Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ chaotic Joe Rogan Experience appearance, where he peddled debunked claims—like Robert Maxwell’s "MI6 massage spy" death or Hunter Biden’s sex trafficking ties—while Rogan failed to push back despite Jones’ mispronunciations and shifting stances. Jones also falsely linked Gretchen Whitmer to a kidnapping plot, misrepresented the Rockefeller Foundation’s Lockstep scenario as prophecy, and twisted vaccine data, including Sudan’s polio outbreak. Rogan’s half-hearted corrections and avoidance of accountability (e.g., "clean coal," transphobia) let Jones evade facts, reinforcing his credibility in the audience. The hosts conclude Rogan’s platform enables deception unless used as deliberate satire, urging listeners to question unchecked conspiracy narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
But yeah, I'm very much looking forward to it because there's apparently, like, I've played Pikmin 3, but apparently there's new stuff added, new puzzles and things.
This is funny that there's a Cash App ad on this episode since Cash App is owned by Square, which was co-founded and currently owned by Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter, who's Alex's mortal enemy.
Even funnier when you realize that Square's director and also co-founder is Jim McKelvey, who is also on the board of directors for the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis.
This Joe Rogan shows up to its eyeballs in globalist games.
I'm just saying that this was surprising to me because I didn't think that this was the way that his show operated because I've only watched it on YouTube.
And these ads are not on the YouTube version.
So I thought that is a little bit strange.
And also, Tushy, Squarespace, Cash App, and Whoop should know that they're associated with everything that comes up later.
I don't want to be too judgmental, but the idea that this show is happening at all is nuts.
On October 19th, it was reported in Forbes that, quote, popular podcast, the Joe Rogan experience, has temporarily been struck down by the coronavirus after a key member of Rogan's team tested positive for COVID-19.
Obviously, I can't possibly be privy to the kind of precautions and such that they take or whether or not the announcement on the 19th was delayed from when Jamie got the positive diagnosis, but it absolutely blows my mind that they would think it's a great idea to have people sitting in a confined space for hours talking and drinking when one of them recently had COVID.
I understand that the Rogan podcast is big business and these tushy ads gotta go somewhere.
And if he doesn't put out the episodes, you know, that revenue stream might be hindered a little bit.
Doing this seems a little irresponsible, if not for their own sake, then for the message that it sends to the audience about how not seriously they're taking these things.
Well, I mean, all these guys, like, one of the things that they, the sort of their primary way they operate is to flatter each other in ways that ingratiate themselves.
He has the confidence of a man who's wrong, doesn't care that he's wrong, and doesn't plan on caring soon.
Ghylaine Maxwell's father was named Robert Maxwell, and I'd love for Alex to try to prove any of the things that he's saying about that dude.
What we do know is that he died after falling off his yacht in the Canary Islands back in 1991.
However, Alex is trying to imply that this was a murder, and that's not substantiated at all.
The two leading theories are an accident or suicide.
The rationale for the suicide theory is fairly convincing.
Prior to his death, Robert Maxwell was a huge name in the print industry, publishing the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, New York Daily News, just to name a few of his entities.
When he died, it was a huge shock, and people remembered him fondly with glowing obituaries.
A month later, a different story would come to the surface.
As it turned out, Maxwell was deeply in debt, and in order to keep his creditors at bay while maintaining his luxurious lifestyle, he'd stolen from his employees' pension fund.
After his death, it was discovered that 460 million pounds had disappeared, and just like that, the fond memories turned very sour.
That's not too weird, given that he was a Jewish man who had escaped Nazi occupation as a youth and was a lifelong friend and supporter of the state of Israel.
Wow, that could be.
I've read some articles that try to make the argument that Maxwell was a spy, but none of them are even close to conclusive.
And even these posts have to call him a, quote, alleged spy.
There is a book called Robert Maxwell, Israel's Super Spy, that claims that he was a super spy, but the reviews of this thing are not great.
Packenham says, quote, this is a big and ambitious book, probably too big.
I found it finally flawed by excess, by exaggeration of narration, and more fatally, of conclusions that are overdrawn, insufficiently elaborated, or substantiated.
He later says, quote, this amalgam of fact and insinuation converging without distinction suggests coining a new category of prose.
How about infuendo?
It can be totally possible that Robert Maxwell was secretly a spy, but it's important to stress that Alex Jones absolutely cannot substantiate or back up the two main claims that he has here to open the show, that Ghylaine Maxwell's father was a spy and that he was murdered when he fell off that yacht.
If you were pushed on either of these points, you would immediately have to retreat into saying things like, come on, and it's been declassified, that kind of shit.
Well, it's the sort of thing that like, I think that if you want to introduce that as I thought, I'm not going to like, I'm not going to critique you for spitballing.
Like Robert Maxwell was a really influential, powerful person.
A long time ago, I talked about how they have these islands.
They fly.
They compromise children.
But I learned all this from Ted Gunderson 20 plus years ago.
He was in line to be the FBI director.
He was the head of the FBI in Los Angeles.
He was a very famous FBI agent.
He even ran COINTELPRO.
It's a civil rights movement.
He apologized for that before he died in the 2011 plays.
He came out and he was the one that explained to me about how they used these blackmail rings, elements of the CIA, and foreign intelligence groups, and how they would basically make people have sex with children to be part of these clubs and these cults they were setting up.
With all due respect, I kind of have to suspect that Joe Rogan's memory is a little screwy here.
Searches on Prison Planet and InfoWars don't really show much of an awareness of Epstein prior to the mainstream news covering the story.
So, I kind of feel like Robin might be conflating things, thinking of something else Alex ranted about and being like, That's what you talked about, man.
Now, as for Alex saying that he heard all this stuff from Ted Gunderson, I'm going to go ahead and say I believe that.
Ted Gunderson was a long-serving FBI agent, retiring in 1979 after a 27-year career, during which time he actually was in charge of multiple cities' offices, including Los Angeles.
Alex is not making that up.
After he retired, he decided to continue as a freelance investigator, and that's where things went completely off the rails for him.
In the 1980s, the United States experienced its last completely out-of-control satanic panic, and one of the more hysterical events in it was the McMartin preschool trial.
I don't want to get too much into detail about that, but the broad outline is this: there was a preschool in California run by the, it was founded by Virginia McMartin and run by some relatives.
A parent of one of the children who attended the school, who was also a severe alcoholic and paranoid schizophrenic, made some claims against teachers at the school, which ranged from sexual abuse, torture, to things that border on magic, like one of them could fly.
Yeah, this mother, quote, wrote a letter admitting that she didn't know fantasy from reality, which was weirdly hidden from the defendants in the eventual trial.
In the process of investigating these allegations, police sent out a letter to parents of other students at that school that was incredibly poorly written and, in hindsight, almost designed to prompt a panic.
They said that this assistant at the school, Ray Buckley, was under investigation for molestation and encouraged parents to question their children about sexual acts.
It's hard to imagine being a parent and reading the following line and not being terrified.
Quote, also, photos may have been taken of children without their clothing.
Any information from your child regarding having ever observed Ray Buckley to leave a classroom alone with a child during any nap period or if they had ever observed Ray Buckley tie up a child is important.
Naturally, parental concern can go awry, and thus a bunch of new claims were made, though ultimately no evidence of anything was ever found.
There are many that believe that the case would never have made it to the headlines or even very far into the investigation were it not for timing and politics.
In 1984, LA District Attorney Robert Philibosian was in a very close race for re-election to a post he had not initially won.
He'd been appointed district attorney after his predecessor had been elected attorney general general of the state of California.
In the course of his campaign, Philibosian made a big deal of the McMartin case.
From a 1990 article in the LA Times, quote, when the McMartin preschool indictments were first issued in March 1984, then District Attorney Robert Philibosian, facing a tough electoral challenge from Reiner, tried to exploit the case.
During pretrial hearings, he sat at the side of the prosecutors in court, a practice not seen in at least 15 years.
During recesses, Philibosian conducted hallway press conferences to grab some headlines.
Just before the primary, Philibosian added 92 counts on top of the already existing 115 and increased the number of alleged victims from 18 to 42.
Robert Philibosian lost his run for the DA office, but the damage had been done.
And by the time his successor, Ira Reitner, took over Ira Reiner, excuse me, took over, the case was too big for it to just go away.
There were allegations of ritualistic abuse against a ton of kids, which was now the biggest story in the country, which is a problem.
Seven people were ultimately arrested and indicted for these alleged crimes, including Buckley, his mother, and his sister, as well as three teachers at the school.
All charges were dropped against five of them before the case went to trial, leaving only Ray Buckley and his mother, Peggy, as co-defendants.
This was the longest and most expensive trial in U.S. history, ultimately ending up with almost 30 months of testimony and over two months of jury deliberations.
In the end, Peggy was acquitted of all charges, and the jury was deadlocked on 13 of the charges against Ray, with the four-person of the jury explaining, quote, the interview tapes were too biased, too leading.
