In this installment, a listener recommends Dan and Jordan cover an interview where Alex fields questions from a YouTuber who is completely oblivious to any of the things Alex believes or promotes, yet thinks he's a very credible source of information. It's all very baffling.
This is a YouTuber named, I think Hannah Pearl Davis is her name, but I think she goes by Pearl Davis, and she has a channel called Just Pearly Things.
I'll be the first person to admit that I don't know everything that she's about because she puts out way too much content, and all of her videos have clickbait-ass titles that make it difficult to figure out exactly what the point is going to be without investing or wasting 20 minutes.
There isn't a ton of depth to anything I've ever seen her say, and generally any time I've seen her come up, it's been very clear attention baiting.
She'll do things like post a picture of herself wearing a shirt that says women shouldn't vote, and then harvest outrage to grow her bloodshed.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's the same kind of clearly attention desperate behavior that I've always, it's always made me steer clear of doing more episodes about Tim Pool.
If you take people like them seriously, you've already Already lost the game.
And that's intentional.
But she interviewed Alex and a listener named Thomas suggested we cover it, so shout out Thomas.
I decided to check it out.
I listened to the interview for a little bit and then realized I should probably try and get a better handle on who this Pearl person was.
I went over to her YouTube channel and sorted out whatever biographical information I could come up with from the stuff she's posted.
Her channel has videos going back about two years, at which point she was a 24-year-old living at home with her parents and nine siblings in a giant mansion.
Her parents are clearly insanely rich, which allowed her to quit a sales job that she didn't like and pursue TikTok and YouTube content creation full time.
Her early content that's posted on the channel is kind of bland.
There's some vlogs, some nonsense stuff with her family, kind of just having fun.
And then the idea of putting it out as a video is another layer of, like, You know, kind of vulnerability.
The first is that Pearl didn't just believe this stat that she's saying is misleading.
About a month prior, she used this stat as the basis for her video titled Why Women Hate Men and Men Hate Women.
A lot of her videos seem to be like this.
She hears something from some online man-stuff preacher, accepts it without question, and then incorporates that into her content.
The second thing that's troubling about that clip is that it gives a window into how Pearl assesses credibility, which is to say that she doesn't.
There's no process by which she assesses information, which is how you end up introducing Alex Jones as the number one conspiracy theorist who happens to be right.
You end up doing that because you're a follower who's just picking up the talking points of the edgy online weirdos you.
like, and then pretending it's a position worth putting forward.
Ultimately, I don't want to talk that much about Pearl in this episode at all.
I think she's fairly boring, generally, rehashing a lot of the anti-feminist discussions that were all the rage in 2015, back when people cared about what Sargon of Akkad had to say.
It's all pretty shallow, and I'm not amused.
Also, I find it strange that she has 1.75 million subscribers on YouTube, and yet, her view counts are not great.
In the last three weeks, she has only eight videos that have more than 100,000 views, and 28 videos with under 20,000.
So, I don't want to talk about Pearl, so why are we doing this episode?
The reason is because Pearl has literally zero idea about any of the things Alex believes, and yet she's interviewing him as if his credibility is unassailable.
You will see her not know very basic elements of Alex's ideology and the players involved, and because of that utter ignorance, I would say that she's the last person who should have taken on the task of interviewing him.
The choice is clearly attention-driven, but because she knows so little, she's forced to ask Alex very basic questions that he usually doesn't have to field, and that leads to some interesting moments.
Or at least they're interesting to me, and it's Wednesday.
And again, I understand why we instinctively shouldn't do that, you know?
We're like, oh, we don't have time to spend five minutes listening to this.
But how much of our world would be different if nothing that Trump said was ever curated, and you had to listen to the entire fucking thing to get anything you wanted out of it, you know?
Also, there's a fun little game that Alex is playing here.
He says that he's right 95% of the time, and then cites a statistic about the media having a 9% approval rating.
That's apples and oranges right off the bat.
What's the mainstream media's accuracy rate?
Or more damningly, what do you think Alex's approval rating is among the general population?
