Today, Dan and Jordan put Alex in timeout to go back to the past. In this installment, Alex continues to make stuff up about the death of David Kelly, wastes a load of time, and gets into a fight with a caller from Canada who thinks Alex is a coward. Citations
So I wanted to, after our last episode, I'm putting Alex in a little bit of a timeout cage.
So just some awfulness and such.
We'll get back to him.
I'm not going to chase him around in the present day.
So I decided it would be good to go back to the past again, to 2003, because there was a story that we had left hanging, sort of, in 2003, which was the situation with...
The weapons expert in Iraq who had died from suicide.
And I felt like if we left that hanging too long, we might forget that that was something that we had been like, we'll get back to this.
On Friday, we talked about the death of the Ministry of Defense bioweapons expert, former head of Porton Down Bioweapons Laboratory that has its own ramifications.
We predicted that they would claim that it was a suicide, and within about eight hours of finding his body, yes, they were sure it's a suicide.
Of course, the first police there said it was, quote, a grisly find.
And he had just emailed a friend saying, I'm going to fight this.
I'm going to expose these people.
I'm going to get my good name back.
And it was a place he walked a couple times a week.
He would walk about five miles away from his house and walk back.
British are big walkers.
And he was obviously ambushed and killed from all the evidence.
And I've read 50 news articles literally this weekend.
I've read his email that Dr. Kelly sent to a friend.
He did everything that somebody would do that was going to fight for their honor and that was going to stand up.
So I decided not to cover this on our last 2003 episode because I knew it was a story that was going to come back up and that Alex was going to develop a conspiracy around.
So I wanted to wait until he had a chance to do that before getting into any rebutting.
So the piece that we discussed on the last episode is just how Alex was exaggerating and making up details on the immediate aftermath of Kelly's death in order to present the idea that he was murdered.
Now more information has become public, so Alex is claiming victory in his prediction that this was a murder that's being covered up.
So now let's try and understand this case a little better in its proper context.
This story begins with David Kelly, a well-respected expert in biological weapons, speaking to a couple of journalists under the assumption of anonymity.
These were Andrew Gilligan of the BBC and Susan Watts, who reported for Newsnight.
One of the striking details that was included in both of their reports was that Downing Street had intentionally misled the public by injecting...
Right.
unidentified
Right.
This was a salacious detail, a very headline-grabbing detail.
So Gilligan's reporting specifically alleged that this claim was put in as an attempt by the government to mislead.
In his initial appearance reporting on this on the May 29, 2003 episode of Today, Gilligan said, quote, what this person says is that a week before the publication date of the dossier, it was actually...
The draft prepared for Mr. Blair by the intelligence agencies didn't actually say very much more than was public knowledge already.
Downing Street, our source says, ordered a week before publication, ordered it to be sexed up, to be made more exciting, and ordered more facts to be discovered.
Gilligan stressed that this detail, the 45-minute point, was very central to Tony Blair's appeal to go to war since it stressed the immediacy of the potential threat.
And in his reporting, he was strongly suggesting that based on this unnamed source, this was something that they knew shouldn't have been included in the dossier.
This was primarily because it was something that only came from one source initially, who apparently this intelligent source claimed was thought to have been mistaken.
The one source that was behind the 45-minute claim was known to be probably wrong.
So the next day after this, May 30th, Susan Watts contacted Kelly and interviewed him over the phone, which she recorded.
The transcript of this call makes it very clear that Kelly was aware that he was the source of these claims and that from particular details in Gilligan's reporting, as well as that of another BBC reporter Kelly had spoken to, it was clear that Watts could tell that he was their source based on previous conversations that they had had.
Right.
unidentified
So pretty immediately, the Ministry of Defense at Downing Street came out and strongly denied the claims that were being made to the media.
And the House of Commons set up a committee to investigate whether or not the Ha ha ha.
Ha ha.
At the same time, the Ministry of Defense was getting curious about who had leaked this information that they felt was inaccurate.
On July 30th, Kelly wrote a letter to his higher-ups at the Ministry of Defense which...
Right.
This is demonstrably untrue, the stuff that he was saying in this Ministry of Defense letter, given the recording of Kelly's conversation with Watts from May 30th.
In discussing the reporting that was happening, she asked, quote, are you getting much flack over that to which Kelly replied, quote, me?
No, not yet anyway.
I was in New York.
Watts says, quote, yes, good timing, I suppose.
And Kelly offers up, quote, I mean, they wouldn't think it was me, I don't think.
This letter prompted some internal conversations and interviews within the Ministry of Defense, which really were not good for Kelly.
He was interviewed by his superiors on July 4th, and on the 7th, a note was prepared in respect to the interviews, which starts, quote, I began by explaining to Dr. Kelly that his letter had serious implications.
First, on the basis of his own account, it appeared that he breached the normal standards of civil service behavior and departmental regulations by having a number of unauthorized and unreported contacts with journalists.
Regardless of the detail of what had passed, this opened up the possibility of disciplinary action.
This is really bad for Kelly, because even if his story about not being the source for these claims was accurate, he still might be in trouble, and the fact that he's admitting to undisclosed contacts with journalists necessarily meant that more questions were going to be asked about these contacts.
That initial interview didn't go all that well, with it coming out that Kelly didn't even seem to be aware of the Ministry of Defense protocol as it related to interacting with journalists.
From the note about his interview, quote, he said that he had not really regarded his discussions with journalists, academics, etc., as being about defense business, but as a continuation...
of his role as a UN expert.
