Knowledge Fight #560 dissects Alex Jones’ May 12–13, 2003, episode, exposing his false claims—like framing MI6’s "StakeKnife" as the IRA’s mastermind despite denials, or linking a Saudi bombing to FEMA drills without evidence. He twisted H.R. 1829 into a prison labor profit scheme while ignoring its rehabilitation focus, and amplified Chandra Levy’s satanic cult allegations from discredited conspiracy theorist Texe Marrs. Jones’ shallow comparisons—prison labor to Nazi camps, Texas Democrats to arrests—reveal his pattern of misinformation for shock value, later mirrored in his rationalizations of police brutality, underscoring how conspiracy-driven narratives distort reality to serve ideological ends. [Automatically generated summary]
And a secondary element of that question is: does Alex believe he's fighting the devil and actively try to hide that from his presentation in order to be taken more seriously at this point in his career?
Right, right, right, right.
And at this point, you know, we started at the beginning of May 2003, and we're now coming to the middle of the month, and I think it's still an open question.
And we'll learn a little bit more today.
But before we do, let's take a little moment to say thank you to some wonks.
It was, in fact, a scathing condemnation of McCarthy and his tactics and a plea not to throw out all opposition to communism just based on how big a piece of shit he was.
So I was able to find this article that Alex is talking about in the LA Times about textbooks.
It's by Diane Ravich, an author whose work is almost exclusively about education-related issues.
The first thing to point out is that this, much like the other article Alex cites, is an editorial.
Ravitz is writing in the first person, and it's not a piece of straight reporting.
Around this time in history, Ravich had just released a book titled The Language Police, How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.
The book was about how fear of igniting controversy from both left and right-wing pressure groups has led to textbooks that give students an incomplete view of subjects like history and literature.
In her article for The Times, she says, quote, the textbooks go out of their way to sanitize the very practices in non-Western cultures that they rightly condemn in our society.
For instance, every textbook acknowledges that the enslavement of Africans by the West was a great crime.
However, when describing slavery in the Middle East or Africa, many claim that it is a path to upward career mobility or a chance to join a new family.
Slavery is wrong in any time and place and should be recognized as such.
That's a fair enough point, but I want to make sure that we illuminate how this criticism is different than that that's lobbied by someone like Alex.
Alex doesn't want all cultures to be represented accurately and with proper historical context.
He would want the Middle Eastern or African slavery discussed, but he would also want the textbooks to ignore American slavery.
Or if they had to cover it, the focus should be on how America actually ended slavery.
And it got into some like really interesting stuff that, like, when I think about going back in time and looking at these episodes, this is such a good example of like being able to go in different directions from things that Alex says and learning about interesting stuff like this.
Top double agent in IRA guilty of up to 40 murders.
Turns out that the top man in the IRA carrying out the bombings, the killings, the shootings, everything, as we told you last year, Was MI5/6 ultra-secret agent.
So, what's going on here is that Alex is glossing over an amazing story just to make it valuable to his worldview when, in fact, it doesn't really work at all.
The IRA member in question here is a double agent for British intelligence codenamed StakeKnife.
Apparently, in the late 1970s, Scapatici met an army sergeant named Peter Jones, a guy who's so charismatic that his superiors, quote, allowed him to wear civilian clothes, don a beard, and develop his own sources.
Somehow, through the magic of charm and booze, even though Jones worked for the British Army and Scappatici was in the IRA, they forged a friendship that resulted in Scapatici becoming a mole.
So by this point, the IRA had become a slightly smaller organization, which was aware that they were spies trying to infiltrate their ranks and become snitches.
As such, they put together a counterintelligence team, which was meant to root out any potential spies.
From Harkin's article, quote, by the mid-1980s, Scapatici was the deputy head of internal security and a trusted member of its general headquarters staff.
Essentially, through unconventional methods, the British government had cultivated a relationship with a double agent who was placed internally in a position that was almost comically strategic.
So as is the case with all these sorts of spy-related stories, everything is morally questionable.
A lot of the story revolves around Scapatici killing or allowing people to be killed who could compromise his position as a double agent or people who they needed to protect in order to pursue goals of like arresting higher-up figures.
It's messy business, and no one's hands are clean, but depending on whose version of the story you believe, this is all made up, according to Scappatici.
Or Scapatici was responsible for helping disrupt multiple terrorist plots at a horrible cost.
