Knowledge Fight #644 (Feb 2, 2022) dissects Alex Jones’ baseless claims—falsely linking Johns Hopkins and Reuters to vaccine fraud, twisting a SUNY professor’s libertarian views into pedophilia endorsements, and fabricating EU child sex slavery conspiracies—while exposing his reliance on cherry-picked data like the Pentagon’s incomplete DMED records. Jones pivots from COVID disinformation to demonizing George Soros as the "Antichrist" and rambling about "ancestral consciousness shields," blending incoherent spiritual theories with political fearmongering. The episode highlights how Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene exploit outrage to fund Infowars while promoting extreme, legally dubious rhetoric, revealing a pattern of manipulation over truth. [Automatically generated summary]
Drop something on a giant piece of toast to see what happens.
No, he creates these really good in-depth analyses of some of these media figures.
I think one of the things that is really great about it is we spend our time talking about Alex Jones, and I have a peripheral awareness of people like Tim Poole.
And obviously we've looked into Project Veritas a bit, but not with the granular detail.
Right, right, right.
And Tim Bontost has some videos that are about Tim Pool, Dave Rubin.
There's a three-part series on Dave Rubin that he did that's fantastic.
I know I brought up...
I don't remember which video it was that I...
I think it was the Project Veritas one that I've brought up in the past, but this new one just came out and it's really good.
It's very insightful about the sort of rhetorical...
That Tim Pool uses to...
One of the things I thought was really remarkable is there's a pretty clear demonstration that a lot of it is essentially passing along Infowars narratives just with a rhetorical style that makes it more purchasable to different audiences.
And is the preeminent planner for the Rockefeller Foundation of the COVID attacks that we've all been under and the subsequent lies and fraud is now covering its ass by the very working group.
That was heavily involved with Bill Gates planning all this.
Coming out in a 60-plus page report saying lockdowns are a fraud and have killed more people than the virus and that the economic destruction of it is going to starve hundreds of millions of people to death, which is true.
So the study is something that does exist, but Alex is misreporting what it is.
It's a meta-analysis that was carried out by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.
That is to say that it wasn't producing any new information, but was looking at a broad swath of already existing studies.
The vast majority of these studies they looked at were done by people in the field of economics as opposed to public health which is a little bit of a cause for concern.
The reason that I say that is because the goal is to look at the relationship between non-pharmaceutical interventions also referred to in the study as lockdowns these non-pharmaceutical interventions to the pandemic For instance, like closing businesses, that kind of thing, and that relationship to the COVID mortality rate.
And because these are economic studies, there may be some nuance that's lost by researchers who approach that data from that perspective of economics as opposed to epidemiology.
A strict look at the numbers could show an approximately, like...
2% reduction in deaths from the lockdown measures, as is estimated in some of this study.
But there may be, well, there might be intangible variables that these numbers just can't capture, and epidemiological studies may be able to encapsulate some of this.
So, for instance, because this meta-analysis is only looking at COVID mortality, it can't say anything about the effects of these non-pharmaceutical interventions in terms of what they might have had.
which would then have a trickle-down effect to mortality.
There are some other points that I would bring up that I don't feel are really addressed in this meta-analysis, too, that I think are kind of relevant.
The first is that, at least as it relates to the U.S., we never really had effective lockdowns in place.
And even when some businesses had to be closed for a brief window, a lot of them stayed open anyway.
There was a whole lot of people who were like, no way over my dead body!
Giant gatherings of people were still happening, even when ostensibly gatherings were banned for public health concerns.
And then, of course, you had the phenomenon of anti-mask assholes refusing to wear masks and yelling at folks and even spitting on them in public.
The reality is that if you try to assess the effectiveness of any non-pharmaceutical intervention in terms of the pandemic, your data is going to reflect essentially a non-application of lockdown measures.
If the effect of lockdown measures A lot of people took things very seriously and made real changes to how they went about their lives with respect to public health, But there were also plenty of people who were so combative and childish that they felt the need to reflexively act in opposition to any public health guidance just because defiance feels good to them.
And there were really no consequences or any meaningful enforcement of lockdowns that would have changed their behaviors.
The second thing I would bring up is that different states in the United States responded with different public health measures, and these differences have an effect on other states.
All in all, I think that this analysis that's in this paper is useful, and it brings up some interesting points, but I don't believe that it's ultimately conclusive that the data shows that non-pharmaceutical interventions were altogether ineffective.
Regardless of any of my feelings about the study, it's absolutely true that Alex is just lying about what it says and almost certainly hasn't read it.
He just sees a headline that sounds like something he's into being put out by a source that he's already established as evil in his storylines, so it's being reported as them covering their asses by admitting that everything he's been saying has been true all along.
So Reuters didn't come out in favor of ivermectin or any of that bullshit.
This was a headline in Reuters that was corrected because the original version was inaccurate.
Initially, the headline was, quote, Japan's Kawa says ivermectin effective against Omicron in phase 3 trial.
This wasn't correct, and Reuters editors definitely whiffed on this one because by the time the headline was fixed, Joe Rogan had already tweeted it out, the inaccurate version of this, because it was, Seen as vindication for his anti-vax bullshit.
And the narrative had taken hold that Reuters was admitting, after all, that Ivermectin works.
You can tell here, though, if you're listening, that Alex has realized the controversy here, and he's trying to claim victory using the corrected headline, which is, quote, Ivermectin shows antiviral effect against COVID, Japanese company says.
This isn't news, really, and it's not proof that ivermectin works at all against COVID in humans.
If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't even think that this story is something that should have been posted by Reuters, because it's not ready to go.
From the article, quote, That's the extent of the information that's provided about this company, Kawa.
They say they're doing research, that there's an unspecified antiviral effect, and that they didn't say anything else.
That's not newsworthy, and it's a prime opportunity to make an unforced error that can be exploited by anti-vax assholes, which is exactly what happened with this bad headline.
