Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ Louder with Crowder appearance, where he deflects blame for defaulting in a $61M Sandy Hook defamation trial—claiming 200K emails and financial records were submitted while ignoring subpoenas. Jones pivots to threats from Texas officials, media "globalist" conspiracies, and his $10M divorce settlement, framing it as divine justice. Crowder’s interview normalizes Jones’ evasions, from homophobic trolling to baseless appeals, while the hosts expose their shared pattern of exploiting audiences for profit. The segment reveals how conservative media launders extremism under flimsy legal and moral pretenses. [Automatically generated summary]
And so today, what I thought would be fun, or something that would be nice, is to take a little bit of a trip off the beaten path.
Good call.
And instead of doing some of the things that we tend to do, like Wacky Wednesday stuff or going to the past, I thought what we would do is talk about Alex Jones appearing as a guest on Steven Crowder's show.
One of the reasons I've avoided doing too much about Crowder up till this point is that he has a lot of his content behind paywalls.
For instance, the last time Alex was on for his weird performatively masculine cigar club session, the first part of it was public, but then the rest of it that you'd actually want to watch is not.
We may be coming to a point where I stop over-respecting these ding-dongs' intellectual property, but I don't think I'm quite there yet.
Steven Crowder is repugnant.
He's a horrible person, and his career has been a shameful series of horrible embarrassments that he's been able to parlay into having a very successful YouTube talk show that appeals to kids with sophomoric racist jokes and sophomoric anti-LGBTQ jokes.
I don't want to do too deep a dive on his trajectory, but here's a summation of his career path.
He tried to be a stand-up comedian, but he sucked at it.
So he went to a right-wing agitator Grift, catching the attention of Fox News when he got punched in the face by a union protester who he was harassing.
This rose his stature and he began making his own content, most notably a segment called Change My Mind, where he would show up at a college campus and sit at a table waiting for college students on their way to class to join him for a spirited debate.
The college student was, of course, unprepared and probably late for class, and Steve could edit the videos however he wanted.
So the series was a big hit.
It kind of falls into the same vein as Mark Dice's Man on the Street segments, where he bothers drunk people on the boardwalk and then tries to make a political point out of it.
As his profile has grown, Steven has made a habit out of being a pile of shit, doing half-cooked segments based on deeply racist and anti-LGBTQ talking points that are easily debunkable and not persuasive at all.
Well, they're not persuasive at all to adults, I should say.
They all might be very convincing to a child who are naturally his target audience.
In essence, his show is about taking extreme right-wing views and dangerous right-wing ideologues and laundering them so they can be enjoyed and accepted by high schoolers.
Basically, I think he's one of the worst folks in this space, but also, I don't know what our show can really add to that conversation.
If YouTube cared at all about the safety of the children and teens who use the platform, he would have been kicked off long ago.
And that's really, I think, probably the solution here if they want to do something about it.
He can't really do that much damage if he's just limited to being on Glenn Beck's Blaze Network.
And here, kids, first I'm going to transfer into Popstar, and then we're going to find out exactly how the great replacement theory really works, kids, with this happy song.
Hey, if I sound winded, it's because I've been running around here.
We've been testing, making sure that everything works.
We have, look, Alex Jones on the show today.
And I would appreciate it.
Look, I know that many of you have different opinions.
Let me just give you a little bit of a rundown here.
I was not an Alex Jones fan for a very long time.
I made it known.
I had criticized him here on this show, and I still have criticisms of him.
But we're at a point right now, and we'll be talking about this today.
We'll be showing you a montage of the end zone dance from not only the elites in Hollywood, not only the elites in media, but the elites in government, government officials, actually championing this silencing.
Real quick, this is like a clip of Jimmy Kimmel making a joke, and the government officials are Jen Saki tweeted something.
She's not even the press secretary anymore, and Alex made a big target out of her for a while.