I said that this was at best extraordinarily naive.
Journalists were not seeking information out of academic interest, Mm-hmm.
In that interview, the stakes of the situation became pretty clear, which may not have been the case prior.
Richard Hatfield, the personnel director of the Ministry of Defense, brought up that whether Kelly meant for it to be the case or not, his conversation with Gilligan may be central to resolving a public dispute between the government and the BBC.
It might become necessary to consider a public statement based on his account.
Gilligan's reputation was at stake and he would be bound to challenge any inaccuracies.
And I reminded Dr. Kelly of the possibility that he might have been tape recorded.
Ultimately, Hatfield took Kelly's word and decided that his actions in terms of talking to journalists was very naive, but not rising to the level of requiring disciplinary action.
So he essentially got off with a warning in regards to these meetings that were about his letter that he sent to the Ministry of Defense about these suspicions.
Sure.
more clear to people within the Ministry of Defense that in all likelihood, Kelly was Gilligan's source.
Gilligan was making things up in a way that attributed his coverage to a source who was meant to look like Kelly.
When the FAC report was released, they determined that there was no evidence that the claim that the 45-minute detail was added at the behest of Downing Street against the wishes of the intelligence community, as was the contention of Gilligan's reporting, which relied on Kelly as a source.
Because of that, it became clear to people in the Ministry of Defense that a bunch of questions were about to start flying around about who the source for Gilligan's story was, and that if it were asked, they would have to say that someone had come forward internally, or else they would be, in effect, engaging in a cover-up.
They wouldn't have to come out and name Kelly, but they warned him that there was a very high likelihood that his name would come out based on his contacts with multiple journalists who were probably going to be able to put the pieces together.
On July 8th, the Ministry of Defense released a statement that someone inside the ministry had come forward to say that he had met with Gilligan, though Kelly was not named in this statement.
The statement reflected terms that Kelly had agreed to, and that what he had said when he met Gilligan didn't match the account in the reports.
That was the basis of the statement, and like I said, Kelly agreed to this being released.
Naturally, this led to the BBC releasing a statement defending their reporting, which led to an impasse, since both sides couldn't respond.
That's a trouble.
Yeah.
On July 9th, Kelly's name was confirmed to the press as being the person who came forward as the result of a Q&A session with a representative from the Ministry of Defense.
They had set up a policy of not naming Kelly, but if a question was asked directly to them, they would be able to confirm that he was the official in question.
Kelly understandably felt hung out to dry by the Ministry of Defense, and also a bit miffed that he wasn't taken to a secure location prior to the name being confirmed to the press.
That could have led to some danger, and when Alex talks about him feeling Yeah.
This is a large part of it.
The fact that he wasn't giving any heads up about, like, you're going to confirm that I'm the person who came forward in the Ministry of Defense.
So on July 15th, Kelly appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee and questions came up not only about his conversations with Gilligan, but also Susan Watts.
In his testimony, Kelly claimed that he had only met with Watts one time, and it was in November 2002.
On this basis, he denied making the claims that were alleged in Susan Watts'reporting.
This will become a huge problem.
later because, as I mentioned, Watts recorded their interview.
His interview, viewed in the context of other known information, seems very evasive and like someone covering their tracks, but probably not somebody acting maliciously.
It has the feeling of somebody who made a huge mistake and things have gotten way out of hand to the point where reputations and life's work were in danger of being destroyed.
So Kelly left the FAC hearing feeling good and fairly relieved, and the chair of the committee, Donald Anderson, released a statement to the press that included this line.
Quote, colleagues have also asked me to pass on their view that Dr. Kelly has been poorly treated by the government.
That, again, is another place where Alex is taking this claim of mistreatment of the government towards Kelly.
The next day, July 16th, Kelly was set to testify before the Intelligence and Security Committee, which followed along a lot of the same lines as the previous day's hearing.
On the 17th, Kelly provided a list of journalists he'd been in touch with to the committees and wrote a bunch of emails to associates.
Many had reached out with well wishes, and he replied graciously and said that he hoped that things would blow over soon.
Alex is mischaracterizing these emails as him saying he's gonna fight.
That's Alex fudging details to make a particular case fit his mold as opposed to him recognizing details that are, you know, like, seeing them out in the wild and like, yeah, that's consistent with my mold.
No, just jamming it into the hole.
According to Kelly's wife's testimony, that morning they'd gotten up and he seemed normal, but pretty tired.
A little later in the day, she found him sitting silently in the sitting room, which was uncharacteristic of him.
She said, quote, I thought he had a broken heart.
He was very, very...
He had shrunk into himself.
He just looked as he had shrunk.
He couldn't put two sentences together.
He couldn't talk.
Around 3.20 that afternoon, Kelly left the house for a walk, having previously received a call from an associate of his, Wing Commander Clark, who had discussed issues related to Susan Watts with him.
It's theorized in the full investigation of his death that at some point after the hearings, he became aware that there was a recording of his interview with Watts and that he had testified that he had absolutely not said the things that were on that tape.
Clark's mention that they had discussed Watts in their last phone call gives some credence to this, as does Clark's testimony regarding Kelly's response to the hearing on the 15th.
He was totally thrown by the question or the quotation that was given to him from Susan Watts.
He spoke about that when he came back to the office.
He said that through him.
He had not expected or anticipated that that would have come to the fore in this forum.