That's the main crux of it.
Ray Buckley would go on to be retried, coincidentally, around the time when Ira Reiner was attempting to run for the office of California Attorney General.
The state decided not to try Ray again, and all charges were dismissed.
The entire affair was a disgrace, and the pain it caused is almost unimaginable.
From the employees of the school whose lives were ruined to the children who were terrorized by the media attention and almost comically long trial, $15 million in taxpayer money was spent to ultimately achieve nothing other than leave emotional scars.
Though it's easy to see some of the political motivations for the prosecution, the ability for it to get there only really happened because of a couple specific people.
One of them was a therapist named Key McFarlane.
McFarlane worked at the Children's Institute International and was in charge of questioning the children who responded to the sensational letter from the police.
This was not well done.
Quote, videotapes of the interviews also showed that McFarlane and other therapists relied heavily on leading questions and subtle pressure to persuade children to join the chorus of accusers.
The defense played tapes that showed therapist Sean Connerly telling child interviewees that 183 kids had already revealed, quote, yucky secrets and that all the McMartin teachers were, quote, sick in the head and deserved to be beaten up.
The way she went about her work became an issue at the trial, and quote, outside of the presence of the jury, Judge Pounders declared, quote, in my view, her credibility is becoming more of an issue as she testifies here.
She was not even called as a witness for the prosecution in the second trial.
McFarlane's style of questioning led to children making sensational claims like ritualistic animal sacrifice, secret torture rooms only accessible by tunnels, people flying.
Some might suggest that allegations of underground rooms were the results of being asked by the therapists using devil puppets, quote, if they find a secret room, what do you think they'll find?
That implies to a child that you're interviewing the existence of a secret room.
Strangely, no one but Ted has evidence of these hand-dug tunnels that apparently contained, quote, over 100 animal bones and, quote, a small white plastic plate with three pentagrams hand-drawn on top.
So Gunderson wasn't actually the only person who found this evidence.
Sure, sure, sure.
He also had an archaeologist named E. Gary Stickle commissioned to do a very rushed archaeological assessment of the school looking for these fabled tunnels.
This work took place in 1990, around when the second trial was going on, but the DA's office told them even before they began their dig that they, quote, would not consider using any additional data from their work.
I read Stickle's archaeological report, and it's very difficult to pretend this is a professional, unbiased work.
It's full of conjecture about cover-ups and conspiracy, as well as many topics that are far outside the scope of archaeological evidence.
By the time Stickle went to work, there had already been an official investigation.
Sure.
And by March 1985, some of the parents had carried out an unprofessional digging expedition of their own, which had turned up nothing.
The site that Stickle had to work on was completely disrupted and contaminated.
If you read his own report, it's full of problems, like how earlier parents had dug up a 15-foot hole looking for an entrance to a tunnel, which was this hole that they dug 15 feet down was three feet by three feet, and they ended up finding nothing.
And that, quote, this is from his report.
Quote, due to the lack of qualifications and experience, any possible entrance to a tunnel could have been obscured by haphazard digging.
This would go a long way towards explaining some of the artifacts that Stickle's report pretends are suspicious.
Stickle claims that his use of ground-penetrating radar showed the existence of a 50-foot tunnel.
Sure.
But weirdly, the company he contracted to do the work, which is called Spectrum, said, quote, no evidence was found to support the existence of filled-in underground or sorry, below-ground tunnels.
There are clear instances of Stickle fudging details to reach the conclusion that normal things he found while digging around the site already contaminated by previous amateur digs and already investigated by professionals were in fact proof of secret underground tunnels and torture rooms.
He produced this report.
Ted Gunderson used it to prove to the world, although there was no evidence and the trials were embarrassing, this was in fact the site of satanic abuse.
Dan, I imagine you and I, being back in the satanic panic, would be experiencing almost exactly the same feeling that we are right now, where it's just like you stick your head out and you look around and everyone is insane.
So from this point, Ted Gunderson became an all-star in the world of extreme right-wing conspiracy theorists spouting nonsense as an expert on the insidious world of Satanism that is hiding right in plain sight and in that tunnel over there.
The fact that no one was convicted and no one believed his supposed evidence is only further proof of just how deeply rooted this satanic conspiracy is.
This became Ted's niche, and he was the go-to expert for zealots to have around to lend credibility to their nonsense demon claims based on the illusion that he has ever produced anything worthwhile.
This is how Ted's path must have crossed with Alex's.
I guess at some point, Ted told Alex some crazy stuff, which I guess is now the basis for Alex's career, as opposed to him just being against the world government and private banks.
To be perfectly blunt, his flawed work on this case has allowed it to not exist as a cautionary tale for some people, but as an actual proven satanic conspiracy.
In many ways, the satanic panic that we're going through right now and may not survive is in some part thanks to Ted's bullshit and Alex carrying on his legacy.
Oh, and as if that weren't messy enough, it later came out that Ted Gunderson was involved with Jackie Magauley, a parent of one of the students at McMartin Preschool who was super involved in the amateur excavation efforts.
Like some people who could be a good agent with a boss or within a structure can't operate as independent because they get an idea and then they want to prove that idea and they don't have the restraints of oversight.
Let's say that keep them in check.
And looking at Ted Gunderson, that's kind of the way I feel about it.
Like, yeah, he wasn't proving a satanic conspiracy when he was in the FBI because he had a boss.
And not because the boss was stopping him from finding the truth, but because those instincts to allow unproven shit to be felt as if it was proven were reined in.
It just feels like Occam's Razor makes that a simpler explanation to understand than the world is run by satanic human trafficking groups that all communicate with each other and there's no evidence of any of this.
I don't understand the impulse to defend Rudy Giuliani from being alone in a hotel room with someone that he thinks is 15 and touching her on the side, like around the ribs.
I think that that's a harder argument to have than one where it's like, all right, why is it such a hard thing to just say don't do like the circumstances that Rudy was in are circumstances you should never find yourself in.
It's not like, don't excuse the touching of this person when he should not have been there to begin with.
And, you know, hey, sometimes there are like somebody who's 15 and maybe you want to help them out on their path of conservative punditship or whatever.
There's an appropriate way to do that and there's an inappropriate way to do that.
And from everything I can tell about this, the joke or whatever, the setup is a completely inappropriate setting for this to happen.
And then let's see what happens.
So like I said, man, Rogan seems to want to be clear that he does like Sasha Baron Cohen's comedy, but also it's totally cool what Rudy was doing.
So there's an elephant in the room, and it's not that Alex has constantly lashed out at Joe on his own show with that speaky snake and all kinds of other things.
People have criticized me for being friends with you and for talking to you, and they also criticized me for not supporting a lot of these people that got banned and deplatformed.
My take on it has always been the best way to counter wrong speech is correct speech.
When someone says something that's wrong or someone says a conspiracy theory that's not accurate, the best way to counter that is to do better speech, to have people say the accurate information.
I'm unequipped to debate the point of whether or not, quote, correct speech is the answer to bad speech.
That could get a little philosophical, and I don't really know what the answer is.
So for the purposes of what I'm about to say, let's stipulate that Joe is right and that the answer to people who are malicious con artists, liars, and frauds is to have them come on your very popular show so you can engage in correct speech.
Even if that's the case, then I suggest that Joe Rogan is not ready or capable of having a correct speech with Alex Jones.
We're less than 10 minutes into this episode, and already Joe has allowed Alex to assert that Robert Maxwell was a British and Israeli spy who was murdered on his yacht and that Ted Gunderson revealed real proof of satanic pedophile cabals.
Those are two massive instances of bad speech that Joe's just allowed Alex to present as undisputed fact with no attempts to bring up correct speech to correct it.
There was no follow-up of something like, how do you know Maxwell was a spy?
Or why don't you tell our audience more about who Ted Gunderson is?
The reality is with a conversation like this where you just want to have fun with your alleged friend Alex Jones, that's never going to be something you can engage in publicly responsibly because he is a compulsive liar and you don't want to grind the show to a halt to fact check every piece of bullshit that comes out of his mouth.
It only makes matters worse when Rogan in that 10 minutes has also repeatedly asserted that it's no big deal that Rudy Giuliani touched the waist of a girl he believed to be 15 in a hotel robe while he was trying to get her personal contact information.
This is an outrageous kind of behavior where they're trying to argue that everything is fine because Rudy wasn't actually jerking off.
While they just pretend that the entire context of him having a drink in a hotel room with the girl he believes to be 15, whatever, it doesn't matter.
Sure.
Joe Rogan, due to his own blind spots and his strange insistence on pretending Alex is actually his friend when he is clearly not, Joe's incapable of engaging in this conversation in a way that would effectively be the kind of corrective speech he imagines that he's engaging in.
He's being used by Alex.
And the more this happens, the less I'm able to pretend that he's not a willing participant in it.
