Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ July 29–30, 2003, claims—like the debunked DARPA PAM betting scheme (canceled in 2002) and conspiracy theories about Saddam’s sons or 9/11 insider trading. Jones frames Harvey Milk High School as a "pedophilia-promoting" LGBTQ trap, ignoring its purpose for bullied students, while praising Howard Kalugan’s shady recall campaign (1.6M signatures, but tied to Iraq War support and Tea Party racism). Chossudovsky’s anti-U.S. propaganda—amplified by Russian GRU-linked fronts—further fuels Jones’ globalist paranoia, despite evidence like dental records disproving staged deaths. The episode reveals how recycled fearmongering and selective outrage mask logical inconsistencies, leaving audiences in a cycle of baseless alarm. [Automatically generated summary]
So I needed to get this, and I was looking over what they had in stock and available, and I saw something and I was like, well, this is the coolest thing I've ever seen.
I mean, he's in the top 10, but he sucks compared to your boy.
No, I mean, he's just soft.
He's weak.
He's callow.
He's soft.
Wow.
But this 19-year-old kid, Spanish kid from Spain, looked up to Rafa his entire life since before he was like, Rafa won a major when this kid was two years old.
So, Jordan, today we have an episode to go over, and I think that maybe one of the more notable things that's come out in InfoWars World in the past since we've had an episode is the little bit of audio of Paul Joseph Watson being a real racist.
So this is a fascinating guest to see pop up here in the past because it's the first time that he's been on, but it's not fascinating for the reasons that it might first appear.
The reason it's interesting to see Michael Chosadovsky is because he's not someone who's still a regular on Alex's show, but should be.
For a while, Chosadovsky made frequent appearances with Alex because in many ways he's an ideal guest.
Beginning in 2001, Chosadovsky founded the Center for Research on Globalization, and from that point on has been responsible for one of the websites that disseminates a gigantic portion of the anti-globalization conspiracy content that's on the internet, Global Research.ca.
We'll get more into him when he shows up on the show.
But for now, suffice it to say, when I heard that, this is the first time that him and Alex and Chosadovsky's passes, they have paths crossed.
This is a big, like, I guess maybe it's not a big deal, but it's consequential in terms of the paths that these two would end up going.
You know, like with globalresearch.ca being like a gigantic conspiracy clearinghouse, and then Alex being from 2003 onward becoming such a luminary of the conspiracy media, the overlap of their influence is huge.
They were shown with facial reconstruction that was done because they were obviously quite mutilated in the course of the U.S. actions in killing them.
And so in order to make them look more convincing to people, which, I mean, we can debate whether or not that was a great idea for the people to do.
Right.
They were given some reconstructive surgery.
And Alex believes that they look like folks from a bad wax museum.
It looks like something at the low-end wax museum because my parents would drag me all over the country on road trip vacations, like national lampoons.
And you'd be in a big city and go to the wax museum.
It'd be pretty nice.
But, you know, the little town that had the old wax museum and the wax figures didn't look very good.
And, you know, maybe the nose was falling off of one.
So we get to, in this next clip, Alex is kind of introducing his main narrative that's going to take over this episode, but he's also really all over the place.
They have learned that if something is hidden in plain view now and they just say it's normal, that the general public doesn't have a moral base or compass and will accept it as good and wholesome.
We have now entered Orwellian doublethink world.
People can't even engage in critical thinking on average.
And so they announced that we're going to have a betting system similar to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange run by the Pentagon and controlled and founded.
And the architecture constructed by DARPA, the folks with the old Shinghai Pyramid Total Information Awareness Network that want to watch you and your family, run by the convicted felon Admiral Poindexter, involved in all the trafficking of goodies into the country and out of the country and all the goodies that MTV promotes.
Just a nice fellow.
What?
I was thinking about this this morning.
There's no way to even try to describe this properly.
This is Alex reporting that the government is setting up a literal casino-style betting pool where these elites and defense contractors can gamble on coming wars and countries collapsing.
To be clear, this project was abandoned around the time of this episode of Alex's show, and it never actually existed.
But the thinking behind it isn't actually as macabre and as evil as it might initially sound.
The basis for this idea was that for years, futures markets have been used as a predictor of societal unrest and other sorts of geopolitical issues.
Again, from this Strategic Insights article, quote, the use of petroleum futures contract prices is an example of the manner in which traders gauged the likely outcome of events such as the U.S. naval response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
In a like manner, the movement of petroleum futures prices in late March 2003 after the recent Iraq war began reflected the implications traders drew concerning the outcome of the conflict.
Falling rapidly in the first few days of the conflict, but rising again after it became apparent the Iraqi regime would not fall in a matter of days.
The goal of this policy analysis market wasn't so much about allowing elites to gamble on geopolitical conflict, because in a roundabout way, they already can and do.
It was about giving the U.S. intelligence agencies market-based ways to trade on different potential events, which it was theorized might provide signals that could be interpreted like as already done with sudden movements in commodity futures markets.
So they were trying to create, I guess, capitalism-based virtual reality system whereby they can predict using the data of who's buying and selling what, whether or not they're going to go to war.
Like trying to predict potential coming trouble and destabilization in areas.
But there's also very important elements like it wasn't supposed to be about anyone getting rich, and it wouldn't have been a vehicle for that.
They had a cap on $100 for bets, and only 1,000 expert traders were even participated in invited to participate initially.