I would not be surprised if she received quite a bit of her ass mint due to Alex's actions that probably wouldn't be legally actionable since she's a public figure and all of that.
I think that it would be far more meaningful for him to express what his misgivings are and what his criticisms are of Alex to the audience in a neutral environment where they could take those criticisms in and then decide, like, huh, is that something I'm actually really concerned about too?
Well, one of my criticisms, maybe it's he lies all the time.
If one of your criticisms prior to an interview is my interview subject is an inveterate and almost pathological liar, perhaps you will take those answers that he gives in the interview with a different grain of salt as opposed to if you didn't tell them that at all.
You know, when you have someone like Alex Jones, who if you've watched his career, and I do consider him a friend now, I will say this on a personal level.
He's been around, from what I know of him, he's a good man, a flawed man.
He's talked about it here on air.
To me, it's refreshing when he's on air.
He was on Air and Ash Wednesday and said, you know, maybe I drank a little too much and, you know, I have it.
He'll tell you about his flaws.
But for a man who speaks publicly for hours, hours on end, and then misspeaks or gets something wrong and then apologizes and then is punished anyway.
And then the government jumps in.
People, well, I guess former press secretary, but current members of the government and entities who are backed by the government, be it banks, be it big tech organizations, deciding to put you in stocks in the town square.
He says, quote, I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made across the board, which tells me very clearly that he understands that actions Alex and his lawyers made during the discovery process led to the default.
Stephen's just trying to hand wave that away and encourage this adolescent audience from giving any validity to people who would tell them that the default was very much earned.
He's basically doing PR work for Alex here.
And it's ridiculous.
If you have the awareness that mistakes were made on both sides, hey, let's talk about what those mistakes were that Alex made.
Because it's going to be a mountain of them.
It's going to be enough to very clearly justify a default judgment.
I mean, it is, you know, we talked about it with Liz just a little bit, but that idea of like when Alex is in the courtroom not allowed to do Alex shit, people aren't convinced by Alex shit, you know?
Like, it's because of the priming, you know, like Crowder is priming people.
You are at a point in this country where you are paying taxes to fund the theft of food from the mouths of your kids, all under the guise of, ah, First Amendment only protects the government stopping you from saying something.
That's all it does.
It prevents the government from stopping you.
Okay.
By that same token, shouldn't J.P. Morgan, shouldn't JP Chase, whatever their abbreviation is, these things are all these giant conglomerates.
If they're backed by our tax dollars, they're guaranteed if they've received hundreds of billions of dollars.
And if you adjust for inflation the last few months, hundreds of trazillion dollars in taxpayer dollars, are they allowed to deny you your fundamental constitutional rights?
What point do we separate private business from government?
I think that if you take this thought a little bit further, you also start to understand how dumb his version of it is, which is like, I guess it's that if they take tax dollars, then they're bound by those rules.
What about people who are on Social Security?
Do they have to follow all the government's guidelines?
I think what we're seeing is what happens to people when they're allowed to speak by themselves with no disagreement and they aren't capable of disagreeing with themselves.
Do you know what I mean?
Like, when I have a thought that's that dumb, another part of my brain will be like, don't say that out loud.
And then I'll be like, why shouldn't I say that out loud?
And it'll have a really good point, and I'll be like, good call.
And then Baltimore, December 3rd, because we couldn't find a venue in D.C. Sorry, you have to go to the show that is Baltimore, but hey, at least it's not Haiti.
It is interesting the way he both tries to acknowledge that he's not going to win the steamroll competition and at the same time try and establish dominance on his own show by saying, I'm going to let you steamroll me, Alex.
And so I want to lead this right now because I think this is pivotal.
And we've done several multi-hour long shows, but for some reason this gets lost.
And I want you to correct me if I have this wrong.
So in 2017, as an example, because the narrative is Sandy Hook, you tormented the parents.
You call them out by name and you continually harass them.
From what I understand, and I have some quotes here in front of me, and I want you to tell me if I'm misquoting you.
