Today, Dan and Jordan dip back into the past. In this installment, Alex tries to pretend that Strom Thurmond wasn't racist, interviews an anti-Semite and an Islamophobe about how they don't like immigrants, and intrigues Dan with a tale about gold bars. Citations
So, for instance, even in the information that Alex provided in just that clip, you might end up like, if that's all you had to go on, you might ask yourself, why did Strom Thurmond go from being a Democrat to being a Republican?
So the longer version is that in 1956, many Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats as they were known, after they went a little rogue in response to Harry S. Truman supporting some civil rights things in the 1948 election.
So these Dixiecrats were really pissed off about the Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus Board of Education, which ruled that racially segregated schools were unconstitutional.
In response, 112 of the 138 members of Congress from southern states signed what they called the Southern Manifesto.
This document insisted that the Supreme Court had no right to meddle in the matters of education, and if states wanted to make it so people of different races had to go to separate schools, protecting that right was critically important.
So they pleaded that they should be able to keep their whole separate but equal thing going, and blamed efforts to desegregate on, quote, outside meddlers.
This was a losing battle he was fighting, as the tide was trending towards civil rights, but that didn't stop him from really trying fucking hard.
And that brings us to August 28th, 1957, when Strom Thurmond embarked on the longest filibuster in history, attempting to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957, a large part of which had to do with protecting black people's right to vote.
LBJ's assistant, Bill Moyers, has quoted Johnson as saying, quote, I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.
After he'd signed the bill, The LBJ shit was just too much.
The Republican Party would soon roll out the Southern Strategy, an attempt to win over white Southern voters by explicitly appealing to their racism.
This was essentially the point where the parties completely changed their identities from what they were previously, and many of the Southern Democrats became Republicans.
There were still some racist Democrats, for sure, but a lot of the hardcore folks, like a guy who would speak for 24 hours straight to try and stop black people from being guaranteed equal voting rights, they just made their jump to the Republican Party.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Strom Thurmond is essentially synonymous with racism.
Even though he did soften as time went on, and he would eventually do things like vote in favor of making a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr., his legacy is impossible to separate from his horrible racism at a time when it really mattered a lot.
The fact that Alex can't even accept this very clear reality of history, it's an indication of how entrenched his own racism is, even in 2003.
He's just a little publicly less angry about it at this point in his career.
You know, what's wild about the Strom Thurmond thing is, I remember in my freshman history class, we were talking about the president pro tempore of the Senate being fourth in line for becoming the president, and I was like...
Who is that now?
And they go, well, they usually just give it to the oldest senator.
And it was Strom Thurmond at the time.
And I was like, oh, that's really funny.
It's the oldest senator.
And she just looked at me and she was like, yeah, I wouldn't.
Like Strom Thurmond, if I were you.
Do you know what your job should be?
Hey, Strom Thurmond was a giant racist who filibustered for over 24 hours to end civil rights as we knew it.
I mean, sooner or later when you're defending Strom Thurmond, you're going to be the guy who says something and you go, now, I didn't mean that in a racist way.
But Alex does make a good point about Senator Byrd.
I will admit that.
That dude was also a piece of shit and was definitely in the Klan.
There's no real evidence that he was involved in the Klan past around 1950, though, and he expressed a great deal of regret about being a member later on.
In the name of fairness, though, I don't think it's right of me to say that it's cool to look at Bird differently because he changed later in his life when I'm still sticking it to Strom Thurmond, even though he did change a little bit as time went on as well.
I have a perfect solution to this problem, though, and that is to say fuck both of them.
Now, the only reason I'm really getting into this at all is because there's a perfect example that Alex could use to make this same argument a ton better, but he doesn't, which is strange.
Alex should, instead of bringing up Byrd, he should be bringing up George Wallace, considering that he was a hardcore segregationist, as he famously said, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
Wallace was a gigantic racist, and he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way up to 1976.
Now, there's a reason that Alex can't use Wallace as the example of racists in the Democratic Party, and that's because he has to believe that George Wallace isn't a racist, or else his entire worldview suddenly starts to look really racist.