I'm not going to get into the details about it, but there's a very compelling and thorough amount of evidence that he died from suicide.
And all the details and fantasies Alex is adding to the story are just figments of his sick imagination.
His story is a tragedy.
And in all likelihood, it's a story of someone who made a really big mistake and then in the process of dealing with that mistake made a series of further mistakes until he was facing the prospect of his reputation being destroyed, his freedom possibly being taken away, and even the possibility of him being seen as working against his country's government.
David Kelly, at the root of things, wasn't even a whistleblower, the way Alex uses the term.
And Alex's coverage of this story is just disgraceful.
With no evidence other than his imagination, Alex is suggesting that Kelly was ambushed and murdered, because if that were true, it would really help Alex tell the kind of scary stories that he likes to tell to keep his audience interested.
He's exploiting tragedy and using Kelly's death I find that inexcusable and disgusting.
And that, you know...
The story of Kelly's fall is a tragic but very interesting tale.
Possibly, or I think there's an entire possibility that he didn't think that he had said the things that were being used in the reporting until he realized there was a recording of stuff and that it became harshly real.
I don't really know, and since he's gone, I don't know if you'll ever really know.
But I...
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know what to say.
It's a sad story that did not have to go this way.
So Alex is exaggerating that, but there is an email that David Kelly sent that morning that mentioned, quote, dark actors.
There's an irony that Alex is missing here, though, because that email was sent to New York Times columnist and Iraq War all-star Judith Miller.
On the 16th, Miller wrote Kelly saying, It's certainly a weird thing to say, but there's no context for this comment, and none of his other correspondences, nor his family member's testimony, match the conclusions that Alex is jumping to.
Well, actually, one of his big fears that you can find if you really look into the details was that the Iraqi people would be out to get him.
And that's because he had been involved in looking at weapons capabilities and also with some, not necessarily the highest levels, but some elements of negotiation and some discussions with the Iraqi side about just give these things up, give assurances, and then there won't be a war.
50-50, basically, with the Rothschilds, Crumps, and other big industrialist families and banking families that own the private central banks that own the printing presses that print the money.
So the really rich people print the money, issue the credit, control the banks.
Now, out of them comes the military-industrial complex, and that's the companies whose shares are owned by the banks.
This clip is meaningless, and there would be no reason to include it in the show on its own, but I wanted to play it in order to bring up an important point, because I think it's actually really detrimental to Alex's entire worldview.
As he sees it, the evil globalists are essentially in control of everything, which is how he's able to determine what their next moves are going to be.
Bush and Blair are losing public support, so they need to do something to regain control over the population, and because Alex knows that they can do literally anything...
The obvious solution is that they're gonna do a false flag terrorist attack to get the population back into a state of fear where they can be controlled.
If Alex's worldview was correct, this should not have happened.
It should not have been possible for this to happen.
Bush should have had all the control over the mechanisms that manipulate public opinion, and Alex knows that a false flag terror attack is their favorite tool.
to win the people back because then they compose as the world's savior.
The reason that this clip would usually never make it into an episode is because Alex says shit like this all the time, to the point where I barely even notice these predictions that he got wrong when I'm listening to his show.
These misfires that actually point to the conclusion that Alex's entire worldview is meaningless just blend into the background of the show.
Yeah, I mean, it seems like at this point he would say, if he knows what's going on, that they're gonna allow George Bush's approval ratings to drop further and farther.
So they can bring in a Democrat president, maybe even a black one.
I know that some people probably don't believe me, but I really do try to keep my ears open for instances of things that I think Alex gets right, and they really don't come up that often.
It's easy to think that because our show's about how much he's a huge liar and a bigot that we wouldn't want to allow any perception to creep in that he could be right about stuff.
But the truth is that when it comes to concrete stories and positions, he's almost always wrong.
But here's something I can get down with.
I, too, believe that torture is always wrong.
The testimony that's derived from...
Yep.
Unfortunately, I know from listening to Alex Into the Future that he doesn't necessarily have this as a consistent position that he always sticks to.
This was a story about an MI5 expert testifying that they wouldn't think that information derived from torture is always not correct, and that sometimes it could be useful, which sucks.
And even if that statement is true, it doesn't make the case for using that practice any more compelling.
The post-9-11 time was a horrific period where people were openly discussing whether or not the benefits of torturing people made up for the inhumanity of it.
And it's not pleasant, necessarily, to go back and see just how awful things were, those conversations that were happening in presumably mainstream spaces, that Alex has such an easy stance to take to appear to be the sane one.
And it's like, it is amazing that the Bush administration was like, okay, we gotta get the shadiest, most evil lawyers we can find to write a torture memo that says it's okay for us to torture.
And then we haven't even hunted them down and put them in jail for the rest of their lives.
You know?
Like, they're just allowed to continue walking the earth like they're fine.
Some of the more mainstream figures that you might see, like politicians, maybe were more tied to the political system and more encumbered than someone like Alex who can give full-throated condemnations and then ramble about stuff that's really exciting, whether it's true or not in many cases.
And I can really see how that would make him pretty attractive to people who...
Can't understand why people are having a conversation about whether you can torture people or not.
Anyway, not a whole lot of content on this episode, but there is an interesting breakdown that Alex has where he decides to start talking about how he doesn't watch TV anymore, and it leads to a very long ramble.
I haven't watched more than two hours of TV in the last two weeks.
Now, normally I watch about an hour a day and become physically ill.
Literally, I get nauseated and angry.
