#639: January 17, 2022 dissects Alex Jones’ reliance on misrepresented polls—like Rasmussen’s 2023 survey—twisting Utah editorials into National Guard lockdown calls, and cherry-picking 2003 legal language to push COVID conspiracies. Roger Stone’s performative lawsuits and Mike Lindell’s debunked election claims (blockchain voting, MyPillow promo codes) highlight Jones’ pattern of blending unverified assertions with commercial pitches while dismissing credible sources like Jen Psaki as "false flag" scapegoats. His inability to engage without insults—like mocking Jordan Holmes—underscores a broader trend: conspiracy-driven media thrives on outrage, not evidence, leaving audiences misled and distrustful of all institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
God, that's going to play at the, I swear, if that isn't what plays on the career retrospectives for Alex like 10 years from now, it's a perfect encapsulation of his whole career.
And as much as we have a right with this illegitimate government of the Declaration of Independence to throw off these forms of government, we don't have the organization and the statesmen, the leadership like they had back then in 1776.
And they were still fighting an uphill battle.
And they were fighting a system that wasn't one-tenth as evil.
Not even 100th.
Hell, King George was pretty good compared to these people.
He was just dominating them and making them go through him to be able to do business.
The last thing we need is any type of paramilitary garbage.
So I'm going to tell everybody out there who's in a militia or who is in Oath Keepers or who is in Proud Boys.
A lot of the ideas and things espoused are good.
The militia is in the Constitution.
It's in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not saying you're individually bad because you want to train and be prepared to defend your country.
That's a normal male instinct and good.
And you should train to protect yourself and your family.
And you should try to work with your sheriff's department, police department, and others.
And you should use your influence at city council and school boards and everywhere to be heard.
You should train to defend this republic, but I know for a fact they've got camps shut up in places like North Carolina and Kentucky and Virginia where they are recruiting young people online and others using Q type BS that there's a big uprising about to happen and you really work for Trump and he's secretly going to do this to launch some type of new attack that'll be much more violent than the Capitol fiasco before the midterms to bring in real martial law.
And it's our number one mission to stop that.
unidentified
I am a non-attorney spokesperson representing a team of lawyers who interesting.
Alex is just talking shit, but I think he's keenly aware there are a ton of really heavily armed, dangerously prone towards violence militia members out there who've been fed a steady diet of ideas about how the globalists are going to take out the leadership.
Then they're going to come to your house to kill your family.
He knows that he was a part of amping that up and banging that drum constantly.
And now probably the highest profile militia leader in the country has been arrested for a seditious conspiracy.
And it sounds like maybe Alex has read the indictment by this point and he knows that Stuart's fucked.
Alex isn't so stupid as to not understand that there are violent lunatics out there who are waiting for the sign to jump off and start shooting people who will likely see Stuart getting arrested as the sign that they were waiting for.
I hope that there aren't too many of these sorts of folks and that they'll end up choosing not to hurt people, but I think that the possibility is there.
So I feel like this is kind of why Alex is predicting this kind of false flag and sending a message that he isn't into paramilitary stuff.
I think it's because he's really worried at this point that there's a possibility that there will be some paramilitary style reprisals for Stewart's arrest.
And he'd rather not have to deal with those very clear consequences of the last 13 years of his broadcast career.
Either that or Alex actually has proof of Q-style commando camps in North Carolina, which are full of people recruited off the internet to carry out attacks, which will then get blamed on patriots.
I would say that if he has evidence like he claims he does, he better present that shit right now because it would be a gigantic news story.
And it shouldn't be hard to prove either if it's real, since the recruitment's being done online on the internet, that should have left a trail that Alex can show pretty easily.
If Alex claims that his number one mission is to stop this supposed uprising, that would probably be what he does.
But the reality is that Alex doesn't want to stop anything.
He just wants to lay some groundwork.
So if there are some right-wing attacks, he'll be able to point to this bullshit to insist that they were actually false flags.
He's interested in harm reduction, but only the reduction of harm that would come to himself.
But I mean, it would stand to reason that, like, I guess if you know yourself to have not been part of an internet Q camp commando thing, then what is the problem with you committing violence?
So before he gets to his piece on Stelter, Alex has to do one of the things that he does best, and that is tell completely fictional stories about interactions that he has with people on the street.
But like, even, I think, fairly charismatic, welcoming, nice people, I think, wouldn't end up having conversations with people about their menstrual cycle.
And all that stuff that he's talking about about menstrual changes from vaccine is just a complete misrepresentation of a study that he never actually read.
There's something interesting here, though, that Alex brings up at the end that I want to touch on.
He seems to be expressing that the fact that he talked to someone who had an adverse event from a vaccination would constitute stronger evidence about vaccine side effects than data.
This seems really weird, and it's obviously not true, but it's actually completely true for how Alex engages with information.
The way that Alex presents information is entirely story-based, and data isn't really all that compelling as a story.
From everything I can tell, this is a completely made-up stat and story.
There have been attempts to use social media influencers to encourage people to get vaccinated, but that wasn't being done by Pfizer.
That was done by the government.
One of the more high-profile examples of this was in Colorado, where the governor hired a PR company called Idea Marketing to handle all the public-facing aspects of spreading vaccine information.
Their contract was for $8.8 million, and it appears that they enlisted 120 influencers on social media, paying them up to $1,000 a month to promote vaccines.
According to their planning documents, which are publicly available, they budgeted a total of $286,500 for compensation going to influencers.
This is less than that was paid for Google ads or for YouTube ads, and it was a bit less than they allocated even for Spanish-speaking cable channels.
This was last year, but in December 2020, there were similar stories about influencers in New Jersey making money to do similar stuff.
This was more or less the equivalent of a PSA in our new social media space, and these people do have to disclose that they're making paid posts like they do if a company pays them to promote a product.
There's a flip side of this that I'm sure Alex doesn't want to touch, and that's in May 2021.
