Knowledge Fight #653 exposes Alex Jones’ Ukraine war "predictions"—October 2021 claims blamed China, July 2021’s three-phase war had no timeline, and December 2021’s vague "roll-in" lacked specificity. Edited clips erased his January 2022 denial of Russian invasion while shifting blame to NATO (despite no 1990 non-expansion pact) and later to America’s LGBTQ tolerance, contradicting earlier arguments. His COVID-19 lab claims rely on a debunked, unpeer-reviewed Oregon study with 3B:1 odds, ignored expert skepticism, and mirrored Chinese propaganda like Hua Xinying’s framing. Royce White’s interview revealed Jones’ misogynistic "genetic facts" about women’s leadership, while a random caller holding a 2x4 underscored his chaotic, fear-mongering style—all to deflect criticism and amplify Putin’s narrative. [Automatically generated summary]
We were talking a little bit before we started recording, and one of the things that I was really questioning was whether or not it would live up to fairly high expectations that I had.
Oh no, the moment you'd started, you texted me something about it, and I texted you immediately back like, I slid beneath the legs of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, slow motion fired an electrical arrow, and the thing blew up, and it was the most satisfying experience I've had in so long.
So we start here at the beginning of the episode on February 25th, and this is where we're going to dive immediately into the discussion about Alex's prediction.
So one of the central pieces of Alex's coverage of the invasion of Ukraine has been about how he said that there was going to be a war by the end of February back in the fall to early winter of last year.
That's become a bit of a meme, and you can see people posting about Alex's remarkable prediction on Twitter and other message boards.
So I felt like a really good use of our time would be to really dig into this and see what Alex predicted and talk about why he's full of shit.
The second thing to note here is that while Alex is talking, if you watch the video, they flash up B-roll of a video of Rogan's podcast, which doesn't make sense.
Unless you know the larger context of where this clip came from.
When Alex mentions this new power center in Austin, that's because just before this clip, Alex had to repeatedly and embarrassingly insist that he wasn't just talking about Rogan.
And the reason he had to do this is because these comments that he's making on the 21st are actually an extension of a story he told the day before, which is from the 20th.
So this is an instance of Alex using one of his regular strategies, which is basically just a combination of escalation and obscuring things.
On the 20th, he tells a story of being out with Rogan and a couple of his weirdo friends, and over drinks they talk about how they feel like war is coming.
Then, on the 21st, Alex embellishes this story to be about all these high-level sources he's talking to, when in reality it's just a continuation of a story from the day prior, which is why he needs to insist that he's not just talking about Rogan.
Alex does this a lot We've seen instances of him taking information That a caller gives him one day Which he then goes on to report Is coming from an unnamed high level source The next day I guess what Alex probably wants the audience to think is that, at a minimum...
This is something that Elon Musk has told Rogan, and then Rogan's told Alex, but it doesn't really matter.
The information he's providing doesn't come from any high-level source, and more importantly, the prediction that he's made based on that fake intel hasn't come true.
Now, this clip is from July 21st, 2021, and you better get pumped, because it features a guest appearance from the guy who took sole credit for 9-11, Leo Zagami.
So, as you can see, gradually these three phases of this period that we unfortunately are going to be living, and that will, of course, diminish the population of the Earth.
They may even have Biden stand down and receive a first strike to our military bases from China.
My gut's never been wrong.
And I keep having very intense nightmares the last month that the United States is going to be hit by nuclear weapons by China and is going to stand down and are going to receive the attack.
And I've looked at all the evidence, too.
They're preparing us with stay in your homes.
Oh, your power's off.
They turned the power off.
I'll prove that coming up.
But they admit they did, by the way.
It's in the fine print.
Nope.
And they're just getting us ready for the disaster.
They're not going to hit the main cities.
They're going to hit the military bases.
Very good chance that they're going to either blow the entire power grid with the MPs, which they've been conditioning us to get ready for, or they're going to hit us with a first strike.
And you're like, oh, that's crazy.
No, this is war, folks.
America's over.
It's gone.
Trump was removed.
Of course he won in a giant landslide.
They weren't going to allow that to happen.
And that's why when you look at the press secretary and all Biden's people, they are scared.