What they are categorizing as speech is an insanely broad topic that's very difficult to parse the differences between like, oh, I disagree with you about something like tax policy or I'm lying.
When you start censoring people, the problem is it's a fucking slippery slope.
And there's a reason why we've been so steadfast in supporting the First Amendment in this country.
And people think it doesn't apply to tech because these tech institutes are private businesses and they should be able to do whatever they want with their private business.
The problem is that fucking slippery slope has gone from censoring you from banning Alex Jones off Twitter a year and a half ago to getting the White House press secretary banned off Twitter because she posts something from the New York Post, which is crazy.
Censoring things on Twitter has nothing to do with the First Amendment unless the government is doing it.
You don't have a right to say whatever you want wherever you want to, particularly if you're on a platform that someone else runs.
If you were a guest on my radio show, it might be totally legal for you to be racist as hell, but it would be my right to not allow you to do so on my show.
I legitimately have no idea what people like Joe Rogan imagine the First Amendment to mean.
I guess the way I would approach this kind of conversation is I would ask him what scenarios exist where it would be okay to kick someone off Twitter and then try to go from there.
Is it okay to kick someone off for threatening another user?
If so, why is that okay?
If it's okay for Twitter to kick someone off for threatening an individual's safety, is there a possibility that there's a responsibility that the platform has to act when there are other threats to people's safety, like when people are lying about a public health crisis for profit or they're spreading misinformation about an upcoming election?
Is there a communal responsibility?
These are challenging issues, and I can see a reasonable conversation between people who have different views on it.
But what I can't see being a good use of time is a couple of idiots yelling about the First Amendment because weirdly all their bigot friends are getting kicked off popular platforms for things like starting a violent Western chauvinist street gang or endorsing pedophilia on your podcast.
The only solution these dumb dumbs ever put forth is repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which makes these platforms like Twitter makes them platforms instead of publishers, which relinquishes them of legal responsibility for the things that people post.
If you were to repeal Section 230, not only would it completely destroy things like Facebook and Twitter, it would effectively make it so you could never run a social media site without incredibly intense moderation and censorship.
Anytime anybody posted copyright material, you could get sued.
Anytime anyone threatened another user, you could be held responsible.
If someone used your messenger service to organize a criminal act, you might find yourself being an accomplice.
Also, the New York Post is not America's oldest newspaper.
That's the Hartford Current.
Or if you're not only counting continuously published papers, you could go with the New Hampshire Gazette if you allow papers that sometimes took a little time off.
And to Rogan's credit, a little bit later, he will make a point that he believes that these companies have grown to the point where they're effectively should be considered utilities.
It requires treat, if you want to treat them like a utility, move towards that, as opposed to like saying, hey, Alex Jones is a bad actor and he got kicked off this person's platform.
Change the right thing or have a conversation about the right thing.
The First Amendment doesn't apply in these circumstances.
If you want to talk about the other stuff, go for it.
Slippery slope arguments are not interesting to me in 2020, not least of which because we are at the bottom of that slope underneath a giant rock that Trump rolled on top of us.
So he published what's alleged to be Biden's daughter, Ashley's diary from 2019.
And if you read their article about it, it's pretty disgusting and how it revels in Ashley's supposed marital troubles and affairs.
That story was published on October 26th.
But that same day, another article was posted on National File by our favorite baby detective, Patrick Howley.
Here's the deal: these ding-dongs have an uphill battle in terms of proving to me that this is actually Biden's daughter's journal.
I don't trust them at all, particularly someone like Patrick Howley.
And after reviewing the materials, I'm not convinced that it's definitely a real journal.
But even assuming that it is, this is an outrageously disgusting move on their part.
If it's real, then it's the private journal of someone struggling with addiction and mental health.
And I find this kind of thing completely unforgivable.
I'm not going to discuss the contents of the passages from the alleged journal because nothing inside it rises to the level of feeling like it's appropriate to discuss.
There's no allegations.
There's no claims in it that matter to people outside of the journal writers' live, their own lives.
It's their business.
And if it's real, then this is a horrific violation of their right to process their pain in the way they see fit.
No, and I certainly think that if it were private messages to yourself about pain and how you're processing things, like I wouldn't want to read that from Joe, even if I wanted to make fun of him.
This is a nice spin for Alex to claim that Trump's family and everyone around him are all lobbyists because you can't buy Trump and he won't meet with lobbyists.
That's some two plus two is five shit.
That's bad.
In the real world, Trump has done literally everything he can to buddy up with lobbyists and is running by far the most lobby-friendly administration in recent history.
In October 2019, ProPublica published a report identifying 281 lobbyists that Trump had hired into his administration, which is, quote, four times more than the Obama administration.
The Associated Press found that, quote, in less than three years, Trump named more former lobbyists to cabinet-level posts than his most recent predecessors did in eight years.
One of the things that's scariest about how Trump has operated is that he's been willing to hire lobbyists to positions that involve the fields they previously were lobbying in.
Virginia Cantor, the ethics chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ProPublica that the number of lobbyists Trump was hiring, quote, suggests that lobbyists see themselves as more effective in furthering their clients' special interests from inside the government rather than from outside.
In July, Politico reported on 82 former Trump administration officials who'd left their jobs and registered as lobbyists, despite Trump's claim that he was going to put a five-year ban on lobbying for people who left government employment.
His goddamn chief of staff, Ranks Priebus, is now the chairman of Michael Best, a high-profile lobbying firm.
Great.
Back in July, there was plenty of reporting you can find about how Trump-connected lobbyists were receiving billions of dollars from coronavirus stimulus package packages while the independent businesses that were struggling were left vending for scraps, which is weird.
This whole thing is just a disgraceful lie sold to people who like to chant drain the swamp.
Watchdog groups and journalists who have actually looked at the staffing decisions are pretty universal in their conclusion that Trump is probably the most lobbyist-infested presidency that anyone can remember in recent history.
It's not okay to just let Alex pass off complete lies like this to aggrandize Trump when you're completely unprepared to have a conversation about the reality and demonstrate to your impressionable audience that the man sitting in front of you, who is your friend, is a liar.
If you're not able to demonstrate that, you can't have the conversation because then the opposite conclusion will be reached by your audience.
It's nepotism that turns into a form of crony capitalism because the relatives and friends just de facto become lobbyists because lobbyists can't meet with Trump because so now they that's not better.
So interestingly, they talk about this a little bit more, and we get our first instance of Joe actually kind of pushing back, which I was surprised by.
Everyone around him in his cabinet and everyone that works there, even down to mid-level people, are now getting multi-million dollar contracts for companies like ATT and stuff just to even mention something.
But I just want to, I've told you before, what you really need on your show is like a legit journalist who's right next to you with a laptop going, Alex, hold on, hold on.
Joe has a great idea there, although he probably doesn't realize that Alex's entire style of conversation of broadcast is designed so that you can't fact check him without taking for a fucking ever and slowing down any kind of entertainment value of your show.
Yeah, outside of being forced to do so by some weird, uh, bizarro court ruling, Alex will never have someone suggesting he uh he stopped making shit up.
That was a nice attempt by Joe to push back on something Alex was saying, but you can see here how slippery Alex tries to be and how he needs to be seen as right, even when admitting that he's wrong.
Alex can say that Trump campaign members are getting million-dollar deals from companies like ATT, and then when he's pressed on it, he has to admit he's just using ATT as an example, so he doesn't know anything about ATT.
I don't actually have any real examples, but I'm just saying, but also Michael Cohen did have a million-dollar deal with ATT, so I guess that's not true.
And Alex was right to use ATT as an example.
You see how this is intentionally obtuse, it's supposed to be confusing, so you have a difficult time nailing down exactly what Alex is even saying.
Yeah, an article in Reuters from 2018 discusses how Michael Cohen's consulting firm, Essential Consultants LLC, was paid approximately $600,000 in 2017 by ATT to advise them on how to work with Trump.
Like there was a huge merger on the table between ATT and Time Warner, which Trump had been opposed to since it would, as he said, put, quote, too much concentration of power into the hands of too few.
After the election, quote, Cohen approached ATT about working on their behalf in the post-election transition.
He was given a one-year contract at $50,000 per month.
In fairness, ATT also donated $2 million towards Trump's inauguration.
So it wasn't like Cohen was the only person getting cash.
The problem becomes Alex makes sensational claims that he thinks are proven by a headline, and he's in a space with a guy who can have things proven to him by a headline.
So, as for these peace deals, they're getting a bunch of press coverage, but it's not getting the kind of coverage these guys want, which is people saying that Trump saved the world.
And the reason they aren't getting that coverage is because he hasn't.
To be clear, peace is good, and I'll always be happy when people are working towards it.
I'm not going to balk at peace just because it might involve Trump's actions, but there are plenty of reasons to take issue with this story and express some reservation.
The first is that the peace deals that have been struck don't involve any consideration of the Palestinians, which by definition is a problem.