The accusation that Freddy Scapatici was stake knife came to light in 2003, and this became a big story, as well, it should be.
The important piece to recognize here, though, is that Alex is missing the forest for the trees.
He deprives his audience of learning about this fascinating piece of history or from learning about the history of the IRA and the troubles because the headline works a different way for him.
This is a story about a very well-placed double agent within the IRA.
But to Alex, this can prove that MI6 was running the IRA all along, and the bombings and the attacks were all just false flags.
That's an outrageous misuse of this story.
And by reporting it this way, Alex is actually doing something worse than just ignoring the story altogether.
He's creating a fake version of it for his audience to erroneously convince themselves they understand.
Even if all the allegations about Scappatici are correct and accurate, he wasn't the top man in the IRA, and he wasn't the one carrying out the bombings.
Alex is embellishing that element of the story because it helps him construct the impression that the world is all fake and that everything you hear is a lie.
Yeah, that's it is really a good, I mean, as far as storytelling goes, when you reduce it down into this kind of bullshit, you miss out on a very human story where people are making difficult decisions in moral gray areas where they're struggling to keep from being caught while at the same time struggling to show that they're trying to catch themselves.
You know, like that's a really fascinating story.
The MI6 already running the IRA is a really boring story, actually.
Well, I mean, and it goes back again to how boring it is that your enemy is both everywhere running everything and is also so incompetent that you can defeat them at any and all times.
I think too, like, what I was getting at is that, like, it's very unsatisfying if you're a demagogue on the radio to be like, all right, let's buckle down and everybody take notes.
This is going to take forever.
It's going to require a lot of reading and research on your part.
In 2018, Freddy Scapatici's home was searched as part of an investigation into his role in the IRA, which didn't result in any murder charges, although he did plead guilty to having at least 329 images of animal porn on his computer.
According to an article in the Irish Times, quote, Westminster's Magistrates Court heard Scapatici tell police that he was not sexually interested in animals, but preferred women with big breasts.
He was ordered to pay a total of £185, including court costs.
Of course, Putin was caught blowing up or trying to blow up his fourth apartment.
Calding did blow up three of them.
Moscow police arrested FSB in 99, planting the bombs.
And then Moscow GRU, their internal security force, went in.
and arrested the police and others that had the hexagon explosives.
They arrested members of the media, and that story was shut down quite quickly.
But that is confirmed, and members of the FSB and others have now spoken out who fled the country.
Then Britain moved to have them arrested and shipped back to Vladimir Putin, who was the former head of the KGB in Stalingrad, Leningrad, St. Petersburg, whatever name you want to give it for the day, but it's now St. Petersburg, the old name.
And he was the guy really running things, and they were pushing Boris Yeltsin around in a wheelchair, completely drunk and drugged out of his mind, who couldn't even speak.
He's been running things for at least the last three years of Yeltsin's tenure.
He was wildly unpopular.
Suddenly, three apartment buildings got blown up outside Moscow in the suburb.
He cracked down, said, I will save you, was a big hero, and got elected with a large portion of the vote, and then had a great war against the Chechnians who screamed, it's not us, it's you.
We haven't found a terror attack in modern history anywhere in the world of any size or scope that wasn't carried out by the globalist.
When I say globalist, I'm talking about the private banks and their private armies that control the top cabals, the compartmentalized cabals in all the intelligence agencies.
If you start from the position of everything is fake, that leaves you with way more options to occasionally accept things as being true.
If you start with the position that some things are true, for instance, Putin bombed his own buildings, then eventually you're going to have to change your opinion whenever you change your opinion about Putin.
Yeah, and I think that Alex is so sneaky that when he says everything is fake, there's so many different versions of fake that he has in his mind that you're like, okay, well.
The average person in the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, even the White House is a good person.
The average Democrat, the average Republican might be corrupt and might be a good old boy, but compared to the cabals that run things, they are nothing.
And let's make this clear: that we have just a few thousand globalists and a few thousand operatives who are carrying all of this out, and then they have the scripts for the media with the media ownership.
They follow the agenda.
We have the power to save this country and, yes, the world if we have courage and stand up and tell the truth.
That clip really helped me put into context why it's so much less painful to listen to Alex's show in 2003 as compared to the present day.
And that is there's a presentation of hope.
In 2003, most people, Democrats and Republicans, even people who work in the intelligence community or in the White House, are good people.
It's just a couple thousand villains who are secretly orchestrating literally every terrorist attack in the world and running all governments and financial systems.