Now, I'm saying that the underlying idea here makes some sense from just like a conceptual standpoint, but please do not take that to be me saying this was a good idea.
It obviously is something that could go wrong in about a thousand different ways.
And even leaving that aside, it seems like it's in very poor taste.
The world already has an earned bad image of organizations like the CIA.
They don't need to add the already bad optics that they have to like their gambling on whether or not a particular government will fall that might be involved in destabilizing.
There's so many things that just look shitty about that.
Even though the system didn't appear to have the ability to be rigged in some particular way, just like you were saying, the optics would be a disaster.
It would be a complete mess.
And I suspect that that's part of the reason why it never moved forward.
I mean, what's great about it, though, is that it does have that kind of evil global policy that you're looking for if you are fighting against the globalists.
I think what makes it super villain-esque to me is more that there are like a million better ways to do the thing that you're trying to achieve by setting this evil thing up.
You know, like, I understand that the goal you have.
You would hope that there would be a way for like people who have expert opinions to have some sort of conglomerated intelligence that they put together.
Right.
unidentified
It doesn't involve putting 100 bucks on somebody's death.
Well, it is an ancient society, a university of confidence men, of king rats, of con artists.
And they take all the skills of the carnival barker, the strategy of an Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, the victorialic mass mind control of an Adolf Hitler, the ruthless cunning of a Joseph Stalin.
Wanton, bloodthirsty nature of a pole hot Genghis Khan, mixed with the advertisement pitch men and Madison Avenue psychiatrists and psychologists, rolled into a computerized system of testing probabilities overlaid with university sociologists and anthropologists, integrated and tested by mass focus groups.
And that's the New World Order.
A criminal society owning the dominant media, conditioning you, selling you, a change in the society, a shift to the destruction of the family, the annihilation of the Second Amendment, the termination of private property and sovereignty and borders.
I think there's some similarities to how he describes things in the present day, but there's like foundational differences.
As he's telling it in 2003, though, that makes total sense, kind of, like if he wants to pitch this.
He's an extreme right-wing ideologue, so he's railing against this New World Order he's imagined to attack and help explain social progress to his audience.
It's not that society decided that living by rigid Christian doctrine is not fair to people who aren't Christian.
It's not that society realized that members of minority groups deserved equal rights.
These things are just the new world order tricking people.
It's really critical that Alex be able to present people having different politics to him in this kind of fashion as they're being tricked because the audience needs to be reassured that they're right.
It's really hard to make a coherent argument for a lot of Alex's political positions, so his audience probably couldn't handle that kind of lifting.
And instead of requiring them to do that, you can create an overpowered boogeyman who's manipulating everyone who disagrees with them into having the positions that they have.
You don't even need to come up with a reason to think they're wrong because the truth of your position is self-evident.
Theirs is just some evil cabal of king rats from an ancient university trick them into thinking that.
Why would I argue with you if you're coming to me having been tricked by these people?
Now, obviously, one downside of that is when I do argue with you, I have to then remember that I have a position as well instead of just ignoring yours.
And if I were to do that, oh boy, I would remember that I do not have a very good position at all.
I mean, let's say you were going to remote control with your mobile trucks that you've had for 30 years, a couple of jets into the World Trade Centers.
And let's just say you had the power to order NORAD to stand down and shut down.
And as a smokescreen, you could say it was a drill that morning of flying hijacked jet airliners into buildings.
You could tell everybody it was just a drill, stand down for an hour and a half as the transponders had been turned off.
Normally would have scrambled fleets of F-16s.
And let's just say you knew this was going to happen a week before.
Why you could put put options.
Of course, you'd put record put options on American and United.
The second problem is that Alex is seemingly suggesting that $100 bets in a very limited betting pool be lucrative enough to be a motive for someone within our government to carry out 9-11.
Well, that's actually about something else, and we'll get to that in a second.
But Alex's idea just seems incredibly stupid.
And his next thought almost entirely illustrates why.
There's already a ton of futures markets that you can make much larger put or call options on.
So, if you actually were acting with some kind of foreknowledge of a coming terrorist attack, you could do exactly the thing Alex is already ranting about.
Also, just as a reminder, Alex believes as a matter of definitive fact that the planes at 9-11 were remote controlled at this point, which I'm sure he would not defend nowadays if pressed on it.
Although I'd be interested in having Rogan ask him about it, yeah, that would be fun.
So, about that, like record put options, he's talking about a conspiracy about insider trading regarding United and American Airlines prior to 9-11.
And so, there were actually some trading patterns in United and American stock that seemed suspicious in the days prior to the attack.
And Alex has decided just to report that this was people who knew that 9-11 was coming and they were trying to profit off that foreknowledge.
One major question had to do with irregular purchases on September 6th and 10th.
The 9-11 Commission investigated the actual trades that were made, which constituted an unusually high load of put options, and found that this was the result of, quote, a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al-Qaeda purchasing 95% of the United puts on September 6th as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10th.
Highly suspicious trading on its face, yet further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection to 9-11.
Additionally, a U.S.-based options trading newsletter had recommended people trade on American in a letter that they sent to subscribers on September 9th, which added to the irregularity of trade volume on September 10th.
As with almost everything Alex uses as proof of his conspiracy theories, he has the appearance of something suspicious, and that's about it.
He never takes the time to consider alternative explanations.
And when information comes out that calls his conclusions into question, he ignores it and he pretends that he's been right all along when, in fact, he's just been making shit up.
