Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ May 9, 2022, rant blaming QAnon for "losing the country" while dodging accountability for his own role in its spread, despite admitting he co-founded it alongside Paul Joseph Watson. Jones pivots to Peter Daszak and Bill Gates as COVID-19 culprits but avoids naming names due to legal risks, then endorses a caller’s gold-for-gold scam—mirroring past Infowars financial schemes. Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s baseless claims about food plant fires as "globalist attacks" highlight performative extremism, contrasting with figures like Ron Paul, who at least maintain ideological consistency. Jones’ contradictions and Holmes/Friesen’s critiques reveal a pattern of evasion, exploitation, and conspiracy-driven chaos that fuels far-right movements without substance or accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
No, it's even more ridiculous than that, because you send them to me, and because of the way that I have the account set up, I don't have it on my phone, so then I have to email the pictures to my own email address in order to put it...
I'm still in that headspace, so when I'm listening to Alex's trivial-ass bullshit about headlines that he hasn't read the articles to, I just don't know what's going on anymore.
And I think that there is one thing that happens on this episode that's notable, and it is a protracted sort of breakdown that Alex has in the middle of the show.
We'll get to that.
But he starts off in a more contemplative mood, talking about his favorite thing.
Talk about global elites wanting to release a virus to depopulate you.
Because that's really their operating system, and everybody in Hollywood knows it, and if you want to be part of the club, you've got to go along with that idea.
So they tell you through the movies, but this isn't a 1960s movie or a 1970s movie or a 1980s movie or a movie in the 90s or the 2000s.
This is the real planet that we live on, and this is happening now.
If you're trying to make a list of these movies that prove that the globalists are trying to use films to announce to the public that they're planning to depopulate the planet, and the third entry on your list is Zardoz, I don't think that you have a good list here.
It makes it all the more important that the villain be stopped because the rippling damage that their success would cause is huge.
Conversely, the post-bioweapon dystopia is a good way to create a setting for a story where there can be less people around, like a ton less people, but the environment isn't really changed, which sometimes is easier on a budget.
A chemical in the water supply that sterilizes you.
But so they can't pinpoint one thing, they hit you with chemicals in the water that sterilize a large percentage, Injections that sterilize a large percentage, GMOs that sterilize, aluminum dioxide, aerosol spraying.
That said, this is kind of a different doomsday fantasy for Alex.
He talks about the globalists attacking reproduction sometimes, which is just kind of his version of the white nationalist talking points about declining white birth rates, but it usually doesn't end up being the end-all be-all of the globalist plans.
It's usually just like a side project that they're working on.
Also, why would the globalists make it so no one can have kids if their whole thing is abusing children?
Like, if they derive their power from hurting kids and drinking their blood so they can appease Satan, wouldn't it be self-defeating to create a Children of Men scenario?
I'd love to see how Alex would explain that glaring plot hole.
When Alex says aluminum aerosol spraying at the end there, he's saying chemtrails in a way that he wants to make it look like he's not saying chemtrails.
And the same thing's happening when you go on a trip in the summer or in the spring and you live in places that have a lot of bugs like Minnesota or Texas or Florida.
And just 25 years ago, When I would drive to our family ranch in East Texas in the spring or summer, I would have to pull over repeatedly and get a squeegee at a gas station in a three and a half hour trip and squeegee dead bugs off or they would harden like hardened egg if you leave it in the bottom of a plate.
You know how hard it is to get out.
Their guts would harden on the windshield.
Now, I can drive in the spring or summer in Texas And there might be one bug on my windshield.
So many scientists do believe that insect populations are declining, but Alex's windshield is not really the best gauge for that.
Not very scientific.
It tracks that this would be how he would prove his point, though, since everything in this show is just anecdotal and based on some fucking hunch Alex has.
The reality of the insect situation isn't so easy to sum up in a quick blurb, so suffice it to say that some species are on a decline and some aren't.
The numbers are really worrying, except for in the realm of water-based insects.