Interestingly, YouGov and The Economist recently released their Trust in Media poll back in May, and most outlets have a higher than 9% approval rating.
For instance, PBS had a plus 30 net approval rating, and the BBC had plus 29, the AP had plus 23, ABC and USA Today were at plus 21, CBS and Reuters at plus 20, NPR was plus 16, The Guardian plus 15, even the dreaded New York Times was plus 15. InfoWars was actually included in that poll.
So maybe Alex is a liar, and he's gonna lie about everything to Pearl, and she's woefully unequipped to handle any of the shit that he's gonna tell her, and that's basically the character of this entire interview.
Yeah, but she exists in this sort of edgy, slightly combative internet space where it's like everybody thinks that Alex is secretly right all the time.
So, we get into a conversation here about Elon Musk not letting Alex get back on Twitter.
And, man, there was one thing that kept happening as I was listening to this interview, and that is like...
There was a moment in the depositions where Bill, I think he was talking to Owen Troyer, and he was like, that very well may be, but what does that have to do with what I asked you?
Or when Mark would ask Alex, what question do you think you're answering?
That keeps going through my mind, because Alex is like, how does this relate to the question that was asked?
Oh, I know why, and I don't want to talk about that big court case and all that just because I...
I want to not talk about it, and they always want to talk about it, and then claim I want to talk about it.
But I was deplatformed five years ago because I was exposing the globalist agenda.
And if you go back to the news articles, when I famously got banned, and it was led by Tim Cook, the head of Apple, along with Mark Zuckerberg, and also Sundar Pichai, the head of Google, they all met and they said, these are the reasons.
It had nothing to do with...
With what the media later said, it was all about my support of Trump and nationalism against globalism.
We're kind of America having its own Brexit moment with the globalists.
Whereas the UK wanted to get out of the EU, I wanted America to stop being the heart of this new global corporate fascist empire.
I love America, but I hate the corporations that had hijacked and done all these terrible things in our name.
And so they said, here's the reason he's banned.
And none of it was about what I got sued for.
And then a judge found me guilty and told a jury I was guilty.
It's called default judgment.
Very, very rare.
And that was done fraudulently, in my view.
And even Associated Press even said it was the craziest default judgment ever.
Then they told the jury I was guilty.
Jury's supposed to judge your guilt, not how guilty you are.
You're innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven more guilty.
Or why would have juries at that point?
Just have judges.
Judges become North Korea or some former Soviet-era tribunal.
And then they had the biggest single individual judgment for defamation ever against me.
The reason for not letting me back on is that because they ran in the preceding five years tens of thousands of news articles conservatively, thousands of TV programs and national news programs, international programs, thousands.
I mean, they would put out one article in the New York Times, but it's syndicated to almost every newspaper in the country.
So when I say tens of thousands, I'd wake up sometimes, and there'd be a hundred-plus new articles, and then half of them would be syndicated.
I mean, I had family on a South African cruise, and they would get up in the morning, and that little three-page thing you get with just one page of news on the front, then say, we're landing here today, and by the way, there's going to be a party tonight on Deck 7, and it was all about attacking me and that story.
It was global saturation, and we now know they bragged about it last year once they won a high-powered PR firm that actually does the UN's PR, and it's since been bought by the largest PR firm in the world.
They looked at my record, found a few things that they thought they could exaggerate and twist, ran a bunch of news articles for several years attacking me.
Then the lawsuits were filed as if I had done the things they said I'd said.
Then I wasn't allowed to put my case on, was convicted in the court of public opinion.
The judge said I was guilty.
And so they built up this battery, this reservoir of Alex Jones as Satan, Alex Jones as a demon, Alex Jones as bad.
International agencies and groups that once they could demonize us successfully.
And get the public not to support us.
They could destroy anybody.
They said we'll get Assange on the left, Alex Jones on the right, and that was their statement, not mine.
And then once we get them, we'll get everybody.
And so now we can see all that, and it's come out in Congress, the CIA, or the Justice Department was going after any doctors that questioned the official COVID narrative or even tried to give people therapeutics or anybody to question the Wuhan lab.