If someone did have foreknowledge of a coming terrorist attack, there are financial mechanisms that already exist that they could try to exploit to profit from that knowledge.
However, they're likely going to leave some kind of a trail, and that could be a problem later.
You would say that, but we do have very obvious recent evidence that suggests as long as you're a senator, you can do that shit all day in public, and everybody will know it's you, and you'll walk away scot-free with more millions than you had yesterday.
The problem mainly I have with the argument is that it would be almost impossible to make it easier to inside trade anywhere other than the current stock market that we have right now.
Why would the military make something that would be easier to cheat on than the thing that they have made so available to cheat on?
It's in some ways, if you're looking to profit off insider information that you may have, it's a redundancy to create something like this.
Absurd.
Also, just because it's fun, the day before this episode, two Democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan, held a press conference leading opposition against the creation of this policy analysis market.
This ultimately led to the project being abandoned.
It's important to recognize that Alex only knows about this story because Democrats in Congress spoke out against it, and the driving force for it not coming into existence was opposition that started in left-wing political circles.
So Alex just believes that with the 9-11 United and American insider trading that he believes happened, that's proof that really reinforces his conspiracy about this new proposal.
So this is how Alex builds fantasy stories out of his bad information base.
He's decided that he's proven the people in the CIA did insider trading on American and United before 9-11, though he hasn't proven that at all.
He has a couple of suspicious facts that he can point to, which he's decided on an explanation for with no evidence.
As it turns out, his explanation was wrong, but he's used that incorrect explanation to create a background for this new conspiracy about the policy analysis market.
Because these folks got away with insider trading on 9-11, which they didn't, they decided to institutionalize that insider trading through this market, which they weren't doing.
This is an important dynamic in Alex's conspiracies.
Oftentimes, the things he's saying are built on multiple levels of non-existent foundation.
I think this is an underappreciated style of how Alex is often wrong.
He's like three levels deep into being wrong, and that's just acceptable on his show because the things he makes up makes up the appeal to the audience's emotional needs.
Yeah, and I think in some ways that kind of describes a lot of the sort of public perception of Alex's show.
Like there's a lot of like very surface-level things that are obviously infuriating.
Yeah.
And that takes up a lot of the criticism that's revealed.
Yeah.
As opposed to recognizing that there is an internal just foundational problem with the things that he reports and expresses and basically how he does his show that is sometimes missed from Alex has a clip that he describes from Hardball.
And of course, Gary Hart has already said at the CFR that Cleveland, Dallas, and Denver.
So I guess go place your bets in the next year they're going to get hit.
By the way, he said New York was going to get hit.
He started laughing on Hardball three months before 9-1-1.
He said, tall, tall buildings, tall, you know, and Chris Matthew started lying and Rudman hit Hart in the arm with his elbow and it was a moment of sharing in a sick fashion right out in front of you.
I can't find the actual video of this claimed hardball appearance, but I do know that after 9-11, Hart did make appearances with Chris Matthews discussing a paper he released in January 2001 called The Roadmap for National Security.
It was a product of a committee that he co-chaired with Warren Rudman, and the conclusion that they came to was that we weren't prepared at all for the possibility of an attack within the United States.
Hart was very public about his concerns prior to 9-11, so I don't exclude the possibility that he went on hardball and discussed this, but I don't believe at all Alex's interpretation of this.
Also, Alex didn't give a citation for this in the Bible, so I'm going to have to assume that he's referring to Luke chapter 4, where Jesus is tempted in the wilderness.
Verses 5 through 7 say, quote, and the devil, taking him into a high mountain, showed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will give it.
If thou therefore will worship me, all shall be thine.
That's all good and well, but this is a naive and shallow interpretation of that passage to conclude that the devil actually has control of all these kingdoms.
You have to remember the characters at play here, and that the number one trait ascribed to the devil is that he's a liar.
By believing that the devil controls all these governments, Alex is buying into the devil's lie that he was using to try to tempt Jesus into worshiping him.
Alex is entirely missing the point of this verse, and that misinterpretation seems to actually be kind of a central cornerstone of his worldview because outside of that stuff, Jesus seems pretty okay with governments.
I mean, you know, that's what's funnier about that is that that reminds me more of the fucking chaos magician who was like, well, you know, that the devil is in control over all the earth and all that stuff.
Because on the one hand, this caller is telling Alex that the thing that he's been yelling about for like an hour doesn't exist anymore.
So none of that really meant anything.
But on the other hand, it's even worse because the way Alex tries to salvage some kind of meaning out of his show is to predict that the program will be back with doubled funding within a month.
He guarantees it.
This didn't happen.
And it goes down in history as just one of the million examples of predictions that Alex has gotten wrong while pretending that his predictions are based off a pattern that his imaginary enemies engage in.
They grabbed him, shot him up with a hypo, full of barbetowitz, threw the pills out, slit his wrist, laid him out there, waited till he was dead, and left.
unidentified
Well, quite simply, it stinks.
And it stinks like just about everything else going on right now.
Obviously, people who are investing in this, who have no inside knowledge of when and where these political assassinations and war plans are going to occur, will, of course, lose their lifetime savings.
I mean, God, the idea that he's like, okay, well, the first thing I see here is that obviously normal people are going to bet their life savings on whether or not, say, Steve Pieczenik murders another Aldo Moro.