There's a misleading nature about engaging with this story on a surface level, as Alex does with every story.
It's entirely possible that Coward did a study and found that ivermectin has an antiviral effect against COVID in a test tube.
Scientists have demonstrated that before, with ivermectin and even hydroxychloroquine.
Many things can show effects in a test tube that they do not have in the human body.
A lot of the times that we've seen these anti-vax people pretending not to be anti-vax, when they get over-invested in claiming that various things are like COVID treatments, it's usually because something showed an effect in an in vitro study, and then they pretend that this effect must naturally apply to in vivo settings.
So anyway, Reuters completely fucked up here for no reason, but the underlying reality is that Alex is totally wrong about this story, and Reuters is not trying to cover their dirty asses by coming out in favor of ivermectin.
That's just completely detached from reality, and it's nothing more than the figments of Alex's imagination that he's passing off his reporting and an attempt to piggyback Joe Rogan's shit.
The main subject of the article did not provide further details than you have kill the story or make the article about how they did not provide further details and they fucking should.
has now resigned, and they always use the fall on the sword excuse of, oh, because he was having a relationship that was inappropriate with somebody that worked there.
Yeah, the big crime is men and women having sex, and God forbid any children come along.
It wasn't lying.
It wasn't infiltrating groups.
It wasn't overseeing the persecution of millions of people that CNN would covertly and overtly target and have deplatformed.
This is interesting, because what we're seeing at the beginning of this show is Alex trying to do a roundup of news stories that he's using to paint a picture that the enemies are in retreat.
Johns Hopkins admits lockdowns are a Now, I don't know exactly what's going on with this Zucker situation, but even if you take the public-facing story as gospel, it's reason for him to step down.
Chris Cuomo was fired recently, and because the termination involved unethical behavior, there was an investigation.
In the course of that investigation, it came out that Zucker had been having an undisclosed romantic relationship with CNN, executive vice president and chief marketing officer, and because of the impropriety of that, he resigned.
If the relationship is as on the up and up as Zucker claims, the fact that he didn't disclose it is something that is on its own.
That's outside what's appropriate in terms of business ethics.
The president of a company being in a secret relationship with the executive vice president and chief marketing officer is not best practices.
There's a further air of ethical problems here, and it's something that you can see conspiracy theorists shooting out, and that is that prior to being at CNN, the woman whose Zucker was in an undisclosed relationship with, Allison Golust, was a communications director for Andrew Cuomo, Chris Cuomo's brother.
This could honestly mean nothing, but the appearance of it raises some questions, which make the non-disclosure of the relationship more disconcerting.
Ultimately, however, it should be pointed out, if you're going to talk about that kind of thing...
Golust was only with the Cuomo administration for four months in 2013.
And prior to that, she'd worked at NBC Universal for over 15 years, which incidentally was where Zucker was prior to him heading to CNN.
I'm not sure exactly what's up here, but I feel like the Cuomo connection is a bit too speculative to put too much stock into, but it does obviously raise questions.
And the reported version of the story on its own is enough to merit his resignation.
Alex wants to make this about CNN punishing men and women for having sex, but it's really more about breaches of professional ethics.
I'm sure that CNN doesn't much care who has sex with anybody else there, as long as it's all above board and there aren't very serious liabilities and...
Yeah, you have to report those kinds of things to HR.
If you're in middle management and you're dating an employee or something, or even you're dating somebody who's on the same level as you in the company flowchart, you still need to report these things to HR because of...
At city council and school board meetings and are calling it out, and the public is rapidly getting up to speed on the Great Reset, the New World Order, and the divide-and-conquer stratagems.
Two, declaring that the New World Order is falling apart is a stupid move for Alex because it makes it harder for him to then claim they're a huge threat later on, like a year or two down the road.
That's not really a concern for Alex, though, since his audience has completely forgotten and ignored how he's been telling them that the New World Order is on the brink of collapse for like 20 years.
Three, who cares about people complaining at city council meetings?
We already know from Alex's own reporting that the New World Order has a plan B that they can carry out if things look like their plans are falling apart, which is releasing super bioweapons to kill everyone off.
Based on Alex's own broadcasts, there is no winning, especially not by yelling conspiracy shit at city council meetings about the New World Order's evil plans.
If anything, that would seem like a good way to make them panic and release those super bioweapons.
Alex believed a single word that came out of his own mouth, and every moment he spat on air that wasn't about teaching the audience how to grow their own food and collect rainwater is a fucking waste of time.
Anyway, the Patriots are winning now, which is a mood that I'm sure will pass before too long, and Alex go back to pretending that he never said that the New World Order was crumbling and they're a real serious threat.
No, this means anything.
It's just the equivalent of a play-by-play guy on the radio describing a sports game that he's imagining.
Ah, you know, Dan, I can see just from the way you're holding yourself right now that you're a closed-off person, but sometimes you're very gregarious.
So anyway, what Alex is doing is just hedging his bets in case these winter storms that are heading to Austin and the surrounding areas knock out the power like they did last year, or in case another winter storm does the same in another city.
He's preloading a conspiracy so he can make a narrative out of that and pretend that he predicted a false flag attack, thereby boosting his credentials as somebody who really gets what the bad guys are doing.
There are power outages all the time from inclement weather.
When I lived in Missouri, there were like bad thunderstorms and the power would go out periodically.
Just this past week, hundreds of thousands of people lost power in the Northeast due to winter storm Kenan.
And in advance of these storms coming to Texas, Governor Abbott has come out and said that power outages may happen.
There's no shortage of things that Alex could try to portray as a cyber attack should he want to, which is why this particular instance of him trying to create a preemptive conspiracy narrative just comes off as desperate.
And Alex doesn't often announce guests ahead of time.
And him putting her name in the show description and the title of the broadcast, I think is a pretty clear piece of evidence that he's trying to troll for attention.