The second is that they don't involve Saudi Arabia.
The third is that many experts do not believe that these agreements are the foundation of a lasting peace.
Some have noted that these deals with like Bahrain and United Arab Emirates recognizing and normalizing relations with Israel are less likely to create a real functioning peace, but they are designed to expand regional trade by normalizing these relations and to isolate Iran.
By normalizing relations with the UAE and Israel, the possibility of using UAE as a place to launch from for any possible attack on Iran becomes a real issue that Iran has to deal with.
Ultimately, this is not nothing, but it's also not a real peace plan if it doesn't include the Palestinian voice.
And also, a lot of the groundwork for these deals weren't laid by Trump, but are actually, in fact, work that had been done by the United Nations.
We'll see what happens and how this situation develops, but it's nonsense to pretend that the media hasn't covered these deals and haven't been overly deferential to Trump and their coverage, honestly.
Alex is having fun here and making things up, but I regret to inform you that Jared's father, Charles Kushner, pled guilty to, quote, 16 counts of assisting in the filing of false tax returns, one count of retaliating against a cooperating witness, and one count of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission.
While he was running his business, Kushner Companies, Charles had falsified charitable contributions in the excess of $1 million to cheat on taxes.
His sister was a witness to the crime, and he didn't want her to testify.
So he attempted to hire a sex worker to seduce her husband, which he would record and use as blackmail.
He pled guilty to all of this and even, quote, told the court that he had paid a private investigator $25,000 to arrange for the seduction and videotaping of the cooperating witness's husband.
Kushner admitted to personally recruiting the prostitute and instructing that the videotape be mailed to the cooperating witness.
Alex is pretending this is just a thing where Kushner's dad had claimed that this dude was cheating, but no one believed him.
So I guess he went and hired a sex worker so he could videotape them having sex and then send that tape to his sister to prove that he was right.
I want you to think about this because this is something that I was reflecting on as I was going through this episode.
If Alex Jones wasn't a train wreck lightning rod of attention that Joe Rogan can capitalize on platforming, would he take any of this shit that he's saying seriously, even for a second?
Just imagine that in the context of this episode, like all of the content is the same, but it's being said by a random person.
You'd rightly ignore them and assume that they weren't well.
Joe Rogan's only doing this because of the attention that he can get out of having Alex on his podcast and possibly some imagining that they're friends.
So you'll notice in this clip, I believe what happens is that Alex realizes, you know, you ever watch those cartoons where like Wiley Coyote will run off a cliff and he'll make it a few steps?
So, he knows, like, as he's starting to talk, he's like, I don't really have much else to say on this, so I'm going to just riff about how chemical names are weird and people don't know what they are.
It's a lot of fun, but it has nothing to do with the subject of clean coal.
It's explicitly an attempt to get Joe to forget the line of questioning he was going down and get lost in this sidetrail because Alex is caught in a lie that he can't back up.
There is no such thing as clean coal the way that he is imagining it, and he's lying to Joe's.
Like, the way that he's talking about scrubber, it's almost like he thinks that there's like 30s, 17th century Japanese women with like little brushes just going, No, no, he thinks they're the personified scrubbing bubbles from the commercial that are running around and smiling and cleaning a piece of charcoal.
That's exactly what I think he sees.
Yes, that's exactly what I think he sees, and that's very strong.
Alex is completely misleading Joe on the main issue, which is that carbon dioxide is not just magically good.
It's necessary for life.
Yes, that is true.
But in excess amounts, it has a bad effect on the environment.
Alex compared it to water, so I will too.
You need water to live, but too much of it will kill you.
It's the same thing with CO2.
In this conversation, Alex has reframed the issue.
So the part that requires pushback isn't even being discussed.
The part Joe needs to attack is the idea that CO2 emissions are always good, but everyone thinks that they're bad because they're actually carbon monoxide.
They think that's what it is.
That's the flimsiest shit in the world.
And Alex could never defend that position.
But now Alex has introduced a completely new layer to this bullshit, which is that there's magical super pure coal out west in them thar hills.
You can find a full report from the U.S. Geological Survey of all the coal deposits in Utah.
And weirdly, none of them seem to match what Alex is describing.
You'd really think that they'd make note of this magic coal that could power the entire world for a thousand years, but I guess they somehow overlooked that.
One coal is so damn pure and it's only in the United States in major deposits that basically you don't even need to put scrubbers on it.
But our scientists in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, because they realized that dirty coal has mercury in it, has all these horrible toxins, they put scrubbers on it.
That's why you drive by a coal plant, it's this big, huge buildings and wires and hoses and big, huge steel.
It looks like an alien spaceship.
That's because it's called distillates.
They know how to burn it and then take off all the chemicals, all the toxins, and make plastics and make chemicals and make pesticides and make everything else that comes out of that.
And then out of the stack comes nothing but water.
Carbon dioxide was over 500 times stronger in the time of the T-Rex.
Okay, in the Jurassic Age.
That's why plants grew so fast.
Things were so big.
There was a higher oxygen level.
Just like Mars lost its atmosphere.
Used to have an ocean.
They've now gone and proven.
It lost its atmosphere.
It's a smaller planet.
Couldn't hold it.
Truth is the Earth's losing its atmosphere.
So what's crazy is we come right along at this time, pump up all of this juice and all this carbon that was produced on the surface with plants and animals that ran down in cracks into the earth.
We're now pumping out all that carbon saved from millions of years ago and actually terraforming the planet, putting more carbon dioxide in that we actually need right at this time.
So here we learn that there was way more CO2 in the atmosphere during the time of dinosaurs, but since then, CO2 levels have gone down, and that's a sign that Earth is losing its atmosphere.
But right at the last second, fossil fuel companies have come along and figured out the perfect solution.
It's fair enough that CO2 levels were much higher in the time of the dinosaurs, but so what?
That was millions of years ago.
And to pretend that we're at all ready to face the kind of issues that would accompany the Earth changing to a climate unseen for millions of years is comical.
There's normal variability in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over time.
That is fair enough.
And you can see it roughly go up and down in waves for the past like 800,000 years.
Sure.
And then you get to the time post-the Industrial Revolution and present day, and that wave gets fucked with 2019's number representing a 33% increase over the previous highest CO2 concentration recorded about 300,000 years ago.
Alex does not understand the issues he's talking about.
And I will at least applaud Joe for creating this situation where Alex sounds like the idiot that he is, but I resent that he doesn't have the ability to call Alex a liar and a fraud.
And that this shit is nonsense and he has no idea what he's talking about.
I mean, and it's even worse, it's so much worse now than we could even, like, the problem is we're so distracted by the rest of everything being the worst.
So Joe does make another good point here on the same topic, and that is that, well, it's been shown that rising temperatures lead to hurricanes because of the rising water temperatures create the conditions where storms are stronger and there's more of them.
Alex is lying about hurricanes, no matter how you want to determine the statistics.
If you want to go by total number of named storms, 2005 is the record holder with 28, but it probably won't be for long.
Since less than a week ago, we saw Tropical Storm Zeta represent the 27th named storm of this season, which won't be over until the end of November at least.
If you want to go by severity of storms, that's been increasing as well.
If you want to go with frequency of stronger storms, that's setting records.
The frequency of storms that escalate very rapidly is also increasing.
Three of the top five most costly storms in recorded history in the United States happened in 2017.
The other two were in 2012 and 2005.
You have to go 23 storms down that list to find one that happened before 1965.
It's not media hype that hurricanes are getting stronger and happening more frequently.
Joe can scoff at Alex, but Alex doesn't deserve to be allowed to be scoffed at and then move along to some dumbass distraction point about how we're carbon-based life form.
He deserves to have this show grind to a halt until he concedes that he's making this up.
And if Alex stays, then you get the train wreck that inevitably happens whenever Alex goes anywhere.
And so he's guaranteed attention no matter what he does, but the path that he has chosen to take is the one that kind of has the appearance of responsibility, but isn't really all that responsible.
That is the best example, even if it's a power dynamic like with Rogan, who is like Alex has to lick Rogan's boots to stay on because this is his outlet.
Rogan's the only one who's willing to put him on in the face of Spotify or whatever.
Yes.
And just no matter what, if you just point out something.
Alex just threw out that meaningless word salad of everything he can remember Lord Moncton telling him in the past, solar maximums, potash, sunspots.
Planet X. None of that is true, and it's just Alex's weasel answer.
So he doesn't have to own the position of having said that CO2 going up causes temperature to go up.
This is all just a function of him not wanting to get nailed down on a particular fact, because if he does, he has to own the implications.
For instance, if Joe gets him to admit that rising CO2 levels result in higher temperatures, then Alex would have to justify why higher temperatures are good.
If Joe could demonstrate the negative effects of rising temperatures, from the rising sea level to the relationship between water temperatures and hurricanes, to the droughts around the world, to the fact that many regions of the world could become uninhabitable and cause massive dislocation of people, then Alex would have to accept that he was in favor of those things.