I think, of course, the issue of David Kelly's so-called suicide, which is yet to be established, points to a much broader issue.
It may well also be a political assassination.
And it's clear that David Kelly had information which, if made public in a British parliamentary committee, could, of course, lead to the downfall of Tony Blair's government.
Do you see my concern with how they are overtly lying now and doing corrupt things and not caring?
That shows, and you're a professor of history and political science, that shows kind of the delusional thing we've seen with Stalin and Hitler or Caligula.
I mean, do you expect Bush to marry his horse or something in the near future?
I mean, have we reached that type of Roman Emperor insanity?
The first is that no matter what's happening at any point in time and no matter what happened prior, Alex will always believe that the globalists are becoming so much more open in their treachery.
This is to create the appearance of immediacy in the audience, taking advantage of their recency bias.
This is the same reason that in the present day, Alex calls everything that happens the globalists' main attack.
On one level, it's to keep people excited and engaged, but it also serves another purpose, and that's to distract people from the things you've recently been wrong about.
The other thing I think is illustrated by this clip is how easily Alex goes off message.
He's trying to play that game of like the globalists are really wilding out this time.
And he forgets that he's not supposed to think the Bush is actually in charge and a tyrant.
So he starts painting him as Caligula.
Then Chosadovsky has to come in and remind him that there's supposed to be an evil cabal in charge of things.
So I think those are some important things to recognize about Alex: that no matter what period of time you're in, the globalists are really doing it this time.
They're saying that they want to go ahead and invade North Korea.
It's obvious, Professor, they're trying to escalate North Korea into making a first move, just like they have the 10-part plan to get the Japanese to attack us.
And there again, I think the whole question of North Korea, what was behind this, whether it was, because there was a whole, there was an agreement which was signed between the two governments.
And in fact, it's not North Korea which is really a threat to world security or to security in the Korean peninsula.
That's really where you see some of the tendencies of Chosadovsky.
His website paints itself as an anti-globalization research outlet, but the larger reality is that they're just kind of anti-U.S.
It's all good and well to have robust criticisms of the U.S. and our foreign policy past and present, but it's another thing to make wide-ranging and exaggerated claims about the United States while giving a pass to other countries that are doing fairly similar things or, you know, worse.
For instance, Global Research was a major player in spreading Russian-based propaganda, both in the sphere of pushing pro-Assad narratives regarding Russia's involvement in Syria and in terms of the flow of every conspiracy involving Hillary in the 2016 election.
They do basically the same kind of thing Alex does, which is to say that they take outlandish stuff and then give it a slick presentation that allows it to be more easily disseminated to unsuspecting viewers.
They give the appearance of credibility and research to conspiracy bullshit.
To give you some kind of idea of the content they're putting out, a 2020 State Department investigation found, quote, Global Research published or republished seven authors attributed by Facebook to be false online personas created by the main directorate of the general staff of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, popularly known as the GRU.
So that's kind of sloppy nonsense that's going on there.
They published seven authors who didn't exist, a total of over 180 articles by these fake people that were just Russian intelligence assets using fake names.
Staying on the Russia tip, Chosadovsky recently was making the rounds blaming the United States for Russia invading Ukraine because that's kind of his constant drumbeat.
Beyond that, Global Research had some really incredibly shitty content over the years.
Recently, in 2020, they published an article titled China's Coronavirus, A Shocking Update, Did the Virus Originate in the United States.
This article was tweeted out by the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry.
And though it's not based on any actual true information, it became part of a large PR campaign and conspiracy theory against the United States.
Now, there is a little bit of a caveat that should be given, and that is that in the larger picture of Global Research's website, they also do cover a lot of stories that relate to countries that are often ignored by what you might call the mainstream media.
But there's a lot of other independent outlets that do that too and don't also traffic in rank information, misinformation.
Right, right, right, right.
When the content of a website is so shoddily produced and has such a clear slant, even if they do have coverage of issues relating to things like, you know, Latin American countries that are often neglected, it's pretty hard to trust that the reporting that you're getting is worth it.
And you should probably look somewhere else.
That's what I would say.
But I do think it's worth bringing up like, yeah, you know, there are some things they might raise some issues that are worth knowing about, but you'd get better information about those issues elsewhere.
Overall, Chosadovsky and Global Research are conspiracy peddlers that are in the business of presenting an anti-U.S. and anti-Western perspective as an anti-globalization message.
That's the sort of sleight of hand that's being engaged in here.
And if I had to guess why Chosadovsky isn't on Infowars anymore, this is why.
Like he and Alex appeared to be on the same page and have heavy overlap, but they're actually polar opposites.
Professor Trosadovsky, you know, you talk about why do they need helicopters and tanks and hundreds of troops?
Well, because the troops aren't bad.
The helicopter pilots aren't bad.
They're told Saddam's sons are in there.
They've got to do that to kill and disfigure whatever Patsy is inside so they can then send in the intelligence agency to come out, dress up the burnt corpse and say, ooh, look, it's the brothers, regardless of it is or isn't.
So we know that's why they did this, whereas they could have just sent in a Delta Force team to wipe these guys out and shoot them and then bring them out.
This is all good fun, but Alex is just making stuff up out of his imagination to try to justify his incorrect conclusion that the killing of Saddam's sons was faked.
This is one of those telltale arguments that people who aren't acting with goodwill will make.