News broke that online influencers were being approached to spread misinformation about the Pfizer vaccine.
According to a New York Times piece, Mirko Drotschmann, a German YouTuber who comments on health issues and has 1.5 million subscribers, was approached by a mysterious agency called Fazzy, F-A-Z-Z-E, about being involved in a, quote, information campaign about Pfizer deaths.
The aim was to make sensational claims about the vaccine's deadliness and about how everyone was covering it up.
Essentially, it was an information campaign to do Alex's show.
Quote, the material should be presented as your own independent view, the pitch said.
Things get a bit weirder, though.
And by August 2021, Facebook had edited move to kick the Fazzy agency off the platform.
More information was coming out that it was a, quote, subsidiary of a UK-registered marketing firm whose operations were primarily conducted from Russia.
This obviously isn't to say that this was a Russian government plot or anything, but it does provide a very strong basis to conclude that this was a foreign misinformation campaign that targeted people in other countries.
Also, apparently at one point, some of the campaign was to spread the narrative that the Pfizer vaccine was turning people into chimpanzees.
Anyway, this kind of thing is happening, and it's more insidious than PSAs that are being done by social media influencers who disclose that they're doing PSAs.
But Alex doesn't care about this sort of story at all because the misinformation that's being spread is in line with the message that he wants to amplify.
There's no good explanation for this agency's action, so the best way to navigate the story is just to ignore it and then exaggerate or lie about what the people you don't like are doing.
I'm not entirely sure based on the information that's available what the deal is and how actually like real the ability to follow through with these offers may have been.
Yeah, the first thing that I thought of whenever you told me about them was just like those roommate scams where they're like, oh, yeah, I'll pay you the first and second month's rent, but I'm out of state right now.
So remember all those descriptions of how Alex is saying Roger's doing because it doesn't match at all how he sounds or is acting when he finally does show up.
Alex is missing the point of Stelter's piece here.
The notion that the global elites are using COVID to reshape society and crush the little guy, as Stelter puts it in his piece, it's a very small throwaway line that he uses to describe Glenn's book as a whole.
The piece is actually entirely about a specific claim that Beck makes on Tucker's show about officials in Washington State meeting to plan internment camps to put unvaccinated people in, and how Tucker doesn't ask any questions or pushback at all, but just listens with his wide-eyed, quizzical look that he uses when weirdos lie to his audience.
Stelter's take on that is the central thing that Alex needs to refute if he's going to cover this video, which we'll see if he does when he actually gets down to business on this.
Also, really, Alex needs to update his talking points.
Does he really expect to pass off a narrative where only big box stores are allowed to be open at this point?
Like, that's just something he remembers saying from like a year and a half ago that just he doesn't realize isn't true anymore.
Yeah, I don't know what it is that's part or not part or that narrative, whenever you start when you start digging deep back in there, you don't know what's still part of that.
There's a part at the beginning of the Stelter piece where he's saying that he suspects that Glenn Beck may not have written the book because Beck starts with, this is the best book I've ever read.
Which I can tell you with Glenn Beck, he probably wrote a lot of it and had somebody put together in quotes and then did have some of it finished up and edited.
Stelter didn't say that the Great Reset as an idea is all made up.
He does say that the Washington State internment camp thing is made up, though.
You can see here how Alex is intentionally misrepresenting what Stelter's piece was about so he can get mad about it without exposing his audience to the actual point that Stelter was making.
If you just insist that he was claiming without providing any proof that Beck's book is all made up, the audience can internalize that.
And if the claim is that Stelter was saying that the great reset is completely made up, the audience can conclude that Stelter is an intentional liar and this critique of Tucker's shitty journalism should just be ignored.
At the end of the day, Alex is basically just trying to provide cover for Tucker, like some sad underling taking offense at anything bad that's said about the boss.
Stelter says that this specific thing that Glenn Beck talks about is completely made up.
And that is the story about Washington State preparing internment camps for unvaccinated people.
And that's because that's totally made up.
This has to do with a piece of legislation passed in 2003 in Washington titled WAC 246-100-040.
This legislation allows local health officials to quarantine individuals or groups of people in very narrow cases where there's an emergency regarding a chemical, biological, radiological agent, or a communicable disease.
If you read this with very paranoid eyes, there's a way you can make it seem like it applies to COVID, but it doesn't.
This was passed in 2003, but it had been up for discussion recently, but not because the government wanted to make it apply to COVID.
In June 2020, the Board of Health passed the Engross Substitute House Bill 1551, which was meant to, quote, change stigmatizing language in WAC 246-100 in regards to HIV and AIDS.
This was something that HIV advocates had been pushing for since 2014 when Governor Inslee had set a goal of reducing AIDS cases in the state by 50% by 2020.
This section, WAC 246-100, is something that has a slot in the agenda at every Board of Health meeting because they discuss what's going on, updates that need to be made.
But that's how this argument gets made that they're planning to do this now as opposed to back in 2020 when this actual bill was passed.
This is a real thing, but there's also a fake thing that Stelter brings up that he applies to people like Glenn Beck claiming that there's going to be internment camps for the unvaccinated.
There were a couple viral posts on social media with a headline from a site called ValueWalk.
Quote, Biden announces Americans not vaccinated before 2022 will be put in camps.
This post is satire, and it's labeled as satire.
If anyone took the time to read it, they would find some red flags, like this paragraph: quote, many patriotic Americans living in Texas and Florida have announced they have no plans of going into such camps.
One Texan tweeting, Yeah, good luck.
I have mines around my ranch.
Good luck to the feds.
Another Floridian tweeted, Will there be meth in the camps?
If so, it isn't really that bad.
Local kids are actually looking forward to these camps as they believe it'll be the closest they'll ever get to getting laid, while also not having to get a shot at the same time.
