Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ May 4, 2022 episode, where he falsely claimed Biden called abortion "murder," exaggerated late-term abortion laws, and misrepresented Pope Francis’ NATO remarks. Jones sensationalized food plant fires (20 in Jan–Apr 2022 vs. his claim of thousands) while deflecting criticism over Trump’s January 6th role, then pivoted to a UN pandemic treaty conspiracy—despite no evidence—before feigning victimhood about globalist attacks on his family. The hosts mock his crypto-funded theatrics and lack of accountability, framing it as predictable, audience-driven chaos amid real-world crises. [Automatically generated summary]
That was when it was released, and I played it for a little bit, and then I put it down, because I was like, God, this isn't scratching the itch I want it to scratch.
You have these characters who can move in certain ways and do certain things, and then you have an enemy that can do the same or different, and then you figure out a way to get through it.
Well, especially, I mean, given the last couple modern day episodes, there was something worth paying attention to that was, we're all gonna die, goodbye, my dear friends.
But it did, I gotta say, you know, watching a little bit of that and seeing some of the responses on social media and seeing some of the, you know, video titles and posting on Infowars, I would be lying if I said it didn't sort of trigger some of that stuff from election night.
laughing at people who were sincerely worried about being in danger because of rights being taken.
Right.
And, you know, obviously it wasn't as impactful and severe as that shock that evening, perhaps that image, but there were shades of it, and it kind of made me a little bit grossed out.
It's tough to exist in a space where you know that somebody just handed down a death sentence as sure and as certain as if they pulled a fucking gun, but...
You know, it's not going to happen right away, so you don't know who it is.
The right of a woman to kill her child is abortion.
Biden says the quiet part out loud.
But more and more, people like Gloria Steinem of the Central Intelligence Agency on record...
Wear shirts saying, I had an abortion and I'll do it again.
And they talk about how they like it and how it made them feel good and how it empowers them to kill their child.
This is not a minority of these leftist women.
This is the majority of them have been basically endowed with the satanic spirit of when they aborted their baby because they were lied to that it wasn't a human.
Instead of having the Holy Spirit soften their heart and repent of it and say, I'm not going to be part of this anymore.
They said, no!
I'm glad I did it.
And you see the leftist ideology now becoming purely satanic because its roots were always satanic.
It's a little weird, though, but there's something kind of simple about Alex's position that I can appreciate on one level.
His opposition to reproductive health care is so clearly not based in rationality or a political position.
It's purely a product of religious zealotry.
There is no responsibility to argue with a position like the one he holds because there's literally nothing you can say that would dissuade him from thinking that you're just Satan trying to seduce him away from righteousness.
I suspect that a lot of people on his side hold similar positions, but they pretend that they're driven by some kind of political belief to gain the appearance of respectability and trick people into thinking that there's a point in arguing with them.
And with Alex, there is no point.
It's very clear.
It's just, I have wacky fundamentalist religious ideas about this, and I will not be swayed.
I'm going to follow this up, and this is going to sound crazy to me, but in 2022, I think there are only bad faith conversations about abortion if they aren't, I'm using it to hurt women, or I'm using it because I believe God makes me want to do that.
So Alex discusses his experience with abortion, and as we know from listening to the show, as much as we have, Alex has paid for at least ten, maybe more.
So his life, he would never have made it to the position No, instead, actually, conversely, what he tends to do, and I've heard this on a number of occasions, is because he was able to access these reproductive health choices, he now has the luxury of being able to romanticize the idea of what if these kids were alive?
I think you might have actually argued me all the way to the side of being like, if Alex had not been able to get abortions, we wouldn't have had Alex and we would have had another long-haul trucker.
I was touched by the Holy Spirit when I was about 18, 19 and had nightmares about it and really was upset and said, I'm not going to sit there and just shell out 300 bucks every time I get a chick pregnant.
Because even if I wore a condom and stuff, back then I was so fertile I could look at a woman and get them pregnant.
I also just think that this belies like a really...
I mean, it's pretty fucked up.
The dynamics here he's describing are just like...
Yeah, right.
You clearly have a lot more feelings about this that have nothing to do with the policy of reproductive health care that maybe you should unpack in a therapeutic setting instead of drinking them away.
Maybe the world would be a better place and you would stop seeing demons everywhere if you took care of yourself.
Here is Biden saying the quiet part out loud, and this is really hurting them bad, where he says, build a shared for yourself.
unidentified
Well, the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.