Remember, you couldn't question that, now you can.
This was intelligence agency run, we now know, against me.
So Musk can't come legalize me or put me on because he's trying to free up the rest of Twitter.
If he was to put me on, that demonization would kick in, and they might be able to actually defeat his attempt to free Twitter.
Because basically what's going on is Alex is lying to her.
She's not questioning it.
And it's just taken as gospel that Alex is the victim in the whole Sandy Hook thing.
And that it's a shame that other media outlets aren't held to the same scrutiny.
That's a total load of bullshit.
Nick Sandman, the Covington Catholic High School student, he sued CNN over what he called unfair and damaging depictions of himself back in 2019.
CNN settled that case and cooperated with the legal process.
According to Reuters, at the heart of the claim was CNN, quote, And that they had a chance of losing the case.
Alex had every opportunity to behave similarly.
But he didn't.
He refused to cooperate with Discovery and repeatedly sent completely unprepared idiots to serve as corporate representatives in hopes of stonewalling the process and getting the plaintiffs to settle for scraps or withdraw the suit because he was too difficult to deal with and it was getting too expensive.
That ploy didn't work, and Alex reaped the consequences of it.
Either way, it has nothing to do with him being kicked off social media, and Elon Musk didn't say he couldn't come back because of the results of a lawsuit.
Musk hates Alex because of his actions around Sandy Hook, not because of the legal case, but this way that Alex is.
telling the story to Pearl, it retains Alex's heroic character, both in terms of Sandy Hook and in terms of his willingness to be a martyr, not allowed back on Twitter so the other racist shitheads can run free.
Well, you notice now Vladimir Putin calls the corporations that run the West the globalist, and Donald Trump calls the corporations that have hijacked the West the globalist.
And I did not create that term.
I popularized it.
When I was reading books 35 years ago, 30 years ago, right before I got on air 29 years ago, I was reading books about the Anglo-American establishment, and that's what they call the British Empire merged with the U.S. Empire at the end of World War II.
This is official history, Ph.D. level.
It was Cecil Rhodes' plan even before World War I to set something up like this, and so that was happening really 130 years ago, but it officially was done with the Bretton Woods.
So here's what I was talking about when I said that Pearl has to ask very basic questions.
Who are the globalists?
What's Bretton Woods?
Through the asking of these very basic questions, you should take note and realize that Alex doesn't actually have answers to them.
The first thing to point out is that Alex's answer about who the globalists are will continue.
But at this point, it's meaningless.
It's a pastiche of buzzwords he's taken from various places to make his worldview sound researched, when in reality it's just a facade, and it doesn't inform anybody.
The second thing to point out is much more important, and that is that Alex doesn't know what Bretton Woods is.
The Brighton Woods system wasn't developed after World War II ended.
It was built during World War II, in anticipation of the need to rebuild the world economy after the war.
The Brighton Woods conference itself took place in July 1944, again while the war was still going on.
The agreement did make the U.S. dollar essentially the world reserve currency, or at least it made currencies of other countries who signed onto it convertible to the U.S. dollar.
It allowed for much smoother financial transactions and negotiations between these countries as the world rebuilt.
However, it had nothing to do with petrodollars.
The convertibility of the U.S. dollar was established based on gold.
Alex either doesn't know this or he does know it, and he's pretending not to because he's supposed to be against the Bretton Woods Agreement, but he also loves the gold standard.
The ending of the U.S. dollar being backed by gold, which happened in 1971, also ended the Bretton Woods system, which was officially ended by the Jamaica Accords in 1976.
Further, there is no Bretton Woods 2. That's a term that people have used to describe various large financial plans, like the response to the 2008-2009 crisis, but it's not a formal thing like the original agreement was.
About the shadow government and what came out in those hearings, about the Kennedy assassination, all that stuff.
And so then I went, and I said, well, these books are being quoted by Barry Goldwater and people.
Let me go see if they're real.
So I went to the library, and the local library wouldn't have them, but the UT library did.