Because seeing them lying, seeing how evil they are, watching their smirking criminality, I can't handle it anymore.
So I'm asking you to tape Ashcroft on C-SPAN.
I'm asking you to tape Hillary Clinton.
I'm asking you to keep track of these people.
I can't do it anymore.
I'm so happy not watching TV for the last two weeks.
It's wonderful.
And so, you know, if you see something on C-SPAN or the news, please tape it and send it to us, and mark it and tell me what it is, and then if it's important, I'll watch it and do something with it.
Because I have to watch the serial killers sit up there and talk about how they're going to save us by taking all our rights away if we'll just give them more control.
I'd imagine police officers, good police officers, good detectives, good FBI that are out there who are compartmentalized and actually do a good job.
They know what I'm talking about.
They know what it's like to know somebody's a criminal, to know they're a murderer, to know they're a thief, and to watch them get away with it, and to watch them...
I guess the police don't know what it's like then because they don't have to investigate a criminal and then watch him on the news as our savior being given rewards and awards.
You want to know how to bring forward my resolution, the Save the Bill of Rights campaign that's been passed by some cities and towns.
There are many other resolutions.
Some are weaker.
A few others might be a little bit stronger than mine, though I doubt it.
You find a like-minded city council member, you approach them, and you bring them a few news articles that are all over the place, like the one out of the Anchorage Daily News, where it says, hold on, Republicans pass a bill decrying the Patriot Act and restoring the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
And you say, look, conservatives in Alaska are doing this.
They're trying to do it in Salt Lake City.
Conservative towns around Salt Lake are passing it.
You show them conservative towns in Florida doing it.
And you say, this is a conservative issue because they're going to try to say it's a liberal issue.
They try to do that in the media and balkanize things.
And you say, we want you to...
Simply say the Bill of Rights and Constitution are still in effect in this county and town and that you're going to stand up for it.
And then you also pass out copies to 10 of your friends who are going to be there and you have them all call members of the council beforehand or go down and talk to them in person or ask them to have a cup of coffee with you in the morning at the local coffee shop and you educate them about it and then you ask them respectfully to pass it.
Then if they refuse, you start coming down and decrying them as spitting on the graves of our veterans if they won't simply pass a resolution saying the Bill of Rights is in effect and in power in your city or town.
So that clip's really interesting, because I think it really boils down Alex's approach to politics.
We've seen him play this out on a number of occasions, like when he was obsessed with state legislatures passing bills to affirm the Tenth Amendment for a few months in 2009.
What happens is that Alex will identify a perceived threat and come up with a completely symbolic and meaningless solution to it.
He's mad about the Patriot Act, so he wants states to pass bills that say the Constitution is real.
Whether or not these states pass these bills, that has no effect on whether or not the Constitution is real.
This is, from top to bottom, just a PR ploy.
This may work in some places, but not many.
Most governing bodies would be able to see that this is a purely symbolic, entirely meaningless act, and to pass a bill like this would only serve to give the appearance that folks like Alex have real institutional power within the party.
This would be giving the fringe right wing the appearance of a victory with nothing actually achieved and nothing gained for the politicians themselves.
It would, in effect, be the government ceding power to the fringe, which is unlikely to ever happen In normal times, without a fight.
And that's why the second aspect of Alex's strategy comes in, where he tells people to decry politicians who won't play ball as people who spit on the graves of veterans.
He's basically hoping that this kind of threat will be enough to get these politicians to go along with his meaningless bill, and that will, to some degree, allow Alex to demonstrate his own relevance and influence within mainstream politics without anything getting done and no risk actually being taken.
This is a model that you see often in the right-wing media, but one of the things that's kind of troubling is that in our last episode we saw Marjorie Taylor Greene basically playing the same game with her Congressional Accountability Act.
When people lament that the right-wing has become conspiracy-minded and like Alex, another thing to really keep an eye on is how much the folks like Marjorie are governing like Alex might, as opposed to just saying the kind of stuff.
Documents released under America's Freedom Information Act revealed that an energy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney...
Was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the latest war began.
The papers were obtained after a long battle with the White House by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal charity that opposes government secrecy and which is suing for the dealings of the task force to be made public.
This is just some of what they got.
Most of it hadn't been released.
The emergence of the documents could fuel claims that America's war in Iraq...
It had as much to do with oil as national security.
It also indicates that the Bush administration is beginning to lose the battle to keep its internal working secret.
And don't think the military-industrial complex won't detonate a nuke or release smallpox to smokescreen all of this.
We are in very bad trouble right now, and I pray to God to protect us.
So, it's fair that these are real documents and that Judicial Watch did get them released, but the coverage of them is a little bit skewed.
The 16 pages of documents do include a map of Iraq's oil fields, but it also includes a map of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
It seems safe to say that these documents show that Cheney and his energy task force were aware of Iraqi oil fields prior to 9-11, but the larger picture of this set of documents make it difficult to use as definitive proof that the Bush administration did 9-11 or started the war in Iraq specifically for oil.
Whether or not you believe that to be the case for other reasons, these documents are not good proof for that conclusion because they also contain oil fields in other countries that weren't invaded, which seem to be counter examples to the presentation that Alex is making about these documents.
Larger picture, though, this is a good example of how Alex covers stuff.
There's some documents that got released that he can exaggerate and sensationalize, and in order to amplify their importance, he suggests that Bush might set off a fucking nuke or release smallpox in order to distract from...