And if I was them, I'd be scared too.
Because they're going to be removed as soon as the Chinese take over.
Whoever put this compilation together has to have known that that's what he says immediately after this clip.
But the part where he says, oh, I feel like war is coming, that's useful for the compilation, and they know that fucking people who see this compilation Aren't going to have the time or the interest to go back and be like, wait, immediately after this he said that Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine.
So this means that not only is his compilation entirely about the United States and China fighting, which is not happening, it is also...
Removing the parts where he has said Russia won't do the thing that is happening in order to bolster his case, that he is not just not wrong, but prescient.
Yeah, it's an abusive lie, and it's very intentional.
When you see stuff like that, it's a clear fingerprint of someone being like, shit, well, Alex actually said the opposite of what this compilation is supposed to depict.
So cut it out so we can just make it look like he did.
This is meaningless and does nothing to show that Alex made any specific prediction about Ukraine, Russia, or the month of February, let alone all of them together.
We're at the same political, cultural, spiritual, economic climate the world was in on the eve of World War I in 1914.
And we're in the same geopolitical type.
In what way?
detonate a half mile a mile up and just destroy real estate and kill humans it's when the nuclear reactors here go offline and start melting down and we've got 400-plus Chernobyls to look forward to.
And the globalists won't be safe in their little bunkers from themselves.
Yeah, there was one jump cut in there to clearly trying to make two parts of this episode mash together to make it look like the thoughts appear to be more directly connected.
And then there's another jump cut, which takes us to the next clip that is also from this December 8th episode.
Alex is covering an interview with Senator Wicker on Fox News, which had to do with some tensions between Russia and Ukraine, because this conversation was already happening in December.
In ranting about other news and interviews on other news channels, Alex said he thought that Russia was going to, quote, roll in, which is unspecific enough to interpret it as him being correct or...
correct depending on your preference.
What's more important is that the rest of the stuff he's ranting about is completely off base at this point.
point.
He also never said that it was going to happen in February, and one fair reading of this comment is that he was thinking that there would be military action that's contained within the Donbass region.
The only way to make this seem accurate is to be really generous, which Alex doesn't deserve, and even if you do, he's not saying February.
No, I'm not surprised at all by that, but in terms of I'm predicting that this war is happening, you definitely weren't predicting that Russia was going to be invading the entire country.
There's no way the globalists get out of this without nuclear meltdowns, the surface of the Earth becoming unlivable, and every actuary that's been done, even by the Pentagon.
So why are they following a path that will cause mass war, mass starvation, and nuclear meltdowns?
Because it's a planetary-ending event, not just for us, but all major species.
This clip means nothing, and it has no predictive quality to it at all.
When taken in their totality, this compilation involves Alex mostly talking about his fears about China nuking the United States, and it only mentions February once, not even in relation to Russia.
This is really a desperate attempt on Alex's part to capitalize on the tragic events that are taking place in Ukraine and use them to inflate his sense of self.
It's a really grotesque motivation he's displaying, particularly considering how weak the evidence he's presented is for his supposed prediction.
The reason that this works on people is because most people don't have the time to actually listen to Alex's show, so they don't know what the context is for most of these clips.
Spliced together the way they are, they give an appearance that's dishonest.
He's talking a bunch about war, and he says Russia once or twice.
He says he thinks Russia is going to, quote, roll into Ukraine, and earlier in a different clip he said February.
If you're not paying attention to how disconnected these clips are, you run the risk of combining them in your head to give Alex credit for a prediction he absolutely didn't make.
Well, it gets him attention, which is really the only thing he cares about.
Also, another thing that's important to point out is that Alex predicts his own imminent death on a pretty frequent occasion, which hasn't happened yet.
And, of course, he has constant failed predictions about false flags that he insists are going to happen.
So the point here is that Alex didn't predict anything.
This video he released is a disgrace, and it doesn't even show him predicting what's going on in the world today, and it includes a clip that had to be edited short so it wouldn't include the part where Alex says he doesn't think that Russia is going to invade Ukraine.
He's a piece of shit, and this is how he tries to make money and get attention off this war, and also how he's attempting to lure people's attention away from the fact that all through the beginning of last week, Alex was going on and on about how great and honest Putin was.