He can't do that.
So that's why he always gives non-answers, which allow him to continue to operate in this deceptive space and not have to commit to anything except that he secretly could prove everything and everyone's wrong.
So in this next clip, Rogan is trying to explain to Alex that there are, you know, there are these environmentalists who have a point, and then there are people in industry, and they aren't the same people.
That is why Joe is not equipped to handle the role he's given himself.
That clip perfectly encapsulates this entire dynamic.
Joe thinks that he can handle taking a mile-a-minute talker/slash liar like Alex Jones and slow him down so that they can take these claims piece by piece and show what's really behind it all.
He thinks because of the fake respect he imagines Alex has for him that Alex wouldn't just lie to his face and dodge onto other topics instead of admit that he's lying to his fake friend's face.
But Joe's wrong.
Alex does not give a shit about him.
Now, conversely, Joe also really doesn't give as much of a shit as he's pretending to.
He knows that having Alex on will be a huge attention grabber, as have the past two times he's been on the show.
But Joe also knows that he can't really get away with just having Alex on like he has in the past.
There has to be the appearance of being a critical interview, which is manifesting in his attempts to keep Alex in line.
You can clearly see how rattled even just the performance of pushback is to Alex.
He's flopping all over the place and saying completely insane shit, hoping to wiggle his way out of each corner he accidentally backs himself into.
But where Joe gives away his true intentions are moments like there, right at the end.
He's got Alex in a position where they've refocused and he's supposed to get to his point about how CO2 emission talk and the climate change is all a big conspiracy.
And Alex can prove it.
And right as Alex is about to start talking, Joe pokes him with the gay frogs there.
Joe wants the sideshow, but he doesn't want to take responsibility for it.
Honestly, I kind of find this approach to be more distasteful than him and Eddie Bravo just laughing because it doesn't, like, that doesn't pretend to be something else.
I was being very, very, but also, you know, maybe there's a possibility that this interview could also help some people.
Because I have gotten some messages from a couple of people just in my personal life who don't know Alex that well, but like Rogan and saw the interview and they're like, what is this drunk asshole?
You know, like, I think that some objective viewers could see Rogan's pushback and Alex's inability to answer anything and be like, this guy's full of shit.
And then you demonstrate that he's wrong about everything and let him wiggle out of taking responsibility or owning the fact that he's wrong about all these things.
See, Eddie Bravo adds that element, that X factor, you know, where it's like Alex goes on a weird rent and then Eddie Bravo's like, you know, I heard people were on the moon and they came down to my place and I'm telling you right now, that's why Alex is right.
And you're like, yeah, Eddie Bravo, you're nuts.
Thank you for smoothing the edges out on Alex saying some really transphobic shit.
Most of the physicists I've talked to, most of the climatologists I've talked to, they have broken down that the sun by magnitude is 98% of the driver.
Joe's just allowing him to make this without any competent pushback.
But Joe does have a good point, and that is that even if we allow that there are a ton of different influences that are causing climate change, CO2 emission is one thing that humans are capable of controlling.
Sure.
The rest of the thing, like let's say sunspots or whatever, volcanoes.
Isn't CO2 emissions the one thing that we can control?
So human-created global warming gas is like CO2 emissions.
If we can put a cap on that, wouldn't you agree?
Let me ask you a question.
If we continue to put that stuff in the atmosphere and it continues to get higher and higher and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, wouldn't this?
And that's why the left even says, but if you're going to say something like that, and I'm not arguing with you, but if you are going to say something like that, that's a very bold thing to say.
I admire Joe's attempt to get Alex to take responsibility for his claims.
But if this doesn't end with Joe telling Alex that he's full of shit and then denouncing him in front of his audience, then all these moments where Alex is clearly full of shit don't matter.
Like they don't mean anything unless you apologize for having him on.
You recognize that you had been tricked by his showmanship and he's a fun guy.
I bet he is.
Especially if he wants you to think that he's fun.
You know, it is one of those things that makes you really think being a con man is so easy just because people will do everything possible to avoid admitting that they got conned.
So anyway, this is because we're having so much excess CO2 being released into the atmosphere, we're having a global greening that is just going to turn everything wonderful.
Countering us losing our atmosphere up until this point.
The Earth has less atmosphere than it did a million years ago, and it's like God did this or something where we discovered all this oil or it's just blind luck that we are terraforming the planet back to an earlier, healthier state by taking ancient carbon that was under the ground and putting it back into the atmosphere.
In the 1963 Limits to Growth Club of Rome plan, they said, we believe there'll be a global ice age by 2020 because the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago and we're set for that.
We're going to tell the public that actually carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bouncing solar radiation off the earth because we've seen volcanoes cause this darkening effect and freezing.
So we believe, our scientists believe that carbon dioxide is going to make the earth freeze by 2020.
And so we've got to have a global regime to take control of all the factories and all the energy and put a tax in for global government in the name of stopping the ice age.
Then by about 1987, they went, actually, we think it's going to heat up instead.
In the text, the authors are very clear that they can see demonstrations that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, but that it's unclear how much of that will be able to be sustained by the planet.
From page 81, quote, it's not known how much CO2 or thermal pollution can be released without causing irreversible damage in the Earth's climate or how much radioactivity, lead, mercury, or pesticide can be absorbed by plants, fish, or human beings before the vital processes are severely interrupted.
Part of the, and this touches on what part of the reason why you should act, even though we aren't certain what the limits are, it's immediately spelled out in the text.
Quote, this ignorance about the limits of Earth's ability to absorb pollutants should be reason enough for caution in the release of polluting substances.
The danger of reaching those limits is especially great because there is typically a long delay between the release of a pollutant into the environment and the appearance of its negative effect on the ecosystem.
In a certain sense, though, Alex did say something correctly, and he started it with: What we're doing is returning the Earth back to a healthier time.
And when he said a million years, that makes sense to me because that was before we were here.
In the introduction to this text, Limits to Growth, on page 23, they lay out their conclusions.
The first of which is: quote: If the present growth trends in the world population, industrialization, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years.
That's the conclusion that they made based on their assumptions and estimations at the time in 1972.
They've gone back and revisited this multiple times, and some updating and some reflection on, like, we might have been off about a little bit of that.
Alex is asserting that in this text, they say that they are aware that an ice age is coming, so they're going to pretend that carbon dioxide is bad and causing the ice age, which I guess is going to lead to them being able to take control of the population.
You see here how Alex tries to pivot away from uncertain territory into more familiar and comfortable water by taking Joe's good point that old science didn't know what new science has discovered and hitting his talking points about Fauci and COVID.
Alex then goes on to make a sensational absurd claim about COVID, which will now distract conversation, and he will have escaped without having been held to prove any of the claims that he made about the Club of Rome, the limits to growth, or how excessive CO2 emissions are saving the world.
Also, again, TB did not kill 1.4 million people in the United States in 2019.
That is a comical number that Alex has used before, and he just uses to minimize COVID.
Joe has no idea what the real number is, which is what Alex is betting on when he just throws that out.
Alex is being allowed to scatter bullshit all over the place, and these dudes are completely helpless to try to keep up or transform it into something that's responsible to present to an audience who trusts you.
But one of the things that I think is really, really difficult is that, like, you know, if Ari Shafir or like Tom Segura came on Joe Rogan's show and they had some weird ideas about COVID, that's not good, but it's going to be a comedian expressing a standpoint.
Alex pretends to know like a ton of stuff.
So impressionable listeners will treat the things he says differently than something a comedian might say while they're sitting around talking shit.
The potential for harm is significantly increased.
And this is a show where the host seems unable or unwilling to do the work that's needed to protect this audience from the brand of misinformation Alex sells and the harm that can come from it.
He's treating it like it's just the same kind of stakes as Ari or Shafira in there.
This is perhaps the most disappointing sentence I've ever heard.
What kind of South Park-ass, impotent, wearing apathy and defeatism as virtue bullshit is that?
I've tried to be kind to Tim Dylan in the past because, like I said, I mentioned, I think we have some mutual friends.
And also, I don't care too much about comedians who say things I disagree with, even if they're guests on InfoWars, because Tim has been.
It's not really that interesting for me to get mad about something someone might have been joking about.
It's often hard to tell the difference between a racist and an edgy comedian who swings and misses.
So typically, I try to stay out of the criticizing comedians game.
We all know how sad Alex sounds when he yells about Bill Maher or Michelle Wolf.
That isn't a joke that Tim is saying, though, and it kind of just makes me sad.
Is the idea supposed to be that no one has any ideas about what can be done to limit the damage of climate change?
I mean, Tim should be aware that people have some suggestions.
A year ago, he posted a comedy video on YouTube making fun of Greta Thunberg, a person who's only famous because she's trying to propose solutions to climate change.