This is very common for him, and probably the only reason we don't have a clip like this in every episode is because I ignore this shit most of the time, since this would get tedious.
So there are these two resorts that were approximately 29 miles apart, so it was obviously a terrorist attack that required coordination, and a Basque separatist group called the ETA had taken responsibility.
I was certain that this was a situation where there was a curfew.
Thursdays in that town were to be ladies' night from then on.
This was a guy named Javier Checa, and because of decisions like this, he lost the re-election for mayor the next year, and this was ultimately an inconsequential human interest story.
This story might be relevant to the people who lived in that town, but the idea that it's a story that Alex is reporting on his national radio show is some kind of proof that men are under attack by out-of-control feminism is comical.
And imagining that this had anything to do with Juan Carlos is ridiculous.
I feel like a better use of Alex's time, as someone who's interested in important news, would be to talk about the fucking bombings at resorts the day before.
And when you're in the stores, you see the water for infants in the jugs, and it says, fortified with fluoride.
Yum, yum, yum.
And then you look at the thousands of medical reports of how it attacks the brain development, causes bone fractures, contrary to popular belief, but I still would give that to them as well.
And then you read Boldus Huxley's Brave New World, written in 1933.
And he talks about a government plan to dumb down children at birth or in the womb to have a subclass of mindless idiots.
So you can have a ruling elite who are more intelligent and can control the population.
This is what feudalists have always done by trying to keep the serfs on tiny plots of land at subsistence level.
So they're running so fast on the treadmill under malnutrition that they literally are retarded.
We see this with the serfs of Japan, of Europe.
We saw it with the serfs of Russia.
It's the same system, but now it's more sophisticated.
You say, wait a minute, Aldous Huxley, he was a fiction writer.
Well, his brother was the first secretary general of a criminal organization that Bush just signed on to and increased funding for.
He was the first secretary general in 1946 and was there for many years.
Julian Huxley of UNESCO, and we've aired it here, and I think we should air it again, the 45-minute speech, the last speech that Aldous Huxley, brother of Julian Huxley, gave at Berkeley University in California in 1962.
And in the speech, he said that Brave New World was actually the government plan.
And that he had gotten it from his brother who was a government minister.
You can go and listen to Brave New World Revisited if you want.
It's readily available online, and at no point in it does Aldous Huxley say that Brave New World is based on a secret government plan his brother told him about, which he knew about because he was in charge of UNESCO.
I can say that with confidence because he uses selectively edited clips of Brave New World revisited in his documentaries, and in order to get those clips that he uses, he would have to be familiar with the larger context, and he would have to know that he's creating a distorted, manipulative image.
Also, we've talked about this a hundred times in the past, but fluoride doesn't dumb children down.
It's a positive, and it has dramatically reduced dental problems in this country, though there is definitely a concern about it having a dangerous effect in high enough doses.
That's what the studies he's referencing are, which he's lying about to apply to the incredibly low amount that's in tap water.
Alex has a lie about fluoride, which he...
Can't back up if he's forced to actually get into the details about it.
So instead of doing that, he just distracts with a side story about how the addition of fluoride in the water is just like Brave New World.
And did you know that the author of that book admitted that it's a secret government plot to dumb everyone down because his brother told him so?
It creates a fun conspiracy for the listener to make themselves afraid of.
You know, I'm a Canadian who supports the U.S. troops and the war in Iraq.
And lots of Canadians...
Are in favor of it.
And we're not a bunch of cowards.
We did it in Vietnam also.
You know, when your draft dodgers came up here by the thousands, thousands of Canadians volunteered to fight in Vietnam and they didn't have to.
Did you know that?
They joined the U.S. Army and the Marines and they fought in Vietnam.
And here, when I listen to you twisting and manipulating the news every morning, For instance, the biggest news story this morning was the killing of Saddam's sons.
I can't even begin to describe how excited I was when I heard this caller.
The last few days of the show have been a slog of Alex rambling about nothing, but this Canadian weirdo seems like the shot in the arm that Alex is going to need to get his game face on.
It's a perilous situation sometimes, listening to these callers.
They almost always just agree with whatever Alex is saying, but in the cases where they disagree with him, their offense sucks.
still assholes and wrong.
That's the kind of situation we have here.
This dude in Canada who's pumped about the Iraq war, who wants to emasculate Alex for not being manly enough to support it.
That also kind of sucks, though, and it was looking like I was going to have to side with Alex, since obviously opposition to the war is the right position.
Uh-huh, but then the caller drops that fucking bomb on Alex's plate.
This is like 40 minutes into the show, and as best as I can tell, Alex hasn't really covered any actual news.
That's bad enough on a slow day, but Saddam's kids were killed that day, and I'm honestly not sure if Alex would have even gotten to that story if the caller hadn't brought it up.
Alex's whole thing about Iraq is that Saddam has been secreted out of the country and is living on some island in luxury or possibly in Russia, so it seems like it could be a little hard for him to decide where to land on this story.
If he accepts that it really is Uday and Kuse who died, then he probably has some recalibration to do on his narrative.
How are the listeners supposed to believe that Saddam was taken to a beach resort, but somehow his children were left in Mosul and killed in a firefight with U.S. troops?
That seems like a hard story to make stick.
Conversely, on what grounds is Alex going to be able to claim some kind of conspiracy here?
Does he go with a body double theory, or does he just deny that it happened?
This is a piece of news that I can definitely see Alex being a bit reluctant to take his position on immediately because the implications it could have for other larger narratives about the war are real and they're more important for him to protect.