There's the huge problem that he was the candidate that the John Birch Society was most into, and that alone could make Alex not want to associate him with the very clear racism that he embodied.
Then there's the other question that this association would bring up, which is that the book that Alex credits with changing his life is None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which was written by Gary Allen.
Allen was one of, if not the most popular writers and speakers in the John Birch Society, and was also George Wallace's speechwriter.
Honestly, Alan was his speechwriter on the presidential campaigns, the first of which launched in 1963, the same year he said his famous quote about segregation forever.
So it's not impossible that Alan had some hand in those words.
Huh.
unidentified
Then you have the issue that one of the big backers of Wallace's 1968 independent party run for president was Willis Cardo, the white supremacist and neo-Nazi who founded the Liberty Lobby and published the Spotlight, the Holocaust-denying publication that was edited by Alex's friend, Big Jim.
that unravel when you pull on George Wallace unravel in ways that kind of make it too clear that Alex's world and his formative influences are all profound racists.
That's why, even though George Wallace would be the perfect example to demonstrate democratic racism at the time of Strom Thurmond and the Civil Rights Period, Alex would instead go with Byrd, who has a, you know, he has a decidedly racist past, but no real indication of that Klan association continuing into the period we're talking about.
So Alex has a guest on this show, and it's somebody that I have not heard on his show before, and it's a character by the name of John Andrews, who is at this point, he was the president of the Colorado State Senate, and he has been pushing for...
Tighter controls on what identification people can use.
Things like the consular matricula cards, like the Mexican consulate.
So, just to clear up what Alex is talking about, matricula cards are photo IDs that the Mexican consulate can issue to Mexican nationals living outside of Mexico.
These are very helpful, particularly for Mexican immigrants living in the United States for a number of reasons.
The first is that they allow consulates to be able to track and locate people much easier than they would be able to otherwise in the case of, like, an emergency.
The second reason is that they are considered valid ID by many states, thus allowing immigrants of any documentation status to apply for a driver's license, and it allows them to pay taxes.
Further, since the matricula card is a valid ID, they allow folks the ability to open bank accounts, which is pretty important.
One thing they don't do is confer any sort of immigration status upon the holder of one of these cards.
It's just a secure, official, difficult-to-forge form of identification that makes everyone's life easier that these guys are super against.
Alex is interviewing this guy, John Andrews, the then president of the Colorado Senate, about a bill he was championing called Colorado House Bill 1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Act.
This act wasn't designed to have the Mexican consulate stop issuing these cards, because that would have been a violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Instead, this act was aimed at making it so state and local agencies in Colorado could, quote, only accept secure and verifiable documents, which then was defined as not being these things.
This was essentially just a bill designed to make immigrants' lives more difficult by doing things like making it so people who have consular ID cards can't use them to get driver's licenses or bank accounts.
Folks like Andrews often try to couch their motivations as being about keeping people safe and making sure that people can't exploit the system.
But the reality is that this kind of bullshit hurts a lot more people than just undocumented immigrants.
And it would be really naive to imagine that Andrews isn't aware of that.
Yeah.
unidentified
In 2006, a report was released by the Brennan Center for Justice titled Citizens Without Proof.
which was aimed at analyzing the effect that these restrictions on getting identification have, or have the potential to have, on U.S. citizens themselves.
They found that 7% of U.S. citizens do not have ready access to the documents that would be required to get a driver's license under these new laws.
Though, they would qualify to get one.
They should, but they just don't have the documents to get them.
However, this number actually goes up to 12% when you only include people who make under $25,000 a year.
So he begins by extolling how great and important religious freedom is.
Quote, Unless every American is free to honor God as conscience may guide, and to obey God in the public square as long as no one else is harmed, unless we are free in that precious way, we are not free at all.
So far, so good!
As long as he's talking about all religious beliefs and also the absence of religious belief, I can go along with him.
I will speak with tough love from the heart, with no animosity or ill will toward any person.
Let me, please hear me carefully.
Suppose somebody originated a belief system that claimed exclusive right to revelation, the command from above, and harnessed that aggressive claim to a burning sense of victimization, the wound from within.