These comments look really bad now, so instead of apologizing for that, he starts this bullshit campaign about how he's basically Nostradamus, because Alex is a liar and a fucking coward.
The irony being, you're the theoretical rube that gets caught on the end of this hook.
We'll have gone there because they think that Alex is right about Russia starting a war, and if they stay there long enough, we'll eventually support Putin.
I mean, if you end up getting sucked in by this and then being like, wow, you know, if Alex can predict this, he must actually have really great information.
Maybe I should listen to him.
You know, you could end up believing all sorts of devilry.
If this is actually a situation where the West is aggressing on Russia's border, and Alex has stated a bunch of times that he believes that the Donbass isn't a part of Ukraine, then why wouldn't he support Russia and Putin's actions?
He definitely supported them hypothetically last week before they became a reality.
This position is no good, because Putin is actually doing the thing Alex wanted to happen, and it's fucking horrific.
Alex makes money in the space where he yells about things that people aren't gonna do, like what...
outlaw the Democratic Party.
It's a real problem when the things he supports end up happening, and it doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it usually involves a lot of people dying.
But look at it from the other side, and you realize Alex can't take the opposite position either.
He can't say that Putin is entirely in the wrong, and that he had no justification for invading, because that threatens the very long-standing positive coverage that Infowars has had regarding Putin.
He's been built up as the one great hope of defeating the globalists.
So if you take the position that he just invaded a sovereign country for no reason, you're going to have too many questions to answer.
Plus, Alex knows his business, and he knows that a whole lot of his audience loves Putin invading.
So going too hard against that is going to be bad for his bottom line.
And thus, you get this middle-of-the-road bullshit where Alex gives lip service to pretending to be opposed to the invasion while simultaneously placing the blame entirely on Western powers and thereby completely absolving Putin of blame for the invasion.
I really think that if you take the time to really focus on something, I think a number of his positions throughout his career have had to be the same kind of completely internally inconsistent thing.
Going either way is not going to work.
And I think when you see that, it's really the hallmark of somebody that you should not trust.
So here is the big escalation, ladies and gentlemen.
Here's the big escalation.
We've got all the talking heads saying that if there's any type of cyber attack anywhere outside of Ukraine in a NATO member, and that if so much as a stoplight goes out...
And can be blamed on the Russians.
Senator Warner and others actually said that.
That if they can blame a stoplight going out and that U.S. troops have a car wreck, that we have to invoke Article 5 and go to war with Russia and basically in the world as we know it.
So there's that issue.
Now, even if the U.S. government doesn't launch a cyber attack, against Poland or against Hungary or against the Czech Republic or against Germany, any NATO member, you know hacker groups and you know different globalist groups are going to try to stir this up and accelerate this.
So that conversation about, like, a stoplight getting put out by a cyberattack was used in the context of, like, it introduces really bizarre questions that we have to ask.
Like, if there is a cyberattack that Russia does against Ukraine, it has the potential to affect the infrastructure of other countries, and does that require some kind of an Article 5?
It's more like the system is so completely and utterly interconnected and complex that the idea of what is and is not a specific attack on whom is difficult now to even understand.
The NATO Secretary General, Jen Stoltenberg, has been saying that cyber attacks on a member country could trigger Article 5 since at least 2019, if not earlier.
It's never really fully articulated, but if you read his comments, it seems pretty clear that the way Article 5 would be invoked in that situation is in terms of retaliating in the cyberspace, not in terms of a physical war.
Maybe that's not always consistent, but that seems to be the way it's discussed about cyber issues.
Stoltenberg wrote an article in Prospect magazine in 2019 that includes this passage.
Quote, as we look ahead, we must continue to build a strong and diverse workforce of future cyber defenders.
The UK has already started doing this with Cyber First, a program aimed at supporting and preparing undergraduates for a career in cybersecurity.
We must be smart about recruiting, training and retaining highly skilled cyber experts and make sure their skills are kept sharp through regular exercises, as we do, for instance, through our cyber coalition exercises.
Cyberspace is the new battleground and making NATO cyber ready, well resourced, well trained and well equipped is a top priority.