You admitted you were wrong and you apologized.
And I think that's key because I still want to go after you anyway.
So 2017, you talked about an epiphany you had on Father's Day.
You said, forgive me, on Father's Day, I want to reach out to the parents of the slain children at the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, and give you my sincere condolences.
Okay, you also said, I'd also like to reach out to any of the parents who lost a child at Newtown to invite them to contact me to open a dialogue because I think it's really essential we do that instead of letting the mainstream media misrepresent things and really try and drive this nation apart.
And then in 2019 and in deposition, you said, and I myself have almost like a form of psychosis in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I've now learned a lot of times things aren't staged.
And I'm not saying this to embarrass you, Alex.
I'm saying it because you were clear and that you had a change of heart or you believed that you were wrong or you believed you made a mistake, which I think is admirable.
And I think the fact that they want to browbeat you after that is what is so scary.
Stephen sure does seem to be ignoring the fact that in Alex's video that was titled his final statement on Sandy Hook, he literally said, quote, if children were lost in Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one of those parents and the people who say they're parents that I see on the news.
The only problem is I've seen a lot of soap operas and I've seen actors before and I know when I'm watching a movie and when I'm watching something real.
That was in late 2016.
Alex only said the things that Stephen's reading because of the Megan Kelly interview that was about to come out.
Alex knew it was going to come out around Father's Day and Neil Hesslin was going to be interviewed in it, so he was trying to get ahead of any controversy.
He was also still repeating the basic conspiracy theories about the shooting at this point, just holding back some things that he thought could be legally actionable.
Steven's also ignoring that after this point, Owen Schroer did his video about how Neil Hesslin couldn't have held his son after the shooting, and Alex reported on that, which in many ways really does undo any goodwill that he might want to pretend he has from his feigned apology.
Steven's also ignoring that in October 2017, Alex said, quote, it's as phony as a $3 bill with CNN doing fake newscasts and blue screens.
Steven's also ignoring that Alex has said that he thinks Sandy Hook probably was fake at least twice on air while the trials have been ongoing, including once in the last two weeks.
This is all good and fun to create these straw man versions of what Alex actually did and the reason he's facing consequences, but it's not real.
Stephen knows it's not real, but Alex's existence is pretty helpful for his brand, so we pretend this.
And, you know, the people who are watching Stephen's show probably don't have any interest in debunking this nonsense that he's feeding them.
Yeah, if you're going to bring up the deposition and you're going to quote Alex from the deposition, that deposition convinces me that Alex is guilty of all the things.
He's quoting like an article about it probably because that psychosis thing was something that a lot of media outlets used as a like pullout for the deposition.
He's not actually aware of anything that was discussed in the deposition.
Right, because again, I think I could never prove this, but I think that there's a vested interest in being willfully ignorant among a lot of people like Stephen.
If he had to cope with, or cope's the wrong word, if he had to accept publicly that he was aware of the depositions and the things that were in it, he would then be responsible for rationalizing and justifying those things.
No, it is fascinating because these fucking pieces of shit who are trying to avoid defending Alex or avoid, you know, wading into having to defend Alex's actual behavior.
If they were on the jury, they'd be like, yeah, this guy's got to fucking go.
You know, like without the ability to avoid acknowledging what is actually happening, without the ability to deny it, when you are forced to look it directly into the eye every day for five fucking weeks.
There is no deniability from Barnes whatsoever because honestly, Barnes was probably looking at that billion-dollar judgment and going, man, I wish I had been a competent enough lawyer for them to hire me so I could have sued Alex Jones for a fucking billion dollars.
Or even, I wish that I could be a competent enough lawyer to have stayed Alex's lawyer to the point where I lose a billion-dollar verdict because then I could get so much attention.
I can give you the latest information where they're going with it.
This affects everybody.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, Sandy Hook happens.
It's a huge political event.