This itself is just a post that they stole from the stonk market and then reposted on this ValueWalk site, but with a snazzier image.
That reposting on ValueWalk is screenshot and then shared all over conservative and conspiracy-minded social media, where people can take in the message without reading the clearly absurd article that is labeled satire.
A dumb, poorly written joke can thus be passed off as a serious article, and because people don't look into things, they just assume it's real.
This relates to our subject because Stelter brings up that claims of internment camps for the unvaccinated trace back in some cases to satire.
But I do think that he needed to do a better job of distinguishing that as it relates to the specific example of Washington state and that camp conspiracy, this satirical article is background to the real misrepresentation of the stuff about Washington updating the language in their bill to reduce HIV AIDS stigma.
This leads me to an unfortunate point, and that is that I'm going to have to take Stelter to task a little bit here, but for different reasons than Alex does.
While he's talking about the Washington State Camps conspiracy, he says that a USA Today fact check said that this conspiracy started from a satirical post.
That is not true.
The USA Today article is about the Value Walk article that I mentioned a minute ago, but it actually has nothing to do with the specific case in Washington, except, like I said, as like pretext or a background.
It's not directly involved.
This matters because Stelter's piece is about misinformation and how sloppy mistakes from the media can aid in spreading bullshit.
The point of his piece is somewhat undercut by the fact that he himself is making a sloppy mistake here and attributing the Washington conspiracy to this satire article instead of discussing the actual misrepresentation of the Board of Health bill.
That mistake, whatever the cause, can be used by people like Alex to claim that he's covering up valid concerns or at very least undermine the idea that people who are critical of right-wing misinformation know what they're talking about.
I wish he'd done better here, but at the same time, Alex is still lying about this segment and creating a straw man version of what Stelter's saying so that he doesn't have to deal with the broader point that Stelter is making, which is actually correct.
No, I mean, yeah, but it's like, what are you going to do?
Journalism's hard, and it's not like they're paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars or something, or he has a giant team available to him or anything along those lines.
It's only possible to the extent that the other factors that they have to kowtow to will allow it to be.
Like, as long as they're a profit-driven network, misinformation is also part of their job.
You don't make money by telling people the truth all the time.
You know, like that's just how it works.
When you run so many different ads, so many different things, when you're trying to tell all of these different stories all at the same time in such a short amount of time, you're going to lose a lot of shit and you're going to wind up doing sloppy work.
It's kind of similar to what we're experiencing here, insofar as what you can do is you can say that this is tracked back to a satirical piece USA Today.
Fact checkers say that is a true, demonstrable fact.
But it's not uh-huh, it's a condensation of the way that the entire sequence of events happened.
So, instead of misinformation maliciously, they wind up, because of the constraints of their their time structure, because of the constraints of money, and so on and so on and so forth, doing these little things and they add up.
And I think that oftentimes it's the result of how news shows are made.
And maybe there needs to be some changes to that.
I don't know exactly what those changes are.
But for my purposes, what I'm most interested in is particularly when the subject that's being covered is misinformation and, you know, stelter's calling out like media entities that are that are like they make a mistake and then it's pounced on.
Well, I mean, they're trapped because the people who have been on the misinformation beat have gotten really good at it over the past five to ten years.
And the mainstream networks didn't bother with it.
It wasn't really important to them.
They were just doing the news.
So now they're trying to step into space that has been well trodden by people who are very, very good at it.
Oh, with no evidence, Glenn Beck has got this book about the great reset.
It's number one, of course, because it's just made up.
Thinking you're so dumb, or his listeners are, that they won't go to the Debos group and hear Klaus Schwab say, we are imploding the economy to end industrial world.
Interim occupational consideration for implementation of the shielding approach to prevent COVID-19 infections in humanitarian settings.
And this is exactly what is in the legislation and exactly what's been implemented outside of it with an emergency order by the governor in Washington.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's on local news.
They building all these giant facilities and they built them all over the world.
So Alex is making up that part about the Washington bill.
That's still just about the updating of the language that we discussed earlier, but he's pretty committed to covering for Tucker's negligence.
So he's got to try and make that segment look defensible.
As for this other document, I believe that this is what Alex was referring to a couple episodes back when he said that the CDC had documents about wanting to create internment camps for the unvaccinated.
And I was like, what the fuck is he talking about?
The first words that really jump out to you when you hear the title of this document, though, are humanitarian setting.
That should tell you a little bit about the context of this document and how it's about strategies that could be explored to limit the spread of COVID in settings like camps for displaced persons and refugees.
Now, the title itself might make you think that this was a document that laid out plans, but it actually didn't.
Instead, it discussed the pros and cons of exploring a specific strategy, the shielding approach, and it sought to explore possible challenges that one would have in implementing those.
The shielding approach was basically a plan where you would have areas in these places like refugee camps that would be isolated from the larger camp.
And what you would do is you'd put people who are at higher risk of developing serious COVID cases there as a way of shielding them.
And this could be done on various scales.
It could be done within a household even if you just had a part of the house.
This is what is discussed in the document.
It would be a mistake to assume that this document thinks that it's a great idea to use this strategy also.
Quote, in theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death.
However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence to protocol.
Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations this approach is trying to protect.
So, this is a very essential problem with the strategy that is called out.
If you read the actual entire document, you come away with a sense that the CDC is saying that this approach may work, but there's no empirical evidence that it will, and that the challenges and downsides are pretty real.
Take this passage from the summary: quote: Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease, but addresses the entire spectrum of health and well-being.
Populations displaced due to natural disasters or war and conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical, and/or emotional trauma.
While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.
As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19, morbidity, and mortality, compliance and behavior change are the primary rate-limiting steps and may be driven by social and emotional factors.
These changes are difficult in developed stable settings, thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings, which bring their own set of multifaceted challenges that need to be taken into account.
This isn't about the creation of any camps or taking unvaccinated people to camps.