Because you can make an accusation, and I'm going to counter it at that point.
Ron Paul, who served, what is it, two terms in tours in Vietnam as a flight surgeon, okay, Front line, Ron Paul says the war's wrong and says it's a fraud.
Now, I don't know about Mr. Bush, who only spent a year at the National Guard and then went AWOL.
I don't know about the rest of his cabinet, who are all either draft doggers or got deferments.
If Alex's position was that the globalists constantly report that people are dead but actually aren't, then he would have led the show talking about how this was a big cover-up and that Uday and Kuse weren't really dead.
He didn't do that and showed no indication of even being aware of the story until the caller brought it up.
Alex does bring up some cases of misreporting that have happened in the haze of war.
In April 2003, Ali Hassan al-Majid, or Chemical Ali, was thought to be dead after his villa in Basra was the target of an airstrike.
The New York Post reported on the situation and quoted Rumsfeld as saying, quote, We believe the reign of Chemical Ali has come to an end.
Additionally, they spoke to a major in the British 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment who said they'd recovered, quote, a body that was thought to be Majid's.
This looked like a fairly safe assumption to make, given the information coming in, but it ultimately turned out to be wrong, and that can happen when you're talking about casualties in the aftermath immediately of an airstrike.
With Saddam himself, there were instances of rumors of his death being reported by Western news outlets, but I don't believe that it was ever officially said that he was dead.
So, Saddam had a lot of enemies, and it was in poor health, particularly in early 2001, when one of these rumors made the rounds.
There was a part of this reporting that was probably something of a psych warfare tactic meant to make Saddam look weak in a way that might inspire one of his rivals to be like, ah, now's the time to seize power.
Not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but if that was the strategy, it kind of makes sense.
I can understand Alex's instinct towards skepticism, but it's leading him off track here into territory where he just assumes everything is fake without any justification.
There have been a few instances of misreported deaths in the past, but that doesn't mean that every death that's reported is a fraud, and the only way you can really tell is if you engage...
Hmm.
In the case of Stom's kids, they're too dissimilar to equate to one another.
Suspecting that someone was killed in an airstrike, like in the case of Chemical Ali, is different than having intel that someone was in a certain place, finding them there, and then getting into a gun battle with them.
It's very, very different.
Ultimately, the feeling I get from this is that Alex didn't plan on talking about this story, whether because he didn't know about it or because he didn't want to stake a claim.
It feels quite strongly that this clip is essentially him talking around the issue in a way that allows him to call it fake later if he wants, but he doesn't have to commit to anything.
So Alex has made a pivot in this conversation, and he's now baselessly insisting that the caller has called him a liberal socialist.
This has the effect of taking the argument off of the territory where Alex really has nothing to say, and transitions it into a framing where the caller is going to have to respond to Alex's straw man.
You were saying we're liberal socialists for being against the war, but the most conservative person in Congress, Ron Paul, is against the war.
Are you against Ron Paul and thus not really conservative?
It's a cheap game, but from a rhetoric perspective, it's a super effective debate tactic that Alex and a lot of other shitheads use constantly.
The way Alex is presented to this caller, there's a yes or no answer he can give that takes the conversation nowhere productive.
It's essentially meaningless if it's conservative or liberal to be for or against the war, but this is the water Alex wants to swim in because that water is fucking shallow.
To be honest, Alex is going to win this argument no matter what, if it keeps going this way, because this guy is going to have to defend the war, and Alex is going to just yell over him at that point.
Those are two gigantic hills that this caller has to climb, and no one who thinks it's a good idea to call in fours is up for that kind of work.
So, you can see something really remarkable happen there, and I want to bring sharp focus to it.
What Alex is doing is trying to rattle off as many talking points as he could in an attempt to fluster the caller.
The goal was to overwhelm him with things that he's expected to respond to, and if the caller tries to respond to any of them, well, there's that.
Or Alex has a response preloaded.
And even if somebody, if he doesn't, and the caller responds to something, Alex can just say, like, you didn't respond to all these other points that I made.
This caller did exactly the thing that Alex couldn't handle, and that's that he ignored all of Alex's distraction bait and kept the point that he was kind of trying to make.
The caller never brought up Ron Paul or whether the war was conservative.
that was all alex trying to put a position on him from everything i can tell the caller seems like he just wanted to argue with alex about him being a coward and about how alex weirdly didn't cover the story about saddam's sons yeah that was his agenda he's having a great time though i'm certain he's a complete asshole i applaud this caller for not taking alex's Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Alex calls him a neocon, which is the most dreaded insult on this show since 2003.
He has so much nothing here, and you can tell by how desperate he is to force positions onto the caller.
Alex really isn't making much sense with his insisting that the deaths of Stom's kids must be fake because there's been misreporting in the past, so he decides to ascribe to the caller a position he didn't take, that the government never lies to us.
This is another instance of Alex using the same trick he tried unsuccessfully by appealing to Ron Paul.
He wants the conversation to be on his terms, so now he's trying to force the caller to make one of two stances.
He can affirm the position Alex has forced on him and say that the government never lies to us, and then Alex can tee off about times the government's lied and then claim victory in the conversation.
Or he can reject the position and Alex will have an inroad to say, so you admit the government lies to us, now prove that this one isn't a lie.
Exchanges like this are really interesting to me because it's actually really rare to see Alex's brain working, Like in this sort of arena.