And I would read Tragedy and Hope by Carl Quigley, the head of the Georgetown Political Science Department, 1,100 pages long.
And I would read books by Cecil Rhodes.
And I read a bunch of the source books.
Then I read Zbigniew Brzezinski's books, all four of them that were out at the time.
He wrote subsequently more.
And I read Henry Kissinger's work.
This was all about the time I was about 20. I found it so fascinating.
And then...
Basically had an underlying understanding of what the real global order was versus what the general public was taught.
Because these academics and world diplomats and people treat the public like we're animals.
So they talk to us in speeches about one thing, but in their books and in their white papers and in their analyses and reports to each other, they're very cut and dry about it.
So I discovered, really when I was a teenager, Because I had some family that had worked for the CIA and the Defense Department and all sorts of stuff, quite a few of them.
Because Texas was kind of the big command base of all that during the Cold War.
How they were devil worshippers and pedophiles and all this stuff.
When I was like 15 years old, visiting them in San Antonio, I thought that was pretty crazy.
And then I just started researching all that and got on Access TV when I was 20. Got on the radio when I was 22. Got syndicated when I was 25. So I've been on air 29 years.
But then he said he read Barry Goldwater's books, and if you don't know any better, you wouldn't know that he was on Alex's side, because Alex also said he read books by Zbigniew Brzezinski, so maybe he's an anti-globalist.
And how do you know, because it's like on the outside looking in, we hear these things like the JFK assassination, like I think that's one I've heard, which I know is like common knowledge maybe in different circles, but it all sounds crazy.
Like if this was true, why is it not on the cover of, you know, magazines, newspapers, that sort of thing?
Well, it's because Operation Mockingbird, anybody can look up, was declassified in the church committee hearings in the 70s.
The CIA had its people in all the major TV, print, and radio.
Killing stories, controlling stories, amplifying stories, and making sure the truth didn't get out.
And when the internet came along, it got a lot harder to control.
But really now we've reached a point where they can't even deny it anymore.
So like Yuval Noah Harari and Klaus Schwab have summits on international television with 100-foot jumbo screens in Dubai and in Frankfurt, Germany and in London and in the Swiss Alps, Davos.
And they're just, the future's not human.
World government's coming in.
You're going to have a world ID.
We're going to make you take chips by 2030 under the skin to buy and sell.
If you're somebody who doesn't know who Henry Kissinger is, I can't imagine any other motivation to interview Alex other than desperately wanting attention.
Not like you made up this entire story about this and included a name that you assumed was going to be so impressive to me that I would be like, whoa, I can't believe that.
And my point is, and I should have just said it this way, in their own documents going back 60 years, they said we want to create a global order, and we would describe ourselves as transhumanist, and towards that end, we need a global government system, so we are globalist.
So just three months ago, Klaus Schwab in Dubai with world leaders, and now King Charles was there, then Prince Charles.
And they're all there, and they say we need a world government with carbon credits and carbon taxes and ESGs to control every fashion of your life, to buy and sell, to save the earth, a total military mobilization.
We need to censor our opponents.
We need to totally take over.
And then on the big screen comes in Elon Musk.
And Elon Musk says, world government is like getting rid of firewalls in an apartment building.
You have a gas fire, you have an electrical fire, you have a grease fire.
It burns up that apartment, but by the time the firefighters get there and the sprinklers turn on, it has firewalls in it, and so it only burns up that apartment.
But if you don't have firewalls in an apartment, which a lot of the older ones don't, that's when you see buildings going up and hundreds of people getting barbecued alive.
So his analogy is what I've always used, but he explains it as like bulkheads in a ship or compartments.
So the Titanic...
Hit, and the iceberg is an analogy, sliced down a big part of it, so it flooded three of the compartments.
That was too much.
It went down.
Well, if you have global government, there's only one compartment.
And so there's no separation of powers.
There's no judicial legislative executive.
There's no this country against that country, which we all see as, quote, bad, but is really good because that creates opposition to centralization of control, something that always turns to bad and is always like the Ring of Mordor, extremely destructive.