It's really hard to tell exactly what the declines are caused by, but according to an article about this in the BBC, quote, That would make sense.
An important caveat to make is that this idea of like a widespread population decline in insects isn't a consensus opinion.
Almost everyone I can find does believe that there are insect populations that are at risk, but there isn't agreement about how universal this is based on...
I think that if you're trying to express that you believe that the Bible is full of accurate predictions and this is what you've got, you're doing a really bad job.
The first thing Alex points to is world government, which doesn't exist, regardless of how many times Alex insists that it does.
The second thing is the Bible says there's going to be ten kingdoms.
Well, even if Alex is trying to claim that the UN is the world government, there's not ten regions in the UN.
There are five.
The African group, the Asia and Pacific group, the Eastern European group, the Latin America and Caribbean group, and the Western European and others group.
I guess if the Bible predicted flying ships, then I have to concede that that one was spot on.
The only Bible verses he seems to know are the ones that he can use to support gun rights, and ones that he probably read in a John Birch Society newsletter decrying the one-world communist government that Eisenhower was setting up.
Washington Post articles, Wall Street Journal articles, New York Times articles this weekend that specifically say the committee is honing in on Roger Stone and Alex Jones.
For working with Trump and directing people to attack the Capitol.
100% BS.
A, we don't have a motive.
It made us look like fools.
B, there's no evidence of it because it's not true.
And C, I wasn't talking to President Trump for over a year before that ever happened, and Roger Stone was not involved in any of the planning.
Of even our legal lawful events on the 5th or the 6th.
Yeah, so Alex seems a little bit defensive about just the idea, because this, I think, is what's inspiring this conversation on his show, is that there is this news of the Oathkeeper gentleman who pled guilty.
Sure.
In the statement of his offense, it doesn't...
So, getting back to where we are, there's all these headlines everywhere.
So wait, Alex said that he hasn't spoken to Trump in over a year at this point, so how would he know if there was or wasn't communication between any of the Oathkeeper folks and people in Trump's orbit?
Like, he wouldn't have any idea about that, so this blanket denial isn't persuasive.
I don't know anything about this, but Alex feels hyper-defensive about the idea of Oathkeeper Communications.
We know that Stewart tried to get in touch with Trump through an intermediary who refused to put him in contact, and there's a very, very slim chance that that could be Alex.
I think that there's a very, very, very tiny chance.
I would not bet on it.
I don't think that that's the case.
I think that Alex is more defensive because if there is sort of a straighter line between Trump and the Oath Keepers, this whole thing looks real bad.
It could just be that Alex recognizes that this is damning stuff and that a guy who's been a guest on his show for over a decade was trying to contact the president to have him authorize his paramilitary group to overthrow the government by force.
And then Alex had that guy on his show repeatedly.
Right, right, right.
Whatever the reality is here, or what the full shape of it is, there's a nerve.
Yeah, well, I mean, we do know, however, that it was a honeypot provocateur who got them to do all of that stuff that they wanted to do and were going to do when they got there, regardless of whether or not there was a honeypot provocateur.
So, Alex goes to commercial, and he comes back from break, and typically the Greg Reese and John Bowne reports play in that first segment of an hour where it's not broadcast.
The letter from Albert Pike regarding the Illuminati plan for three world wars is largely considered a hoax due to the use of the word Nazism in a letter dated 1871.
They will then use nihilists, atheists, and revolutionaries to create a cataclysm of social turmoil.
And they will do this in order to force the people into exterminating the destroyers of civilization.
According to this letter, this bloodbath would result in the destruction of both Christianity and atheism, and lead to the pure doctrine of Lucifer as the new world religion.
So, the fake letter that Reese is covering is widely understood to be the creation of a guy named William Guy Carr, since the earliest form of the letter can be found in his 1958 book, Pawns in the Game.
Carr was a really influential figure in terms of pushing out some early New World Order conspiracy theories, but of course, he also is a big old anti-Semite.