In the present day, this stuff never really happens at all, and if there's disagreement about something from a caller, Alex will just yell at them and hang up.
It's rare that his actual debate techniques are on display, and if you pay attention to them, you can see that almost all of them are based in misdirection.
He's trying to avoid any underlying argument and I suspect it's because the points this caller brings up are a bit threatening to him.
For one, it is true that Alex never brought up Saddam's sons being killed, which seems like a mark against him as a journalist.
Even if he thinks it's all fake, it seems like someone who talks about geopolitics on his show so much and who has a lot of thoughts about the Iraq war, it seems like they would bring up people saying that Saddam's kids are dead, but he thinks it's bullshit, if that's his position.
Secondly, it is true that Alex never served the country, which could be a sore spot for a lot of the military-obsessed people in the audience.
Alex was born in 1974, so he would have been 18 in 1992, and he would have been eligible to go fight in Somalia or in Bosnia.
I understand that he wouldn't have wanted to, or might have even been philosophically opposed to it, but he wasn't even in something like ROTC in high school or when he was in community college.
Alex's audience is particularly focused on the military, but only a part of that has to do with service to the country.
The other part is kind of a cultural thing, where there's a distinction between the people who would sacrifice and subject themselves to a thing that requires such heavy amounts of discipline that it kind of sets you apart from people who didn't go through an experience like that.
If I were Alex, I probably would prefer that this was brought up as rarely as possible, and this caller does seem to be hitting some soft spots and not taking Alex's decision.
distraction bait.
One of my points here is that Alex really actually isn't good at this.
He's a bad debater.
If you're aware of just some of these really basic tricks, he's trying to pull.
And really most of the things he has in his toolkit are just yelling and hanging up on people.
But there are ways to diffuse both of these points easily without talking about Ron Paul, without anything.
You can say, like, you could talk cogently about his opposition to the war, his conscientious...
Non-participation in war.
He could do that, and that would be fine.
That would possibly alienate some people in his audience for whom military service is so important, and maybe that's part of the reason why he wouldn't want to do that.
I don't know, but he could do that, and he doesn't.
Simultaneously, with the story about Saddam's kids, look, I think, obviously, that's the biggest news story of the day.
You would expect that a show like his would lead with that, but he could diffuse that instantly by just being like, Look, I am allowed to lay out the editorial structure of my own show the way I want to, and I understand that you think that this should have been brought up at the beginning of the show, but I have a method to how I'm doing things, and we are going to get to it.
I appreciate you bringing this to the forefront.
He could have done that very easily and defused this point entirely, or...
If he wanted to be full of shit, he could even be like, we have internal metrics.
Oh, you mean the ones that FBI informants and agents lived with and paid for their houses and their cars and their credit cards, and they trained at U.S. bases, and all the public officials that got told not to fly that day, or the CIA that put put options in on American and United, or maybe you're talking about the U.S. troops massing into Zikistan or Uzbekistan, or maybe PNAC calling for terrorist attacks to get us behind the New World Order.
This is just a long list of tenuously connected talking points Alex is able to pull out of his memory in order to try and overwhelm the caller and make it appear that he can't answer any of this stuff.
But again, this doesn't have anything to do with the point of the call.
This is 9-11 truther stuff, which isn't really relevant to how Alex didn't join the military or how Alex didn't talk about Saddam's sons being killed.
I will blame the caller for bringing up the 9-11 stuff, though.
But again, this is an abusive debate tactic Alex is using to try and make sure the caller has nowhere to go and is boxed in, and the only thing that can really counter this is ignoring it all and staying focused on the point that you were discussing to begin with.
Distraction can only really be countered by staying on target, but all too often, responding to one of the items in Alex's laundry list is just too tempting.
The caller doesn't actually do either thing.
He doesn't stay on message, and at the same time, he doesn't really respond to something Alex said.
Instead, he chooses a new road to go down, which I found a little bit confusing, and I think he's lost the thread.
We'll just hear this exchange as a time when a Canadian who thought the government was always truthful couldn't handle any of Alex's points and thought Alex was a socialist called in and Alex schooled him.
And that's the goal of these debate tactics that Alex uses.
They create the impression if you're not paying attention that Alex is...
Yeah.
And most of his listeners aren't paying attention, so they'll probably come away from that thinking like, oh man, he nailed that.
It's a large part of why I think a lot of it isn't really worth engaging in.
It's very stupid.
I thought this call was pretty much over, because I felt like, well, we've completely gotten off the point at hand, and both of them have kind of gotten confused on their own.
The first is that Alex is saying that he goes to Tex Mars' church and that Tex performed his wedding.
I would have thought that Tex would refuse to do that wedding since Alex's first wife was Jewish, and Tex is a huge anti-Semite.
That also brings me to the big problem with Alex going to Tex's church.
It's that Tex is a giant anti-Semite, and his sermons were often really anti-Semitic.
Alex is sort of right on a technicality, though, and that is that Tex was writing books going back to 1983, which would be 20 years prior to this show.
But his first book that he wrote was with his wife, and it was titled, quote, A Perfect Name for Your Pet.
A couple years later, Tex's output would change, and he started releasing books with titles like Rush to Armageddon and Dark Secrets of the New Age.
That was in 1987, so this caller's only a few years off, but strictly speaking, Alex is right.
I'm not necessarily bringing that up to pat Alex on the head.
I'm pointing this out to illustrate that I think Alex knows a whole lot about Tex Mars and is a big fan of his work.