We're about to get into the messy section of this, where Alex gets into a story about a SUNY professor, a guy at the University of Fredonia, who has made some, I would say, Troubling, awful comments?
You know, this story just broke on Twitter last night.
And I tell you, my biggest tipster, my two biggest tipsters, who send me stuff that I wouldn't even have known about, so it ended up kind of going viral on InfoWars, as Paul Watson wrote about it early this morning, is the great Joe Rogan.
And he sent me this.
Last night, and I spent about an hour watching videos of this guy.
So I sent it over to Paul when I went to bed about midnight, and I said, please write about this in the early morning.
And they're six hours ahead of us, so six, seven, eight hours later, this article was up.
And the reason I name-dropped the Joe Rogan thing is that's kind of a hat tip to where I get so many of my...
It's like the circle is now complete.
Used to, I would send Joe the stuff, and now he sends me the stuff.
But I'm going to talk about this coming up next segment.
Sonny Professor says it's a mistake to think about pedophilia as being wrong.
This is the boomerang effect of Alex's misinformation theoretically radicalizing Joe to the point where he now is sending Alex information to sensationalize and cover.
So this is actually a rare instance where Alex has a narrative about pedophilia that's actually not based on totally bizarre and grotesque imaginary things.
This is about the SUNY Fredonia philosophy professor Stephen Kirshner, who made some comments that were definitely not great in a video that we're making the rounds online the other night.
I didn't watch the whole video, but the clip that was posted all over the place, he doesn't actually say that pedophilia is good, but he's suggesting that it's quote, not obvious to him why sex with a minor is wrong.
This is splitting hairs on my part, and I think it's very fair to say that the realm of conversation that he was getting into was not appropriate and fucked up.
I got a really heavy libertarian vibe off this guy, particularly since one of the things he was talking about a lot was the age of consent and how that issue is on a spectrum.
This is a theme you hear a lot from libertarians.
And that's why I wasn't surprised to learn that Kirshner is on the editorial board of the journal Reason Papers, which purports to be free of any intellectual or philosophical tradition, but also posts a whole lot of articles.
Great.
Like, in the Fall 2011 issue, which Kirshner wrote two pieces for, there's an article titled, quote, One of the articles that he wrote in that issue...
If you look a little further into this guy's publishing career, you'll find a 2007 paper he wrote for the Law and Philosophy Journal titled, quote, For Discrimination Against Women, where you might be...
In 2018, he took the time to write a whole-ass paper on how specifically being attracted to Asian people, quote, This guy is just writing weird things about himself to the rest of us and then hiding it behind...
In 2003, he wrote an article titled, quote, A Liberal Argument for Slavery, the abstract of which starts like this, quote, The slavery contract is not a rights violation since the right not to be enslaved and the right not to give out a benefit are waivable and the conjunction of their voluntary waiver is not itself a rights violation.
The case for the contract being pejoratively exploitative is not clear.
This guy's a super annoying libertarian philosophy professor, and if you check his publishing history closely, you'll even find that in 2001, he wrote a paper titled, quote, The Moral Status of Harmless Adult Child Sex, wherein he argues about what you might guess from the title.
This is a position he's posited for a while.
Which doesn't mean that people shouldn't be offended or push back against it.
It's just that he's a libertarian, and people in that philosophical tradition have this conversation a lot.
Yeah, it sucks, because this seems like one of those classic, you went viral for shit that people just didn't know was regularly common in that world, you know?
Like, if you walked into any shitty bar where there was a libertarian conversation happening, Sure, sure.
I mean, like, I was looking at the issue of his journal that, you know, that he wrote these articles in, the Reason Papers, and there was an article in it that was written by Walter Bloch, who's another libertarian professor, who, if you'd like...
Fairly enjoyable.
You can hear a couple of debates that he did with Sam Seder on the majority report.
So the New York Post, there's an article about this video that had come out, and it says that the clip appears to come from his appearance on this podcast called The Unregistered Podcast, which is hosted by Thaddeus Russell, which is actually incorrect, but it's hard to tell that immediately.
So I ended up looking into The Unregistered Podcast because I took the New York Post assessment at its word.
It turns out that's a kind of a...
Pretty right-leaning podcast.
The most recent episode was a chat about the evils of CRT with James Lindsay, who was actually recently a guest on Rogan's podcast, which is cool.
So this interview with Kirshner on the Unregistered podcast is from December 2020, and in the episode description, Thaddeus calls him, quote, the most renegade academic I've found.
I went and I tried to listen to this podcast to see if maybe the comments were taken out of context.
And let me tell you, they were not if this was actually where it was from.
If anything, the short clips are a generous portrayal of this guy's views.
And Kirshner says way more fucked up stuff in that full interview that I'm not even going to play here to make the point.
So here's the thing that I wasn't expecting when I listened to this podcast.
The host, Thaddeus Russell, is absolutely 100% in agreement with Kirshner.
The two of them are lamenting how much grief they take from people because they insist on arguing that having sex with minors is maybe actually a good thing.
What's weird is that there are tons of tweets and articles on right-wing blogs calling for Kirshner's firing and turning him into a villain.
But not that many talking about Russell and how the entire interview that the two of them did sound like veterans in the battle against age of consent laws shooting the shit, telling war stories.
I mean, you know, I love how these guys are such renegade professors who have been saying the same bullshit about how it's fucked up that age of consent laws exist for 30, 20-odd years or whatever.
And at no point in time are they like, oh, did you know that some innocent-ass English professor somewhere was like, Daniel is probably an apartheid state and then was fired for no reason.
So anyway, this brain end of that video, I didn't watch the whole thing, mostly because Kirshner was just saying the same stuff he said in the other interview that I did.
Waste my time listening to.
The hosts of this one weren't seeming to be as enthusiastic in their agreement with him, or even necessarily showing agreement with him from the stuff I saw, but I don't know if at some point they do.
Anyway, this is a libertarian philosophy professor doing stuff that's not too surprising to see a libertarian philosophy professor getting into.