Like a slightly less pretending to know things, Alex.
Yeah, I think it's a mistake that will probably linger, and that is that you should never break the format, and that is that if Alex is there, so is Bravo.
Like, just looking at it on a personal level, a human level, it bummed me out.
It really, it was desperate.
It was needy.
It just, it's unbecoming for a character who's supposed to be as strong and alpha as Alex for him to be so that's the type of shit that a baby comic does to somebody who's like six years in and they're like, hey, man, you're, you run that really good show and we're good friends.
I don't think that he says all that much that's all that interesting.
He just sounds like a guy who likes Alex, who's watched too much InfoWars, isn't really all that critical, but thinks adopting contrarian positions makes up for lack of critical thought.
Do people not realize that saying that Alex has documents is a joke?
Like, Tim is clearly making a joke when he says that they have documents.
Yeah.
It's a bit at this point.
And the point of the bit is that Alex doesn't have any documents and he's making all this shit up.
The article titled Looking Forward to the End of Humanity isn't about what Alex claims it is.
It's just an opinion piece that actually is pretty skeptical about the possibilities that many theorists believe could come with a transhumanist future.
The headline works for Alex, but because he lacks any depth and he hopes he can just blow people's mind with optics, he doesn't go any further than that.
The actual article is not about being eager for the end of humanity, though it might be able to make it, you might be able to make it sound like Alex has every responsibility to know what this article is about because he's brought it up a thousand times in the past, and he's not.
And because Rogan doesn't have the time to read this entire op-ed, he doesn't have the ability to come in and be like, that's not what that's about.
This is actually really skeptical about the widening gap between classes that could happen with the implementation of technological supplementation.
Like the article uses as an example how you could buy yourself out of war if you got drafted in the early days of our country.
Driverless cars don't know a wreck up ahead or what to do.
They have more accidents.
Steve Wozniak, as I was saying earlier, the founder of co-founder of Apple says the best AI isn't a million percent close to how good an ant's brain is.
And I would say that driver Lascar's argument is Joe really trying to explain to Alex what these conversations, the people who have concerns about AI are and the reality that future AI won't be what we have now.
All the statistics show that the science of technology is making us dumb.
And that's why they wrote the big article, the co-owner of Sun Microsystems in 2000.
Bill Joy wrote Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.
And he explains he went to a top billionaire tech conference and they made the decision to not let humans sit around and play video games over the future.
So they were just going to slowly phase us out and kill everybody.
If you are extreme militia right wing, of course, someone like George W. Bush isn't going to be good for your business, or at least complaining about him will be good for your business.
So I think that Rogan needs to do a little bit of exploration about that.
Consider why does Alex not like or like the people that he does?
You'll find a greater consistency there than, oh, he just hates corruption.
What I think is the wildest part of this is that all of this stuff he's saying on here, you could have planned, you could have seen him saying this shit if you had listened to his show for the past week and a half to the point where you could literally have listened to his show and been like, I'm just going to grab a couple of clips at random.
According to Ted Gunderson, first time I ever heard about this was from this former high-level FBI agent who was going to be the FBI director, but he wouldn't go along with corruption, so he wasn't.
So we went into the Finder situation in a past episode with those children that were found with two guys in a van in Florida.
And suffice it to say, neither Alex or Tim could prove any of this stuff that they're talking about.
First things first, the Finders investigation did not begin until 1987, by which point Gunderson was retired from the FBI and was ankle-deep in the McMartin Tunnel hysteria.
On Ted Gunderson's website, you can find the 79-page report that he filed on the Finder's case, which is a chaotic mess, and none of it really proves anything.
It's a report that was filed supposedly by Ramon Martinez, who was a U.S. customs agent who was on the scene for a raid of a warehouse in D.C. that an informant had claimed was connected with a satanic cult called the Finders.
Martinez writes of seeing proof of child exploitation and an almost astonishing level of criminal sophistication.
What makes this report interesting is that it doesn't appear to be fake, since it's referenced in the FBI Finders files that were released recently.
However, if you consult the files the FBI released, there's reference to follow-up on the claims from Martinez's report.
And how there was no evidence of anything like what he describes that anyone else can confirm.
In fact, the FBI vault files include a report of a 1994 interview with the Washington Metro field office agent who was present at the raid in question, and it doesn't corroborate anything.
Quote, name redacted advised that during his review of both material from the computers and documents revealed nothing relating to any criminal activity.
Further, there's the logging of a 1993 interview with a representative of the Arlington, Virginia National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, who was present for the raid, having formerly been a detective with the Metro Police Department.
Quote, he did not see any evidence of criminal activity.
Because of the anomaly of this report from Martinez and other unsubstantiated gossip, there's been a lingering conspiracy that the CIA was running the Finders, but again, this has never been demonstrated or proven at all.
Weirdly, the FBI vault includes a bunch of references to investigations into whether or not there was a connection between the Finders and the CIA.
And it feels like if the CIA were running this group for clandestine reasons, they probably wouldn't cooperate with an FBI investigation into the cover-up they carried out surrounding it.
And then they've pulled up this news article that says that Geronimo's great-grandson is suing Skull and Bones to get that skull back, which proves that they have the skull.
This clip pretty neatly shows how you won't learn anything from this show.
If you listen to this, you'll think that Tim just claimed that Bush stole Geronimo's skull and that Rogan pulled up an article that confirms it.
In reality, they've both proven nothing.
This case that Geronimo's great-grandson filed was from 2009.
And in August 2010, Judge Richard Roberts dropped the case.
He dismissed it.
And the reason is actually kind of interesting, but you'd never know if you just listened to these dudes.
The issue is that Geronimo is officially buried in a grave at Fort Sill, which is on U.S. property.
In order to dig up bodies on federal property, you need to get the permission of the government.
And the plan of this suit was to sue the U.S. government, President Obama, and the Secretaries of Defense and the Army to gain permission to dig up Geronimo and bury him, quote, near his birthplace at the head of the Gila River in New Mexico.
However, in order for a lawsuit to be filed against the U.S. government, first, a judge has to decide whether or not the case justifies suspending the government's sovereign immunity.
Judge Roberts found that this case did not have established the cause to waive this immunity, so the case was dismissed.
The plan was to transport the remains to the Gila River and in the process determine if, as the legend has it, Geronimo's skull had been stolen.
The great-grandson's lawyer said later that, quote, he will eventually reopen his cases against Yale and Skull and Bones if need be, but not until after the Fort Sill remains are exhumed.
They don't know if they have caused to sue Yale or skull and bones until the body has been exhumed.
Sure.
And then they can see if there's a skull there.
At that point, I guess they'd have to build a case that was more than just urban legend and hearsay that would hold up in court, and then they can go ahead and successfully sue Yale, I guess.
Personally, I think they should let the family dig up the remains.
I was going to say, like, what judge is like, oh, look, just because colonials stole your grandfather's bones doesn't mean that you have right to sue the government.
The bottom line is that there's much more to this story, and it's interesting to see how the world works.
This is not a suit primarily targeting Skull and Bones or Yale or Bush.
It's about getting Geronimo's remains from Fort Sill, and if the skull is gone, then crossing that bridge at that point.
If you just listen to people like Alex or Tim or Joe, you'll get a more fun, kind of wacky version of the story that's really exciting.
But ultimately, they have no idea if anything they're saying is true or real.
You get the impression that you're learning something, but you're actually just listening to fucked up people ramble about something they read in a blog or skimmed.
What's weird, but it reminds me so much of like so many times if you go to a museum, you see something and like, this was taken by this explorer, and you're like, no.
They're not looking at it correctly because the way they're looking at it, they think they're doing a good thing and they're going to usher forth some utopian world of communication where people are only saying the things they agree with.
The problem with that is you don't find out who's right unless you get everybody talking.
Man, it is hard to listen to this at points like this one.
Like, it's pretty clear that Joe is fairly annoyed, probably because he's never had to deal with Showtime Alex while he himself had to be sober, which must be the worst.
Oh, that's got to be terrible.
I appreciate where Joe is going with this thought, trying to find a motive for people wanting folks like Alex off social media that isn't their demons and they want tyranny.
But I also think that Joe's wrong.
I don't think that people want folks like Alex off social media sites because they want everyone to say the right same things.
I think they want him off because he can't control himself and he represents a danger to people.
So deciding that his behavior is not welcome on your platform is actually an act of customer service for your other users.
I've never heard of anyone getting kicked off Twitter for suggesting a conservative tax plan or expressing unconventional views in terms of foreign policy.
In the case of the people that they try to rally around, they weren't punished for ideas, but for behavior that's not welcome in various platforms.
Social media kicking people like that out is not saying that they want everyone to say all the same right things.
It's saying that there are certain rules that people have to follow if they want to be treated like an adult.
And if you refuse to follow them, you can be kicked out.
In this sense, Joe's argument is actually a straw man, but he's coming from a more open-minded, less malicious place.