It's ludicrous, but from the standpoint of gauging emotional states, there is a perspective of optimism that you can kind of feel in the program.
Compare that to the modern day where Alex's show is just fucking doom.
In this clip alone, you have a reminder that most people are good people and a confident assertion that there's a good chance that the world can be saved.
Both of these are completely foreign concepts to Alex today.
Everyone who disagrees with him is a pedophile who works for Satan.
And even if the Patriots are successful, the globalists are still going to kill almost everyone with a super bioweapon or whatever he feels like ranting about that day.
Part of the reason his show sucks so much in 2021 is that it's actively depressing.
Not just in the sense that it's depressing that someone would believe the nonsense that he says, but the way the show is structured and the way information is conveyed is a fucking drag.
I don't believe Alex when he talks about courage or honesty, but I think that he might respect human life in 2003.
See, now, this is one thing that is so frustrating about Alex is that on that day that he does find out, I would like him to find out on air, and I would like him to deflate like a balloon, you know, somebody to prick him, and he just goes, um, like that.
But he's not going to do that.
He's just going to include it in some other part of some bullet.
He's going to say, no, they're doing it publicly to get rid of Bath to make you forget that they're actually putting the CIA people in there.
People, Particularly, two members who are Republicans in the House got mad about French fries and French toast being served in the cafeteria because, of course, France had not agreed to join in with the invasion of Iraq, and they were cowards.
All things considered, I think I would rather deal with freedom fries and freedom toast than someone like Alex who's perpetuating the idea that France made this geopolitical decision to not get involved in the Iraq war at that point because they were afraid of Muslim French people attacking from within.
That's deeply Islamophobic and terrifying.
And it's at a point in his career when he has the presentation of not being anti-Muslim.
He's certainly not as aggressively anti-Muslim as he is in the present.
But it seems like those latent things are there very clearly.
So one thing that I wish that I had musical ability because if I did, long ago, I would have made a bumper kind of sting sound for the Alex telling a story that totally happened.
I saw your eyes get a little confused when he was talking about his laundry, and I was a little bit confused as well, but I realized that maybe he's talking about like dry cleaning.
This is a bad answer on Alex's part, but I kind of see what he meant.
Alex meant that this drill was a part of preparing the public for martial law, but what the caller was asking was whether or not the drill would continue past day five into day six and day seven and so on.
Would the drill be how martial law literally started?
That was the question that was being asked.
Sure.
By replying in the affirmative, Alex was essentially telling this guy that this drill was the beginning of enslavement, which is really bad.
It's hard for me to imagine that Alex misunderstood the question, except in the case that he wasn't listening at all, which is totally possible.
So I found the after-action report for this drill released by the Washington State Department of Health.
This drill was called Top Off 2, and it was meant to simulate a WMD attack simultaneously hitting multiple cities.
It began with a bioterrorist attack in Chicago and a dirty bomb going off in Seattle.
In addition to these challenges, quote, a cyber event affecting the state's communication infrastructure hit the week before.
To further complicate the situation, a hostile takeover of the Washington State Ferry and a hostage event in Pierce County, south of Seattle, were included.
That probably seems like overkill, but that's the point.
As the report explicitly says, quote, in all, the event was meant to overwhelm local, state, and federal agencies with the goal of finding ways to improve preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities in the future.
The goal was to create a fake situation that was too much to handle, so you can stress test in a fake situation instead of a real one.
This simulation taught the Washington State Department of Health a bunch of important lessons.
For instance, they learned that their radiological monitoring and assessment center had no reason to be on site since it, quote, became mired in the response organization, which limited its ability to fully perform its work in off-site areas.
That's a pretty important lesson, but probably less critical than them learning that the infrastructure they had in place to transmit bulk data was insufficient to handle the needs they faced in an emergency.
Maps and data tables that were critical to get to decision makers were not effectively transmitted given their existing setup, which is a huge issue that they were able to identify from this.
Another thing that's important to understand is that this is just the after-action report for the Washington State Department of Health.
They didn't run the simulation.
They were just one of the groups participating in it.
Each entity that took play part, they played different roles in the simulation, and they faced different challenges.
And each came away with their own lessons, their own gaps in planning that they could resolve.
I found the after-action summary for the entire exercise from the Department of Homeland Security, and the Washington Department of Health is just one of 47 state or local agencies that took part in the drill, along with 41 federal agencies and 21 agencies from Canada that got involved because that bioattack that hit Chicago, it ended up spreading to Canada.