If tyranny popped up in one country, the world body would be able to address the problem a lot more effectively than this country-versus-country paradigm.
As it stands now, there's certainly no firewall between Russia and Ukraine, but guess what?
There sure as shit is one between Ukraine and Poland, and that's because Poland is part of an international cooperative agreement.
So here's Musk saying, your world government's bad, and who knows if the allegory of the Tower of Babel was real, supposedly 7,000 years ago, all these cultures together, but it all fell apart because it was under one system.
We need to understand that world government's bad.
So they have summits called World Government Summit.
So what's frustrating is...
I'm a kid.
I go over to the adult table.
I hear all this.
I go back and I tell the other kids, hey, I heard him say this.
And the kids go, that sounds crazy.
We don't believe that.
So instead, the kids just need to go over and listen at the table themselves.
You don't need me to tell them, hey, you know, grandma's over there talking about the time grandpa got caught, you know, cheating on her or something like that.
Well, grandpa never did that.
Well, you got to go over and hear grandpa or grandma tell the story.
So, hey, they're talking about how they used to run a...
Moonshine and Operation out of here.
And the kids are like, I don't care about Moonshine.
I want to hear about, you know, Batman movie coming out.
That's kind of how kids are.
They always want Netflix.
They want fantasy.
They don't want to hear Grandma and Grandpa talking about surviving the Great Depression and running Moonshine.
And that's actually a true story in my family.
But the point is, is that I always like the big person table.
Imagine if the kid was like, wait, and then Grandpa said that it turned out it was something that was actually kind of a turn on for them, and this improved their sex life for the entire thing, and then this whole concept of monogamous relationships should be turned on.
You can't understand that from your own fucking grandfather when you're nine in Thanksgiving?
I mean, of all the ones, listen, of all the ones that we're going to be like, oh, this could have been real or not, you know, like, I'm not going to do Noah's Ark, we're just not doing it, we're definitely not doing Tower of Babel.
If you worship Christ and follow Christ's ideas, whether you believe that or not, do unto others as you do them to you, lay down your life for your brother, all of that, that's not very compatible to a system of total control and domination.
You can call it a test, you can call it whatever you want.
Like, I know you've got gangs over there in the UK, and I'm sure you've heard your pleasure from the US, you know.
I don't remember all the exact dates and times, but...
Until the early 50s, the Senate and the Congress and the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI founder and director, said that La Cosa Nostra, the mafia, did not exist.
She, yeah, there is a naivety or something in her that is a little refreshing in that like, you know, answering that question, like you're from Chicago, you know gangs.
I grew up in the suburbs.
It's so easy to answer that question and just move along.
Now, Hollywood created this idea that only gangs are Italian.
That's just...
That's another giant mind control operation that only Italians set up gangs.
That's a classic line in The Godfather that's based on a composite of true stories where the head of the family, Michael Corleone, is talking to his wife, and she goes, and he's having to kill people, and she says, you know, I wish you were like normal people, not to kill people, like, you know, the president and generals.
And he says to her, he says, don't be naive, Kate.
That's exactly who's doing a lot more killing than I am, and I'm paraphrasing it, but that's an IAT.
I have been on a mission to expose the real powerful globalist mafia that is dominant.
And so to get into their club at one level.
There's a lot of different ways to get in the club.
There's different angles, different systems, and there's different overlapping things.
But I guess the quickest way to get in the club would be join the military, join special operations, follow whatever orders they say, get in the right groups.
The first thing is they'll want you to sleep with prostitutes.
Then they'll want you to deal some drugs.
Then they'll want you to have sex with an underage girl.
And then you go to him and you say to Epstein, I want to go in Florida or Little St. John Island or I want to go to your New York compound and I want to have sex with kids.
And I want you to videotape it so I can be in the club.
And he comes right in and there's cameras and they bring in a five-year-old kid and they have sex with him.
The very difficult question that if that movie was revealing stuff about the globalists, why would arch-globalists Robert De Niro and Me Demon make that movie?