It doesn't require that that defense be a land invasion.
Anyway, you can tell here that Alex is laying some groundwork to be able to claim that he predicted a false flag cyber attack if Russia does do something.
Or if there is a cyber attack, he can be like, aha, I knew it, I called it.
If you think it's easy to stage a false flag, and I do think for once the State Department and others are being accurate, I mean, car bombs going off right as the Russians.
That's what militaries do when they invade.
If you don't think the U.S. military doesn't do that, you're not living in the real world, okay?
That's in military classified manuals.
Usually you don't want to kill people if you're the good guys.
You'll blow up a few tanks or blow up, you know, an embassy building or a barracks.
And that's your pretext.
So it does look like some of those things did indeed happen.
This guy calls himself the world's foremost expert on false flags, and he has the balls to come on his show and say, whoops, I guess Russia did a false flag after all.
Looks like the State Department was right, and I, the world's foremost expert, was wrong.
Alex wasn't just wrong.
He was pissed off that anyone other than him was suggesting that a false flag could happen.
You really got the sense that he took that personally, but now, I guess he's realized the State Department was right, but what he's failed to take stock of is that he was wrong.
He'll never do that, because if he acknowledges that he's wrong, or that there's a decent chance he could be wrong, he'd lose a lot of his hypnotic power over the audience.
So much of Alex's appeal is based on his performative confidence, so if that facade cracked, he doesn't really have much to offer people other than bad impressions.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not there were in fact false flags, it's weird how Alex can accept that Russia did a false flag, but not draw the natural conclusion that Putin is evil.
Evil leaders do false flags, according to Alex at InfoWars.
So he seems to be almost justifying the idea of a false flag by saying Russia wanted to look like the good guys, so they did some car bombings to make it look like they were, I guess.
And yet, Alex...
Alex won't take the very short, very obvious step of recognizing that if- So they are the bad guys.
And to Alex's last point that, hey, it's okay to talk about false flags.
It's always been okay to talk about false flags.
Alex doesn't talk about false flags.
He calls everything a false flag with no evidence.
He constantly rants about vague false flags that are coming any day now.
He uses accusations of false flags to excuse the behavior of murderers who are motivated by the same extreme right-wing politics that he espouses on a daily basis.
There's a lot of space between responsibly talking about false flags and what Alex does.
So this idea that NATO promised Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union that they wouldn't expand is taken as an absolute fact by Alex, and I think a lot of people do accept it as a fact, but the reality isn't so clear.
It's definitely been the Russian government and Putin's claim forever, but there are some real serious sticking points in terms of history that make this seem incorrect.
This comes down to the period right after the Berlin Wall fell, and there was a contentious discussion happening about reunification.
One of the big issues in the negotiation involving the U.S. State Department and Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev was whether or not NATO troops would be stationed in East Germany.
The USSR and Russia did not want that to happen at all.
So in the past, Putin has pointed to a May 17, 1990 speech from the NATO Secretary General Manfred Warner, as he did in a 2007 speech.
Quote, No one even remembers them, but I will allow myself to remind the audience what was said.
I would like to quote the speech of NATO Secretary General Mr. Warner in Brussels on 17th of May, 1990.
He said at that time, the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.
Where are these guarantees?
that the speech that Warner gave didn't promise not to expand member states of NATO.
Even Gorbachev has said that they didn't agree not to expand in a 2014 interview with Russia Beyond.
The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years.
I say this with full responsibility.
Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991.
Western leaders didn't bring it up either.
He says expansion is against the spirit of the agreement, but it wasn't discussed and no promises were made.
The point is that there's a gray area here where Alex just sees black and white in the same way as Putin.
Multiple NATO states, Estonia and Latvia, border Russia, and they joined in 2004.
Multiple former Warsaw Pact countries have joined, the earliest entering in 1999, prior to Putin coming to power.
Bringing up NATO expansion as being against the spirit of the agreement that was only about Germany is something that is a fine thing to do at a negotiating table, but it's absolutely not a justification.
For an invasion, which is what Alex is using it here for.
He seems really desperate to make the audience think that this is the West's fault and that Putin had no choice, which is pretty fucked up.