Yeah, I was reading over this summary, and there's an amazing piece on page eight where the exercise ended up teaching everyone who participated about the actual definitions that are in the Stafford Act, which covers how federal assistance is deployed to states in an emergency.
They found that as it was written, a terrorist bioattack, quote, does not clearly fit the existing definition of a disaster by the act.
This made it so the president couldn't issue a declaration of a disaster in the drill, but instead, the secretary of HHS could only declare a public health emergency.
They didn't realize this beforehand.
From the report, quote, these two declarations illustrated some of the subtleties of the Stafford Act that may not have been fully appreciated before the exercise.
There's a ton of value to organizations preparing like this, using fake disasters to learn how to respond better to real disasters.
This exercise was followed by Top Off 3, which took place in 2005 and expanded to fully include exercises being run by the Canadian and UK governments in collaboration.
In that scenario, they came up with 15 scary terrorist ideas and chose three to simulate.
There was a terrorist release of a mnemonic plague in New Jersey, a mustard gas IED attack in Connecticut, and then the events in the UK and Canada, which this report doesn't specify.
And it really pissed me off because I want to know what games they're doing.
And as of yet, this series of scenario planning exercises has not resulted in martial law.
You would think that if Alex's whole thing about how the globalists use these exercises to launch their evil plans or something had any merit, one of these would have resulted in something more nefarious than government employees learning things.
And I remember that being that's a day that sticks out to me in my head from like my entire elementary school career because of just the excitement of going and like role-playing the scenario of like trying to make sure we were able to communicate between the two.
And they, you know, obviously would throw some curveballs, like something's gone wrong.
I kind of want to see if we can orchestrate like a giant national role-playing game where we just play the exact same thing, but we're people inside of the simulations, and we have to act like we're all dying.
One thing that I found that I actually kind of took a little bit of issue with was that prior to this, there was an exercise, the original top-off exercise.
This is a great indicator of how seriously Alex takes research into what's supposed to be his primary field of study, the truth about 9-11.
It's a regular talking point in the 9-11 conspiracy communities that some of the accused hijackers have been found alive.
But anyone who's looked into this with any depth at all could tell you that this is a simple case of mistaken identity and the investigative process being judged in the middle as opposed to at its conclusion.
One of the men listed as a suspected hijacker was Walid al-Shahiri, who is, and just after the FBI released a photo of him, made a pretty big effort to stress that they had the wrong guy.
He is a pilot in Saudi Arabia and had done flight training at the same school in Daytona Beach that the other 9-11 hijackers had, but he was definitely alive.
One of the Flight 11 hijackers was named Walid Mohammed Al-Shahiri.
As the man who was alive protested his innocence, the BBC made an error in their initial coverage, reporting that a man listed as one of the hijackers was actually alive, which, while technically accurate, gave a different impression from what was actually going on.
If you just live and die by headlines and never look any deeper into things, you could easily think that the person the FBI claimed was on Flight 11 was actually alive, but you would be wrong.
This is a super easy thread to untangle if you want to know what happened.
And certainly all of this information was fully available in 2003.
There are a couple other people who were named as hijackers who initial reports claimed were alive, who actually were alive, like Abdulaziz Al Omari and Salim al-Hazimi.
These two men had something very specific in common, which is that at some point in the not-too-distant past, they had their passports stolen.
Al-Hazmi by a pickpocket in Cairo and Al-Omari in a burglary when he was living in Denver.
Each of the instances Alex has of supposed anomalies like this are actually instances of bad, miscommunicated information that he never followed up on.
Unlike Alex, reporters for Derspiegel actually did look into some of these coincidences to see what happened.
They reached out to John Bradley, the managing editor of Arab News, where much of the initial reporting originated, who told them, quote, all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack.
What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names.
He also made it clear that these articles were being written after September 14th, when the FBI had only released a list of names of suspected hijackers.
There's one area where Alex really needs to be sure he's covering his bases.
It should be 9-11 Conspiracies.
But you can see here how sloppy his work is, even on this trademark subject.
Even in 2003, even about 9-11, he can't go deeper than headlines.
Yeah, I can't imagine the terrible day you would have if your passport had been stolen and then you woke up the next day and it was flying into a plane.
And that period of time between when the FBI released names and when they released photos, there was a great deal of confusion and sort of the fog of unclarity.