Even though he published an article on this topic in 2001 and seems to have a bit of a pattern of being willing to expound on the issues on podcasts and public appearances, and he published a whole book about it in 2015, apparently SUNY Fredonia had no idea about his opinions and released a statement that his views are reprehensible and that, quote, the matter is under review.
To be clear, I think it's fine that the matter is under review, but if you're going to enact any punishment on Kirshner about this...
You should probably also do some real serious fact-finding about how you could have missed this very obvious view that he has and has been making extremely public for the last 20 years.
I just can't deal with these subjects with any kind of seriousness.
I'm not going to get too deep into the weeds, and I'm not investing any energy in defending Kirshner's comments, but Alex is misrepresenting them.
Kirshner was talking about alleged reports in, quote, some cultures of grandmothers filleting children to calm them down when they're colicky.
He says that he doesn't know if these reports are true or if it's an effective treatment, but if those things were true, he doesn't understand what would be wrong about that action.
That's messed up.
I don't agree with Kirshner, and I think it's a bad line of inquiry to go down, but also, Alex is not dealing with what he's actually saying.
So most of the people you see now, you notice they don't have children, the EU heads, because the majority of EU heads were involved in child sex slavery and torture.
As the recipients, as the victims, and then as victimizers.
I think it's important, though, to lay this out in detail to really make sure that the picture is clear that there is no basis for the things that Alex says.
He just makes up things that make his narrative seem more persuasive or feel right to him in the moment, and then he asserts them as fact.
And not just fact, but actually proof of a larger conspiracy that he's trying to sell his audience.
It's important to understand this dynamic because it's not a behavior that he uses sparingly, and if his audience approached his claims with even a basic level of scrutiny, a lot of them would collapse, having been shown to just be stuff that he's making up.
And he's engaging with a topic as sensitive and serious as child sexual abuse with the level of disrespect and irresponsibility that he's showing here, which should really disqualify him as a person you should take seriously about anything.
So, Alex, he takes some sidetracks in terms of talking about this larger story about abuse against children and weaves it into other things like, I don't know, COVID vaccine narratives.
So this Pentagon thing is just a lie that Alex is taking from Senator Ron Johnson.
He had a recent panel on COVID vaccine side effects.
One of the reports that was presented showed surprisingly high rates of fairly serious side effects.
This was presented by an attorney named Thomas Renz, who was claiming that he got this information from Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, which was provided to him by three alleged whistleblowers.
The thrust of this data was that conditions like Cancer, miscarriages, and neurological issues were way up compared to data from years prior to the vaccine being rolled out.
The problem, however, was that Renz had bad data, or at least data that he didn't do a thorough job of vetting.
So Lead Stories reached out to the DOD for comment, and their spokesperson, Major Charlie Dietz, said that they'd run a review on their database and found that the database covering the years of 2016 to 2020, quote, represented only a small fraction of the actual medical diagnoses for those years.
In contrast, the 2021 total number of medical diagnoses were up to date.
So they were able to determine this differentiation and the only being a small fraction of the actual diagnoses because they were able to compare datasets from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database and the Defense Medical Surveillance System.
It turns out that the latter has full information, but Thomas Renz, this guy, got numbers from the prior.
So he had the incomplete data set.
This effect, what it did is it created the appearance that there were sharp increases this year, when that's actually just the result of the data set being incomplete.
Anyway, Alex is lying about this, and the thing about them knowing about side effects prior to the vaccine rolling out was just from a PowerPoint presentation he's made up a story about.
I think in that clip, though, what's valuable is that you can see an important dynamic.
Alex says that this comes from DOD numbers and specifically says that it's not from VAERS.
He constantly reports on bullshit that Steve Kirsch is peddling from misusing VAERS data, but now that Alex feels like he's got a stronger source to use, he builds up that source by comparing it favorably to VAERS.
Yeah, that indicates to me that Alex has at least a...
Something of a keen awareness that the stuff based on Ver's numbers was always bullshit, but he used it because it was the only option he had in order to make his narratives work and sensationalize shit.
I feel like this is a very similar dynamic that Alex has to when he reports stories and says it's in the mainstream news.
There's an unspoken second part of that sentence, which he speaks in the case of this clip here about Ver's.
But it hits too close to home in the case of the mainstream news things, because the full thought there is actually, it's in the mainstream news, not on our dumb site that no one should take seriously.
And he's royalty from the Carpathian Mountains and he moves to London because they all knew that the Saxe-Coburgothas were Romanian, Hungarian, not even German.
The British royalty being connected to the Saxe-Coburg Gotha line didn't begin until Edward VII, who was the son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of the Saxe-Coburg family.
Edward would begin his time as monarch in 1901.
Conversely, Dracula, the Bram Stoker book, was published in 1897 and had been a project he had been working on for the better part of a decade, largely because of his study of Transylvanian folklore that informed the novel.
Romanian culture featured a vampiric creature called the Strigoi, upon which Stoker's version of Dracula is based, likely with a bit of Vlad the Impaler thrown in for good measure.
Again, this is an instance of Alex just making up a story about the little pieces of trivia that he thinks are connected, but they aren't really, except for in his imagination.
He's a liar who can't stop himself from just making things up if that's easier for him in terms of being able to present himself like he knows everything.
Also, Alex ends up going on a meandering interpretation of the plot of the movie Dracula instead of getting to the point.
I think it's because he doesn't have anything to say about the story except to connect it to ramblings about Renfields and Draculas and to yell about his particular Picadillos.
I have no idea if Kushner has kids or is married, and neither does Alex.
This clip is disgusting, but it also is fairly illuminating in terms of one of Alex's more insidious rhetorical tactics.
He gets all worked up yelling about this one story that he has a very shallow grasp on, and he's building up this energy.
Then he pivots to a completely unrelated set of topics, and he carries that same energy over, which is meant to allow the audience to make an emotional connection between these unrelated narratives.