So this story that Alex is talking about has to do with another preprint article that he's blowing out of proportion in order to weave conspiracy yarns.
This has to do with a team of researchers who found that a 19-letter string of DNA in the coronavirus matches a string that was patented by Moderna a few years back in relation to a cancer drug that they were working on.
This was covered in the Daily Mail, who spoke to Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University, who said, quote, We're talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides, so it doesn't mean very much, to be frank.
If you were to do these type of searches, you can always find matches.
It's a quirky observation, but I wouldn't call it a smoking gun because it's too small.
It doesn't get us any further with the debate about whether COVID-19 was engineered.
Also, Bill Gates didn't start Moderna.
He wasn't even involved in the venture capital startup for the company back in 2010.
Even within the study itself, they suggest ways that this could have happened naturally.
And their conclusion is just that it's something that should be looked into further.
That's fine.
It just doesn't...
You know, justify Alex's reporting on the story at all.
No.
So he'll get back to it a little bit later, but you just had to be like, fuck, I forgot to cover this.
And they're really pissed at Russia for not being fully under their control.
And so they are pushing Russia into a fight.
I understand that Russia was surrounded, weapons were on its border, and that the globalist system was setting Russia up for war and defeat, but I think Putin made a major mistake going into Ukraine, and long term, the globalists are going to try to trigger a larger war, and I understand that it was one of the choices out of a list of bad choices, and maybe Putin will be borne out.
To have stabilized things with this, and that remains to be seen.
So this is an outrageous thing for Alex to be saying, at least partially because it's a complete contradiction of everything he's said for the past week.
This is a profoundly stupid thing, but it's one of the only refuges Alex has to hide in now.
The invasion is ongoing.
People are dying.
And all of his predictions were complete shit.
He was wrong in the lead up to the invasion.
And he actually was wrong in both directions.
He said that Putin was just going to take Donbass.
And he also said that Putin was going to start a thermonuclear war with the United States.
At this point, he's aired on both extremes.
Like he got a 7-10 split of being wrong.
In order to put some salve on his wounds and to distract people, he puts out that stupid video about how he predicted this last year, and then he goes and he does everything he can to shroud the narrative of the invasion in topics that he's more comfortable with,
So a lot of you tuned in are going to say, I've already read these articles.
I've already heard this.
I've already seen this because the Indians, they get the credit, majored their top university of biogenetics, got the virus, scanned six different samples of it, and said this is completely man-made.
All the parts of it were made in a lab.
They're all cut together.
They're synthetic.
And they explained how it was synthetic.
It was no debate.
They're saying it's one out of three billion chances that just one part of COVID-19 could not be made in a lab.
When you put all the pieces together, it's basically impossible.
First of all, this wasn't from India's most prestigious or top university.
The lead researcher on it is Balamurali Ambati, who's with the University of Oregon in Eugene.
There's one researcher from India who works at Dr. Shaf's Charity Eye Hospital.
Second, Alex is just lying about what this paper is about.
It's not about any other part of the genome than this strand of 19 letters.
So when Alex says that it says something outside of that, he's making that up.
They do calculate the odds of this string matching the string that was patented by Moderna as being 3 billion to 1. But it's also important to remember that this hasn't been peer-reviewed, and even just in the comment section of the article, like the actual paper itself, people have brought up some potential issues with how they calculated that probability.
They also didn't say that it had to have been made in a lab.
That's all an extrapolation on Alex's part.
There is, even inside the story, or in the paper itself, there is a potential explanation for how it could have occurred naturally.
The article that Alex is reading from is from the Daily Mail.
And even this article includes the response that they had from Dr. Young about how this is interesting, but it doesn't mean much.
And it also has another quote from a microbiologist from Reading University who said, quote, it's an interesting coincidence, but this is surely entirely coincidental.
The real version of this story, as reported in this study and the Daily Mail article, deserves the response of a shrug and saying, how about that?
Alex's version is sensational and terrifying, but he's also lying and making up details so he can make it more scary for the listeners and make it more of a confirmation of his bullshit narratives.
My sources, the information I saw and everything going on said by February, late February, China starts moving and Russia starts moving.