Pretty rich for a guy to criticize somebody getting into aliens later on in life and then later on in life telling me that interdimensional beings are controlling the globalists.
So, see, what I do on this show is I don't talk about the visions that some prophet has in the desert who said the nukes are going to go off next year.
And I don't talk about Planet X.
And I don't talk about flying saucers.
And I don't talk about psychics.
And I don't talk about other talk show hosts, unless there's some national host like Sean Hannity saying every child should take a microchip.
I have a video of County Combs.
Or if it's Savage saying, put anyone who disagrees with the government in the forced labor camp.
Yeah, I would say slave labor is bad, and I somehow feel like Alex would disagree with me on that point.
unidentified
I think he agrees, but the reason why is where we get into a little bit of a I saw him on a colloquy with Mark Sauter Thursday a week ago concerning the prison industries and how they're putting our small businesses out of business.
A lot of good old boys, Jones, say, hey, make them prisoners work.
The problem is most of the industry is now privatized.
It is an industry.
They're working for an average of 23 cents an hour competing against your jobs from the lumber to electronics to furniture to uniforms for our military.
Customer service, everything.
It's taking our jobs.
It's slave camps.
Seven and a half million people in the system now.
Yeah, and I think the way to put it on an equal playing field is if they're competing with your business where you pay people, say, $9 an hour, what you should do is convert them into slaves for you, and then everybody's on an equal playing field.
No, I appreciate anybody calling into a political talk show describing their political views very similarly to how my grandma would describe the movie that she just saw a couple of days ago.
unidentified
It was the one with the, and there were the people in it.
So H.R. 1829 in the 108th Congress was also known as the Federal Prison Industries Competition and Contracting Act of 2003.
Here's what that was about.
There's a government-owned corporation called Federal Prison Industries, which is used to produce goods using the labor of incarcerated persons.
I'll read to you here from the CGO cost assessment of implementing this bill.
Quote, under current law, federal agencies are required to purchase products from FPI if products are available to meet the agency's needs and the costs would not exceed current market prices.
Such products include office furniture, textiles, vehicle tags, and fiber optics.
Under the proposed legislation, this requirement would be reduced over the next several years, and the share of the federal market that FPI holds for the products and services it provides would be limited to 20% and 5%, respectively.
If you understand that text properly, what this bill would have done is actively reduce the government use of products created with prison labor.
The bill aimed to divert some of this productive capacity towards making goods that would be donated to nonprofit organizations instead of being sold to the government, which honestly still sucks.
Additionally, there were provisions for funding of vocational training for incarcerated persons and funding for programs to test rehabilitative activities that could be productive towards helping.
This caller has no idea what this bill is, and she's telling Alex about it as if it's something that expands the prison system when in actuality it was designed to limit the profits that are derived from prison labor and funneled a fair amount of money towards efforts to help people improve their lives while incarcerated.
In the House, it's completely bizarre to see how split the vote on this was and not on party lines.
It got yay votes from Steve King, Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Pence.
In the time of polarization that we're in now in the present day, it is really weird to look at this and see it being pretty mixed in terms of parties on each side.
The bill ended up passing the House 350 to 65, but it died immediately upon being received by the Senate, and no action was taken on it.
The idea is to set a date in the future to reassess whether or not the particular bill is worth continuing.
You can take issue with the decision to reauthorize the Patriot Act, but pretending that reauthorizing it is somehow cheating, that's a silly argument.
Both of these examples that Alex uses to make his point that the bills that they have these sunset clauses, they just never go away, they're bills that haven't reached their sunset dates yet.
Now, the case of the Brady bill is actually a little bit more interesting.
The bill was first introduced in 1987 and was constantly a non-starter.
The Reagan administration didn't appear all that interested in it, and Congress had a lot of trouble with getting it to a floor vote, so they would tend to attempt to attach it to larger crime bills, which ended up being a losing strategy.
All this changed when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and voiced support for the Brady bill and indicated that he was willing to sign it if it was passed.
This changed the landscape, and the bill made its way through Congress.
Part of the negotiation to get the bill through Congress had to do with the mandatory waiting periods the bill put in place for gun purchases.
With the technology available at the time, it could take a while to run a background check, so a five-day period was included in the bill.
However, gun proponents wanted to strike a deal.
Their long-standing argument was that a provision should exist that this waiting period would be made null and void once the technology existed for an instant check system.