And I believe that everything is between God and man.
God and humans.
God and woman.
And you know if a woman wants to go to some killer and have her baby killed, that's between you and God.
And the Supreme Court's about to rule that under the federalist system, it's up to the states.
And I agree with that.
But it's not enough for Democrats.
They want to be able to go anywhere they want and have them anytime.
And they're the same people that want to kill as many children as they can, want to euthanize the old people, and they also want to access...
To your children and make them wear masks, make them take deadly shots, and brainwash them into lifestyles where they won't be happy or healthy or part of a nuclear family.
If he believes that everything is between a person and God, then he shouldn't give a single shit what laws exist that protect access to reproductive care.
Alex believes that we all maybe deserve to die in some kind of an extinction-level event because...
Society is so evil and allows abortion, so he can just cut out this act where he's pretending that he has some kind of tolerant position.
It's tacky, cowardly, and dishonest, and they don't have time for it.
Also, that part at the end there should be a decent indication of what's to come and where the rhetoric is going.
This part about kids being happy and healthy and part of a nuclear family...
That should ring off loud alarm bells that the next goal is obviously going to be rolling back protections for the LGBTQ folk, and it would be pretty naive to imagine that's where things are going to stop.
Ultimately, people in Alex's philosophical community don't believe in the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.
Literally, I mean, I'm not saying that this is exactly what's going to happen, but I think a lot that we took for granted is on the table in terms of being under threat.
Yes, that's what you expect from the evil, liberal mainstream media.
If you want the nuanced explanation for this, it's that Biden comes from a Catholic background, and his initial belief was that Roe vs. Wade, that decision was the court going too far.
In 1982, about nine years into his time in Congress, a constitutional amendment was proposed to allow states to overturn the ruling, and Biden voted for it while it was in committee.
He said at the time, quote, I'm probably a victim or a product, however you want to phrase it, of my background, calling it, quote, the single most difficult vote I've cast as a US senator.
Here's the thing, though.
That bill never made it to the full Senate, and it never came to a formal vote itself.
The next year, an identical bill was proposed, and Biden voted against it.
This isn't the gotcha that Alex and Tucker are pretending it is, and the hot and cold history Biden has with abortion rights is something that's been widely discussed in all sorts of outlets for quite a while.
The only way this could seem like Tucker making a novel point is if you just have no familiarity with Biden except as the cartoon character that the right-wing media has presented him as.
You're telling on yourself when you think that this is shocking.
I mean, it is amazing to me that Tucker is pulling that out like, see, whenever literally all of us are like, yeah, that's why we fucking hated that guy in the first fucking place.
It shows how much Alex actually cares about that story, that he can't even remember that the woman he's using to stoke racial hatred was named Kate Steinle.
He doesn't even remember because he doesn't give a shit about her, except as a prop that he can use to foment white fear.
Also, short refresher in case you haven't heard those episodes from way back.
So what Alex is conveniently not mentioning about these 22 candidates that Trump endorsed who won their primaries is that only four of them weren't incumbents.
That makes a little bit of a difference in terms of having such a great batting average.
The incumbency bias is really high.
Trump actually does, though.
He does have a pretty good record with endorsements.
But this hidden dynamic does come up, like this incumbency thing.
For instance, he supported 149 candidates in the 2020 House elections and...
116 of them won.
Of all of them that he got wrong, only two were incumbents, and his record with backing challengers was less impressive than the overall number.
Listen, if you coach a college football team and make sure that you get the most out of your child slaves, then you're gonna be in the government sooner or later.
You know what goes on in Austin at the middle schools and high schools, elementaries?
They tell them, you identify as LGBT, don't you?
Here's a lollipop.
When they do, they pat them on the head and let them have extra recess time.
And they're organized into after-school clubs and everything else, literally into a sexual orientation and a sexual lifestyle.
Imagine if they had the mud wrestling team for five-year-olds, or the oil wrestling, or hey, you're part of the wet t-shirt contest group, and you're training to wear wet t-shirts contest.
You'd say, that's pedophilia.
That's sexualization of children.
But if it's LGBT, then it's like, oh, absolutely.
Let's go confuse these kids that are highly influenceable with their leaders, with their teachers, and then let's induct them into this lifestyle.
We're going to have another one, and it's so predictable and boring, and then I'm going to have to look at people I know and be like, you're fucking predictable and boring.
So, look, this is a, you know, he's talking more about the schools here, and he's like, this isn't, the big talking point, I guess, with all these right-wing dickholes is the...