It's about how best to serve folks who are in humanitarian settings already.
Jade Folsey, the CDC public affairs specialist, told FactCheck that the document itself was only prepared as a response to a paper in the London that came out from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that argued in favor of the shielding approach.
So, in response to that, they did an analysis of this.
Yeah, also, this was primarily an analysis that the CDC did as a resource for other countries who have larger populations of displaced persons in camps, where this question was a much higher priority.
All the stuff Alex is saying here is bullshit.
Like, none of this has any connection to reality.
Although, the title of the document, if you ignore what it is, everything.
It's written by a guy named Ethan Huff, but I got to think that that's a byline name that multiple people are writing under because otherwise, holy shit, this guy cranks it out.
So, this blog post was really just a reposting of something from another blog written by a guy named Steve Rodder.
One day, Steve was poking around on the website of the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium organization, which is a federal organization that helps train people in rural and tribal communities how to respond in cases of emergencies like natural disasters.
This is a great program, in no small part because it helps these communities have autonomy and not rely solely on the more developed resources of neighboring, more urban areas.
As they point out, areas with smaller populations will likely not have the tax base that would be required to staff public safety agencies.
So, the RDPC helps train folks for free to help their communities.
The RDPC offers constant training opportunities in both in-person contexts when available and on their website in virtual classrooms.
Steve was cruising around their website and found a training course available titled MGT433, Isolation and Quarantine for Rural Communities.
He misinterpreted the context of the organization and decided to conclude that this was a new course or that it was somehow related to COVID.
But that's not the case.
It's important to understand that a lot of the courses that the RDPC offers are facilitated through universities.
And the course that Steve is up in arms about is one that's offered by Eastern Kentucky University.
You can find it existing as a course offered in conjunction with the RDPC since years before COVID was even a thing.
It's actually slightly unclear to me, but based on their current website, it seems like EKU handles some other courses at this point.
And the quarantine class is now done by the Northwest Arkansas Community College, just for the sake of clarity.
The syllabus for the course is available on the RDPC website, and it explains some of the class, some of the stuff it does involves things like, quote, legal and ethical considerations of isolation and quarantine, as a class might, you know, getting into the relevant details.
This becomes important because what Steve has done for his blog post is that he's gone into the course module and selectively taken screenshots that he can use to make them look sinister.
He takes a page that discusses the differences in legal and ethical considerations you have in voluntary versus involuntary quarantine situations to imply that this is about getting people to comply because they point out that involuntary quarantines are more taxing on resources and much more complicated regarding human rights issues.
Just dealing with that as a descriptive reality is being represented as like, yeah, we got to coerce people to do this voluntarily.
I mean, it is like the far right has this, I don't know if it's coordinated, but it feels like it is, where they find the most innocuous, just good ideas.
Just like, hey, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to help people learn how to respond to emergencies.
Nothing beyond that.
There's no nefarious element to this at all.
And then they go and find like something that they can turn nefarious.
If you thought that was bad, worse is his handling of a slide about how responders need to respect people's privacy.
He acts like it's somehow about being sneaky, but it's clear from the slide that it's discussing concern about how stigmatizing illnesses or potential illnesses can be inside a community.
So you shouldn't advertise to the neighborhood that someone might be sick.
Steve's post is written in such a way that it could be a perfect jump-off point for a shitty blog like Natural News to twist the story even further.
From their post regarding the need for privacy, quote, as the emergency responders haul their victims off to camps, the RDPC encourages them to be as discreet as possible in order to keep the ordeal as much under wraps as possible.
So, the RDPC training course is something that has been offered for years and was never noticed until it became useful to push a COVID conspiracy.
And you can see the consistent pattern in bullshit dissemination on full display.
The training course is benign and a helpful resource that's provided to rural and tribal communities.
Steve writes a horrible blog post misrepresenting it, which in turn is picked up and further sensationalized by Natural News.
Alex then reports on the headline that Natural News put on the article and makes up a story about what he wants it to mean.
This pipeline is very consistent.
Alex can pretend to have the deep sources that he has all he wants, but really he just has stacks of printed-out pages of bullshit blog posts that don't have anything to do with the reality of what underlies the bullshit that he's talking about.
It's just, I grow frustrated with this clearly traceable path.
I'm going to skip that town hall post to just go straight to the Rasmussen data on this one.
So there's a headline from January 13th on Rasmussen: quote, COVID-19, Democratic voters support harsh measures against unvaccinated.
I got to say that I don't think it means as much as Alex wants it to, but he's not too far off.
There's an important distinction to make about what he's reporting, though, and what the actual survey says.
He's saying that 48% of Democratic voters want to put anyone who doesn't get a vaccine in a camp.
But here's what the report actually says: quote, nearly half, 48% of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.
That's not for unvaccinated people.
It's for people who spread misinformation.
And also, this is a bullshit question based on the way that it's worded.
All you can tell from the result is that 48% support possible fines or imprisonment, but that's too broad of a question to mean anything.
If all of these people actually just supported a fine, the result could erroneously give the impression that they wanted to imprison people, which wouldn't be reflective of their actual position.
This is a pretty elementary statistical information gathering fuck-up, and this question should never have been worded like this.
So that said, the survey also found, quote, 45% of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
So in some ways, Alex isn't totally lying about the spirit of what this survey says.
Another interesting point is that if you look at the more detailed breakdown, only 22% of Democrats strongly support this idea, while 33% strongly oppose it.
Overall, it seems to me like there's greater opposition than support for this, even among Democrats.
As for the kids thing, quote, 29% of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents' custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
I'm not really sure that I agree with those 29% of Democrats.
And also, if you look at it the other way, that means 71% are not in support of such a plan.
So take your pick on how you want to look at it.
Also, this isn't a question that's asking people about actual proposals.
This is a hypothetical question.
Overall, through the course of my time doing this show, I've come to be a bit skeptical of results that I see from Rasmussen.