When I say that Tex Mars was a giant anti-Semite for his whole career, I mean that.
He was a bigot early, and two of the books he released in the years before his death were titled, quote, DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline, and quote, Holy Serpent of the Jews, the rabbi's secret plan for Satan to crush their enemies and vault the Jews to global dominion.
No, but in 2003, it was a little bit less problematic for Alex to be upfront about these associations and these sort of places where his intellectual lineage comes from.
Yeah, Tex Mars is a disgusting bigot, and I appreciate how much more forthcoming Alex is about being one of his followers at this point.
I'd get into this more deeply, but I have some thoughts about doing a larger series on Tex, so that might be something that we deal with at that point.
Yeah.
unidentified
Also, I sure hope that Alex doesn't ever find out what Tex Mars thinks of.
You can talk about your left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, libertarian, democrat, republican, and you can take them as far as I'm concerned, put them in a toe sack, and throw them in hell.
I'm going to talk today about truth.
And I'm going to expose the legionnaires of Sodom.
You say, but you don't understand, Ron Paul, he's for abolishing the Fed.
And for the most part, it was Alex who refused to stay focused on any one topic.
He was the one doing the shotgun blasts of a million topics and talking points.
And you know what?
I think that Alex was also the one who was acting emotionally.
His emotional outbursts might not have been as theatrical as they are in the present day, but when this caller, you know, it brought out something from Alex and it wasn't analytical.
And also, if I could make another point just real quick, I've been speaking out in my area against this whole New World Order thing and some things that I know because I was in the military, and I've been constantly harassed because of it.
There's been black helicopters flying around.
There's people that have come up to me.
I'll just be going to the supermarket or something.
They'll say, hey, you need to stop talking about this.
We know where you're at.
We know where your family's at.
And I came home the other day, and they were putting anthrax in my house, the U.S. military was, and they tried to say that they were just there checking on some things because people had reported that I had guns or something like that that I wasn't supposed to have, saying I had munitions that I wasn't supposed to have, and they were putting things in my house.
I feel like you have a responsibility towards folks.
Towards helping people.
At least some degree of it.
And especially when it's public.
Like, a private conversation, I think you still have that responsibility.
But when it's publicly broadcast, I just think that what you're doing is modeling that it's okay for people to experience these delusions and not to be like...
Not to recognize that people around them might be concerned about them and there might be good reason.
We've been covering it since day one in January 6th when it came out.
I wrote the definitive analysis of it, not bragging, just fact.
Please go read it at Infowars.com, then check it in the bill for yourself.
We have a link to below the story.
So here it is.
We told you about secret executions.
You couldn't believe it.
Now it's been in 100 newspapers.
U.S. announces death chambers for anyone that commits any crime.
Justice Department four weeks ago, before the Congress, enthusiastically said we'll use it for all crimes against misdemeanors.
That was the head of the Justice Department policy there in the report.
I mean, this is happening.
We just take the time out to research this.
They count on you to know all the baseball and football statistics, but to not know about the facts of this.
Just shift into this and learn this like you did football scores, and you'll know about the New World Order.
Please focus your energies into real stuff, folks.
Here it is, and I'm not bashing sports in and of themselves, but the mindless knowing all the statistics of that and not this will destroy you and your family.
Proposed amendments of the USA Patriot Act and the following is Representative Bernie Sanders' independent Vermont bill that would amend the USA Patriot Act as bills and mirror modifications and would remove Section 215.
And it's H.R. 1157.
And it's the armed and to amend the Foreign Service Surveillance Act to exempt bookstores libraries from orders requiring the production of any tangible things for certain foreign intelligence investigations because it's all about domestic.
I mean, this is just another one of those things where you're like...
Everybody likes Bernie.
Do you know why?
Because if you maintain good, consistent ideological positions from start to finish and you act in accordance with those, regardless of whether or not people are lying about you, because if you do this, chances are you actually kind of are above the left-right paragraph, then everybody winds up being like...
It's so weird for Alex to constantly be going on about how socialists are the devil and left-wing people are the devil, and then the person in Congress that has seemed to side with Alex's shit a bit more than anybody else is Bernie.
I mean, I think the most ironic thing is that earlier on, he's talking to a Canadian, and he's assuming that the Canadian is calling him a socialist because he's against the war.
And then later, he references that one thing he's for is a socialist senator who is against the Patriot Act.
So speaking of dumb, we got one last clip here, and I mean, it just sort of fits another bit of a little bit of a pattern on this episode, and that is dumb predictions.
Actually, in their mainstream polls, overall, he's at 53. A lot of polls show 45. So whatever the number is, but as soon as the number gets down below the magical number of 45%, is that they are going to start initiating.
And there's so many people that you really do, like, oh, you actually do believe that, but not because It's true.
It's because that's the only way you think.
You can't imagine somebody operating in any other facet because that's the way you operate.
So if you operate that way, and you're the smartest person in the world, obviously, then clearly your enemy must operate that way because if they're smart, then that's the way you do it.
It can't be that I'm a big dum-dum manipulating and exploiting people and in fact hurting the people.
Anyway, I think there's a lot of projection, which again, I mean, it's the exact same thing that Alex did in the aftermath of that fateful call from Canada, projecting all of his own deficiencies and bad behaviors onto the caller.
Although the caller was guilty of a few of them.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I found that to be a really rewarding thing to hear.
Alex's...
Some of those are fun.
I don't think you're able to get those in the present day anymore.