He quoted heavily from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his books, and his book was distributed by Noontide Press, an anti-Semitic publisher that was founded by Willis Cardo, the founder of the Liberty Lobby.
The press was meant to be the publishing outlet for Cardo's other group, the Institute for Historical Review, which is considered one of the largest disseminators of Holocaust denial content in the world.
Perhaps not surprisingly, in 2009, a former Noontide Press employee, James Von Brunn, carried out a shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I point this out because it's important to understand that the fake letter that Reese is talking about isn't just a fake letter.
It's a fake letter being written by an anti-Semite to push an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
So whether he realizes it or not, what Reese is doing is taking an anti-Semitic hoax, which uses earlier anti-Semitic hoaxes as citations, and using it to suggest to his audience that...
While it's demonstrably not a real letter that Albert Pike wrote, maybe there's an underlying truth to it.
We know he's compromising blackmailing, basically a deep standard Democrat, posing as a Republican.
We know that since February of last year it's come out, he sat on the Supreme Court ruling, using the power of a Chief Justice to block the court from ruling.
They began to get very upset about it in the last year.
And so now it's been leaked.
To not make Americans come together against the mask mandates, the forced injections, the open borders, and the inflation, and the wars, and the pedophilia, and all the rest of it.
But to make everybody fight going into the election about abortion.
I mean, my theory on why it was John Roberts is because none of the other justices, if it is a justice and not like a clerk, which it's more likely to be a clerk or something along those lines, but if it is a justice, John Roberts is the only one who would do it.
So, the other liberal justices who signed on to the opinion have known what's going on for a long time.
Why would they suddenly choose this point in time to do it, right?
The conservative justices have been masturbating furiously since they got to sign that, right?
Nonstop.
Blood everywhere.
You know, that kind of thing.
But John Roberts is, if you look at his career, obsessed with the court itself and trying to make sure that it maintains this air of being a legitimate...
Even by your own reasoning, that kind of would be an argument why Roberts didn't do it, because he's such a fan of the institution of the court that he wouldn't leak a document.
Speaking of Marjorie Taylor Greene, it was called a big win Friday afternoon when the judge said, after putting her through the ringer, that the Democrat Party lawsuit trying to block her from being able to run for office was unconstitutional.
It was just decided that the people prosecuting the case didn't provide sufficient evidence.
Big picture, though, she lied a whole bunch in that hearing.
And also, she won her last election by a wide margin because it's a district that swings heavily Republican and because her opponent had dropped out of the race.
You can run for any federal office, even if you're a felon.
And as Fact Check even points out, quote, In 1798, Representative Matthew Lyon ran for Congress from prison and won.
He assumed his seat in Congress after serving four months in prison.
It's different for state-level offices depending on the state, but that doesn't have to do with the Constitution, and Alex is talking about members of the U.S. Congress, so it's all federal-level shit.
He just doesn't know anything about this document that he pretends to love so much and he's willing to die for.
As it relates to the case against Gosar, this was a judge from Phoenix who dismissed the suit that was seeking to bar him, Andy Biggs, and Mark Fincham from being on the ballot because they participated in an insurrection.
The judge interpreted the rule that's included in the 14th Amendment to require a conviction for participation to bar someone from running, so that case was thrown out.
Different states make different decisions, so this with Marjorie Taylor Greene, that was how a judge in Georgia decided to proceed.
There's nothing unconstitutional about it, but it did ultimately reach a similar conclusion.
And Alex should be thrilled with this, since it illustrates the ways that states are able to determine their own policies for themselves and operate outside the control of the federal Sure, sure.
So, yeah, one thing that I think is fascinating about this clip is that it...
Clearly shows that...
Alex always talks about how he doesn't screen calls, but he knows this guy's call before he even talks to him.
So obviously, whatever the call screening process is, Alex sees the question that the person's going to ask before they come on, and so that kind of invalidates his entire thing.
Q is such a horrible thing that I hate to even talk about it.
All right?
Q is anonymous.
So it's when people would call in and ask me, who is the anonymous hacking group?