But I do have to give it up to Alex that he's somewhat fairly reporting the results of this poll.
I'm not sure that the results of the poll mean anything, nor do I think it helps his argument that the government is making camps to lock up the unvaccinated.
In terms of it being one of the three pieces of evidence he's provided to defend Glenn Beck and Tucker's ridiculous segment from Stelter's criticism, I don't even see how it's relevant.
unidentified
I mean, and even then, that question is so fucking stupid.
This editorial isn't even calling for what Alex claims from the article.
Quote, were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor's next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.
It may be too late for that politically and medically.
I've noticed that the right-wing and right-wing media figures like Alex in particular really have a convenient and I suspect intentional inability to understand the difference between an editorial and a piece of news or an official statement.
Because he plays fast and loose with the distinction between those things, Alex can report an op-ed as if it was a demand being made by a newspaper, which in turn allows his audience to leap to unjustified conclusions.
I suspect he does that on purpose because it's really easy.
Any day of the week, you can scan through enough papers.
If you do, you'll find something in an editorial to get mad about.
And to add to the laziness, you can tell that based on the headline that Alex reads, he's not actually talking about the real editorial.
He's covering a zero-hedge article that's mad about the editorial for him.
Like, he's provided the specific citations that we've discussed here, and I guess he thinks that's enough that he can declare victory, but it isn't at all.
Stelter's central question was about the Washington camp conspiracy, and Alex didn't demonstrate in any way that it was a real thing or that Stelter was wrong.
He just flung around a bunch of headlines that he pulled from dishonest blogs to create the impression that camps were being made in some vague place somewhere, or maybe that Democrats supported them.
But point is, he didn't even address the actual point in Stelter's video.
But the point is that even when he's acting like he's trying, Alex's arguments are meaningless and impotent.
Yeah, in the baseball metaphor, it would be like if Journeyman's second baseman struck out and then just started running to first base and celebrating and then threw his bat into the crowd and ran to second base and was screaming and everybody was like, oh my God.
So he does end up talking about the Washington thing almost as an afterthought.
And this is just a gateway pundit article about the same Washington language update that we were talking about earlier.
The crack team of sleuths found this wording in the WAC 246-100-040.
Quote: A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of blah, blah, blah, other sections.
And so they found this language and they assumed that it was something new or a new bill.
That is not the case.
It's been part of the statute since it passed in 2003.
The whole thing is about the revisions that were made to remove stigmatizing language, and it's not recent either.
Like I said, that Substitute House Bill 1551 passed in June 2020.
This Gateway Pundit article is straight up stupid, too.
It ends with this ominous line: quote, WAC 246-100-040 was certified on October 25th, 2019, months prior to the coronavirus outbreak in the United States.
The implication is supposed to obviously be that they passed this law where health officials get to be like cops just before the first cases of COVID were diagnosed because they knew that COVID was coming, and then that the health people get to act like cops and put Alex and his friends into FEMA camps.
This is just really bad work for a few reasons.
The first is that the language about health officials taking on police responsibilities was introduced in 2003.
You see, the larger set of permanent rules of the Board of Health predate that.
But in 2003, a large-scale revamp of the document was passed, and this was part of one of the sections that was amended.
The second reason that this is stupid is because the claim that this rule was certified on October 25th, 2019 is just based on the fact that at the bottom of the page on the website of the Washington state legislature, where they've posted this rule, it says, quote, certified on October 25th, 2019.
But that doesn't mean that it was passed or even amended that day.
If you go and look up other documents from the Washington state legislature, you'll find that literally all of them include certified on October 25th, 2019 at the bottom.
It's really hard for me to tell precisely what the deal is here because I don't work for the Washington legislature.
But if I had to guess, in October 2019, they went through a process of updating all the files that are posted online, and the certification date reflects that.
Like they added a new online portal or changed how documents are accessible.
And so in order to do that, you have these listings of the existing statutes, and they are certified by the statute law committee of the Washington legislature.
The idea that the date involves anything related to when these statutes went on the book is dumb, unless you think the state of Washington established their Department of Commerce in October 2019.
There's this unfortunate dynamic that's at play here, and that is that if you're a reporter at the Gateway Pundit, even the smallest amount of digging would puncture gigantic holes in your story.
The goal is to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, then provide headlines for someone like Alex or your parents on Facebook to get mad about and spread to others, hoping to anger them, which in turn drives traffic to your site and boosts ad revenue.
The best way to do that is to be lazy, to not do any of that digging that would end up causing your story to fall apart.
If you see, quote, certified on October 25th, 2019 on that page, your work is done because your assumption fits the narrative.
Anyway, my point is that Alex hasn't proven that Stelter was wrong.
And ultimately, after all this, I think he hasn't demonstrated that anything he's talking about is more than a rumor or a dumb conspiracy blog headline.
I begged him to come on today, and I appreciate him coming on.
He has some big, big announcements.
And I got to say, just for survival, I've got to join him because I let him call me a Russian agent.
I got spit on and coffee thrown on me and tea and stuff.
And my kids attacked at school.
He's called me a Russian agent because that was bad enough.
But now, now these publications are saying the same thing that, oh, Jones is definitely involved.
Jones is running it.
So I have a team of three lawyers here, separate ones from my other cases we've got here.
They're drawing up the lawsuits right now as well.
We learned Roger is simultaneously because we got to get him into court and show people you're not going to just sit up here and say that I wanted to go burn up or blow up the Capitol and go to a Supermax prison and destroy the country.
Why the hell would I want to do that?
We had peaceful rallies all over the country and in D.C. Our event got hijacked.
And I guess right off the bat, I want to thank the thousands of people around the country who have been praying for my recovery in what turned out to be a much more difficult struggle with COVID-19 than I had expected.
It is only by following a strict regimen of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and a vitamin regimen, including vitamin C, D, queritin, zinc, particularly, and others.