What a loose cannon that would be.
Suppose its claim of revelation included a totalitarian political and economic system, not subject to reformation, set forth in a holy book, not subject to revision.
Suppose its legal scholars and clergy insisted the day is coming when that book must govern all mankind on penalty of death to whoever would refuse to submit.
When he claims that a belief system called Islam is this horribly murderous totalitarian victimhood-obsessed cult that includes a quarter of the world's population, he's including in that slur the nice Muslim neighbors he's pretending to not be talking about.
This is abject demonization of all Muslims, pretending to be in opposition to terrorism.
Just a few paragraphs after he says that he's not talking about the nice Muslim neighbors, he literally says, quote, Fuck this dude.
John Andrews sucks, and his actions in 2003 as a part of the Colorado Senate are motivated by the same things that motivate his intense hatred of Islam.
He's a xenophobic asshole who views America as a white Christian country, and he's dedicated to pursuing politics that support that view.
The only thing I'm left in confusion about...
Like, when I look into this guy, he's like, why is he not still a regular guest on Infowars?
And then, he goes on to cite somebody that it's almost amazing that he would cite.
unidentified
It's not about bashing Mexicans.
It's about the rule of law and whether we take U.S. national sovereignty.
Seriously.
At the congressional hearing last week from Iowa, of all places, Iowa, long, long ways from the Mexican border, Congressman Steve King of Iowa told of going to see a school principal in suburban Des Moines, a Hispanic guy, an educator, who had signed an ad protesting King's immigration concerns.
And King says to the gentleman, what's your problem?
And this Hispanic American, presumably a U.S. citizen, an educator, someone in charge of molding the minds of kids, says, look, brother, we didn't cross the border.
The border crossed us.
We're in the process of getting this corner of the country back, and we want to thank you because we're getting it back, potentially improved from the condition in which we lost it in the 1840s.
I love that this really fake story that Steve King told is now being repeated by this Colorado state senator to Alex to defend his racist political ideas.
So there was no alleged Hispanic teacher who told Steve King that they were recolonizing the country and that they appreciated that America had made some improvements to the play Hey, I love it.
But I think that there's a couple of points that jump out as the most interesting.
The first is that this story is meant to evoke the feeling of someone taking advantage of the hard work that you've done.
These supposed Mexican folks who are going to take the country over are going to exploit the fruits of our hard labor.
This is a particular fear for white nationalists, because on some level, they're aware that this is exactly what the United States and other Western countries did through colonialism, and that without the exploitation of other populations and their resources, they wouldn't have the affluence that they enjoy today.
Being all freaked out about some terrifying foreign group coming to enjoy that affluence on our expense, that's on some level an expression of guilt that these folks will never really process or be in touch with, which they should probably get some therapy.
The second thing that I think is really fucked up about this fake story that Andrews is relating has to do with the characterization of this fictional Hispanic guy.
He's telling Steve King that he's part of this effort to recolonize Des Moines and the rest of the United States, and you'll notice that Andrew specifically points out that this man is presumably a legal resident of the United States.
This isn't explicitly laid out in the story, but this is a detail that exists in the telling to make the audience afraid of all immigrants, even if they're here legally and fully documented.
It's the same mentality that exists in his 2019 comments about you can't be a faithful Muslim and a faithful American.
It's targeting and demonizing the entire group while pretending that's not what you're doing.
This is how someone like Steve King or John Andrews can pretend that their politics and beliefs are about national security or the rule of law, but the actual message they're putting forth is one of white nationalism and xenophobia.
Just because a Hispanic guy that Steve King made up is here legally, that doesn't mean that he's not also part of an effort to recolonize the United States.
So there's this initiative that John Andrews is putting forth, and that is this idea that you don't want places to accept these matricula cards as acceptable forms of identification.
But he wants every official place to not recognize this.
And Alex has a really fucked up way that he talks about how, like, all the states need to get on board.
unidentified
I do hope people will visit coloradosenate.com and learn more about the bill and encourage legislators in their states to follow suit, just like we're encouraging the U.S. Congress to follow suit.