It's any group wants to call themselves anonymous.
It's the same thing with Q. It's called esoterica or occult.
Occult means hidden.
When you see the movie Eyes Wide Shut, based on real things that went on, when they go to the satanic orgy where the woman's killed, you don't know who anyone is.
They want to feel like they're part of something magic and secretly getting orders from President Trump and that everything was fine and everybody was going to get arrested and Trump was going to end up being emperor and everything was fine and it was all delusion to make people think everything was okay so the Democrats could steal the election and yes, I do know what happened with Q. I do know who started it.
I do know what happened with it, but no one wants the truth, so I won't tell you.
I find it offensive for Alex to take a direct question, what is A, and then him be like, look, I know what A is, but no one wants to know, so how about I don't say?
Here's what happened with Q. I'm excited to hear what happened with Q, but I don't know how much more clear Alex can make it to the audience that he doesn't have any specific information.
He's just only interested in speaking in vague platitudes that can't be proven or disproven.
In the span of this call, he's given multiple excuses for why he can't say the names of who is Q because he doesn't have a name to give and if he gives a name, he'd be stuck with that being his story.
Specificity is the enemy of conspiracists and Alex knows that Yeah.
it he can trick most of the audience into thinking that he's telling the truth and there's some compelling reason that he's not saying uh anything sure it's honestly a very similar dynamic to what he's complaining about with q he's saying that people love the mystery of it and the unknown Alex is just exploiting the exact same thing in his listeners.
His shit's only intriguing until he gives a name, and then it's boring as hell, because who cares?
Until he says that name, you can trick yourself into thinking that he's got deep levels of intel, and he's holding back for some serious consideration, but much like you, it's all bullshit.
It's all just a what-if game.
And I think that Alex is a bit of a pro here, because...
He starts trying to explain what Q is, and I think he realizes that there's not really anywhere to go with this, so I'm going to have to do something different in order to change the conversation.
Right, but if it's a moron that you've been tricked into looking up to...
So Alex has done what he can to not be held to his word from back when he said that he was going to expose Q by name if they didn't publicly reveal themselves, and it's honestly been a little bit underwhelming.
Alex decided to launch into a big thing about his interpretation of Q stuff, and the caller said something, which is perfect for him.
Now Alex can lash out and emotionally abuse this caller instead of having to say anything of substance.
Before the caller said anything, Alex had only said that he'd been successful in getting sex trafficking information out and that WikiLeaks had released information about the 2016 election.
There wasn't anything, like, there was a revealing specific in there that this caller had failed to grasp, and the caller was asked a question, and Alex didn't say, did you hear me?
Alex feels kind of called out about how he said he was going to name Q, and he knows that he can't do that, so he's got to spin some plates.
And it's just horrible that one of the plates he's deciding to go with is making this caller feel like Alex isn't able to make his points because of him.
I feel like all this makes it all the more important for Alex to name names so the world can know who it is that's using this New World Order PSYOP to hurt people and mislead so many folks.
I would dare say that if revealing who this person or group is would lead to some people being freed from the delusions that are involved in the Q bullshit, Alex has a moral obligation to name names.
He's not going to, though, because he doesn't have any names.
I can give you the emails and the documents, and I've shut them on air probably 50 times, where Peter Daszak and Bill Gates and the rest of these criminals are openly creating COVID-19 and talking about releasing it, and no one cares, and no one listens, and no one knows about it.
But if it's some magic made-up Huff the Magic Dragon Q thing, everybody knows about it and wants to talk about the binusha all day.
So I'm going to start over, don't hang up at him when we come back.
There's something about this that Alex really wants to distract from, and I think it's just that he doesn't know shit and he can't name someone without risking another possible defamation lawsuit.
Alex probably knows that if he names someone as Q, they're probably going to get a certain amount of harassment because of it, possibly even escalating to violence.
Because he's presenting this as not a guess, but as a known fact, he'd probably bear a little bit more responsibility if this happened, so he knows that that is not a path he can go down.