So I can kind of appreciate that.
I would just, again, respond to this sort of thing by introducing a conversation about what sorts of behavior he would be okay with people getting kicked off a platform for, and then see where the conversation goes from there.
William Colby went to William Colby and William Colby basically said to the camp, listen, you're going up against forces that are way too powerful.
You don't even know what you're knocking on here.
And then William Colby, I think, changed his mind and said, fuck it.
You know what?
We should stop doing, like, let's, if we're going to fight this, let's fight it.
And then a little while later, William Colby, who is in great health, has an accident in his canoe is found dead in a river right by his house with his dinner still on the table.
So it's like nobody gets up in the middle of the dinner to go canoeing.
Okay, we're connecting dots here that maybe we don't need to.
Okay.
William Colby, director of Central Intelligence, chose to disclose some of the nation's darkest secrets to save the spy service he loved, drowned on April 27th in a tributary.
So, honestly, at this point, I didn't have the patience to discuss another giant satanic cabal ring claim that these dudes can't prove.
So, I'm going to punt on that.
We'll talk about Franklin stuff later.
I just pulled this clip because it demonstrates how Joe is trying to bring the slightest bit of rationality to the conversation, but it just doesn't matter.
These dudes have decided that this guy who dared to stand up against the man was killed because he did it.
This is a misrepresentation of something from the original news article about the search for Colby, published in the Associated Press on April 30th, 1996.
Quote: Investigators found dinner dishes on a table and clamshells in the kitchen sink.
This would tend to imply that possibly they'd already eaten or maybe not imply anything specific at all.
But the version that Tim is repeating is that dinner was on the table, which would be kind of weird.
Why would a guy go canoeing in between serving and eating his dinner?
That's the kind of question that gets conspiracy theorists aroused.
But in this case, it's actually an inaccurate claim based on initial reports, which is really often the case with these guys.
Also, Colby's wife, quote, had spoken to her husband at about 7 p.m. Saturday, and he had said that even though he felt tired, he was going canoeing anyway.
Also, from that article, quote, neighbors said the water was rough Saturday and not good for canoeing.
But according to those who knew him, he was a creature of habit, and that dude loved canoeing.
You can easily find the medical examiner's report of his death, which determined that it was an accident.
He was a little boozed up with a 0.08 blood reading, but the real important finding was that he had calcified atherosclerosis in his coronary arteries, suggesting some possible heart trouble.
According to the examiner's opinion, quote, he had severe calcified atherosclerosis, which would predispose him to a stroke or heart attack.
Sure.
Decomposition, however, would dissolve clots and the fatty material in atheroma.
You see, it ended up taking nine days for them to find his body.
So in that time that he was in the water, those signs of a stroke or a heart attack would be gone.
Sure.
But the underlying signs of him being at great risk for those things would still be there.
The medical examiner also reports: quote, the contents of his stomach are consistent with his last reported meal and indicate his death was shortly after his dinner.
I guess that would have to do with those clamshells that were in the sink.
Like, how can they not, if they entered this conversation with respect or admiration for what Alex does, how can it not be disappearing right in front of their eyes?
And it has nothing to do with him being drunk either.
It has everything to do with this being like, you can't answer basic questions.
And when you are asked to give specifics about things like the Democrats want to crash the economy to get rid of Trump, you have a fucking comedian.
That's what you have speaking for the entire Democratic Party.
And I mean, honestly, personally, I really enjoyed that because it's something I talk about.
Not denying the possibility that this is the case.
But this seems like if that was the case, it would be a grand conspiracy that would at least have, you'd have to have some evidence of this to make that statement that they're trying or they want to crash the economy because they want to maintain power and to change censorship and to change the way there are countless people.
Okay, we've had Governor Newsome, we've had Governor Cuomo, Whitmer, Cuomo, exactly, all say the economy isn't going to be open because Trump's done a bad job.
Or not purpose, because I don't know if it's intentional, but the role that he fills throughout most of this is trying to restate insane things that Alex says.
Because saying that, you know, predicting that things aren't going to get better as long as Trump is in charge is not the same thing as threatening to keep everything closed until you get into power.
So since they're talking about Whitmer and Tim has brought up that there was that kidnapping attempt plan, that is a false flag, although Alex would agree that it is a good idea as well.
They sort of get into that a little bit.
And then Tim makes a joke.
And then one of my favorite fucking moments in podcasts like this happens.
His Unity 2020 account was, which was calling for a third party, was calling for unity between people on the right and the left to get together and have conversations and perhaps even have an alternative candidate.
I love how obsessed these dudes are with how fun it will be when the snowflake libs take something they say out of context.
They are obsessed with it.
I think they should be way more worried about someone taking them in context and actually caring about what they say because the picture looks way worse than a couple of B-minus jokes.
I'm going to go with as for Unity 2020.
I don't know exactly why Twitter kicked the account off the platform, but if I were a betting man, I would say it was probably because it's almost certainly a bad faith campaign to fuck with the election.
In September, like two months before an election, that's when Brett fucking Weinstein is going to get a campaign rolling to field a candidate for president.
And I think well after all the nominations are taken care of, long after everybody knows exactly who the candidates are, it's a good time for somebody to come in and shake things up, Dan.
And according to a video Weinstein posted on September 1st, he hadn't even collected signatures to get on ballots.
Basically, what Weinstein was pitching was for all the third parties to coalesce around his ticket as if the Green Party and Libertarians, even if they wanted to, they could team up to beat Biden or Trump.
If you actually watch Weinstein's video, it's legitimately just him saying that he's not even going to try to get ballot access for Unity 2020 as a party because he knows that's laughable.
So instead, his strategy is to beg the green or libertarian parties who already have candidates to abandon their candidates and instead allow Brett Weinstein to choose their ticket, which would be Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw.
The Trump virus response is the worst in the globe.
She said, if you're tired of lockdowns or you're tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or your kids were getting in-person instruction, it's time for a change in this country.
So you can see here the decision tree of Alex's responses to being confronted with something he can't really dispute.
He's misrepresented reality, and reality is looking back at him, with the only possibility seeming to be that he made up the Whitmer quote or he didn't understand this one and repeated a misleading version for his own purposes.
His first attempt to wiggle free is to claim that they're splitting hairs, and this probably usually works.
For whatever reason, Joe doesn't accept this and says it's not.
Like create false versions of what Joe is saying, so he has to defend himself from the fake version.
Joe just ignores that, keeps moving forward.
And then we get to transitioning to something completely unrelated and possibly too interesting or confusing to resist following up on.
In this case, numerology.
I just wish these dudes like Tim and Joe could see in the moment how much of a one-trick pony Alex is and just disabuse themselves with the idea that he's worth listening to.
I was already looking this up as he mentioned it because I was going down my own little rabbit hole.
It says when I first started to find it, my first search just says there's a small, a large conspiracy that's been built out of this small grain of truth from this document from 2010.
The first problem is that Joe has the wrong document.
This is the Rockefeller Annual Report from 2010, which Jamie has found a link to.
Whereas the one Alex lies about and turned into the fictitious Operation Lockstep is called Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.
They were both Rockefeller Foundation documents from 2010, so it's an easy mistake to make.
Yeah, sure.
But the idea that there is such a thing as Operation Lockstep, that just is something Alex took from a meme.
I applaud Joe for trying to find the document, and I further applaud him for being able to discern that the text that he was reading was a scenario that was being described as opposed to the text being a nefarious plan.
But he doesn't have the full picture.
If he knew what he was talking about and knew what the conversation was, he would know that this wasn't the right document.
And he would know that the correct document is a breakdown of four imaginary scenarios of ways in which technology and political situations could advance in the developing world.
The four scenarios depict worlds where things develop differently on two axes.
The first, political and economic alignment, can either be strong or weak.
The other, adaptive capacity, can either be low or high.
The scenario Alex is pretending is the Rockefeller's plan for the world is just the way that the authors of this exercise chose to characterize an imagined future with strong political and economic alignment and low adaptive capacity.
And I know that we've talked about this a bunch, but I figured there may be a chance that people haven't heard that because they're drawn in by a Rogan episode.
And this is an important point of Alex's complete fraud that he's pulling.
Well, economic and political alignment has to do with the ways in which the state does control of a lot of industry.
And adaptive capacity in terms of technological advancement has another axis that's important.
And so those are the two axes that the team of experts who prepared this report thought were the most important in terms of deciding what sort of challenges should be prepared for.
There are a ton of other axes that they could have done a report on, and it would have been different than this.
And in those depictions, they have one, in the lockstep one, there is a virus that is involved in the background of what the scenario describes.
And Alex has taken that to pretend that there is such a thing as Operation Lockstep that is from this 2010 Rockefeller document.
And it's just a complete lie.
Because Joe doesn't know what Alex is talking about, he's tried to find the thing he needs to judge Alex's claim, but he doesn't know it's not the right thing.