He builds up this anger and hatred for Kushner, Yep.
Yep.
and one part that he really can't do anything else.
He's not capable of covering any story with any real depth, so...
There isn't really another option for him than ranting wildly and pretending everything he's talking about is connected.
But, of course, there's another thing he's trying to use this energy for, and you can see it in this also very disgusting clip that comes just after the last one we heard.
There is a conversation that somebody could very easily have about the distaste and disapproval of the comments that Kirshner made in that interview.
I don't disagree with Alex taking issue with them.
I do take issue with his inability to engage with...
The actual story, his clear non-awareness of anything surrounding it, except for that he's supposed to get mad about it because Joe Rogan told him about it the night before, and his use of it specifically only to create passion surrounding his other issues that he seems really, really invested in, and to make a compelling emotional argument for people to give him money.
And we can build our war chest and build our infrastructure and just have your prayer and your word of mouth and your financial support just to ram these suckers head on.
You got my commitment to never back down or give up, but I can give out unless you energize me.
unidentified
I need your prayers and I need your funds and word of mouth now, and I will never surrender.
I will destroy these people with God's help, but I need you!
You realize that he's saying that he's fighting pedophiles, and then he's going to take that money and use it to avoid giving the parents of Sandy Hook Victims' money.
And, like, I've heard this from some of our listeners before, and I kind of feel similarly, that, like, if it weren't for Alex, I'd have no idea who Brian Stelter was.
It's the Republican rhinos who walk and talk and act like us, and then they do different things behind closed doors with the way they vote and legislate and the people they take money from.
And unfortunately, those Republicans have joined with the Democrats, and it's been happening for a really long time.
They serve the globalist agenda.
And as a matter of fact, today I'm waiting to have to go vote here in just a little bit against the Competes Act.
And that's what Nancy Pelosi is bringing to the House floor today.
She's working on getting that done while we're working through amendments.
They don't want the Republican amendments to change it.
And this is a so-called bill that's supposed to go against China and help America to compete.
But all honesty, the truth is it serves the climate change radical agenda.
China first and America last.
And it's all Build Back Better and Green New Deal just rewritten into something that she lies and calls America Competes Act.
So it's the same song and dance, but it's Mitch McConnell and the Lindsey Grahams and many Republicans here that have allowed these things to happen to our country.
And this is why primary season is so important.
This is why everyone needs to get involved.
And we have to make sure that we send the right people to Congress.
People like me, people who are willing to fight because we have to save our country.
Meanwhile, John Cowan earned just over 10,000 additional votes in the runoff, which strongly suggests that Marjorie Taylor Greene has a very firm ceiling to her popularity, at least as it relates to the primary.
As for the general election, she was probably going to win that no matter what, since Georgia's 14th district is a Republican plus 27 district.
But she was also essentially running unopposed after the Democratic candidate Kevin Van Ossetel unofficially withdrew from the race prior to the election.
Right.
The fact that it's a district that swings heavily to the GOP might actually, you know, it might be helpful in the general, but it's no good for Green in the primary.
And she's facing four challengers in the GOP primary this year.
A couple of them stand to possibly draw votes away by appealing to the public as a person who has the same kind of America-first politics, but without the baggage of Green's past associations with QAnon and some of the liabilities she has to be taking seriously, like going on fucking info wars.
There's another potential problem that she has, though, and that's that registered Democrats can vote in the GOP primary in Georgia.
If enough Democratic voters decided to punt on the Democratic primary and instead vote in the GOP primary, they could essentially sink Green's candidacy.
I don't have much faith that anyone would be able to pull off this sort of organization or anything, but...
If public sentiment were strongly opposed to her enough, the Democratic Party could essentially choose between GOP primary candidates.
Who would inevitably end up winning in the general.
I think they could probably get just about anybody they wanted in, and then they would waste the Georgia legislature's time having to go back and be like, fine, we can't allow Democrats to vote in primaries.
And I refuse to stop doing and saying the things that I'm doing.
You know, I just got kicked off of Twitter and I wear that with like a badge of honor.
Joining you and so many others that have been kicked off that hateful, evil, leftist platform that just spread lies and basically controls politics and messaging in the media.
And I'm so happy I got kicked off.
You know, anyone that gets persecuted by these type of platforms, you really...
There is no reason to have given emergency authorization to this vaccine if ivermectin works so well.
And so you have to hold on to the idea that ivermectin worked or else your argument falls apart that there was actually cause to give emergency authorization to the vaccine.
And so in order to not have to let that domino fall and then their entire anti-vax argument starts to crumble around it, they have to hold on to this nonsense long past its expiration date.
That people really have blood on their hands that have stopped the prescriptions of ivermectin, refuse people who have had sick family members in the hospital of not being able to take ivermectin or any other kind of life-saving treatment or therapy.
I mean, I truly think that we need to investigate all these people and investigate the deaths that are reported on the VAERS system and hold people accountable because it's Dr. Fauci and anyone at the CDC or anyone involved that stopped life-saving treatment.
and therapies and people died, well, I think they're guilty of murder.
Using her logic, it would be very easy to construct an argument that if people who refuse the vaccine because they're elected leaders or demagogues like Alex told them it was dangerous and a plot to kill everyone, that happened.
And they died of COVID, then Alex or Green should be charged with murder.
It's not like Fauci was physically slapping ivermectin out of people's hands.
It was just recommendations that the CDC gave.
You could still get ivermectin, and there's a little industry that popped up of doctors online who would prescribe it for you, and Alex has had them on as guests.
Similarly, Alex and Green aren't forcing anyone to not get the vaccine.
They're just giving medical advice.
And if you could demonstrate that this medical advice contributed to someone dying from COVID by their own standard, they should be charged with murder.
I guess all that would take is finding someone who died and was a fan of Alex's.
There's one guy named Doug Kuzma, who's a conspiracy theory podcaster who died of COVID in early January after likely catching it at the Reawaken America rally in Dallas in mid-December, which Alex actually spoke at.