Obama has him in the White House.
It's going on.
I think maybe somebody helped the kid kill these kids.
The whole story is bizarre.
And then about a year after it, all these professors and people that sound incredible come out, and school safety experts and say that they thought it was just completely staged.
When he was pretending to be a reporter on the scene in the DMZ, Alex's timeline is all screwed up because he's just conveying his well-rehearsed self-defense version of events.
Steven is a shitty interviewer and he has no interest in calling Alex out.
So this timeline will stand and be presented to his giant, impressionable audience as gospel.
And it's just not true.
If he had any interest in pursuing the truth, he would have familiarized himself with these things and pointed out the many points at which Alex's story diverges from reality.
I mean, I just don't understand it because they're, I mean, it's just a bad idea.
I feel like the right move here, if you're a piece of shit like Crowder or one of these other guys, is to fucking stab Alex in the back and then carve up his audience.
Like, I don't understand why you're even trying this bullshit.
If Crowder were smart, what he would maybe try to do is insinuate himself even more with Alex and get involved with like the infrastructure part of banned.video and that kind of thing and try and use it as a like a reinforcing misinformation sort of YouTube.
Because as it stands now, there is a shallow depth of anything interesting on there.
There's Infowar stuff and there's a load of bullshit.
Steven is like, I don't think it's in his best interest necessarily to be hooked with Glenn Beck with the Blaze stuff, but maybe there's some good money there.
But in terms of if you want some of Alex's audience and that stuff and he wants to create more of a space, that would be the thing you'd do.
We started seeing that some of the folks that were claiming it was staged had gone even crazier and were now dysregulating and showing that, indeed, they had put out things that were wrong.
So I was not the Sandy Hook guy.
It didn't put me on the map.
I barely ever covered it.
But Hillary blows it up, makes it a cause celeb for Democrats.
They use it to bring back all the gun control and now attacks on free speech and to attack Trump.
So if this is all an elaborate plot Hillary launched to attack Trump and then Trump won, it seems like it really wouldn't do anything to continue attacking Alex.
The goal would have been to use Alex's toxicity to sway the electorate away from Trump.
And once Trump has won, that's about it in terms of voters.
It just doesn't make sense unless you're just desperate to defend yourself using bullshit fantasy world nonsense.
In my opinion, something really stinks about this entire situation.
I don't, I can't even really think of a mass shooting, quote unquote, or a high-profile shooting like this that didn't seem like there was something more going on.
So as long as Alex is there, a lot of people will think there's a bigger issue than Steven Crowder, you know, in the same way that you hear people, even Tucker, say, like, my great replacement theory isn't crazy.
These people are constantly screaming about how some people should die because they changed their pronouns, and yet somehow they're going to try and pretend that pronouns cannot refer to people.
Well, I do have a question that's important here because people will say, well, the reason you weren't allowed to defend yourself is it was a default judgment.
And they say, because you didn't provide the evidence, right, that was requested in Discovery.
Give me very specifics, not just all.
You did provide and hand over a lot of evidence.
What did you hand over?
because they did have financials.
They did have, certainly in the Texas trial, they did have access to financials.
They did have access to certain traffic metrics.
When I was watching the trial, they would say, well, actually, they didn't hand over, for example, the Alexa reportings as opposed to the Google Analytics reportings.
What kind of evidence when you were asked to hand over?
Just give me some examples of what you did hand over.
Did you hand over financial documents as it related to the company?
All right, let me answer that question, and I want to get into people saying, oh, this is just for Alex Jones.
In Texas, they claimed that because we did so much discovery, and they would have each person that they were deposing give them more discovery.
So they'd say, oh, out of the 200,000 emails you gave us in Texas, in one of the discovery batches you gave us, there was one extra email that wasn't in this batch.
Little weird gotcha games.
And then in Connecticut, the judge kept saying, give me the Google Analytics.
Well, we hardly ever even use Google Analytics, hardly ever even looked at it.