He goes, I'd be surprised if you don't get killed for that.
Because, you know.
And then I didn't have the full story that he was actually sitting there telling me how dangerous that was.
But he knew.
But he was basically asked to kill a whole family.
And I can kind of suss out because a lot of these, what they do is if they really want to demonize somebody when they kill them, they come in, they tie you up, however they do it.
And as soon as you do that, they just basically use the note.
Then they kill your wife, kill your kids, and then they kill you.
And then they put the gun in your hand and say you murdered them as that deal.
But what he described was basically kill a family, and he wasn't going to do that.
So it's kind of that Scarface moment that's a fictional movie, but based on, again, context of things that Oliver Stone went around and De Palma went around and took a decade to write that script.
But at the end, he goes, no women, no kids, and they're going to blow up the car of the guy exposing the narcotics trafficking.
We got black hats running the show who, you can say, why do they do secret rituals?
Why do they rape kids?
Why do they murder people?
Because they have an appetite for innocence and for total control.
That's what they're doing.
And so you see these archetypes in movies and cultures and film and you say, why in this Tom Cruise movie, I forget the name of it, Legend or whatever, does the devil want to kill the unicorns and kill the little maiden?
And so they are trying to force mass mutation of the human species and put incredible pressure that kills the majority of us, but out of it survival of the fittest, out of it Comes a new superhuman.
Just like if you spray bugs with a certain poison within five generations on average, they're immune to it.
And so their argument is we're going to kill off most of these useless feeders, we're going to reintroduce survival of the fittest, social Darwinism, get rid of all these useless eaters that are stupid and lazy and dumb, and then force a bunch of mutations to give rise to the Ubermensch.
As people obsessed With accruing insane amounts of power and then abusing said power, they should be aware that giving a large amount of power to anyone does leave open the possibility that they will abuse it to them.
And he was asked the question, why is this happening?
And it's a test.
A certain percentage of the lots is saline on purpose.
Because they've tested lots all over the country.
It's just saline.
They thought it was, because they thought it was the nurses and the healthcare workers giving saline, and it was in some cases, and it was bad.
But in a lot of cases, there was investigations, and the government did it, and others did it, and they'd go pull the lots and go, no, all this is saline.
And then another certain percentage, we actually got them right here, was a little bit of the spike protein and a little bit of the replicating nanotech HIV.
Spike protein.
They took it and synthetically made it.
It's not the whole virus, but it's a toxic spike protein.
Four point something is actually super strong and it's a death sentence for most people.
And so that way they could test where the lots went, what effects it had, but also then it would confuse all the reporting because it wouldn't make sense because why?
Also, you do experiments on smaller numbers in order to then extrapolate so when you do the full-scale thing, you don't need to experiment.
Like, he's trying to say that they're just doing one big, small experiment, and then a big one, and then another big one, and they're behaving as though it's a double-blind study when it's not even close to that.
Well, I mean, you know, I think that he got caught up in his habit of calling it an experimental vaccine, and then it just kind of, you know, you go from there.
Then you had two mRNA shots, exact same ingredients, exact same patents, by the Pentagon and by...
The NIH and by the CDC, it's a multinational deal.
And out of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2014.
So they already had the virus ready, already had it all prepared.
And then the Pentagon comes and says, oh, we can make this really quick.
But people need to think it's a private company.
So they let Moderna and Pfizer put it out.
The Pfizer is the equivalent of one-third, or was it one-fourth?
Of the Moderna.
The Moderna is three times.
No, it's four times stronger.
So the Moderna is the exact same shot of a gene therapy, an mRNA injection, as the Pfizer.
So the Pfizer is only one-fourth the strong, exact same shot.
And so two of them are an mRNA injection, nothing to do with the vaccine.
The other is, quote, a virus vector vaccine, but it fires a virus.
And a bunch of other crazy stuff, a human genome and a chimpanzee genome.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff piggybacked.
Remember, pharmacists would open up the shot records in the little ampoules.
By law, it's supposed to have a big print on what's in it, the testing and everything.