And it's really interesting as a thing for Alex to be saying, because it absolutely contradicts literally everything he believes about the balance between liberty and security.
He constantly rails on things like the Patriot Act, and one of his biggest and fairly defensible problems with it is that it was sold to the American people using fear.
The idea was that if the folks in national security couldn't expand their abilities to operate, thereby encroaching on people's liberty, then that would make the next terrorist attack more likely, because national security can't.
If I took Alex seriously and thought his beliefs meant anything to him, I would say that this was really strange and hypocritical way for him to support this bill against accepting IDs.
unidentified
Because I know as much about him as I do, I know that this really isn't a contradiction for him.
This is not a small point, and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that these state-level pushes to use the fear of terrorism to restrict various forms of ID from being acceptable, that was the beginning of a trend that would come to a head when Congress enacted Public Law 109-13 in May 2005.
This was part of the, quote, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief.
Page 82 of the bill, in Division B, Title II, Section 202, new standards were laid out for what documents were necessary for states to determine a person's identity for any official purpose, including issuing IDs or driver's license, and naturally, the standard became much higher, and states were required to adhere to a federal minimum requirement in terms of what they considered a proof of identity.
Predictably, Alex and his weirdo friends were all up in arms and furious about the Real ID Act because it affects the only group that matters to them, people who look like them.
They tend to forget that the precursor to these evil ID laws was their own agitating against accepting things like consular IDs as acceptable forms of identification, and that the same arguments and stoking fears of imaginary Mexicans trying to recolonize or terrorists hiding in immigrant communities that they used to pursue their goals were used to push the Real ID Act.
Yeah.
unidentified
And you even hear John Ankerberg We're pushing Congress to take action on this on a federal level.
The thing that is most annoying about Republicans constantly hoisting themselves upon their own petard is that they have to hoist the rest of us on it with them.
And in the interest of fairness, I guess you could make the argument that Alex would be fine with these real IDs as long as they were run by the state as opposed to the federal government.
And that may seem like a good point at first, but it's not.
The first reason is that if the argument is that you need more restrictive rules about identification, because if you don't, there will be terrorist attacks or Mexicans are going to recolonize the country.
That's not a state-level issue.
If just one state has super lax standards for identification, then there wouldn't be anything stopping these imaginary terrorists from going to that state using a consular ID to get a driver's license, which would then be recognized by all the states that have implemented these restrictive ID guidelines.
let's say that like you handled gun laws at like a state level and so some states had really strict gun laws and other states had really lax gun laws like say you were Illinois right you were living in Chicago and then just just like mere mere miles away the gun laws were very very lax you know That wouldn't cause trouble.
We've got Glenn Spencer, one of my favorite guests, to come on to talk about the destruction of America and our sovereignty, how illegal aliens get more welfare, more tuition, more rights, are allowed to have fake ID cards that anyone can get.
So just to be clear, Alex hasn't demonstrated in any way that it's easy to get multiple consular IDs, nor has he proven that undocumented immigrants get more government assistance, nor that they have more rights than citizens.
This is just legitimately only his extreme white victimhood complex speaking.
I don't love that Glenn Spencer is Alex's other guest on this episode.
This whole thing might as well just be one long attack on immigrants, particularly those from Mexico.
That's what this episode is.
We've talked about Spencer in the past, but it's been a while, so let me refresh your memory a little bit.
He's that total asshole who founded a group called the American Border Patrol, who essentially pretended to be law enforcement guarding the border.
This was really the vanguard of this type of activity, since Glenn was doing that shit back in the early 2000s.
Flash forward to 2019 and you have militia members deputizing themselves to guard the border and actually detaining immigrants.
Larry Hopkins was arrested for being a felon in possession of a gun, which he should have been arrested for long prior since it stemmed from a 2017 raid.
He was inspired in no small part by Trump and Tucker and Alex's constant fear-mongering about the immigrant caravan set to blow up the southern border.