His Facebook isn't public anymore, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see some Infowars reposts and Alex narratives about COVID flying around.
It's just relevant to recognize that the standard that these people like Alex and Green are setting about their imaginary complaints about Fauci, if applied to themselves, would lead to them being sent to jail for a very long time.
Alright, I think you've made it very clear that you and I need to stop recording right now and go perform a citizen's arrest on Alex Jones for the crime of murder.
We had a great conversation during the break and she wanted to get back in to this compete bill that she was telling me is the whole leftist agenda, the Build Back Better, the whole carbon tax agenda.
So, in this case, it shouldn't be that big of an ask, because this isn't really a new bill.
A version of it passed the Senate last July by a 68-32 vote, which means that it had bipartisan support.
And if this is something that is some kind of like a socialist fantasy bill like she seems to be pretending, it seems really weird that Bernie Sanders voted against it.
Maybe when the bills are reconciled, that number will get bumped up a little bit.
Also, in the interest of just complete fairness, the version of the bill in the House that came out of the Rules Committee used the word fentanyl 10 times.
So in reality, this bill seeks to do a lot of things that, in terms of lip service, Alex is in favor of, like supporting manufacturing in the United States, particularly in the area of semiconductors.
Ultimately, though, it's government spending, and the leaders he seems to respect have somehow crafted very strong opinions on the bill without reading it, so it's gotta be evil and must be stopped.
It would be nice to live in the early 1800s, you know, before you knew how to read.
You couldn't pay attention.
You didn't know what the government was doing, so you couldn't immediately be like, oh, well, obviously, I, with my third grade education, am more qualified to work in the government than most of the people there.
But here, you and I, I've almost got a college degree.
And that lady should be out of Congress, my friend.
Alex is just asking that part about the record margin because it's one of his talking points about her, and he just made it up or saw it in a meme, but he's hoping to solidify it with her.
Now, the good news here is that there's no chance, even if the GOP takes back the House, that Green will be the Speaker.
She isn't even in the House GOP leadership right now, and would never be able to rally the kind of support she would need to get into the Speakership.
With almost zero doubt, if the House flipped, Kevin McCarthy would be the Speaker.
And maybe, if you wanted to get real weird, you might see Steve Scalise be able to put together the kind of support he'd need from his position as the minority whip.
An amazing, powerful, smart, beautiful woman promoting freedom, and that...
Is what scares the Democrats, and that's why they want to demonize you and have tried to expel you from Congress for January 6th.
They're trying to say I'm involved, the Democrats are as well.
I mean, how crazy is that?
Because I know you wanted to have the 10-day Senate investigation that's in law and totally legal.
That's what I wanted.
The last thing we wanted was that fiasco.
But I'm really concerned about the vast majority of folks were not violent and are innocent political prisoners, and we really appreciate the fact that you've gone and tried to shed light on what's happened to them.
I suspect that Alex is mostly bringing up January 6th so he can weave together his own personal victimhood and get Green to talk about them being in that struggle together, like that kind of camaraderie.
It's kind of dumb, though, partially because Green's record on the 6th is not good.
For one thing, her actions leading up to the 6th explicitly fanned the flames of the conspiracies that led up to the storming of the Capitol and tweeted, Fight for Trump!
She has some pretty weird conflicts of interest when it comes to her positions on the folks involved that day, and I don't think I'm too keen to look to her as any kind of impartial voice on the matter.
Also, no one's afraid of Green because she believes in freedom and is so strong and powerful.
It's because she's completely insane and is now in a position of power which she could easily abuse.
In 2017, she called QAnon, quote, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
She wrote blog posts about the Unite the Right rally being an inside job, promoted Pizzagate conspiracies, and wrote on Facebook that Nancy Pelosi had committed treason and should be executed.
Mm-hmm.
proved that Pizzagate was real.
She wrote about how Antifa was trying to bring about white genocide and how the Las Vegas shooting was a false flag.
Her life and work has demonstrated a clear pattern of someone who can't assess information competently and who should be nowhere near the levers of power.
She believes complete bullshit and these beliefs motivate her to act in ways that could be seriously dangerous, as illustrated by how her bullshit beliefs around the 2020 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's people like Ray Epps who were telling people to go into the Capitol, urging people to go in the Capitol, take the Capitol, and all these horrible things that Ray Epps said.
And I didn't see Ray Epps in the D.C. jail, Alex, when I went in there, when I saw these pre-trial January 6th defendants being held in solitary confinement roughly 22 to 23 hours a day.
I didn't see Ray Epps in there.
And so we need to do these investigations when Republicans take back the House, if we're able to take back the House after this election cycle.
But we need to go in there and we need to find out what's going on, because Ray Epps is the one question that no one can answer.
And the fact that Adam Kinzinger lives changed.
and the rest of the disgusting January 6 clown committee is defending this guy, just shows you and exposes all of their lies.
They can't dare come after someone like you, Alex, or innocent people that got legal rally permits or people that worked for Trump.
Trump's administration, staffers, and so on.
They shouldn't come after any of you if they're going to stand there and let Ray Epps off the hook, because we know what he did.
The only evidence these ding-dongs have at all that Ray Epps was somehow involved in plotting to storm the Capitol is that the night before, he was hanging around outside and said that people should go into the Capitol the next day when talking to a random person who was video recording him.
Before January 6th, I would guess that upwards of tens of people had seen that video, and if this is the standard that Green is going to use to insist that someone's guilty, then Alex's longtime associate, Matt Bracken, should be far higher on her list of people to arrest.
He was on air on Infowars about a week prior to the 6th, saying, Far more emphatically than Epps did that people needed to storm the Capitol.
It's points like this that really highlight how the whole thing with Ray Epps isn't a sincere argument being put forth by Green and her ilk.