They were all white pieces of paper.
They wouldn't tell you what was in it for a few years.
And so you have the virus vector shots that are J&J and AstraZeneca, where it fires a whole virus in, carrying the program.
To tell the cell to produce a spike protein.
So they had to suspend AstraZeneca and J&J.
They were causing blood clots and heart attacks right up front.
So they kind of hit them with something even worse right up front.
Hard to believe seeing it's worse, but it was probably worse.
Statistics show.
Then you have the Moderna and Pfizer does the same thing, but it orders mRNA to go into the cell and then order to do it instead of a virus factor system.
But they all four ordered by the Pentagon, ordered by Obama.
That's really who runs it, not Biden.
And of course, Trump went along with Warped Speed as well to produce those four, quote, vaccines.
But all four of them are not conventional vaccines.
And that's what they do in the body.
And again, I'm not a scientist.
I'm not a doctor.
I'm going off research of what they said and what went on.
No, I'm just wondering what percent of people will die from the vaccines, because it just seems like it would have been higher, because the numbers I've seen, it's like less than 10%, but I know those are really manipulated, too.
Yeah, no one is sure, except the best numbers we have are multinational insurance companies, and Edward Dowd is a big numbers cruncher and has had some big whistleblowers, high-level statisticians and actuarialists come out.
So I would point your listeners at Cause Unknown.
He wrote the book, Cause Unknown, knowing it's the shots, but just leaving it there and then showing the data.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been promoting that book, and I've been interviewing him for several years, even before the book came out, or even his whistleblowers came out.
But all the whistleblowers he talked about did indeed, that were advising him, did come out.
One of them is, like, the recognized top statistician out there in the world.
But the fact that she's like, that's kind of in the conversation is a 10% death rate from taking the vaccine.
Oh, my God.
Anyway, that 40% death increase thing was from a story that came out at the beginning of 2022, reflecting numbers from 2021.
The insurance professionals who came out with that story absolutely did not blame the vaccines and said it was because of the Delta variant and, quote, deferred medical care during the pandemic.
The trend of excess deaths went upward prior to the existence of the vaccine and has gone down since the...
So the idea of tying it to the vaccine is really dumb.
If it gets above 87 degrees for even five minutes, the Pfizer-Moderna mRNA jacketing...
Of these nanoparticles that they use, basically it's a high-tech form of antifreeze, breaks down, and the nanolipid particles don't stay encased around the mRNA reprogrammer.
And so, because of laziness, thank God, a lot of people are spared because it's still toxic, it's still not good for you, but it doesn't get the spike protein replicating.
And, again, if you've got lots of different, lots of different vials being sent out around and until people get boosters, it basically confuses the medical system about what's actually killing the people.
Does that make sense?
And they also say, oh, people are dying because they didn't have their boosters, and really they're dying from the first shot they got.
Oh, I also didn't include this clip because I think it was from another video of hers I watched where she was discussing the red pill stuff and she said, I've never seen the Matrix, but it's my understanding.
And I was thinking, because if there are these globalists, right, I'd imagine they're trying to break down the family, right?
I'd imagine they're behind maybe some of those policies, too.
And I was wondering, do you think it started?
Because I don't think women should vote.
Yeah, because when I looked at the early anti-suffragists, like, writings, the women were talking about how this was going to be the beginning of the breakdown of the family, and I couldn't even believe it.
I didn't even think about it, because it's, like, before it was, like, two became one in marriage.
Do you think it started, like, before, because that would have been 1920.
In any industrial society, people are going to get lazy and stupid and not live off the land and not be based in reality.
That's been observed for thousands of years by philosophers that multi-generations brought up in cities become stupid, criminal, lazy, a whole list of things.
And so what's affecting women and being lackadaisical and seeming to be dumb, so are the men.
But I don't think Alex even caught that as, like, part of what her question was.
Yeah.
And also, I think that the suffragettes and women's lib kind of activists, when they talk about destruction of family, if they were even using those terms, it would be the destruction of the tyranny of the family where the woman is property.