Also, his group's former spokesman, James Benvey, left the UCP to start his own border militia called the Guardian Patriots, but then he was arrested and...
sent to prison for 21 months on two counts of impersonating a border patrol agent anyway the point is in the how did they catch him in the present day we have a lot of right-wing xenophobic shitheads who think they're entitled to cosplay as law enforcement because they're white glenn spencer was one of the leaders in that world and probably a hero to all the dum-dums out there today Glenn is also one of the main proponents of the Aztlan conspiracy theory, which Alex subscribes to.
This is essentially the belief that Mexican immigration is an explicit plan to take back over the Southwest states.
The SPLC quotes Spencer from a 2000 rally.
Quote, The dream of conquering Astlan lies deep in the heart of the Mexican psyche.
This explains why some are willing to risk death.
Their goal is more than jobs.
It is conquest.
They believe what they're doing is noble.
They're defying the gringo to take back what is rightfully Mexico's.
If you believe what Spencer promotes, it's really hard to see how you could be so against illegal immigration for this reason, but somehow totally cool with legal immigration.
It seems like just sloppily disguised white nationalism.
So in that article, he argues that liberal Jews who control Hollywood are trying to insert pro-immigrant propaganda into everything they release so as to, I guess, make America less white.
From an SPLC article about MacDonald and the three books he wrote about Jewish people.
McDonald's basic premise is that Jews engage in group evolutionary strategy that serves to enhance their ability to outcompete non-Jews for resources.
Although normally a tiny minority in their host countries, Jews like viruses destabilize their host societies to their own benefit, McDonald argues.
Because this Jewish group behavior is said to have produced much financial and intellectual success over the years, McDonald claims it has also produced understandable hatred for Jews by Gentiles.
That means that antisemitism, rather than being an irrational hatred for Jews, is actually a logical reaction to Jewish success.
In other words, the Nazis, like many other antisemites, were only antisemitic because they were countering a genuine Jewish threat to their well-being.
So the fact that Spencer linked to McDonald's essay in this post is what you might call a tell.
Spencer is against immigration, but he also believes that the Jews are the ones trying to bring in immigrants somehow as an attack on the country and produce pro-immigrant propaganda in Hollywood and all this.
I mean, Spencer says as much as this stuff in his own article.
Quote, I have many Jewish friends and they have been extremely instrumental in fighting illegal immigration.
I fear, however, that this small handful of patriotic Americans are far outnumbered by liberal Jews who now have total control over our media.
Anyway, this anti-Semitic racist xenophobic shithead who was the precursor to the modern militia dum-dums pretending to be cops and patrolling the border is one of Alex's favorite guests.
They reported in the BBC about two months ago that Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister...
Was to be paid upwards of four and a half million dollars a year.
It was almost three million pounds a year, so over four million U.S. And that he was going to live on a hundred plus thousand acre palace of Prince Charles and was to be given armed bodyguards, helicopter escort, into the shopping centers, into London.
I mean, lavish lifestyle.
Quote!
If he would inform on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Now, I don't know where that story went.
Where is Tariq Aziz?
We hear no discussions of him now.
They admit they paid off Iraqi Republican Guard leaders before the war in gold bars.
I've heard Alex say that the Iraqi Republican Guard was paid off with gold bars a bunch of times, and I just kind of ignored it, because I was like, this is stupid.
But this time, I wanted to dig in and see if I could figure out where this idea came from.
And I think I did.
Apparently, in 2003, some U.S. soldiers in Iraq detained three people that they stopped in a car that they felt might have been heading towards the Iranian border.
Their probable cause to search them was that, quote, the driver's paperwork and ID didn't match the vehicle registration.
In the bed of the truck, the soldiers found 999 bars of, quote, crudely made non-minted gold bars that they estimated were worth between $80 and $100 million.
Obviously, this is weird, but to make things even stranger, quote, two days earlier, soldiers stopped another Mercedes dump truck on its way towards the Syrian border, hauling a load of 2,000 gold bars that looked very similar to the ones seized on Monday.
Then, in June, another truck with 1,183 ingots that were suspected to be gold were intercepted by soldiers at a routine checkpoint.