If you want to believe some nebulous thing, knock yourselves out.
Some nebulous thing that led the country into destruction and that lied to you at every turn.
And I'm not talking to Adam, who I'll go back to in a moment.
I'm talking to the nice people.
A lot of good people.
Like MTG and General Flynn and myself to a certain extent knew what was going on with the cute thing and knew that there was a tug of war going on over this anonymous thing.
And so, well, let's just try to co-opt it away from the bad guys that are using it and use it for good.
And I told Flynn he ought to just come out and say he's Q so he could shut up all the disinfo people and actually make Q good and it would be real if Flynn let it.
And I'm not going to get into our off-the-record discussions, but...
I am Q. Yeah, there's really no way to reveal yourself as Q without simultaneously kind of sounding like you're revealing yourself as the next messiah.
You know, like, I am Q. Also, reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
And, you know, it really does explain why all of our history is so fucking stupid is because the people who won in wars and shit for so long were exactly like Alex, just recontextualizing everything.
I do think, I mean, obviously, I know from listening to him and hearing him say various things over the years, he tried to co-opt Q, but the reason for that was a financial motivation and, like, trying to get this into his revenue stream.
And then a lot of patriots, some in the Trump administration and some in U.S. intelligence, saw that Infowars got major heat.
for exposing the pedophile rings and Jeffrey Epstein and they said let's do it anonymously and put out intel from our people inside the White House when Trump first got elected and let's really energize the grassroots and have like a secret propaganda arm that tells the truth but releases stuff too hot to handle to the public.
And that was a consortium of people in the White House.
They tried to do what InfoWars does, but not putting their name on it.
Within a month, it got taken away on the 8chan and the 4chan boards.
So there's a couple problems with this retelling of the story.
The first is that Q was never taken away by 4chan or 8chan.
It started on and exclusively posted on 4chan before migrating to 8chan.
Everything that Q was happened beginning with cryptic posts made there, which were then interpreted and discussed in other online forums.
Basically what's going on here is that Alex wants his cake and to eat it too.
He wants to keep the general vibe of QAnon because it largely matches his conspiracy worldview, and to attack that too harshly would have blowback on his own dumb ideas.
At the same time, he doesn't want to have to take responsibility for an answer to the fact that Q has consistently been wrong about stuff, and the theories that grow out of that cesspool are embarrassing and dangerous, and often anti-Semitic in nature.
That said, I do agree with Alex that Q was inspired at least in part by him.
The whole counter-coup narrative that he and Steve riffed about through most of the lead-up to the 2016 election is really close as a match to a lot of Q's early mythology.
It definitely wouldn't be surprising to learn that a lot of that stuff was in some way inspired by Alex's collaborative storytelling.
Also, if what Alex is saying is true, then Trump and his administration should be investigated and possibly charged for what they did.
They weren't just putting out the truth that was too hot to handle.
If anonymous shitposting on 4chan was a propaganda effort from the federal government, I don't think that's appropriate.
So Alex is now, I guess he feels that he has successfully rambled enough and given enough of a presentation that he can change what the caller actually asked.
The caller asked, you said you were going to name names.
Did you name names?
What are the names?
And now Alex has wandered around so much that the question is now, who and what is QAnon, as opposed to what are the names?
So he did not get an answer to his question, the question that was asked.
Yeah.
Berated him and emotionally abused him and then rambled enough, apologized in the middle of it to smooth over the wounds, and managed to make this guy feel like he got something out of the exchange as opposed to Alex just said nothing for half an hour.
So, like, I feel like, I don't know, people who are like, hey, you know, Alex is right about a lot of stuff.
I feel like this is a snapshot that maybe they should really ask themselves some questions about.
This entire presentation of him with the caller who asks about QAnon, the way it's handled, the way it progresses, and the fact that it leads to this guy having a prayer on air where he thanks God for Alex's bravery.
Just a bot that every time it said Alex, anytime it detected like Alex was right, it would immediately follow up with a response of just these clips and be like, how do you feel about that?