He's saying that they only sent in helicopters and tanks so they would be able to disfigure these bodies enough to be able to claim that they were Saddam's sons.
Leaving aside that subsequent tests of dental records and past surgeries confirmed that they were Saddam's sons, and Alex is totally wrong.
That's his theory that he's running with.
Now, let's imagine a scenario where some troops just went in to try to capture or kill them and they ended up in a bad situation.
Let's imagine that maybe a couple of soldiers were killed and that Saddam's kids got away.
In that situation, you could easily come up with how that would be covered in Alex's show.
You'd have the option of saying that the military should have sent in tanks and helicopters and that they didn't because they secretly wanted Saddam's kids to get away.
So I agree with Josadovsky, sort of, in that you do have to read past headlines, but I don't think that he's in the right place to be giving that advice.
Like, InfoWars is headline central.
I do take issue with what he probably means by reading between the lines, because for Alex, that just means making things up, which I don't think is a good part of news consumption.
Also, that story Alex is telling is completely bizarre.
Let me track his line of thought and then explain what I think is probably going on.
Now, in reality, this was a campaign that would support domestic beef production, but these globalists knew that Alex and his community were so against the New World Order that if they reported it in headlines about how he was about taxing and tracing all the livestock, Alex and his friends would be against it and they'd lead a charge to oppose the plan, which is what the globalists wanted to begin with.
They wanted this good thing to be defeated as opposed to just not proposing it or something.
If I understand correctly, Alex is not realizing that what he's saying is that we are so fucking predictable, they know that if they put a headline on something, we won't read the article and we'll just get mad immediately.
In the executive order that Bush signed forming the Department of Homeland Security, one of the responsibilities of the office was to, quote, coordinate efforts to protect the United States livestock, agriculture, and systems for the provision of water and food for human use and consumption from terrorist attacks.
Because Alex only reads sensational-ass right-wing conspiracy blogs, I'm sure he saw a headline that reported that as the Homeland Security Department announcing that they're going to tax and trace all livestock.
So that was the conclusion that he came to without looking any deeper into the subject.
Alex repeated this narrative to his audience and tried to rally opposition to the protection of our livestock and agricultural systems from the threat of disruption.
Then at some point, Alex must have realized that he was wrong.
So in order to save face and not have to admit that he's wrong, and he's an idiot, he pretended that the initial headline he read was actually a globalist plot to trick him.
You know, they knew that he was opposed to the new world order, so they planted that headline so he would oppose a good thing and further the globalists' master plan.
Like, Alex can admit that he's wrong about something, but only when the reason he's wrong is that because there was a conspiracy against him to make him wrong.
So the show does go on, and Chosadovsky is on for the rest of the show.
And they take some calls, but things kind of get derailed by a caller who's like talking about how, hey, we always talk about what the United States is doing overseas, and we know that's bad, but why don't you give it up for the people who are trying to change things here?
And he keeps sort of hinting.
I think he's talking about like militia right-wing terrorist type folks.
Coming up in the next hour, we've got the founder and the head of the recall Governor Davis movement that was so successful in getting the 1.6 plus million signatures, and the government was only able to throw out 300,000 of those.
Almost double the number that they needed to get the recall started were completed.
That is the signatures.
And so now it moves into the rest of the process, and the candidates prepare to square off and to find out who the new governor is going to be, whether it's going to be a Democrat or a neocon like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or will it be one of the more conservative members of their legislature?
We'll find out from the folks that started it all in the next hour.
And this is important, even if you don't live in California, because California is a globalist test state, a model state for all the horrible systems they want to make mainstream in this country.
It's the system.
And that's why everybody is more than New York, more than Boston, more than Florida, even more than Texas or Michigan or Colorado, which are also model states for the new world order.
So, yeah, we got the guy who started a group that was gathering signatures to get Gray Davis recalled.
He had some great bizarre guests on these two days.
I'm very excited.
So the first thing that jumps out to me in this clip is that Alex just described every place he doesn't like basically as where the globalists are testing their system out.
In the present day, Alex has moved that largely to other countries.
Typically, China is the place where globalists are testing things because they have a more repressive government and they aren't Russia.
So Alex can use the image of their government to scare his audience into thinking that's what the globalists have planned for them.
Periodically, whenever something catches on in right-wing media circles, he'll add other countries to the list of places that are globalist testing grounds.
For instance, when the trucker convoys were going on in Canada, Canada turned out to be like the biggest place where globalists were testing things out.
And when there were a lot of stories about COVID protests in Australia, it just so happened that that was actually where the globalists did their trial runs of tyranny.
I don't know what that is, but I've seen commercials on YouTube videos.
So this is just another feature of Alex's presentation that's meant to sound deep and meaningful, but it's actually just him talking shit.
That said, in 2003, he's saying that these globalists are trying things out in states and also Boston.
So I want to take a moment to point out that this is exactly what Alex believes should be happening.
According to his version of federalism, the states are basically laboratories where policies can be tested to see if they work.
That's a huge part of the thrust behind states' rights.
The idea that if a state wants to experiment with a particular policy, the people can vote to do that more easily than they could if it were something that was being done on a federal level.
And if there's something that goes really wrong with the policy, it's confined to that state.
It doesn't involve everybody in the country.
The results could then be evaluated and other states would be able to decide if they wanted to try it out too.
If I were to pretend that Alex's enemies were real and he's talking about something other than just left-leaning policies like welfare and anti-discrimination laws, his point is still self-defeating.