This is very exciting stuff.
So these would definitely not be gold bars that were used to pay someone off.
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
Because there was an article in the Chicago Tribune about this that said, quote, these bars aren't pure, like the bouillon found at Fort Knox, but crudely melted bricks of jewelry.
Well, the leading theory as of June was that the gold was the gold that Saddam Hussein had encouraged Iraqi citizens to donate for his war effort against Iran.
Quote, rich businessmen, many Iraqis recall, were expected to cough up three to five pounds of gold or face a visit from Hussein's goon squads.
The speculation was that this was a sophisticated and organized group plundering.
Yeah, that's fun.
By August, however, there had been some analyses on the gold bars, and it turned out that they weren't actually gold.
From a New York Times article, quote, gold-colored bars seized by American troops in Iraq appear to be melted-down shell casings made mostly of copper rather than gold.
If Alex had another source on this story, I'm happy to check it out, but it seems like...
It's almost certain that this real-life story is the one that he has distorted into being about globalists paying off bad party officials and Republican guard with bars of gold.
This is the junior varsity, the minor leagues here, before we go on to join the big team.
Let me add something.
Kennedy, for all his corruption and his womanizing and all the rest of it, changed his ways at the end, woke up, gave speeches at American University and other areas.
I have copies of them.
I have texts from the National Archives, Library of Congress.
I love video of this.
I can find it.
I know it exists.
Where he warned of a great corrupt influence that had taken over our government.
Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex.
And Kennedy was a hawk.
He was pro-war, pro-CIA, pro all this stuff.
And then suddenly he cut taxes, said, I'm abolishing the Federal Reserve.
I'm getting us out of Vietnam.
I'm going to scatter the CIA to the four winds.
He wouldn't go along with nuclear war.
He said no to the Northwoods plan, the U.S. government plan, to kill American citizens and blame it on foreign enemies.
When he saw Northwoods in 1962, that's when his whole outlook changed, and they assassinated him six months later.
So one of the things that Alex is doing here is that he's intentionally fudging the timeline of events in order to create the appearance that things are more connected than they are.
Operation Northwoods was crafted and presented to JFK's Secretary of State, Robert McNamara, on March 13, 1962, who then briefed President Kennedy.
Alex is claiming that six months later, Kennedy was assassinated, but that didn't happen until November 19...
1963.
You know, it wouldn't sound as compelling if it's like he saw Northwoods and then a year and a half later he was assassinated.
Alex wants these things to feel closer in time in the audience's mind because that makes it feel like they're connected or even like one led to the other.
It's a rhetorical trick and it's a lie.
As for the other stuff, most of that's not true either.
Whatever you might say about JFK, one thing you cannot deny is that he was promoting globalism right up to the end.
On June 10th, 1963, a few months before he was assassinated, Kennedy gave a speech at commencement for American University, which is what Alex was referring to, and it's very easy to find that video if Alex would just look for it.
The speech was about the hope for reaching world peace.
Here's a little passage.
Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude.
I hope they do.
I believe we can help them do it.
JFK supported world law, which necessitates a collective body that can enforce that law, like the UN.
Speaking of the UN, later in that speech, he says, quote, We seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system, a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law.
Seems like exactly the sort of thing that Alex's version of him wouldn't say.
On September 20th, 1963, even more close to the date of his assassination, JFK gave an address before the General Assembly of the UN.
I don't think Alex would love the sentiment that was expressed in this speech.
Quote, the fact remains that the United States as a major nuclear power does have a special responsibility in the world.
It is, in fact, a threefold responsibility.
A responsibility to our own citizens, a responsibility to the people of the world who are affected by our decisions, and to the next generation of humanity.
Alex doesn't think that we have responsibilities to the rest of the world, whether or not they've been affected by our decisions.
Like, one of his heroes was Ron Paul, and his big thing, like, one of them was eliminating literally all foreign aid.
In that speech from two months before he was assassinated, Kennedy talks with the UN about how essential international cooperation is to facing the problem.
And he brags about forming the Peace Corps that Alex hates.
