data was skewed by people who answered with numbers in the range of 20% or higher.
Like, there was a non-unsignificant number of people.
I mean, there's a decent chance that some of these people were fucking around or whatever, but when you use the mean to determine the average, people have that high of overliers?
Full Fact estimates, based on the available data from Kext, that the median average of responses would be somewhere close to 1%, which is still higher than the mortality seen in Britain, but it's substantially lower than the 7% that this report claimed, which was then parroted by some dodgy media outlets.
The reason that this report was ignored by legitimate outlets isn't because they were afraid of it or because there's a cover-up.
It's because the methodology was flawed, and it didn't meet their editorial standards.
People like Paul and Alex have no such standards, and they're...
Our audience doesn't check into anything, so they went ahead and reported it as if there were no problems with this survey, and that's what's going on here.
They're reporting bad things and then complaining that no one else is reporting it as proof of some kind of cover-up of their bad information.
Yeah, the only spidey sense I would believe from any of these people would just be like, suddenly all this, they turn and look up into the sky and they're like, somebody did bad work.
Something that I feel like more people should talk about, and I've noticed this pretty regularly, is whenever it's something really bad, you know how every news outlet, like when the New York Times put out that story, in minutes, CNN's got it on there.
New York Times just released, in minutes, the Guardians got live coverage of, oh, we read this and read this and read this.
And then with someone like Alex, it seems like this isn't even a story that he's interested in.
And instead he's hyping up this tablet op-ed and James O 'Keefe's attempt to change the narrative to being about Oh, Ilhan Omar and the Somalis are up to something.
So I think that that speaks to this being a very damaging, dangerous story.
Because otherwise, it seems like it would be much easier to spin.
And I think Alex might be of the mind.
Because it's inconceivable that he's unaware of it.
If people applauded that as opposed to being like, oh, you're part of the same problem that I'm supposed to be mad at, you know, there wasn't going to be a situation where it would be like, oh, this is bad.
He lost, because one reason is, you have to then say, he lost a billion dollars.
And if it weren't for a TV show that he should never have been a part of, because it was entirely built around his image, which we know now, beyond a conceivable, reasonable doubt, is...
What we have already proves that he's violating the Emoluments Clause from the beginning, which I am blown away, blown away, that our system exists in such a way that we can find out, like, 100%, the president was in violation of the Constitution from day fucking one, and they're still like, well, we have to deal with his three Supreme Court justices forever.
The other thing that I think is really funny is that the picture that's painted by this Times article is very similar to the one that Alex painted in 2015.
My name is Toronto, and I'm from Georgia, and I, about two weeks ago, started working a job at a call center, which does political surveys, and I just thought I'd tell you, I get a couple of people who actually answer the phone and take the survey that sound a lot like Alex Jones listeners.
So, I want your opinion on a couple of people I've gotten.
The first...
Whack caller I got was an old guy who was probably kind of drunk, who I had to hang up on because he was saying slurs.
The second guy I got was a dude who answered the call by saying Trump 2020, took the survey, answered as much as you'd think, gave his opinion on everything, and at the end of the call told me not to trust anything I heard from either side as long as I was in college.
And the third guy was the most interesting.
He told me he had all night to take a survey, then proceeded to refuse to answer any of the questions and only would answer undecided or refused.
And then when I asked what his political party was, he told me socialist druid.
And all three of them, I was just like, if I mention Alex right now, What kind of response am I going to get?
And I also wanted to know, socialist druid, term you're familiar with?
And then I worked at another call center that was doing non-sales survey kind of calls, and I was calling for the Democratic congressional campaign.
sure committee and that you know they always tell you that like all these people are registered democrats sure and you just call people like hey why don't you go fuck yourself i love bush all right all right sorry okay all right this guy's not voting for carry it was a brutal time very very much i have nothing but empathy for people who work in those so awful so much abuse uh goes your way and uh yeah tough The worst.
You guys were talking about hydrogen peroxide, which is a failed scam, by the way, and you're talking about huffing it, I think, but it sounded like Dan kept on saying hoofing, and I was wondering if that's an accent thing or if he was using a different word or a different slang that I don't know.
Also, I did get my vitamin D levels checked, and the allergist said they're the lowest he'd ever seen and congratulated me.
I've been listening for about a year and a half now.
After I started searching out some sources on Alex Jones' insanity while I was working for a guy doing tile out in Colorado who loved Alex Jones, thought he was a genius.
And because of that, I might have some insight on the recent technical difficulties.
According to him, Alex has been looking pretty heavily for some interns to come in, you know, younger people in college and just out of college, to come in and, you know, cut their teeth on the production floor of InfoWars.
He, of course, suggested that I do this, and he said, I think your values are really in line with Alex Jones.
And this is despite me arguing with him, just about every chance I could get about old AJ.
So yeah, that might have something to do with the technical difficulties.
I think he's got a bunch of low or unpaid team labor going on over there.
So, just a thought.
Also, shout out to my buddy Dylan.
I love you.
Thanks for being my best bud and sharing a love of knowledge fight.
This is Gator from Oklahoma City, and I love your show, and I love you, Dan and Jordan.
I've been trying to introduce some of my comrades to this show to really investigate the right-wing grip.
They don't really give a fuck, though, which is a shame.
But I'm mostly called because I am going to shamelessly plug.
So, in Oklahoma City...
There's an organization called the Oklahoma Street Medics, of which I am in charge, and we do protest support, and Jordan seemed to give a lot of support for the protest, and so please plug us, or don't.
Um, yeah, hey, uh, in terms of this stuff, it's really always very difficult for me, um, because, um, with specific...
Giving specifics on where people should donate always rings false with me.
Because there's a lot of things that deserve attention.
Far more than I would ever be able to enumerate.
And also there's so many things that are localized that are very difficult to find.
And we have people who are in foreign countries and all around the country who listen to our show.
And the priorities for everybody in their own communities and in their areas is very difficult for me to think I have any real understanding of.
So whenever we say, like, donate to local charity in your area, the reason that I don't get more specific about it is because for you, the person listening, it might be something that I could have no idea about.
Sure.
unidentified
And I don't want to take our audience and monetize it towards even a good cause.
And the only reason that I don't get too specific about stuff is because I honestly also think that part of being involved and engaged is the process of finding a thing And being able to tell whether it's legitimate or not.
It's very difficult, but also it's part of engagement.
And for me to spoon-feed that to you would be kind of disrespectful on my part because then you're just taking my word for what lines up with your priorities and your position.
Yeah, I think that that's the best way for it to be sincere, it to be gratifying, and for you to be comfortable knowing that what you're doing is making a difference in the way that you want it to.
Yeah, it's a hard line to know exactly where it is.
And maybe we could do a little better.
If you can give, give.
And I will also say that, like I think I already have, if people want to call in and plug something in particular, I am more than fine with them doing that.