According to his own philosophy, these states should be testing out policies so people can see if they work.
Like, for example, how Colorado legalized weed, and then in the past six years, they brought in more than $1.6 billion additional dollars in tax revenue, millions of which have gone to affordable housing, dealing with the opioid crisis, and improving schools, both from a construction and from a program standpoint.
It's a test that seems to have worked.
Seems to.
Yeah.
Alex believes that the states should be the place where political experiments happen, except when those experiments are things that he doesn't like.
But if they are, if like another state is testing something that you don't want, then you should orchestrate a decades-long campaign to overthrow the Supreme Court, take it over, and then insist upon controlling things everywhere that you don't have control over.
So this is about Harvey Milk High School, which was announced in 2002 as an alternative school that would cater to LGBTQ students in New York City who are having difficulties in their public school settings due to things like bullying.
I think it's kind of natural to have some initial reaction to something like this and think that maybe this isn't the right solution to the problem.
Like if bullying is the problem, then stopping the bullying seems like the thing to do, as opposed to creating a new public school for the students to go to, but that's not as easy as we would like it to be.
I mean, I think that it's a complicated conversation.
Sure.
I don't, yeah, I don't know.
But according to the American Educational Research Association, as many as one in three LGBTQ high school students ends up dropping out, while the national average is an 8% dropout rate.
And, quote, LGBTQ students report that their main reason for dropping out of high school is constant bullying and harassment from other students.
So this does seem like a possible solution to this problem.
You know, I mean, at a certain point, maybe we have to stop listening to what conservatives are saying about schools whenever they're like, see, they're teaching stuff that's not reading, writing, and arithmetic.
And really understand that I think they're actually angry at the reading, the writing, and the arithmetic.
They don't have New World Order studies at Harvey Milk.
So like I said, I looked into this, and it seems like the people who go there and work at Harvey Milk are enthusiastic about how important the school is and how it's a really positive learning environment.
According to the New York Public Schools information on their website, they only had 59 enrolled students this past year.
And in the data going back to 2016, the highest of any year is 74.
It seems like if this is a special location where people who would be having a terrible time in high school can learn in peace, I don't know really what the harm is.
It's not like they have any different curriculum than any other high school, and they're subject to the same reviews as any other school would by the Board of Regents and what have you.
Also, an important point here is that the school is not exclusively LGBTQ.
Anybody can attend to make a restricted school.
So just from a very basic standpoint, again, Alex shouldn't have a problem with this because it's the New York State Board of Education deciding to do this experimental program to see how it works.
And it seems like it's worked all right since it's still open.
You know, that is such a great point of view into the real idea, the real ideology behind there.
It's not, listen, if you didn't want your kid, every argument every conservative's ever made is like, I don't want my kids learning with LGBTQ students.
I don't want them in that situation learning things that they couldn't.
In a hypothetical sense, I agree with you that that is very revealing.
Although I do think that it would be wise to caution away from even engaging with the thought initially of like, let's put them in quotes all somewhere else, because then you end up with segregated schools.
So we'll find out the inner workings, what the Democrats are trying to do to derail this, how they have one of their top agents, Michael Savage, one of the top beatnik agents in there who say he may run as an independent, which will then ensure that a liberal Democrat or liberal Republican gets elected.
This morning, we scanned the news wires for several hours.
My wife did.
One of my other employees did.
I did.
I scanned the news wire several hours last night, and about half the news articles in Forbes and Fortune and the New York Times are positive about the giant currency/slash war death speculation gambling house insider trading house that's already been set up at the Pentagon years ago, but they were going to make it public and claim it was legal.
I was watching CNN last night and they talked about how this would keep us safe and maybe it's needed.
And Fox was joking about it, but said, you know, maybe it's a bad idea, but it was just to keep us safe.
Yeah, secret passwords where anyone can bet on where the next terror attack will be in the billions of dollars.
And you have the government run a speculation market, which should be illegal in and of themselves, are bad enough and upset markets and ruin people and are much more dangerous than any Las Vegas casino.
This is a dead story because the market that was proposed didn't actually happen.
These two Democratic senators pushed back on it and the project was abandoned.
Because that's the case, Alex needs to kind of shift the tone of his coverage.
And that's why the story is now that this betting market has existed for a while secretly and still does exist, but they're just trying to make it public.
The public unveiling of the program failed, but the program still totally exists in secret.
And Alex could definitely prove it.
He has the documents and it's in the white papers.
Yeah, and what's important is not that you theoretically, quote unquote, won.
You were against this policy, and now this policy is shelved.
That has nothing to do with it.
You're not going to go and be like, hey, we did it.
And reinforcing that you and your listeners did something is way worse than telling them that you are doing something and that you are continuing to do something and that nothing you ever do will end in a victory, but we're always going to keep going.
Mike just walked into the studio and gave me some coffee.
Yes, I hadn't had my coffee today.
I'm trying to break myself of it, and I'm addicted to it.
It is a drug.
I am phasing myself off of it, but I had a big fat headache.
So Mike was coming into the studio, and I called him on the cell phone about 10 minutes ago and said, will you get me a coffee?
And Mike walked right in as I was going on the air and handed me this coffee, this drug.
Of course, it's about 20 times less strong than Ritalin that we give 15-month-old babies in this country, but it's still bad stuff, and I really shouldn't do it.