He ends his talk with a list of things he'd like to see in the world that Alex could make conspiracies of about all day.
Quote, a World Center for Health Communications under the World Health Organization could warn of epidemics and the adverse effects of certain drugs as well as transmit the results of new experiments and new discoveries.
Anyway, the JFK that Alex believes existed is a fabrication based on dumb...
Yeah.
That speech that included the line about secret societies was from April 1961, so it's quite a while before the relevant time period that Alex is talking about.
But it's one of the big pieces of evidence that always gets thrown around.
Like, every single conspiracy documentary includes that line about him mentioning secret societies.
This passage was JFK softening things up before he asked for increased secrecy from the press regarding official matters.
Here's what comes just after that whole secrecy thing you see in just about every conspiracy documentary.
Quote, That's what we're trying to do.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to re-examine his own standards and to recognize the nature of our country's peril.
In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy.
In time of clear and present danger, the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today, no war has been declared, and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion.
Our way of life is under attack.
Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe.
The survival of our friends is in danger, and yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security.
If you're awaiting a finding of a clear and present danger, then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear, and its presence has never been more imminent.
You guys are going to have to stop reporting some stuff because we're in danger because of the Soviet Union.
See, one of the things that I think is remarkable is that context is almost always missing from the conversations about like, oh yeah, JFK gave these speeches about secret societies.
Right, but the point will always just be that if you say secret societies, regardless of the context of it, we can say that you were signaling Regardless of whether or not the totality.
JFK was not planning to abolish the Federal Reserve, and his proposed lowering of taxes wasn't completed by the time of his death, but it was seen through and eventually signed by LBJ in 1964.
Also, the quote about scattering the CIA to the winds is almost certainly not a real quote.
It didn't appear in print until 1966, and it was attributed to an anonymous source, and that was three years after his death.
There's no corroborating evidence that it was a position he had or that he ever said that.
He was definitely upset with the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, that's true, but the quote about scattering them to the wind is one that is very dubious sourcing.
I think whenever people confidently assert that they know something about a time period from the past, they are almost always wrong because just in order to know something happened, you need like a PhD level thesis on it.
Alex, so this is something that I really love when it happens, when you can really tell.
So earlier in the episode...
John Andrews told a second-hand story that he heard from Steve King about a teacher in Des Moines trying to colonize America on behalf of Spanish people.
In the last hour I had Colorado Senate President John Andrews on, he talked about how another congressman from Iowa has been at town hall meetings and has talked to witnesses and has talked to community leaders who say, this is Mexico and we're getting rid of America and that's just the way it is.
Even if you're on the right, shouldn't somebody telling you a story that is so perfectly tailored to your hatreds, shouldn't that give you a little signal of like, maybe this isn't a good story?
They stand up with 80-plus percent of the American people for controlling our borders and our sovereignty.
Glenn Spencer told us it was a war to take over our sovereignty years ago, that Washington was aiding and funding this along with President Bush and the Democrats.
We'll try to reconnect and get Glenn Spencer back on.
And you notice the neocons will talk about some of the real issues and have good folks like Glenn Spencer on, but in the end equation, they don't put the heat on Lord Bush, who can stop all this basically instantaneously.
So, Glenn gets his phone back working, and he has said that if you hear a bing-bong, bing-bong sound effect in the background, that is the alarm that one of his censors has picked up an illegal crossing the border.
He has a bunch of sensors put up around the border.
And there's a stagecoach, and we're going to fight on top of it, and then we'll save the immigrants and safely move them onto the other end of the Rio Grande.
I love to the beginning of his interview, he does say that if you hear that bing bong, bing bong, go off, that it's my trap getting triggered or whatever.
And then miraculously in the middle of the interview...
I think what's funny about it is that if it were to go down the way that he wants it to go, where everybody does this to subvert the system, what we would find out is that everything would be fine.
Thereby disproving his whole this is a problem argument.
Yeah, but the amount of stuff about JFK and the bars of gold and stuff, I figured even without whatever dumb calls he takes in the third hour, I'm satisfied with what we've learned today.