This made some sense, given that the waiting period was largely predicated on the technological inability to do the checks quicker.
Instead of this compromise, what was decided was that the waiting period provision of the bill would have a sunset clause that would kick in in five years whether or not there was an instant check system that worked.
This satisfied both sides, and the bill passed the House and Senate in November 1993.
The Brady bill itself didn't have a sunset clause.
This provision of it did.
The larger bill was permanent and put in place requirements for background checks for gun sales made by federally licensed gun sellers.
In 1998, the NICS system was developed, and that kind of made this whole question moot.
The Sunset Clause came and went, and now there is no federal waiting period required for purchasing a gun.
Each state has the right to make their own rules on that, and according to a recent article from ABC News, 10 states and the District of Columbia have waiting periods, whereas most states do not.
Alex and Craig Roberts are covering the subject from a completely dishonest perspective.
Alex is just making stuff up, and Craig is pretending that the entire Brady bill was set to sunset, when in fact it was just this specific provision, which did in fact go away.
I understand that they're staunch opponents of any kind of gun regulation, but covering the material this inaccurately feels like it's a disservice to sincere people who care about gun rights, and it leads me not to take the stuff that they're saying all that seriously about any other issues.
It's still not nearly as overt as he is now, but it's getting close to being disturbing.
The issue that I run into is that based on what Alex is saying, he could very well think that he's fighting a group of Satanists and at the same time not think that he's fighting the minions of the literal Christian devil.
The description includes, quote, Jewish scientists are working on DNA that will be inserted into the mind of every person at birth, ending anti-Semitism forever and creating new races that will love Jews.
Now, I don't want to order or listen to this one, but I'm guessing the answer Tex comes to is yes.
Based on how the description ends.
Quote, if Texe Marrs were to declare an international Burn the Talmud Day, would you be there to help him toss these trashy devil volumes into the bonfire?
Also, I should point out that his website also sells a bunch of books about how the Holocaust didn't happen, including one by a guy named Brian A. Lewis Sherobot.
And one of the things that's the most constant theme of his is that Judaism is synonymous with Satanism.
It's something that constantly comes up in his lecture titles.
One is just called, quote, Inventors of Evil Things, How the Jews Created Freemasonry, Illuminism, Communism, Satanism, Witchcraft, and the New Age movement, and what they're up to now.
The description of that tape includes this, quote, Jesus said of the Jews, you are of your father, the devil, and he spoke absolute truth.
For someone like Texe Marrs, all roads lead back to Jewish people being behind the conspiracies that he promotes.
His brand is anti-Semitism.
It's just impossible to engage with his material and not understand that.
So, if Alex taking this conspiracy about Chandra Levy being involved in satanic sex cults, you know, that's from Texe Marrs' website, if he's taking that seriously, that's an indication of a very serious trend towards anti-Semitic content on Alex's part in this period.
Tex wrote at least two columns about Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder, and thankfully these are not behind a paywall, so I could read them.
Tex, based on literally no evidence other than his imagination, decides that as a Mossad agent, Chandra had insinuated herself in Gary Condit's life, then used him to get herself access to the CIA headquarters.
There, she learned of the Illuminati's plan to use fake Islamic terrorists to do 9-11, and thus she had to be killed so she couldn't spill the beans.
Tex puts it this way: quote, as horrifying as the question may be, one must now contemplate the mind-numbing possibility that Chandra Levy very well may have been victim to a darkly vicious satanic force.
According to Tex, these darkly vicious satanic forces are the work of, quote, DC's exclusive satanic brotherhood, to which he claims literally all members of Congress have to be a part.
When Texe Marrs is discussing these satanic forces, you'd have to be a monumental idiot to not understand he's demonizing Jewish people.
It's really fucking obvious.
If you know anything about his work, you could just check out his lecture titled, quote, The Jews Are Preparing a Grave for America, which warns that, quote, powerful Jewish interests have a stranglehold on American government, the economy, and our culture.
On the one hand, it's kind of intriguing to have this first step towards Alex talking about his feelings about the devil and Satanism in 2003.
But on the other, in much more serious hand, it's a real problem when you pull the thread of what he's talking about, and it leads back to another Austin-based conspiracy theory who believes that Satanism is a plot of the Jews.
So, yeah, I'm really, I'm really troubled by this.