And for the help of some truly, truly gutsy, courageous doctors, that I can finally tell you that I'm back to work and feeling normal again.
Yeah, I mean, you're just waiting for, if he was laying down bleeding from the skull, I would walk up to him and I'd be expecting him to have a knife ready to stab me if I went and asked him if he was okay.
Yeah, exactly.
It'd be like immediate, like, listen, man, I'm sorry.
There are irresponsible elements in the fake news media who are recycling this notion that I had either advance notice or some involvement in the illegal acts of January 6th.
I spoke at two legally permitted events on January 6th.
I did have a voluntary security detail from the Oath Keepers, as did all of the other speakers at that conference.
They were courtesy of those running the legally permitted events.
The fact that I came in contact with these individuals proves nothing.
The claim by Let Us Take One Right Off the Top, Bill Palmer at the Palmer Report.
Mr. Palmer is going to be sued for $10 million for defamation in the California courts.
In your case, I have so many counts of defamation, the number will probably end up being much larger.
Because you haven't been cautious.
You haven't speculated that Roger Stone's a Russian spy, which, of course, also would make it not true.
But as senior FBI officials confirm to the Reuters News Service, The FBI found no evidence whatsoever that Roger Stone or Alex Jones was involved in a conspiracy to commit any illegal act on January 6th.
So, Mr. Palmer, it's your turn.
Produce your proof to the contrary.
Produce your witnesses to the contrary.
There are none.
You're going to be writing a huge tech, Mr. Palmer.
For a lot of our listeners, they say, Alex, we know you guys didn't detect the Capitol.
We know we're tired of it.
But the Democrats are running on January 6th and saying all their opposition are terrorists and literally trying to say we're kingpin mastermind terrorists.
People need to know that this is a serious issue.
And Tucker Carlson gets it.
So many other people get this now, Tulsi Gabbards, that this is a big issue.
Even Mitch McConnell says they're trying to brand the Republican Party as terrorist and run on that.
So this doesn't actually feel to me like what super innocent people do.
This strikes me as a weird move to threaten massive lawsuits against journalists who say things that you don't like, because from where I'm sitting, it just looks like an attempted intimidation.
Roger's suits aren't going to go anywhere.
And somebody writing an article about Roger possibly being in trouble, that has no actual bearing on whether or not he's actually going to get in trouble.
There's no real world consequence.
Don't know.
This just feels like a performance geared at centering Roger and Alex as the victims in the whole thing.
And it hopefully makes people afraid to put pieces together as it results to as it relates to connections between people who are at the Capitol on the 6th.
You know, like whenever Stewart came on, knowing what we know now, when he came on and just started lying through his teeth about how they were all fucking giving medical aid and shit like that.
Like that's that's where we're at.
Like, hey, how dare you say that I had anything to do with the sixth?
Here, by the way, is a little historical fact that I think your listeners might need to know.
Today is just going to be Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.
What people don't know is that upon the murder of King, every politician aspiring to be president headed to Atlanta to get a photo op with Coretta King, Teddy Kennedy, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Dick Clark, Frank Church, and others.
One man asked to see Coretta King privately.
That was former President Richard Nixon.
He flew to Atlanta and got a private audience with Coretta King.
So Rogers actually even says, like, on this day when we remember Martin Luther King, we should also remember what great things Nixon did, like this, giving them a check.
So this seemed like a weird list at first when he's talking about those politicians because he says Dick Clark, but he's not talking about the entertainer.
There was a politician who was elected to the Senate in 1972, and before that, he was an assistant to John Culver, a U.S. Representative from Iowa named Dick Clark.
So the story that Roger is telling is one that was passed on by a King family friend named Zernona Clayton.
But other folks are not so convinced that this actually happened.
For one, there's no evidence of this check, and if it did exist, it was never cashed.
Secondly, Nixon aide Dwight Chapin told the Daily Beast, quote, it's like I'm 100% certain he would never give her an envelope.
There's too much open to interpretation and wrong interpretation to do that.
If you think about it, though it would be a very nice gesture from human to human, when it's Nixon and MLK's widow, the dynamics are a little murky.
Another thing that's important to point out is that according to other Nixon aides, this meeting with King was not really something that Nixon wanted to stay secret.
Quote, Nixon's visit with Miss King was off the record, but that evening in Key Biscayne, Nixon wanted to know how it was playing.
Chapin reminded him that it was off the record.
Nixon had expected news of the meeting would leak and was furious when told it had not.
So Nick Rue, another Nixon aide, called Atlanta radio stations to tip them off that Nixon had been seen at the King home, but when reporters called the house, no one would confirm the visit.
According to these aides, going to visit Miss King was a way for Nixon to get out of having to go to the funeral because he didn't want to.
I don't know what the reality is here, but I kind of think that the point about Nixon not giving King an envelope because it would be widely open to interpretation, that makes more sense with the other facts of reality that I factor in.
I'm not sure.
I don't know.
It's possible that he gave or something.
But another point that I saw brought up that was interesting was that Nixon was friends with Martin Luther King Sr.
The two of them were on friendly terms.
And so I think it was Chapin was suggesting that I could see a possibility where he asked Martin Luther King's father if the kids were taken care of.
It is Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and also the anniversary of Richard Nixon showing that he is just as good of a person as Martin Luther King Jr.
Canberra TV viewers, amazing footage from that famous I Have a Dream speech.
It wasn't terrorism when he got hundreds of thousands of people or more to march there for Voting Rights Act and for civil rights.
And it wasn't terror when we wanted to have the investigation of what was really happening with the election as Democrats had asked for four years before that's in the Constitution.
Oh, man, I guess there must be some kind of real important difference between what happened during the 1963 civil rights march and what happened on January 6th.
That seems like a really important difference that Alex is just ignoring.