It's an act of trying to create a scapegoat to obscure the larger picture of how the information space that she's a major participant in led directly to what happened on the 6th, and if we ever grappled with that realistically, she'd be in serious trouble.
In order to make sure that we never grapple with that issue realistically, it's imperative for Green to just push whatever the current right-wing distraction narrative is.
So, I want to say this though, there were some concerns about some of the inmates being put in solitary confinement, but this is not a unique problem for these January 6th participants.
It's been a long-standing complaint that prison reform activists have been raising in regards to the Fairfax County Jail.
Their rights absolutely should be respected, but it's a bit telling that these prison dynamics weren't really a top priority for the right wing until their insurrectionist buddies were the ones in jail.
Anyway, they ended up creating a wing in the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility just for January 6th suspects.
And apparently it's such a fucked up place that Thomas Sibic, a dude who's facing charges about the 6th, requested that he be put in solitary confinement rather than have to exist in that environment, which he described as toxic and cult-like.
This isn't to, like, minimize the concerns about inhumane incarceration at all, when I'm saying any of this.
I'll just continue to see this as a larger systemic problem that needs to be addressed, as opposed to a niche concern that only applies narrowly to these January 6th arestees like Alex and Marjorie are pretending.
Yeah.
It's just they're not dealing with the real issue.
They're only dealing with their intersection with the issue.
It would have been so great and it would have been like a really good moment for them to reach out across the aisle if they just said to us, you know, like, yeah, you're right.
Well, you know, I think Americans really are there.
It's the people here in this town, people on the Hill, and a bunch of egotistical, arrogant politicians and the consultants that work for them running these polls that really don't ask the right questions a lot of times.
They just haven't caught up with the people.
Or maybe they were never with the people.
Because look at what has happened over these decades.
This is the party that produced Bush, that failed and led us to Barack Obama.
Well, here we are at $30 trillion in debt.
And it's just like, it's so bad.
It's so disgusting.
You can hardly wrap your head around it.
But this is where the American people have always been.
So this is just profoundly stupid for a number of reasons.
The first being that the Trump movement within the conservative world is absolutely not a peace movement.
Beyond the fact that they insulate and run cover for internal domestic terror threats like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they also have very troubling connections to even more dangerous groups within the larger international fascist landscape.
Leaving that aside, Trump may never have declared war, but his administration was insanely murderous.
For eight years in office, Obama oversaw 1878 drone strikes, compared to 2243 in the first two years of Trump's presidency.
We actually only know for sure the number of the first two years, because in 2019, Trump wrote an executive order overturning an Obama administration rule that drone strikes outside of war zones needed to be reported and published.
Trump not only ramped up the drone attack severely, he also made it significantly harder to quantify exactly how much bombing his administration was actually doing.
In addition to this, Trump ramped up bombings in areas like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, something that experts attribute to his, quote, loosening of the rules of engagement.
By August 2017, Newsweek was reporting that Trump had already killed more civilians in his fight against ISIS than Obama had in his entire time in office.
And then, of course, we have to remember that time that Trump dropped the mother of all bombs and Alex declared that he'd shoved ISIS up his dirty asshole.
The claim that Trump and his movement is a peace movement is an offensive lie, and Alex knows that.
This is just rhetoric that has the tendency to be effective in terms of gaslighting disaffected liberals into thinking that there's something to be gained by aligning with the extreme right in the name of fighting against war or imperialism.
It's just a scam meant to further legitimize extreme right figures like Alex and to get people to fall...
Yep.
it's effective to some folks who aren't paying attention.
But I think what's really more interesting about that clip is that even in this clearly false conversation they're having, Marjorie Taylor Greene needs to reinforce her loyalty to Trump.
Well, I also think that possibly a better angle on it than they talk about Fauci or Alex says she should run for president or whatever.
Because that was what a lot of stuff that was going around on Twitter had to do with.
I think maybe...
A stronger approach to it would have very little to do with the focus being on Alex and it being on Marjorie Taylor Greene, and that she appeared on a show that ten minutes before she was on was screaming disgusting nonsense about pedophilia.
Whereas negative publicity right around the times of primary season could be something that might be motivating for Marjorie Taylor Greene, especially since she doesn't have her Twitter account anymore.
Oh, I don't really care about any of this conversation except to point out that we have a person in the House who believes that the same complete nonsense that Alex does to the point of viewing Klaus Schwab as this generation's equivalent of Hitler.
It's entirely unacceptable that public service has eroded to this point.
However, I think the more important point for me is that Alex is lying to Marjorie here.
I've listened to countless hours of Alex's show, and I can tell you one thing with certainty, and that is that Alex doesn't believe that Hitler was the bad guy in World War II.
Sure, Hitler did bad things, but he was being controlled by the globalists behind the scenes.
Alex believes that Hitler was set up and that the real villains were the globalists who were financing all sides of the war.
Alex believes that when it's convenient.
But when it's inconvenient, he says that Hitler was the bad guy in World War II, and you can see how in this conversation, his consistently expressed belief that Hitler was set up runs very counter to his intent in trying to brand Klaus Schwab as the new Hitler.
That shit might fly when Alex is running solo or trying to blow Eddie Bravo's mind, but anyone with a midterm and primary election coming up would know better than to dip into that pool.
Alex's opinions are inconsistent, and they vary depending on his mood, but it's more troubling that his factual claims and understanding of history is just as malleable.
It's a real problem that his listeners really should grapple with, but instead they just ignore it.
And then the second hour, largely Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And we get to the third hour, and it's wild.
And I do want to make this comment, too.
I've been looking over the clips as we're recording this, and I've decided that I'm even not going to play some of the clips that I was giving a warning about at the beginning.
Because as we're going through this, I realize that they're not as germane as I thought they would be.
No, we were talking about it pre-show and it's just like, we can portray him as the idiotic goofball monster as much as we want, but it's important to remind people he's a true monster.