I mean, it's incredibly dangerous, and they're putting a lot of people in danger with this kind of rhetoric, and I think it's abhorrent, and I hate them for it.
That 4,000 number, the 4,000% number, that's dicey at best.
And Alex would be hard-pressed to back that up.
Past a 2018 story about something in the UK and some vague surveys.
That being said, there are increases to the population that identifies as trans as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and non-binary.
If Alex wants to say it's 4,000% as an increase over some unspecified amount of time, fine.
I'll stipulate that for the sake of argument.
My issue really comes in when he says that it has something to do with the schools or their influence because...
of the world.
If it had something to do with our public education system, you'd expect to see that phenomenon being more localized as opposed to, you know, fairly all over the place.
Based on that, you should maybe seek out another explanation for it.
I would suggest that a better explanation is that the number of actual LGBTQ folk...
Hasn't really gone up all that much, but the general vibe of most of the population has become accepting enough that people can feel comfortable to be open about themselves.
That probably doesn't have full explanatory power, but it's way more likely than this bullshit that Alex is throwing around a bunch of nonsense.
You know, I think what's fun about Alex is that...
The more he talks, and the more the world gets worse, the more I think that his extreme characterizations of what the left wants are actually good ideas.
Like, maybe we should get rid of the idea of mother and father, and have children taught as a group of people.
But this wasn't a situation where they were attacking him because they knew he was there for beating his child.
It also happened in 2018.
Also, there have been some details here that Alex is missing.
The first thing is that these two men that beat Smith didn't begin the attack because of his crime.
They took him hostage in a cell attempting to force the jail to transfer them to another wing because they didn't want to be in this one because it was...
Also, it totally happened four years ago, and for some reason, Alex is reporting it as if it's a current relevant story.
In reality, the only relevant news aspect of this is that there was a pretty long delay in sentencing the two men who beat Smith, and that just happened recently.
This has also led to a conversation about how Smith might be eligible for government compensation because the state has a duty to protect him while he's in their custody, so this may end up costing UK taxpayers even more.
There's a lot of tangled threads here, but what's important is that Alex loves this story because it makes him feel good to imagine violence being enacted on people he doesn't like.
It's somewhat understandable to think that someone who abuses their child deserves whatever comes to them, but it strikes me as kind of sad when that's the beginning and ending of Alex's analysis.
It's really shallow and it's just kind of built out of anger feeling good to him.
Like, if you want to build a society, especially one that functions, maybe you don't put people whose...
First and initial reaction is the only one they care about, and then forget about it later on.
So, like, for instance, if you're building a society, you're like, maybe we should protect people even if we incarcerate them, because perhaps one day we will be incarcerated.
Well, no, I mean, I think that, you know, just your work-a-day person, you know, out there just being like, I wish that rich people could get away with more.
Everything I remember that guy said made perfect sense, and he fought communism and was a good guy, pro-life and pro-family.
What's going on with this guy?
Because you can't say, like, one's good and the other one's good when they're polar opposites.
I'm not a Catholic, but a lot of the Catholics are good people on average and have a long history in Christendom, and I...
Wanted to be a good, strong Christian institution.
But under this Pope, it has been the opposite of that, hasn't it?
I don't think that's debatable.
I know the Catholics are up in arms about it.
What is this statement about?
Pope Francis says NATO may have provoked Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Hopes to meet Putin in Moscow.
Pope Francis participated in an interview Monday with one of the largest Italian daily newspapers.
Where the Vatican head expressed his desire to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the near future.
I asked Cardinal Perloni, after 20 days of war, to send a message to Putin to say that I was willing to go to Moscow, the Pope said.
We have not yet received an answer, and we are still insisting, even if I fear that Putin cannot and does not want to have this meeting at the time, but how can this brutality not be stopped?
25 years ago, we experienced the same thing in Rwanda.
He went to blame the weapons manufacturers and the fact that NATO overthrew the elected government in Ukraine eight years ago.
And you know the rest of the story.
And then started launching attacks on Russian-held areas.
This is a fascinating example of a common feature on Alex's show.
He takes a story that has a kernel of truth, and then he just makes stuff up about it.
In this case, it is true that the Pope gave an interview where he suggested that it was possible that, quote, NATO barking at Russia's gate led to Putin invading Ukraine.
But he also said, quote, I have no way of telling whether his rage has been provoked, but I suspect it was maybe facilitated by the West's attitude.