If Trump and all of his followers had just hung out outside the Capitol in the areas that they had permits for and waved signs and chanted, we'd probably not even remember the date, January 6th, at this point.
It would just be another impotent protest fueled by misinformation.
Alex wants to pretend that the man wants to arrest everyone who is there, but that's not true.
That's his false straw man that he's created.
The people who are being arrested are people who committed crimes.
Also, if Alex thinks that no one criticized the March on Washington for jobs and freedom, he should look into his own history and see what the John Birch Society was saying about it.
There was a book called The World of the John Birch Society, and they discussed the response to the march.
Quote, the John Birch Society's response to these developments was both to considerably increase the amount of time and attention it devoted to the question of black civil rights and to frame the issue within the organization's broader conspiratorial understanding of communism's determination to take over the United States.
The progenitors of Alex's entire worldview were at the time of the I Have a Dream speech that Alex professes to love so much, attacking King as part of a secret communist plot to overthrow the United States, which by extension would mean that the March on Washington was secretly a communist march attempting to overthrow the United States.
It's fun for Alex to pretend that everyone supported King in 1963, but the reality is that if he'd been around back then, at least half of his show would be him reading bullshit headlines about how King was working for the communist Chinese to destabilize America.
It's all just nonsense.
Can't even possibly project himself back to that time and realize what a dick he would have been.
There isn't a problem with questioning election results, particularly very close election results.
If that was all that folks like Alex and Trump were doing, then we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
They didn't question anything.
They said definitively that the election was stolen and that Trump won, which is a crime against all Americans and people needed to stand up against the steal and the cover-up of it.
Even Roger's stupid ass was saying on Infowars that North Korean boats full of ballots were arriving in Maine to steal the election.
It's bullshit to compare this at all to the response to the 2000 election when the Supreme Court essentially decided the election and then Gore gracefully conceded.
Also, Roger should probably pump the damn brakes here considering his involvement in the 2000 election and how he essentially facilitated a false flag to get counting of votes stopped in Florida and how that has mysterious parallels to the January 6th thing.
And he probably would threaten to sue me for bringing this up, but it's important.
For those who weren't around back then, the 2000 election hung in the balance depending on who won Florida, where the results were ridiculously close.
A recount had been underway, and then on November 22nd, 2000, Republican protesters showed up at the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board's recount location and intimidated the officials there with loud accusations that they were stealing people's ballots and also physical actions.
Joe Geller was then the Democratic Party chairman for the county, and he was on hand that day.
Quote, this one guy was tripping me and pushing me and kicking me, recalled Geller, who is now a state legislature.
At one point, I thought if they knocked me over, I could have literally got stomped to death.
The Miami-Dade recount ended that day, and eventually Bush was certified as the winner by 537 votes on November 28th, with this recount as well as the one in Palm Beach County never actually being finished.
This went back and forth in the courts, and we all know how it ended.
In 2008, Roger Stone told the New Yorker that he had essentially been running the operation, which sent in these protesters, who were actually just GOP staffers, into the recount locations to get it shut down.
Quote, I set up my command center there.
I had walkie-talkies and cell phones, and I was in touch with our people in the building.
Our whole idea was to shut the recount down, and that's why we were there.
Another GOP strategist, Brad Blakeman, also takes credit for running the event, but Stone insists it was him who is responsible for causing a staged uprising that was intended to disrupt the carrying out of the election for the purposes of installing his preferred candidate, George W. Bush.
If I were Roger, I would simply not bring up the 2000 election, since doing so has the potential to remind people that he was deeply involved in an event that's weirdly similar to the events of the 6th back in 2000.
So I was talking to Roger yesterday, who really likes the president, respects him, but we will behind the scenes say, yeah, I wish he'd do better here or there.
I've really never heard Roger so upset as he was with Trump yesterday.
And I said, well, you talk about this on Aaron.
And he said, well, yeah, I mean, I'll talk about most of it, but we're really just worried about Trump.
That said, Trump endorsed Diaz-Billard because he was one of the members of the House of Representatives that joined in on the lawsuit, Texas versus Pennsylvania, which was about trying to undermine 2020 election results.
It seems like Trump is going to be willing to endorse anyone who subscribes to the idea that he actually won the election.
He's attacking Luna as a bad candidate, and then Alex says that she'd be good to replace Senator Blumenthal, and Roger says, yes.
This is so convoluted because Luna is running for the GOP primary to represent Florida's 13th district in the House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, Richard Blumenthal is a senator from Connecticut.
These two people have no direct connection, and their election, her election, wouldn't replace Blumenthal in any way.
Luna's up against a stacked field of four other candidates in the primary, and then even if she won, she'd be facing Charlie Crist in the general election, who already beat her in 2020, 53 to 47.
It's really exciting to see that we're back in the arguing about GOP primaries season on Infowars.
It's always so fun because Alex gets to bring in complete lunatics who have zero chance of winning, and he tries to pretend that they're way up in the polls.
Seems like Roger's just hyper-focused on local races in Florida, though, which is good because think locally.
And this stuff about her military service, I mean, like, whatever.
I don't know what the reality is, but if you're going to take issue with this, you got a lot of people with stolen valor in your ranks that you need to work out.
So I'm not even going to descend into this very clear racist signaling and try and discuss this, but I will say that just because Luna's birth name is Anna Meyerhoffer, that is her father's surname.
That doesn't mean that her mother may not have been entirely of Hispanic descent.
So Luna was popular because she was supposed to be something like the GOP Trump world version of AOC, and it just didn't work out.
Charlie Kirk initially recruited her to do Hispanic outreach for Turning Point, and this led her to get the itch to run for office, which she did unsuccessfully in 2020.
This cycle is repeating now, and I guess Trump is supporting her as he did in 2020, and Rogers racistly pissed off about this.
So anyway, I was thinking about this because a lot of, I caught out some of the redundancies, but a lot of Rogers' appearance is threatening to sue people.