Yeah, and to the extent that it was relevant in terms of covering this story, recognizing that Joe Rogan is feeding him this story, and recognizing the ways that Alex uses the enthusiasm and energy that he builds around these stories, not to cover the actual stories, but to subvert that energy towards marketing and towards his bigoted narratives.
I think that there is a value in playing some of that.
But as I look at this, there's some of it that's just like, this isn't, this isn't, There's nothing that's added by it.
It would just be like, hey, look how fucked up Alex's show is.
And if you really want that, you can go listen to it yourself.
It's not necessarily relevant for us.
Now, in the third hour, Alex spends a bit of time talking about how he's going to go to calls, and then instead rambles about how George Soros is the Antichrist.
In Revelation, and also in earlier books, because it always foreshadows that when Satan's finally bound for a thousand years before he's released again to test us again for a very short time, that people will marble and look at him in the hologram in the pit, in his cell, in that black hole, and say, that's the creature?
So let's pull up the footage from yesterday, just a short 40-second clip, not the longer babbling, of George Soros, who believes he's the Messiah.
Who loves to steal old people's pension funds.
I mean, he's a horrible person.
So upset about Xi Jinping.
And I mean, look, look, that's the thing that did all this to us?
See, everything the Bible explains is a foreshadowing of the final event.
There are many antichrists.
There are many satans.
There are many devils.
There's only one final personification of it, but it's one spirit.
We rambled about a bunch of bullshit for an hour, interviewed a crazy congressperson for an hour, and now I'm going to fucking tell you about eternity and how I've tasted completion.
And the only thing that's composite is our spirit's collective creation on this planet as our project.
So that we can build composites of ourselves together in communion, just as God created us for communion with Him.
And so, yes, the genetic line of humans is a composite of our multidimensional energy forces manifesting on this planet and then building an organized structure according to our time-space vision.
I defy you to explain what Alex meant by any of that.
That nonsense cannot be translated into coherent, understandable language because it's scattershot of words that Alex is just trying to sound profound, just weaving this shit together into rambling sentences.
I had to write out the last part because I really want to parse this.
The genetic line of humans is a composite of our multi-dimensional energy forces manifesting on this planet and building an organized structure according to our time-space vision.
What he is saying is that who we are is actually a breakover energy from other dimensions that's manifesting itself in this dimension, and that manifestation is controlled according to our will or our vision of ourself that is held within.
All I'm hearing is him being like, okay, so the Hindus say that the Flash is faster than Superman, but the Christians say Superman is faster than the Flash.
This stuff is what enrages the enemy because they have a good idea, but they haven't been there.
They've not seen it.
And they know that if you realize this, it's game over for them.
So they are weaponizing the medical system to attack your double helix and try to cut that off because when you go into times of crisis, all those ancestral memories of your kindred spirits, the energy God created of other souls, are going to be here with you.
Just like you love your children and they love you and you love your grandparents and they love you and you have this feeling that they're there with you.
That's not a ghost.
That's not Casper walking through walls, folks.
That is the reflection of their genetics and that code in you that resonates.
They've gone on to the higher plane, but they have left their copy of their essence with you as your shield, as your blanket, as...
However, it's a colony entity which contains some kind of a copy of a bunch of consciousnesses of our ancestors who came before that help us in difficult times whenever we get stressed out.
This is fine as far as, like, a fun esoteric belief system for Alex to spout off about, but honestly, I'm having really bad whiplash from this episode.
He spent most of the time screaming absolutely disgusting shit that was inspired in his mind from a one-minute clip of Stephen Kirshner that he saw, and then he spent an hour interviewing Marjorie Taylor Greene, and now in the third hour he's ranting about Soros being the Antichrist and how we're all colony beings for trans-dimensional ancestors who want to remind us not to walk down dark alleys.
I probably say this a lot, but this show is fucking insane.
And people have legitimately no idea about the content that it actually contains.
It's just like, when I was growing up and going to all of these different churches, if a Christian, ostensibly, said some shit like that, my entire family would break down of, like...
This is why that's blasphemous?
This is why you're not following the Bible?
You remember that book we're supposed to give a fuck about?
I'm 12 years old, but I know how to go and pick up a 25-year-old woman if I wanted to.
Why am I a man when I'm 12 years old?
Why do I know all this stuff?
Because God gives us free will, but God...
Doesn't leave us alone.
I'm going to call it cheating.
But God gives us an owner's manual.
God gives us the training.
God gives us the instincts, the common sense, the will, the...
What's the term?
The conscience.
To know what's right and to know what's good.
And if we simply go with that conscience and go with that program, because we have free will, but God says, listen, I'm not going to just throw you into this thing and not give you the secret.
I'm going to give you everything you need, and I love you, and I created you because I care about you.
I'm not one of these biblical scholars that this guy is talking about, but I don't remember the parts of the story where like...
Noah got in a bad mood because he couldn't see the new Spider-Man movie, and then he launched into a childish outburst about how everyone deserved to die.
This guy has just raised so many more questions for me.
Are you telling me that in the intervening time period between the Tower of Babel, they were like, man, the next thing we got to do is we got to find a way to invent nukes.
I think that there's, you know, I think that Marjorie Taylor Greene's just general existence in Congress is really upsetting.
And on a day-to-day basis, it's not good.
But then when you see her existing in InfoWars land, and her and Alex basically being on the same page about so much, it really brings into sharp focus just how...
Yeah, I mean, the thing about that, though, is if you do study a lot of American history, eventually you'll get to the realization that at any given point in time, probably between 5 and 10 percent of all Congresses have been insane.
That's actually a fair point, and maybe you should struggle with this a little bit more, that, like, you know, Ron Paul was in Congress for, like, 20 years.
I think the difference between it is that Ron Paul, though his political beliefs were just as bad in many ways, the things that he advocated for, I don't know if he felt as disconnected from reality as a lot of the things that...
Marjorie Taylor Greene espouses.
Like, I don't think that Ron Paul would be spreading Pizzagate conspiracies.