I did not expect that the first sort of fuller overture towards talking about satanic forces and what have you would be in the context of a story that was widely disseminated primarily by Texe Marrs, who has a tendency towards Satanism and stuff being coded ways for him to be anti-Semitic.
That leads me to be very worried about how much more anti-Semitic Alex's show may have been in the past.
Yeah, it does seem like it's making me clear that I need to, when I'm looking at these past episodes, I need to be a little bit more cognizant of them.
Because the question could be raised, like, with the globalists, is he stealing obviously effective anti-Semitic propaganda in order to rebrand it and use what is a very effective way to make his own money.
So it's that kind of appropriation versus it's a question that we've never really been able to find definitive answers to.
This does seem like a good troubling.
Yeah.
Because I don't believe that anybody, anybody could engage with the work that Texe Marrs puts out and not be aware of the particular character of anti-Semitism and a bunch of other stuff, too.
Anti-Catholic.
He just hates a lot of people.
But I don't think that you could.
And for Alex to, you know, seem to take information from his website seriously, it makes you worried about what other stuff he might.
You know, if the government was leaving our liberties alone, leaving our guns alone, leaving our freedoms alone, controlling our borders, and they said, let's invade Iraq because they're bad.
Let's invade Syria-Iran.
I could say, well, that violates what George Washington said, but you know what?
You can't really argue with it too much.
If they were really bringing freedom and all this, but they're not.
They're mowing down protesters.
They're giving them $20 a month to live on.
They're totally enslaving them.
They're grabbing all the oil.
They're enslaving us here domestically.
They got gun bills that dwarf all gun control ever seen that Bush says he's going to sign.
Now, I should tell you, I have studied everything about tyranny, and I am probably the only person who really understands it and is a voice against all forms of despotism.
And I think that this is indicative of the shallowness of Alex's opposition and the shallowness of his beliefs, at least surrounding the issues that he presents himself as being on the marquee.
And one of the things that I can't really get past is how obvious it is listening to this that even if you didn't know that Alex turned into the biggest piece of shit in the world.
Right.
If I heard him say that back then, I would be like, wait a second.
And I think what it is not so much that as it is, like, I think about going back and watching a movie from the 90s now, and stuff pops up and you're like, I remember this movie as being one thing.
I think if you give somebody the benefit of the doubt, especially during the time period, you're going to wind up missing or like skipping over in your brain just stuff and being like, he wasn't really thinking about that.
Alex's belief about the whole drill thing is that the globalists use drills so they can have plausible deniability in case one of their plans goes wrong or someone involved in the attack gets caught.
For instance, they'll run a bombing drill when they plan to carry out a bombing because that way they can plan out the details of the bombing.
And if anybody asks what they're doing, they can say it's for the drills.
There are also ideas about how the globalists have to tell you what they're doing before they do it, according to some dumb intergalactic contract law.
But generally speaking, this concept that the drills are used as cover is central to why the connection between drill and event means anything.
Alex's theories about the London 7-7 bombing rely on a misunderstanding about news reports about a consultant giving a brainstorming presentation to business executives where he had a scenario planned that closely mirrored the actual events of the bombing.
That's a thin connection to draw, but at least the subject matter of the scenario and the attack were similar enough that you could see what Alex is trying to say.
In this instance, there were a number of suicide bombings in residential compounds in Riyadh that were generally known to be occupied by foreigners, particularly Westerners.
Meanwhile, in Chicago and Seattle, there was an interagency exercise going on that simulated a simultaneous biological attack in one city and a dirty bomb in another.
These two situations lack the primary piece of the whole drill conspiracy puzzle, which is that they're used to plan the attacks.
This is sloppy shit, and I'm kind of shocked that Alex's listeners wouldn't realize this.
Like, I can kind of understand buying the whole drill conspiracy when there's overlap between the drill and the event.
But even when you accept this nonsense, like now Alex expects you to believe this extends this far.
Like these completely unrelated and not even thematically connected scenarios in Seattle and Chicago are somehow related to bombings in Riyadh and like when there's a like a very unpopular war happening in Iraq.
We talk about the tragic, convenient, right-on-time bombings to legitimize the police state and these drills are running, the FEMA takeover drills, the martial law preparation activation test that's going on for the FEMA takeover.
And if you believe or like your editorial line for these narratives is that all this stuff is fake, it's no longer disrespectful to take something like this and use it however you want because who cares?
Because I mentioned it, and it's online at Infowars.com right now.
Councilwoman criticizes action by constables.