This is an interesting statement, but it's also a far cry from what Alex is reporting.
The Pope also said, quote, the Ukrainians can't be blamed for having fought back in the Donbass, which implies they were fighting back against something.
He also said, quote, now the Russians have taken not just the Donbass region, but Crimea, Odessa, and the ports on the Black Sea, everything.
I have a bad feeling about it all.
I'll admit, I'm very pessimistic.
However, it's our duty to do all we can to stop the war.
In terms of blaming weapons manufacturers, here's what the Pope said.
Quote, It's fair to say that the arms sales are something that the Pope opposes and recognizes as a part of all wars, but Alex is really overselling his position to be like, This is all about weapons.
All that other stuff that Alex is saying is just making stuff up.
He just wants the Pope's statement to sound more like it validates his own narratives.
Alex is doing this because he knows most of his audience only needs superficial validation to feel like Alex has been proven right about something.
For example, they can just Google Pope and NATO and see headlines like, quote, Pope Francis blames NATO in the Wall Street Journal, and they'll assume that Alex is right about all the other stuff he said.
It's a trick he can pull because, you know, he's just riffing headlines and he's trained his audience just to do the same and pretend there's some sort of a depth to it.
That's all he's doing.
If anything Alex ever says ever means anything, then the Pope cannot possibly be making the statements Alex is pretending he is.
If your argument is that NATO is the cause of all of this, why exactly are people, are non-NATO countries, reacting to this going like, we gotta get in NATO, otherwise we're gonna get invaded.
One thing about a battleground being the removal and murder of other people and their rights is that the news doesn't really hit as hard, so you can just narrate memes, you know?
So again, you're saying you're involved in farming and you're saying people not planting because they don't have fertilizer.
unidentified
Well, not planting and also the fact...
We've gotten half of our annual rainfall within a week's period of time, and we just ain't going to get out in the field.
We're already two weeks behind the eight ball already in planting, and that's going to be another two weeks before people can even get in the field to plant their corn and their soybeans and their wheat crops up here.
They've got statistics and numbers out where half of young people don't even know where meat comes from or where electricity comes from or the most common sense things.
They've done studies where 90 plus percent of...
College students can't name one of the amendments to the Bill of Rights.
So yeah, what happened there, that pause, and the reason that Alex goes off in a completely different direction is because what that guy's describing sounds a lot like a change in climate.
Well, sir, since we covered that a few weeks ago, more plants have burned down each day.
So, by the law of statistics that's been looked into by statisticians, this is thousands of times the number of plants that burn a year already, and we're not even halfway through the year.
So Fact Check reached out to the National Fire Protection Association to get some insight into the recent social media posts and Tucker Carlson segments about this conspiracy, and what do you know?
It's a load of shit.
The NFPA gets their data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System, and I want you to guess how many manufacturing and processing plant fires there are in an average year.
Between January and April 2022, there were 20 fires reported at U.S. food processing facilities, which, if anything, is actually in the normal to low side of where they would be in a normal year.
From everything, I can tell this is very much normal or low.
Right.
The spokesperson for the NFPA summed it up, I think, pretty well.
Quote, The recent inquiries around these fires appears to be a case of people suddenly paying attention to them and being surprised about how often they do occur.
But NFPA does not see anything out of the ordinary in these numbers.
People like Alex and Tucker didn't know that these sort of fires were so common, so when they saw dumb memes about this fire or that fire, they assumed that it must be so much more than a normal year.
Because that's fun for them.
It's exciting to think that there's some grand nefarious plot that you're covering and saving the food supply.
That excites the audience and releases those fun endorphins you get when you're roleplaying a prophet detective.
Plus, the alternative sucks.
If you look into this and you realize that it's totally normal that there be this many fires at food facilities, what can you do?
You don't get to accuse vague groups of enemies of planning to kill you.
You just kind of have two options.
You can either shrug and say that's just how things are, or you can be a total dork and advocate for stronger fire safety regulations at these facilities.
It's not exciting to an audience, and it doesn't give you the rush of pretending you're some kind of bold truth teller.
He makes up shit about statisticians and probabilities because he wants to give the appearance of having looked into stuff, but he doesn't want to have to reach that unsatisfying conclusion he would reach if he actually did.
It bums me out to learn something from their bullshit and have them sensationalize it, and then I've learned more about it, and I'm like, how have I let this go on for so long?
Probably because I'm reading about cops being great or whatever, as the news says.