Well, I think that some people who are maybe more in the, like, sort of zealotry angle side of things, they may be fine with it.
But there are some people who have brands that they probably want to maintain, like Rogan or some of these other folks who will have him on their podcasts, that this would be really embarrassing and really tough to answer for.
Somebody sends us an ounce of gold, they're going to get a handwritten note.
Because that's what we need is things that have a big profit in them to fight.
I haven't announced this yet.
But we now officially know, and it's going to come out soon, it is George Soros behind the lawsuits behind us, and he's basically getting ready to officially announce he's trying to take me down.
Yeah, I think also one of the problems that you run into is that the behavior would be indistinguishable, because coming on Infowars a bunch could be trying to get the vote out, get your name out there, or it could be trying to lay track for a career after you lose your primary or your election.
So I don't know.
I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions, but man, it is bad news.
The combination of her and him.
Like, she posted that ultra-maga thing with the red eyes thing, signaling to, like, this dark-maga side.
You know, like, if you go back and look at Congresses through history and start really looking at individual members, I would be shocked to find a single...
Congress that does not have at least one truly insane person in there.
It's that there were also the president and the rest of Congress on her team, too.
I think this next clip actually will lay out a little bit of why.
Because, like, there is that inhabiting of a false reality somewhat.
But there is also, like, I think that this clip illustrates that there are some indications that she also is very clearly aware of the fact that there is another real reality.
You were getting into something, MTG, really central here, and that is these giant distribution centers and food factories and processing facilities blowing up and burning up every day.
Statistically impossible.
You've got a lot of connections, a lot of intel.
We look at the pipelines being shut down, the dollar being devalued, the Cloward and Pimmons.
That's what this is.
I mean, there's so many signs of it everywhere.
What do you think is really going on, and what are you hearing?
Well, yeah, there are these fires that have happened.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene even knows that these sorts of fires at these facilities isn't something that's uncommon.
Totally.
She knows the actual explanation for the things that are happening, but she also knows...
That she only gets information from outlets that are full of shit, like InfoWars.
For outlets like InfoWars and Tucker, these fires are useful only insofar as they are happening at food plants, which is why Marjorie Taylor Greene may think that they're all happening at food plants.
The conspiracy is about the globalists attacking the food supply, so that's the angle that full of shit outlets take on the story, and thus, it seems like the perception that Marjorie Taylor Greene is mirroring.
Just yesterday, there was a fire at a textile plant in South Carolina, But that's not leading the coverage because it doesn't fit the conspiracy.
Yesterday, there was also a fire at the Gelled Wen plant in Wysocks, Pennsylvania, but this isn't part of the conspiracy because it's a company that makes interior doors.
There's an explanation for the phenomena that Green is discussing, and she knows that explanation as proven by her saying the explanation out loud.
She knows the reality, but the conspiracy is more useful, so she leans into that ignoring reality in favor of her constraints.
world.
There's certainly other reasons, but this kind of tendency disqualifies her, I think, for being someone who should hold public office.
If someone is willing to knowingly use conspiracy bullshit to persuade you towards a conclusion, you can't trust that they're being straight up about anything.
Whereas there's elements of what Marjorie Taylor Greene represents that is still kind of like this not fully formed yet present and what could be in the future.
It's certainly something that I'm paying attention to.
My team is starting to ask questions on, and I don't think it, you know, I don't want to speculate, but there's too many food processing plants this is happening at, and it's too frequent of an occurrence.
And no one in charge seems to care.
We don't see the FBI or the Department of Justice, we don't see people holding.
Press conferences saying what is going on.
You know, we've got mothers at grocery stores crying because they can't find baby formula, which is just horrendous and heartbreaking.
But I think we have a real crisis on our hands, and I think it's something that people need to pay serious attention to and demand investigations happen.
Well, the absence of the press conference that would ultimately lead to regulations is a great optical thing, because then you can say that there's a cover-up of what is obviously agri-terrorism or whatever.