That's not a hard call.
Because if they're going to move, they're going to move together.
And now China is making more and more of those type of statements.
But they've also said that they'd like Putin to obviously meet with the Ukrainian president and talk about an armistice and a demilitarization of the area.
But it got leaked a few days ago that the Chinese talking points to the media of censorship and control saying we're with Russia and we're with Russia's invasion, but we want to act like...
We're neutral so that we can move against our targets.
So this is an interesting way to try and salvage things.
Probably inspired at least partially by him listening to the compilation video as he aired it and realizing there was almost entirely about him predicting that China was going to nuke the U.S. and knowing, eh, maybe I should explain that or try and make it not look so glaring.
So Alex is referring to a February 23rd article in the Washington Yeah.
This is about a propaganda outlet set of instructions from China that were allegedly leaked, first being posted on the website China Digital Times.
It's unclear from the original source where these instructions totally came from, since it's entirely possible that this was just an internal corporate memo from the social media team at the news outlet Horizon News.
From the Digital Times article, quote, I mean, if you're a China-sponsored...
So the story Alex is covering can't even solidly confirm that this was something that came from the government, but Alex is claiming that the instructions were to pretend to be against Russia's invasion so they could sneakily do some invading of their own.
This doesn't match the messaging and the instructions, and Alex is really just making up a lot of this.
Basically, the instructions were to just not say anything negative about Russia in the news or on social media, and don't say anything pro-Western.
It sucks that Horizon News would be making rules to not post anything, quote, unfavorable to Russia or pro-Western.
And they're being told to monitor comments on their posts.
There's a larger issue to confront here, and that is that Alex's rhetoric is directly in line with the positions being expressed by representatives for the CCP.
From the Washington Times article that is Alex's source, quote, on Wednesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Xinying appeared to be following a similar propaganda script to the one disclosed by Horizon News.
Ms. Hua blamed the United States for the crisis and avoided criticism of Moscow.
Quote, lately the United States has been sending weapons to Ukraine, heightening tensions, creating panic, and even hyping up the possibility of warfare, she told.
A key question here is what role the U.S., the culprit of current tensions surrounding Ukraine, has played, Mishwa said.
If someone keeps pouring oil on the flame while accusing others of not doing their best to put out the fire, such kind of behavior is clearly irresponsible and immoral.
I look forward to seeing how Alex explains how his coverage of the Ukraine invasion is directly in line with what's supposed to be the result of a Chinese propaganda initiative that he's decrying.
But I also know damn well he's not going to deal with that at all.
It would be very strange to be like, Putin's awesome, he signed a treaty of cooperation with China, and China is now just giving out all this propaganda that helps Putin.
Clearly the military leadership was bought off before the invasion.
And so ragtag pilots, ragtag tank groups, ragtag militias are fighting and dying valiantly in the face of the Russians and actually holding them off in some areas.
And, you know, the border guards, they didn't get the memo to, you know, to surrender.
So they got killed on Snake Island.
And it can only make you admire these hard fighting good people, you know, who are upset about being invaded by their historic genetic brethren.
This is an interesting way for Alex to try and salvage his shitty storyline about there being no Ukrainian resistance, but this is entirely pulled from his imagination.
He has no evidence or even suggestion of evidence that the Ukrainian government was paid off to surrender past him just thinking it up as a fun thing to tell the audience.
It always happens in every war.
Now that it's clear that there's a robust Ukrainian resistance, he needs to find a way to delegitimize it and try to save face.
So he's now making up that there was a memo that went around that the military needed to give up, but some border agents and scrappy pilots didn't get the memo, so they're fighting back scrappy pilots.
This is absolutely pathetic, and it's really the face of Alex Jones.
He's making shit up to help his listeners not experience reality that he finds inconvenient, even in the context of lying about people fighting a war against an invading country.
This is just debased stuff, and like, as the kids say, he should probably just take the L and move on.
So he clearly has not left Kiev and has essentially created a folk hero level mythology about himself surrounding his unwillingness to back down as a leader.
What Alex is saying is completely out of touch with reality, and it's super offensive, at least in part because it's just Alex making shit up in order to pretend that the real world matches his conspiracy worldview, which is very dumb.