I'm tired of having to come on there in Infowars and beg for people to support my legal defense to defend myself.
Now help me go on the attack.
Now help me go after these people, drag these mangy, unbathed, disgusting leftists into a courtroom and sue them and make them pay for what they have done.
You might have 100 friends or 500 friends or 5,000.
Whatever you got, you email them and you call them and you do this on a daily basis and tell them the real news that's going on, the stuff that we all need to hear about that you're not hearing on your terrible news outlet, Fox News, because they don't talk about anything that's going on.
They're not going to tell you that the bank have canceled me.
Wouldn't that be news that a company and a charity and a network that's helping addicts, the bank wants to cancel them?
So Mike, you might want to take a minute and reflect on the fact that Fox News isn't providing the coverage that he wants because he's no longer a major source of their ad revenue.
If he thought about this for a while, he might realize that no one really cares that much about the nonsense he spews.
It's just in your financial interest to humor Mike when he's paying you a bunch of money.
He's here spreading the message he wants to on Infowars because he's a sponsor.
Like back in the day, Marty Schachter could come on and do fucking limericks.
Yep.
Now Mike can do whatever he wants.
He's a sponsor.
Alex can't be mad at him.
So he gets to come on and complain about the bank not wanting to work with him anymore.
And never allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that time that you're paying for, anything that's happening in that is indicative of people's real response.
Yeah, yeah.
Like paying for ad time and then just bizarrely, all of a sudden, really being validated by how seriously Fox News takes your complaints.
Yeah, don't take that seriously.
You'll get lulled into a point where you think that there's more meaning to your shit than there is.
And you learn the hard way that when you stop being one of their main advertisers, all of a sudden they don't seem to care about your bullshit that much.
It's nuts to listen to so much of this show because I do, I start picking up on trends that might be subtle to casual listeners.
For instance, Alex always says that whatever he's trying to build a narrative about was actually the first thing Hitler did.
This is meant to lead the listener to the conclusion that if this thing Alex is yelling about is allowed to stand, then we're going to progress to the subsequent things that Hitler did.
Here we see Alex saying that the first thing Hitler did was take away his enemies' banking and ability to do business.
And that's because he's talking to Mike Lindell, who wants to complain about his bank account.
However, in the past, when he's been talking about gun-grabbing narratives, he's very insistent that the first thing Hitler did was take the guns.
This is really just a cheap trick Alex is using to try and get his audience to think that his imaginary enemies are using the same model that Hitler used, regardless of what he's actually claiming they're doing.
Yeah, I mean, it would be that now, and I don't know if this is possible, but if there was like a document that Hitler had on like day one, like an executive order, and then he just like laid out all of it, you know, like the whole Nazi plan.
So then technically you could say that the first thing you did was everything.
He has to, because there's no way that you can really believe in your mind that you have definitive proof that Trump is still the president and be ignored even by Fox News and shit.
There's no way you can look at that rationally and think, well, obviously I'm the insane person.
So Mike isn't being honest about this pilot program in Utah.
You wouldn't text in or email in your vote.
What they were exploring was a broadening of a system that uses blockchain to allow users to vote using their smartphones with an online platform.
The way Mike is describing it is reductive because he wants to belittle the idea and make it look like a clear plan to steal votes.
The bill that was passed in late 2020 just allows municipalities, quote, to choose to permit a voter to vote by electronic means approved by the municipality's election officer.
The Utah County clerk slash auditor told Deseret News that they've been using this function for the past five elections with no problem and that it has been particularly useful in allowing overseas voters like enlisted persons to vote with less hassle.
It is a bit strange to just zoom out and see that we have a pillow magnet on a radio show promoting that Trump could still become president two years after the election to a guy who has a affiliate program with his pillow company and is an insidious right-wing conspiracist propagandist.
And now Alex closes the show talking a little bit about a news story that is about Jen Saki, the White House spokesperson, talking about how Russia, they have information that Russia is going to pull up a false flag to get into Ukraine.
So I'm not saying the Russians couldn't do this, but from these liars like Saki, I don't believe a word she says, but there's the admissions that false flags exist.
The problem that I am experiencing right now is that I know that there have been Russian false flags.
I know there have been United States false flags.
I know that even throughout history, plenty of false flags have happened.
Yeah.
Right?
The one time, the one time that Alex could just be like, holy shit, just anything, just anything other than, well, I don't think that this is actually happening.
How dare you tell me that the government is false flagging a false flag?
So this article is an editorial written by a guy named Joe Matthews titled, quote, California should abolish parenthood in the name of equity.
Alex is reporting this as a serious suggestion, but if he'd taken the time to read the article, he would have seen that it's obviously satire.
Joe brings up the inequalities in rich and poor families in terms of the ability to bring up children and then says, quote, my solution, making raising your own children illegal, is simple.
And while we wait for the legislation to pass, we can act now.
The rich and poor should trade kids and homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.
Now, I recognize that some naysayers will dismiss such a policy as ghastly, even totalitarian.
But my proposal is quite modest.
A fusion of traditional philosophy and today's most common political obsessions.
Him saying that his proposal is quite modest should be an immediate tip-off that he isn't being sincere.
The point that the author seems to be making is that the ultimate end result of many of the ideas that are pushed in the name of equality could lead to negative consequences, like someone actually having the idea of universal orphanhood.
The last line of this piece really sums that up.
Quote, but don't pay those critics any mind because they just can't see how our relentless pursuit of equity might birth a brave new world.
Anyway, Alex not only doesn't understand the difference between an editorial and a news story, he also can't tell when articles are sincere or if they're satire because he doesn't read any of the stuff he reports on.
If all you know about the article here is the headline, you'd report it like Alex does because he's stupid and lazy.
And all of the pieces of evidence that he provides about anything is either complete bullshit or a satire article that he doesn't actually realize is fake.