According to the FDA, it hasn't been approved for people under six, though in some extreme cases it can be prescribed to people over the age of three, but that's going to be pretty rare.
Also, it's really funny to see Alex making a big deal about how dangerous of a drug coffee is and how he needs to quit, considering his rampant alcohol abuse and an apparent problem with stimulants in recent days.
Yeah, we're going to have homosexual high schools.
Well, are we going to have heterosexual high schools, a school that's about sexual orientation?
I mean, even if you're a liberal and, you know, we're all for what the homosexuals are doing, still, you don't have a school that is about someone's sexual orientation, much less a destructive lifestyle.
I mean, folks, this is basically pedophilia being legalized, and I've got a stack of articles on it today.
And I got to say, I was looking into him, and from everything I can tell, he seems like he's just your kind of run-of-the-mill shady lawyer who was also involved in recalling a governor, and then he also had a failed Senate run.
He's the chair of the Recall Gray Davis Committee, though it should be noted that another member of that committee was notorious pollster Frank Luntz, who Alex is currently obsessed with suggesting is in a relationship with Kevin McCarthy.
Also, dipping around in Kalugian's history, I found an interesting tidbit.
In 2004, apparently he was heading a campaign to block theaters from playing Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9-11.
There's a very impassioned op-ed that I found calling out Kalugian and supporting Michael Moore.
From that article, quote, Kalugian's arm-twisting organization, Move America Forward, has called Moore's film a recruiting video for Al-Qaeda.
In other words, Moore is a terrorist.
It should be more than obvious by now what far-right-wingers like Kalugian and Ashcroft want done to those they consider terrorists, or for that matter, those who disagree with Bush.
The writer of that op-ed, Alex's longtime writer and one-time webmaster, Kurt Nimmo, writing on his own blog.
I can't think of anything better in our republic than recalling an open-border promoting, gun-grabbing, energy-speculating creature like Governor Davis.
The problem is, are we going to get a neocon like Schwarzenegger, or are we going to get some other Democrat winning?
Or will a Michael Savage throw it by running as an independent?
Tell us a little bit about yourself, the zenith of this, how you started it, what the process has been like, and where we're going, and how you see this breaking down.
unidentified
Well, quickly about me, I'm an attorney, but don't hold it against me.
It's really cute that the two of them are getting along pretty well, you know, having this fake laugh because they would absolutely fucking hate each other if they knew what the other one stood for.
Case in point, Kalugian is super in favor of the war in Iraq.
In 2005, he was so into the enduring war that he began an organization called Moving America Forward, along with Sal Russo, a political communications and strategy guy who was also a key member of the Recall Gray Davis Committee.
The new group was meant to, quote, report the good news on Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This led to an embarrassing fuck-up where Kalugian posted a picture of a quiet street and claimed that it was Baghdad, you know, trying to make the argument that the war was super effective and things were going great.
So we already touched on his opposition to free speech, vis-à-vis Michael Moore.
And also, we should say that Kalugian tried to co-opt the Tea Party by starting a bus tour called the Tea Party Express, which tried to get doomed candidates elected, and it raised a bunch of money that got funneled to organizations run by Kalugian and his longtime collaborator, Russo.
The faceman for the Tea Party Express was a radio host named Mark Williams, or at least it was until he had some controversy about a racist letter that he posted on his website.
Actually, that's not totally accurate.
He didn't end up stepping down from the Tea Party Express.
The National Tea Party Federation said that the Tea Party Express needed to fire Williams for the clearly racist letter, and they refused to, so the national organization expelled them from the formal Tea Party.
And this is the dude that Kalugian was willing to go to bat for, so that's great.
Also, in response to the proposed Ground Zero mosque, this guy, Williams, said that it would be, quote, for the worship of the terrorists' monkey god, which apparently also wasn't enough for him to get in trouble with the Tea Party Express.
Yeah.
Anyway, the point is that Kalugian loves the Iraq war, hates free speech, and was an active part of trying to grift on the Tea Party in a way that really served to worsen the parts of the community that were an embarrassment in the eyes of the larger population, which probably hurt a number of their candidates at the polls.
There are so many false equivalencies that we can make between America and Russia and all that shit right there.
But the one thing that is always true is that there are weirdo right-wing assholes who are going to be like, listen, our government is not hurting anybody.
Now, Governor Davis has had his Larik and Tista folks calling for revolution and breaking up the U.S. He's had his minions on TV basically energizing the illegal aliens to go steal this election.
Now, if that were true at all, how would it be possible for Gray Davis to be one of only four governors in the history of the United States to face a recall election?
If he had all these illegal votes rigging elections, why did he rig it so he would be one of only two governors in U.S. history to actually be recalled?
That seems like a really dumb use of power that Alex is pretending that he wields, but then just because Alex's position isn't sincere, it's just xenophobia and racism.
I can't stand how these California liberals are out here pretending that they're the only ones that matter and things that happen in smaller states don't count.
Thank God we have these upstanding right-wing patriots standing up and caring about what happens in middle of the country.
It's not like there are any coastal elites in the Republican Party.
You would have to go from what?
Beyond, like, say, one of those schools on the East Coast, like Harvard or Yale or something like that, or one of those schools on the West Coast, like Stanford or, you know, we don't have a lot of Republicans from those schools, right?
Every governor since the 60s, including Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown and George Duke Magin and Pete Wilson, every governor has had a recall effort begun against him.