This is not letting the truth and reality lead your coverage.
It's having a predetermined conclusion and literally ignoring the truth and making up your own false reality so you can protect and maintain your predetermined conclusions.
It's abusive to the audience, and it's pretty much all Alex can do because his politics suck and he has nothing to offer in terms of...
Yeah.
And there's a secondary thing here, too, and I don't believe that it's necessarily fully what's motivating this, but Zelensky...
And I think that there is a part of it that is in service of trying to retain some image of Putin, at least in as much as Alex has invested in that as like the champion against the globalists.
Yeah, I mean, there's no way for you to continue saying that Putin is the champion of the globalists after he didn't just start a war and try and take over a country.
Yeah, especially whenever the guy that you're going up against is theoretically just a comedian slash actor who doesn't have the mystique or the power behind him.
Wonder if that's an intentional strategy Alex uses to incite his audience towards violence while simultaneously providing cover for himself in terms of plausible deniability.
I mean, look at this Reuters article that's out right now.
Or is that Bloomberg?
Putin calls on Ukrainian military to seize power to better negotiate with Russia because he knows it's a bunch of globalist factions in there and a bunch of former presidents jockeying for control.
He's like, listen, I'll negotiate with the military, which is a very smart move.
On one hand, this is the byproduct of Alex not preparing at all and having no actual position on things past knee-jerk reactions and hyper-oppositional defiance.
On the other hand, it's also part of an intentional strategy to overwhelm the audience with nonsensical and self-contradictory positions so they can't possibly keep track of what's actually being said on the show except for the feelings that Alex creates in them.
We've listened to the past week or so of the show, and I can't really tell you what Alex thinks is happening or not happening because he's been all over the place.
He has no consistency except in terms of the feeling that he's selling He's selling fear, and beyond that, he's selling the feeling that Putin is right and is fighting against these globalist boogeymen that Alex has trained the audience to fear.
The information itself is constantly changing and being remolded with new lies, but the emotional core is really what he's selling in terms of this performance.
He just announced a few days ago that he's running for Congress, and he's a super smart guy.
I'm not supporting him in his run against Ilhan Omar because he's a famous NBA player and MMA guy or all that.
But because he stood up for everybody and against tyranny and against the Democratic Party and against the corrupt Republicans and against the Chinese communists and the Uyghur persecution.
I don't think this is going to be good for White's campaign to show up on Infowars, and this interview could go severely off track if the topic of racial justice and White's position on George Floyd comes up, because he and Alex do not see eye to eye on that.
Royce doesn't have a chance of unseating Omar as a Republican, which is how he's running.
Minnesota's 5th district is a Democrat plus 29 district, so in order for a Republican to win, you'd have to basically be running unopposed.
And even though Omar gets a lot of shit from the right-wing media, she's pretty popular in the home district.
This gets a bit murky, though, because there's been chaos brewing in the Minnesota 2022 midterms.
going on over redistricting.
And if that hadn't been resolved in time, Minnesota was talking about having to have an at-large election where the political parties put up a field, they field a slate of candidates, and then the top nine vote-getters of all of the candidates would win seats in the House.
In that situation, he could possibly have won one of them along with Omar.
But from everything I can tell, the redistricting has been resolved.
So that process being done, there's no chance.
And the redistricting of the 5th District.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If White wanted to win, he should have run against Omar in the Democratic primary.
He has widespread name recognition as a former NBA player and though she's won her two Democratic primaries by decent margins, Omar is a bit more vulnerable there than she is in the general election.
Anyway, this appears to be another doomed congressional candidate showing up on InfoWars where Alex will ultimately create the impression that they're so far ahead in the polls and the only way they can lose is cheating, and then they'll lose and Alex will forget about this game until the next election cycle where it'll repeat all over again.
Everything Alex has to say is stupid, and I really want to draw sharp focus too, and I think we achieved that.
The video that he posted about his prediction is full of shit.
And if you really trace down the sources, you see the actual intentional misrepresentation of the things that he said in the original episodes in order to create the appearance of predictive power.
And now he's using that to gain more credibility for his justifications of Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
And I think it's abhorrent and something that should not...