So we explained to the judge, ma'am, it's a search box for the back end of Google, and a lot of it you have to pay for.
We've never paid for it.
We've barely ever used it, but we searched for Google Analytics and found one writer and one other person in the group that had looked at Google Analytics and said, oh, look how much traffic we're getting a few times.
So we gave them what we had in our system about Google Analytics.
Take Alexa, same thing.
They said, give us the Alexa.
Well, Stephen, I want you to give me the Google.
And then I say, and then you say, okay, what do you want me to search in Google?
Also, some of those instances of Google Analytics were like, look how much traffic we're getting from this Sandy Hook article.
So maybe Alex shouldn't use that as an example.
If Steven really wanted to be prepared to ask this question and respond appropriately to Alex's answer, he should have read the order for the default judgment.
It spells everything out.
There were requests for production that Alex never even responded to.
There were requests to produce people for depositions that were ignored.
Alex repeatedly sent completely unprepared people to depositions as corporate representatives.
That's just the surface.
Alex did turn over big batches of documents, but he had a habit of doing that just before hearings about his failure to turn over documents so he could avoid consequences while overwhelming the plaintiffs with tons of unrelated shit.
Even these tranches weren't satisfactory to what he was obligated to turn over, though, and it didn't really help him.
In the judgment, they even discuss how they tried to resolve the problem through fines and sanctions, but it was clear that it had no effect on Alex's abuse of the discovery process.
He has too much money to be impacted by whatever fines the court could impose, so it was a dead end.
Stephen doesn't care about the reality here or the truth.
He's just asking questions to allow Alex to give his boilerplate rehearsed answer and make it look like Stephen was asking tough questions.
This is a charade that is meant to exonerate Alex in the eyes of Stephen's audience.
They want to scare everybody else and get a bunch of other lawyers to file lawsuits to come after all the conservatives and all the nationalists and all the patriots.
And I really appreciate you letting me get that out there because it's so frustrating to me kind of only have my show that has a big audience, but it's compartmentalized because of censorship.
You and I have had conversations, obviously off-air, where, you know, I would say, I wouldn't say call you the net, but I've said, I don't agree with this.
I don't like that.
Remember, I told you, I remember early on the show saying, I don't like that you sometimes stir up infighting with conservatives.
I remember you saying, you know what?
I used to do that more, and I've decided the left is a more important enemy.
We've had very strong disagreements.
I felt compelled to have you on because some of the biggest figures in our movement, who, by the way, agreed with all of some of your quote-unquote conspiracy theories that I thought were incorrect, they didn't have you on.
Let me translate what Stephen's saying there about the infighting among conservatives.
Alex, I work for Glenn Beck.
Stop being mean to Glenn Beck.
Also, Stephen, you have to understand, a lot of those other conservative outlets are really busy running damage control for Tucker's Kanye West interview at the moment.
A lot of them just don't have the juice to throw Alex into the mix and try and deal with that.
I am way more scared about the direction the country's going in if they admit this is a formula for everybody.
I mean, while the right wing laughs, some of them and says, oh, it's just Alex Jones, they're on every channel saying we're coming after everybody now with this model.
And they've even got the Republican Secretary of State in Texas saying we want to come after Republicans that question election fraud.
Give me a break.
So you have the Rhinos, the Neocons, the rabid left allied together against the populist uprising of nationalist Americans who are peacefully trying to take our country back.
So I'm way more concerned about nuclear war.
I'm way more concerned about financial collapse.
I mean, here's a good point, Stephen.
Quite frankly, the way inflation's going, the way it accelerates towards Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe, in 10 years, there's such inflation, a billion dollars will be like $1,000.
I mean, at the current rate we're at here, so no, I'm not scared.
I am disgusted.
And I really feel proud of myself because I've told the truth about this.
I've said when I was wrong, they have created this whole synthetic identity for me, the straw man.