So they're never going to get to any truth.
Alex is wasted, and he doesn't know which report is which to begin with, so he's no help.
That's kind of what makes this show pointless.
Unless there's an expected stake that if Alex cannot defend his claims, they're assumed to be wrong and he's full of shit, he's going to win every time.
So neither Joe nor Alex realize this isn't the document that Alex's entire conspiracy is based on because, surprise, neither of them have actually read it.
I want to address Tim's comment there at the end because I think it's great stuff.
I do think that there's a productive conversation that could be had about the push and pull of personal freedoms and the responsibilities we have to each other because we live in a world that has a population over one.
You know, there are points that people who prioritize individual freedoms could make that could be compelling.
And the same is true of people who believe a more important element is the communities around us.
That's great.
That's a conversation I encourage people to have because outside of the people on the fringes of either side, there's a lot of people with valuable things to say within that spectrum.
However, one of those people is not Alex Jones.
He is a liar and an idiot.
I wouldn't want to have that conversation with anyone in that room except for maybe Jamie, and that's only because I don't know anything about him.
No, Whitmer was found by the Supreme Court of Michigan and by a federal court to have seized all three branches of government and basically set up martial law.
How can Joe Rogan so clearly understand that in the case of the Whitmer quote, and most likely in the case of this lockstep thing they can't find, that Alex has taken something completely out of context and interpreted it poorly, yet he can't grasp that that's all Alex does.
Yeah, it's so weird because here again, Alex is cornered with Joe pointing out essentially his entire career sleight of hand.
And to wiggle out, Alex starts ranting about something unrelated.
They were talking about Alex's interpretation of the Whitmer quote and he went off about the Michigan Supreme Court.
This is to try to move the conversation into territory he can handle because he's being confronted about his willful misrepresentation or lies about news items.
That's not something he can deal with.
Also, the Michigan Supreme Court just ruled that the executive orders that Whitmer signed and tried to extend could not be extended.
The court decided that the governor and legislature would need to work together to come up with the appropriate measures to deal with COVID-19, which I think is a little bit shy of she's grasping.
And I think if Joe is just trying to do some kind of a meta art project where he shows that talking to these people is not worth it, then he's succeeded.
I found something, but I'm trying to understand what it's saying because it's not, like, it's speaking about years in the future as though they've already happened.
By 2025, people seem to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.
Wherever national interest clashed with individual interests, there was conflict.
Sporadic pushback becomes increasingly organized and coordinated as disaffected youth and people who have seen their status and opportunities slip away, largely in developing countries, incited civil unrest.
By 2026, protesters in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption.
Even those who'd like the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries.
The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would have inevitably upset the neat order that the world's governments had worked so hard to establish.
The section about lockstep, that scenario, is actually only eight pages.
Alex has no idea what his grand lockstep conspiracy is based on.
And here he is being shown exactly what it's based on.
He claims he's never read the thing, and the document's super long.
So, how could he possibly know all of it?
This is shameful shit.
And honestly, if Joe or Jamie understood the document they were reading or Alex's narratives around it, they would have all the tools they would need to fully expose Alex's charade for millions to see on their show.
This would be a bubble puncturing moment.
Like, if they knew what they were had in their hands, it's insane.
Now, all appearances seeming to indicate that this source that Alex is basing a conspiracy on is nothing like what he has described it as or is actually something else completely different.
So Alex sees up on the screen, because in the studio, they have the screen where Jamie projects the computer screen.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And so Alex is looking at that, and he thinks that he's found the right word in this lockstep document that he actually has already said, I haven't seen this, I don't know this part, but now he sees the right word.
I mean, I remember, I don't have it in front of me, but I was reading the lockstep Rockefeller documents and they predicted worldwide police state, authoritarianism, civil war.
Yeah, I don't understand how you could be Joe Rogan, be sober, go through that, and then move along to something else and not be like, that was, you just got destroyed.
You just, you have this giant conspiracy about the globalists and call Operation Lockstep that's been in plans for 10 years, and we pull up the document that you're like, oh, there's the word.
So at this point, the show descends into a completely boring stretch where Joe tells Alex about his feelings about UFOs, and Alex does his best not to interrupt and drinks a bunch.
It's fine, but I'm not particularly interested in Joe talking about aliens to Alex who's barely paying attention.
You're sitting there saying this will free us from our problems, but it's still humans that program the Nexus 0.7 so it could actually amplify the problem.
This is just like, this section of the show is really kind of what I would describe as Joe trying to have a trite conversation with a uncooperative, barely paying attention scene partner, and it's not interesting at all.
Don't get why you would think that like they they still persist in this idea of Alex being a manly man, of having some kind of chauvinist, like elevated toxic masculinity, but that mascot is a good thing, you know.
Oh, but at the same time, he's waffled on everything, he's hidden from everything, he interrupts you with uh divergences.
Yeah, like this is a man who is completely incapable of acting like anything that you would consider a stereotypical male trait, if you will.
There are all sorts of interdimensional forces in the universe in multi-dimension, so there's like bad aliens that are trying to manipulate our development because a high level would not try to manipulate our development, right?
Okay, so so Joe is like imprinting on these demons because he loves them, he's a bad person.
I'm judging him.
No, no, seriously.
So, all I'm saying is, is we need to build towards the next level and do amazing things.
What do you think of the and I did invite myself onto the election shows?
This is Joe reading a headline that seems to validate Alex's anti-vax narrative, but only does so if you don't understand the context of what's being discussed.
We've talked about this in depth in the past, but when they say there are vaccine-derived cases of polio, they aren't saying that someone got the polio vaccine and it gave them polio.
That's how it sounds, but the term means something else.
This generally refers to a phenomenon that occurs in under-vaccinated communities.
If you get this vaccine that's derived from a live virus, you may have a small chance of spreading that virus, even though it's weakened and it won't get people sick or is badly sick.
If everyone around you is vaccinated, it's no big deal since they'll all be protected from the virus and it'll just fizzle out.
The problem comes in when there's a high percentage of unvaccinated in the community because these people can just pass the virus back and forth among each other.
And the longer the virus has to replicate, the higher the chance it could mutate into a version of the illness that can really hurt people and get them sick.
The conversation about vaccine-derived illness is actually one that supports the community immunization.
But the words are easy to confuse if you just read something out of context, like a headline.
For someone like Joe, who's been hitting the whole maybe this is out of context drum this whole episode, you'd think maybe he'd ask himself what this headline he's reading means.
That makes a lot of sense if you look at a lot of the behaviors that Alex manifests.
The idea that he's abusing Adderall or some kind of other stimulant.
I mean, it just checks off a lot of boxes.
I would never speculate about that.
And I think it's a little bit weird for us, even it might be a little bit across the line, but I mean, it's something Joe brought up.
And I honestly do agree with Joe that it is something that would be good to talk about because there are a lot of people who have had trouble.
Yeah.
And yeah, I think that stimulant abuse might be very, very, it would make a lot of sense for how drastically his show has changed over the couple of years.
Like it's not.
I mean, there's the influences that are sort of intellectual that are like these insidious influences of Steve Pieczenik and Roger Stone and a bunch of these weirdos and recognizing that Trump is an opportunity.
Also, probably not thinking that Trump was going to win and thinking you could ron paul him.
But then I really think the, you can't use Bill Maher as an example and the lockstep thing are complete puncturing of the illusion that Alex knows what he's talking about or that he does anything.
Then at the end here, he's getting really sad, saying he wants to quit.
Joe's talking about him being secretly taking Adderall.
If in his subsequent episodes, he came out and said, this was everything I wanted it to be, because I believe that it fully encapsulates.
If you have an understanding of what Alex believes, what he puts into the world, how he communicates, this episode is all you need to decode that he doesn't know shit.
He doesn't know anything about these topics that he's talking about.
And all of the sources that he tries to rely on are misinterpretations or completely made up.
He also is too much of a coward to ever admit any of this stuff.
So when confronted by a friend, he will lie to his friend's face in order to wiggle out of trouble.
I think that if he said that and then said, fuck this dude, I don't associate with him anymore.
Then congratulations.
You have pulled off something fantastic.
But if you continue to associate with him and there's no consequences for the clear demonstrations of bullshit that Alex did here, then you're an active participant in it.
I think that I would ask, if Joe were listening, which he's not, I would ask that he engage in some reflection about some of the points that we've brought up about the tactics that he used to try to get to the bottom of some of Alex's stuff.
They make sense.
Those are the things that you would do if you were trying to figure out what someone's source on a certain thing was.
And that's why you constantly end up with him trying to change the subject, jangling keys in front of people, obfuscating, creating false positions for you to have to own up to.
That's why he does those things, because he can't stand the possibility of you realizing that ultimately there isn't a source.
There isn't anything behind anything that he's saying.
And reflect on that.
And reflect on how you did the best you could, maybe, maybe, and it still won't work.