Not once has it ever gotten to the point of actually making the ballot, because never before have we had a governor this bad, taking us to the brink of bank.
On a sincere note, according to the Constitution, you cannot recall people elected to federal positions.
It would be impossible for the people of Arizona to recall McCain without first getting an amendment passed that would completely overhaul election rules on a national level.
Alex has no idea what he's talking about and just throwing out whatever bullshit.
He wants to make the show interesting, even if it violates the fucking constitution.
So Daryl Issa actually didn't run in this recall election because of suspicions and accusations that were made about his early organization of the recall campaign that he's talking about.
That there were insinuations that he funded early efforts to get the recall going for himself to be able to run.
I mean, what would happen if Mr. Savage, the alias, wouldn't he pull the more conservatives to vote for him, but not win, and then you end up getting one of the liberals winning?
unidentified
I don't think so.
I'm not concerned about Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I don't think he's going to run.
And I don't know this other person that you're mentioning, Mr. Michael Savage.
And also just have a clear, like, I do enjoy it when guests clearly don't know anything about the narratives Alex is trying to build and accidentally completely deflate them.
And they get this one call that I think is fascinating.
And I would play all of it, but it's pretty long, and there's also parts of it that kind of veer around and it's circuitous.
But the beginning of this call is essentially this guy saying, like, hey, Alex, I want to bring this up to you.
I think that if you actually engaged with some of the material that's being put out by left-leaning folks and a lot of socialist organizations, they're actually complaining about a lot of the same stuff you are.
Yeah, what I'm talking about is that some of the very outrages that you're talking about have been exposed by leftist and socialist publications that I read.
They do expose it, but then they give you bad solutions.
They don't do anything about it.
unidentified
Well, what they're talking about, what I'm saying, though, is that I think it's very dangerous because these neocons have dressed up their schemes for destroying the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, plunging us into wars for empire under the name of anti-communism.
And then here's the twist that proves what Bellen and I are saying.
Ron Paul read from dozens of their own books and publications, the top neocons are Machiavellian first and foremost, and they were formed out of Trotsky's Fourth International.
Now, that's a fact.
The founders, let me finish.
The founders are Trotskyites.
So you've got real hardcore communists saying they're anti-communist, calling for big government.
And see, you can't understand that.
You can't compute that the enemies all around us, that they're big government people, whether you call them right-wing or left-wing, they want to control the entire paradigm.
Go ahead, John.
unidentified
Well, I think you're projecting people like Irving Kristol may have been on the left at one time, maybe as either plants by the CIA or opportunists who then saw that their fortunes could be traded on to become anti-communist.
But this does not mean that they're not profoundly.
And that is the point that he's making is that Irving Kristol did involve himself in some Trotskyite thought before ending up beginning the neoconservative ideology or going down that path.
And he calls this out and says, this does not characterize the entirety of this whole philosophy that you are painting in this line.
That's not defining of the neocons just because this one detail you can extrapolate out.
You know, Homeland Security is going to base one of its main capitals, kind of its new school of Americas, for the American KGB there with all the gullible neocons.
Do you ever, do you ever, like, every time you go back and you look at, like, if they, if they ever show you like a 1950s high school yearbook and you start looking through it and you're like, these people are 45.
There's no way people looked this old at this age.
Well, I mean, it's like Bobcat Goldthwaite would talk about how, like, when he first started out, he was young, and no one ever was like, look at this young man.
But what sucks is that Alex is aware of the Liberty lobby and that he's into them.
That's because neo-Nazi and white nationalist Willis Cardo started the Liberty Lobby as an effort to sway public opinion against Jews.
This is an actual quote from a letter that Cardo wrote, quote, Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe and of America.
How could we have been so blind?
The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews.
It was their propaganda, lies, and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing.
If Satan himself, with all of his superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews.
Cardo's political activism included starting the Youth for Wallace organization to support the presidential run of segregationist George Wallace.
This group eventually became the National Youth Alliance, which would end up splintering into different organizations, one of which being the National Alliance, led by William Luther Pierce, who is a straight-up neo-Nazi and the author of the Turner Diaries, which is considered more or less the essential text of the modern militia white supremacist community.
Pierce's mentor while in the National Youth Alliance, coincidentally, was the fascist founding member of the John Birch Society, Ravilo P. Oliver.
So this is all fun, but this is the intellectual tradition that Alex celebrates and he comes from.
It's a cluster fuck of white supremacists and Nazis with a group name desperate to mask their true character with the appearance of patriotism.
And it's important to remember that sometimes when there's some goofy, dumb bullshit that Alex is coming into, and when we have, in the present day, these reminders that people like Paul, his employees, harbor these same sorts of feelings and express them sometimes in moments of looseness.
I mean, it makes total sense because the people where all of their information comes from, the people who are the forefathers of them in this, I guess if you want to call it information war, they were white supremacists and Nazis.
And the average person who's been in denial, who gets this information trickled out to them by the mainstream media, has been conditioned and has never seen the big picture.
This will show them the big picture, and they'll already be aware of a lot of what's in the videos.
And so when the pieces are all put together, well, a lot of people cry, a lot start laughing insanely.
Some people go and puke.
I mean, literally, you've heard the listeners talk about this effect it has on people, especially government bureaucrats, former special forces people, folks that know the data in it is accurate, people who've been in the government, who've been given part of the brainwashing that's in the film, and then go, how did I miss it?