And then they sat there and had to lie to a jury and suppress the truth and tell them I was guilty and rigged this kangaroo court so I myself can hold my head tall.
But I am in general very concerned for my children, for the country in the future, because of the rabid acceleration into total and complete corruption.
I mean, if I've read everything correctly, I feel like there's a difference between like radical, out-of-control inflation and all of these businesses being like, ooh, they're talking about inflation.
So one of the co-hosts asks Alex a very important question, and that is, what's up with the appeal?
How is that going to work?
Right.
And you'll notice over the course of the maybe next three clips that Alex can't answer specifics.
unidentified
Yeah, so you said earlier that this is going to be overturned.
Why do you think that it will be overturned?
Not that you just have kind of this faith in that that's going to happen, but what are you guys arguing if you can reveal that to us on how it's going to be overturned?
I have talked to dozens of very well-known constitutional lawyers.
I can tell you, Norm Patton.
Don't be a very well-known, successful lawyer around the country, keeping current and former judges in Connecticut and in New York, federal and state, that say this is the most insane craziness they've ever seen.
Oh, either America's gone and completely done, or in Texas and in Connecticut, if I have the money for the appeals, that's why they want to bankrupt us right now because they are so scared that if there's any justice left at the Texas or the Connecticut Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, they've got to overturn this because the deep state, the ambulance chaser brigade are openly saying they're coming after everyone with this, just like when I got censored.
I mean, it's just Alex trying to be like, yeah, you should still give me money because I'm going to find a way to launder it during the appeals process.
Yeah, I mean, the problem is, the problem is for Alex is that in a very real way, this is an apolitical case for the law, for lawyers and judges and everything, because they all have a vested interest in this being at least the bottom.
You know, like all of them would prefer to have firm guardrails so we don't have to go through like another, this judge has waited three years to default judgment because we just have never seen this shit before.
I mean, it is fitting that, you know, this is Alex's sort of path in as much as like Trump taught us so much about how much of the government is not codified and how much of it is based on just like we all agree this is how humans are.
The year of the divorce with my ex-wife, six years ago, thank God it was the Trump era.
For the first time ever, we had all this extra money right when she divorces me.
It goes through the process and the court made me pay her close to $10 million to, quote, buy her out of the company because I've been married to her for 13 years.
So the one year God came through, the one year that I, because usually I make about a million, two million dollars a year, I've been honest with my audience.
And after all the bills and stuff and legal crap, it's gone.
I want to say something here that's important because I see you have, and we all struggle with this, right?
Where you're saying, because I know that people think that sounds like a lot of money.
And it's sad that you even have to say, no, you don't do this just for the money, but you absolutely deserve to earn a living if you have millions of people who are listening and the amount of work that you put into it.
I understand it.
This is what I do here as well.
Conservatives are the only ones, surprisingly, the people who support free enterprise where we feel like because our audience is largely working class, you want to say, look, look, don't get mad at me because I make this money because there's a huge difference between one year making $12 million and a several hundred million dollar judgment.
He has no idea the subject that he's even covering.
There's no work that goes into this other than riffing dumb jokes.
They know that they don't do shit.
And whether it's conscious or not, that's another question about whether or not that's why they have to rationalize this.
But they have to pretend not to care about money or else they run the risk of being way too obvious about how they sell things.
And then before you know it, they're just a racist QVC.
Fallon and Colbert make money, but I'm not sure how much, but they don't get on their show every night and try to rationalize it because they actually put on a show.
They're entertainers doing a job, not just complaining about how they're so persecuted.
And this has nothing to do with political alignment.
Do you think Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy or Ron White has to rationalize that they make millions of dollars?
They don't because their talent makes it obvious why they make that much money.
For con men like Alex and Steven, it's different.
And that's why they do have to do this, like, oh, hey, look, it's $100 million that I make, but it's no big deal.
I think the thing that has stuck with me maybe most.
Well, no.