And I think that you're still holding on to the idea that Trump was organic and that Trump is real.
And I think that the system would never allow that because the system would never jeopardize what's at stake, the control of the power.
They would never let someone organic come in and jeopardize that.
And you keep holding on to this idea that they are.
And you keep saying this thing that Obama's running things.
Obama, again, there would never just be one guy running things.
It's far worse than Obama is running things.
Sure.
And I get what you're saying there, but you're still directing people into the left-right paradigm, and you're still giving this system a chance when it doesn't have one.
Like, if Alex wants to keep up this appearance, then he's going to need to publicly reveal who the person was who gave him $2 million in crypto.
His whole thing is all this, like, I'm supported by the people, man.
No one's secretly paying me off.
And at the same time, he's taking in millions of dollars from some secret donor in digital money?
It's all out of sync, and if anyone that Alex criticizes did the same thing, it would be presented as dead-to-rights proof that they're getting paid by Klaus Schwab to help kill everyone.
It's fine, I think, for him to take in a couple million dollars from a crypto donor, but his audience deserves to know who that person is, because they may have some interests or some connections that would be relevant for the audience to be aware of.
If it's someone like Max Keiser, then it obviously comes with the strings of needing Alex to promote crypto to his audience, as he and Max have discussed in the past.
If it's someone like Peter Thiel, then that opens up a thousand more questions that the audience should be asking.
If it's an online neo-Nazi or white nationalist-type front, then that speaks volumes.
And if it's just a rich benefactor who believes in the info war but weirdly didn't step in till now...
Then that's benign, but it still should be known.
Unless that donor's identity is known, it's hard not to make assumptions about who it might be and what agenda might come along with that donation.
I'd just call on Alex to reveal who this donor was, because otherwise, I don't understand how your audience could ever trust you.
I think that through the people who were looking into these things over at the SPLC and what have you, I think that there's a decent chance that this might be a mystery that gets solved.
I mean, I don't know if he's read the news about Bitcoin lately, but it does feel like if you want to know where a wallet is from, you can find that information pretty quickly.
Alex can't actually have a conversation with this guy and disagree with him coherently.
It would have been a bad strategy to take the White House.
What strategy is Alex pursuing that's so much better?
Having violent mood swings on air, covering meaningless headlines on stories he hasn't read, and waiting for some mystery super rich guy to give him millions to temporarily bail him out of trouble while he waits for the Sandy Hook cases to get a new court date?
Alex can't agree with the guy because arguing on this point exposes his ass, so he gets him off the line and then agrees to disagree, respecting their differing viewpoints.
Keep in mind all the other folk that he refuses to agree to disagree with, but this guy, who's mad that Trump didn't lead a charge into the White House to overthrow the country...
That deserves a respectful position and response.
Also, notice that Alex isn't against literally taking the country over because that would be a bad thing to do.
It's just bad strategy.
The goal isn't bad, and the end result isn't bad.
He just doesn't think that what the caller wanted would have brought about that end result.
While we're on the subject of January 6th stuff, though, I just wanted to bring up something that Alex probably won't touch.
William Todd Wilson, the Oathkeeper who pled guilty, just had a statement of offense released, and it looks pretty bad for Alex's buddy, Stuart Rhodes.
A lot of this stuff is providing more insight into things that we've already known, but there's some added stuff in here, too.
For instance, at about 5 p.m.
on January 6th, Stuart was back at his hotel where this happened.
Rhodes then called an individual over speakerphone.
Wilson heard, Rhodes repeatedly implore the individual to tell President Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the transfer of power.
This individual denied Rhodes' request to speak directly with President Trump.
After the call ended, Rhodes stated to the group, I just want to fight.
It's really curious who that individual might be.
Someone who's acquainted with Trump and Stewart and is on good enough terms with both of them for Stewart to feel comfortable making this request and for Stewart to assume they could get Trump in on the loop.
So, we have one last clip here, and their interview is really boring, but when they come back into the last segment, Alex has a little bit of what I would describe as sort of a mini fake outburst, and then this happens.
Music Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to be very, very clear right now with all of you.
People say, Jones, don't you feel empowered that everything you talked about came true?
No, I don't.
There is nothing more frustrating than reading globalist documents and watching clips of their speeches for 30 years on Air 28 and knowing they're in power and knowing they're doing this and sitting here and having to debate whether or not they even exist.
And to know that they made the weapon that killed members of my family and almost killed my dad.