This is out of the morning call online mainstream newspaper.
They shot three dogs too fatally when they went to serve a warrant in Allentown for unpaid parking tickets.
Saying there is a doozy of a problem here.
Allentown councilwoman Gail Hoover expressed outrage Sunday over the shooting of three dogs too fatally by constables serving a warrant on a man who had not paid parking tickets.
Police should never behave this way, and I think we can all agree on that.
I just find it interesting that Alex ends up taking almost an entire segment on the show to rant about this story, which is honestly tragic, but definitely doesn't seem like something that needs to be front and center of the show's news that day.
It just makes me really sad to see him spending like 10 minutes decrying the evils of the police killing two dogs when in his later career he rationalizes that sometimes police are right when they shoot unarmed black people.
Personally, I'm opposed to all acts of police violence, but I don't think like a story like this actually ranks as important news for a number of reasons.
The first is that even from Alex's headline, you can tell that the city council person is upset about this event and is pushing to take appropriate steps to address the issue.
In this instance, you can see unacceptable behavior from the police, but you can also almost be certain that the victim is going to win a civil suit and have some kind of restitution.
And that's exactly what did end up happening when they settled a claim against the cops who shot their dogs for $320,000.
Money can never make up for the loss of a loved pet, but I mean, what can you do after the fact?
Even this story that came out in the morning call about this shooting prior to this episode that Alex is recording quotes another cop who, quote, said he wanted the family to know that constables carry up to $500,000 in liability insurance.
Quote, we're walking cash cows for a good lawyer, he said.
Even other cops in the department were saying that they needed to do what needed to be done to make things right.
That cop reminds me so much of that Kyle Kinane bit where he's like, you know, you meet somebody, you meet enough, you live an interesting enough life, you meet plenty of cops in your day.
And every now and again, you find one who's just like, there, but for the grace of God, go out.
He's like, eh, I could have been working at the gas station or, you know, being a cop pays five bucks better.
So, oh, man, that's great.
unidentified
That cop just being like, hey, man, sue the shit out of me.
And I'm driving along listening when I left to the 7 o'clock news or whatever.
And I'm listening, and they said that the governor, when the Speaker of the House has ordered the arrest of over 80 members of the legislature.
And I'm listening.
No, I'm not kidding.
I'm listening to them reading this AP headline, national headline, because they say they've been ordered basically under Homeland Security to follow all orders, to vote as they're told by Washington.
And then you hear this state rep from Houston saying they're taking over.
We won't be part of this.
And that's all it said.
We don't know what they're talking about.
I typed in the article.
It popped up.
It just said they've been ordered to be arrested.
See, I'm so conditioned in this la-law land that I'm hearing that members of the House have been ordered in the Senate to be arrested.
So what happened here is that the Republicans had taken control of the Texas legislature in the most recent election, and they were pushing a hard agenda that included harsh spending cuts and redistricting.
How funny is it that we no longer live in a world where I can assume after you say the Texas Republicans took control of the legislature that it would end in an election?
The Texas House requires a quorum of at least 100 of their members to actually meet and vote on things.
So 58 of the Democrats In office, they decided just to not show up to boycott the agenda that they were essentially powerless to stop in a vote.
This is something they can do, and in response, the House Speaker has the authority to send the Texas Rangers out to find them and bring them in to vote.
It's basically hide and seek, but with the government.
An Associated Press article includes an amazingly dishy response from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid, who said that she had, quote, no authority to arrest lawmakers who show up there, but went on to say, quote, Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the lookout for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Democrats returned when the time had elapsed for the bill, but it didn't matter.
Governor Rick Perry held repeated special sessions to push through the redistricting plan and eventually got it passed, thereby gerrymandering the hell out of the state house districts and giving a very strong advantage to Republicans to remain in power.
Alex is pretending that this is an instance of power mad folks having their political opponents arrested and sent to the hole.
But the reality is it's part of political maneuvering that's uncommon, but it's not really outside of the standard rules set forth by the Texas House.
The way that this is characterized, the way this sort of has a little bit of a clue leading back to Texe Marrs is a bit troubling.
And I'm worried about what we're actually going to find through this fanciful and seemingly fun investigation into when Alex started thinking he was fighting the devil.
It does feel a lot like that day you're like, hey, Carrie Cassidy, kind of an anti-Semite, and then it all crumbled down and you're like, fuck, all fun things just wind up with anti-Semitism at the bottom.