There are a few things that really stuck with me during the Texas trial, but one of them that I will never forget is when Owen was on the stand and he was being questioned about NPR.
And he was like, you know, they're a non-profit, right?
And Owen just said, but they still get paid, don't they?
Like, they don't understand the idea of not doing something for money.
You know, like, sure, I understand we're a nonprofit, but this is what actual not money is: is when you're just there doing your job and you're surviving, you know.
And not to jump too far from what you're saying, but like Owen and Alex and other people in depositions have been very clear about like, we don't do any, we don't really do any preparation.
No, no, because if they admitted that they did work, it would show malice.
And this is the most important point I'm going to make here.
And I got a few documents if I can show them to you that are really important that tie this all together.
This is a major project for six years, two years before they sued me, and then now the last four, with literally hundreds of articles a week, sometimes thousands.
Every major news channel from HBO to PBS to Fox even attacking me over Sandy Hook and building it up into this giant controversy when I was not the Sandy Hook man to set the precedent with the Alex Jones precedent to shut everybody else down.
Now, let's talk about this being the biggest defamation judgment in U.S. history by an order of at least 10 magnitude.
If I can have an overhead shot here, damn, I wish the survivors of Epstein received $965 million.
I do appreciate the more I think about it, the more I appreciate the 10 guilty men should be free instead of what is like that's not a defense and a trial.
You can't be like, oh, listen, Your Honor, I did it.
And also, it's important when you'll get a lot of people on the left saying, oh, the right has a double standard because what about Nick Sandman in CNN?
What about Kyle Rittenhouse?
They said his name.
The president of the United States had an advertisement, had an ad that went out that associated Kyle Rittenhouse specifically with white supremacy.
They said Nick Sandman was mocking somebody, this poor Native American, Nathan Phillips, as I prefer my Native Americans to be called.
Nathan Phillips.
They said, yeah, he was mocking Nathan Phillips and he was stirring up the crowd.
They did call out these people by name and these people had to hire security and these people had to go into hiding.
There is a difference.
You did not do that.
And they did it repeatedly.
They did it all day and all night.
Not to mention what preceded Kyle Rittenhouse was the media drumming up actual hatred and that's right.
Also, I guess if Steven wants to be such a stickler about saying people's names, which isn't necessary to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress, then he should support Alex paying Robbie Parker $120 million.
Sometimes I'm a little bit obnoxious because I'm trying to get through it all like here today.
And I really appreciate Steam and the crew being so gracious so I can have a place to tell the truth.
And I appreciate your courage because you do get attacked for having me on.
And just this is our rights being taken.
This is a Hollywood production.
I'm not saying Sandy Hook didn't happen.
I'm saying the production of what I supposedly did and how big it became and this huge event.
I'm not the Sandy Hook guy.
I'm the guy that wrote the number one best-selling book in the world.
He's set in the war for the world.
That's why the globalists hate me is because I'm exposing their corporate worldwide tyranny.
I'm exposing groups like PayPal that are back, by the way, saying, if we don't like what you say, we're going to find you $2,500.
I'm opposing their authoritarianism.
I'm a populist.
I'm a champion of the people.
And folks can actually hear the real Alex Jones at Infowars.com, Infowars.com forward slash show, or banned.video.
Go see the real live show.
Go see the archives.
Go see the guest.
Go find out what I'm actually saying instead of little bitty twisted edited excerpts that the corporate media puts out.
And understand, the globalists see InfoWars is the flag they want to capture.
They are more obsessed with it than anything else out there right now because when the globalists tune in, they get scared because I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the mechanics of the new world order.
I guess, if you boil that down, his one true thing about himself that you need to know is that he's amazing and he's so strong and right and smart that everything bad that happens to him is just the globalists attacking him with fake stories because he's so strong and right and smart.
He's going out saying like, i'm the best writer in the world, i'm the best talker in the world, i'm the most powerful man in the world, because the most powerful people are coming after me, right like Jesus Man.
Anyways, well, I mean, it's a little bit of a name-drop to all the trendy liberals that think they're trendy and think they're cool and love the police state and hate free speech.
I'm the real rebel.
InfoWars is the Vanguard.
So is Steven Crowder.
We are the rebels.
We are the outlaws.
We are 1776.
We are the counterculture, not them.
And they can't stand that.
And so that's what I want people to know.
We are the counterculture.
Steven Crowder is the counterculture.
The listeners and viewers of these shows that support independent media are the future of not just America, but the world.
And people can find out what all the stinks about at Infowars.com.
So it sounds to me like what you're saying, your next step is, and I, Alex, you know, I have a lot of love for you, but sometimes it is tough to get you to answer a question.
I think that's a good question.
Your next step is to answer your question.
You need to get some rest, is what you're saying, right?
Your game plan is some rest, recoup, and come back.
Not listen, I'm more ADHD when I'm totally exhausted.
So I've done a lot of interviews and I was up till one o'clock in the morning.
I apologize.
My brain's gone right now.
So yes, I realize this is what's coming next.
I realize they want to take me out of the game.
And I realize that I'm never going to quit now because they want to silence me because this is a battle of wills.
I know it's the right thing to do.
But I also understand that if I take myself out of the game by being fried or burnt out, they win.
So I am going to, in the next few months, do something I never do.
I'm going to take off a week a month starting at the end of this month, November and December.
I may take off two weeks in December.
I want my listeners to understand why I've got to do it because I've got to rest.
I've got to stop drinking.
I've got to stop smoking.
I've got to go to church to recharge my batteries.
I've got to take, you know, my daughter camping.
I've got to, you know, go camping and shooting with my son and my other daughters.
And so if you're asking what's happening, I'm going to recharge my batteries, get back to family, get back to God, and come back in 2023 harder than ever.
I don't know what it is, but like as I've gotten older, the interest in whether or not something is culture, counterculture, or any of that stuff, it kind of becomes something that maybe has a little bit of like an artistic interest to me.
I mean, that whole idea of like selling out or anything along those lines, who cares?
Who cares?
I mean, Barry Gordy isn't around anymore.
You're going to sell out or whatever, you know.
But it is disgusting to think that if you and I right now were at any point in time, like, listen, man, as we sit here in our fucking hoodies and tender shoes, like we're the true rebels and not going outside, you know, the rebels who are fucking hermits.
Like, I would understand if something had an ethos that I disagreed with, shared a lot of points that I didn't agree with.
Right.
But if Steven Crowder was like, he had a spark of real funny in him, or if there was an interesting angle and delivery on stuff, if his co-hosts were worth a damn as sidekicks.
You're one of the only professional people doing top-flight comedy and analysis.
I mean, it's better than the production on these late shows that have giant budgets 20 times your budget.
People should flood you with support and more importantly, word of mouth, because I know that's the real currency we all want is to override the censors and to win the InfoWars.
Absolutely.
Everybody should support Steven Crowder, who's got the 500-pound testicles.
Well, Joe's only got Joe's only got Joe's only got 400-pound ones.
I admire Joe's balls, okay?
But Steven, yours are bigger, bigger, and even more juicy.
Well, I get what you're saying, but I think that from a construction standpoint, the joke is the media reports on this interview as Alex likes Steven's juicy balls.
The amusing image is the news running that headline.
But the real joke is that the news isn't going to cover this at all.
But one of the things that I found very interesting was that there is probably not that much difference between how he presents himself here and on his show in terms of this stuff.
I think part of that is because he clearly felt the ability to steamroll Steven.
Explain to me how a man can insist that he is both apologized and taken responsibility for his behavior and yet still be like, well, the family should get nothing.
And that's another reason why he can have message discipline and stay with the same thing he says on Infowars is because Steven's not going to ask him a fucking question.