And I think that's different than destroying a family.
Yeah, you know, there is that romantic idea of when two become one, but then there's also that idea of when a dude now owns a lady and whatever comes out of her.
I'm really starting to believe that Alex either doesn't understand the reality of what happened under apartheid, or he really is a brutal white supremacist who's trying to mask his true beliefs.
I just can't see any other option, and the only way it's plausible that he doesn't understand the reality of it is if he only knows about apartheid through the lens of anti-communist propagandists and the John Birch Society, who made it their business to downplay what things were really like in order to demonize and scare them all.
about communism coming after apartheid was removed.
If that's his only point of reference, then maybe it's not based on wanting to...
Sure, I mean, that's the fear of everybody, is that children growing up in Florida will be like, wow, it is amazing how plantation owners were so nice to those people that they allowed to live on their land for free.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
There is an issue with that being your point of view.
So also, the Washington Post, Harvard, and the Kaiser Family Foundation did a wide-scale survey across the population of South Africa in 2004, and would you be surprised to learn that Alex is full of shit?
Aldous Huxley, whose brother was the founder of the transhumanist movement, and it was the head of the world eugenics movement, but also the head of the United Nations UNESCO program.
He wrote a book, Julian Huxley.
Aldous Huxley wrote a book.
In 1931, Brave New World, that was fiction.
But in 61, he gave a Berkeley speech, and he just released Brave New World Revisited, nonfiction, where he explained, this is a real plant for the world.
This is how we foresee things by the year 2030 or so.
And we want to end the family for the general public.
People will live in 200 square foot cubes.
You'll be fed insect protein, and you'll have your IQ set at about 80. Wait, when was that released?
It did strike me while listening to that that maybe the people shitting on crucifixes, there's a mop-up team that comes in, steals it, throws it in the vat.
Yeah, how the globalists do this is increments, successive approximation.
And so they come out and they go, you're incentivized to buy green.
Well, it's the same thing with free speech.
Canada passes laws.
You say the N-word, you go to jail.
Now, I don't like the N-word.
I don't want to call people a name that hurts their feelings, but we knew they'd then pass laws if you say there's only two genders you get arrested, which is now happening in Canada.
Only two genders, you're arrested.
Whether you're right about that or not, you have a right to say it.
Truckers peacefully protesting six months a year in jail in Canada.
Canada's the new globalist WEF model of the globalist.
Klaus Schwab admits it.
Go look it up.
So, it's the same thing.
They come out with these ESG scores put out by the IMF, the World Bank, and BlackRock, and Vanguard funds that control most of the money in the world in investments.
And Larry Fink, the head of Vanguard, said last month, he said, we're using the ESGs and our money to control the future.
So you wonder why the NFL and why Target and why Bud Light destroy themselves pushing the sexualization children.
We're going to debank you and not fund you and not support you in the future if you don't follow this list of ongoing demands that are the UN global ESG scores, okay?
You can pull up the German leaders, the British leaders, the French leaders, all of them saying, we are going to implement ESGs in 2022.
So starting last year, they started saying, we are implementing them now.
So it's government with regulations complying to the UN, complying to these multinational WEF.
Last year, the WEF, World Economic Forum, merged with the UN, and the Secretary of the UN said, Secretary General, said, we are now merged with the WEF, and they tell us what to do.
So the World Economic Forum, the top thousand corporations, they tell the UN what to do, and the UN then creates policy that our governments under UNESCO have agreed to adopt, and then we have those policies.
Did you hear, remember, we're going to ban gas stoves?
That's why they want me off air, because I've analyzed all these systems and know how to beat them.
It's actually simple once you look at their attack profile and reverse it on them.
They're setting up a global corporate boycott of...
Companies and individuals and groups that don't do what they say through the ESG scoring system.
That is their globalist boycott of us to make us buy their products.
It's really a boycott.
But you see us saying, okay, BlackRock, Vanguard, Anheuser-Busch, Target, North Face, they're all saying we're going to sexualize your kids, your kids belong to us.
We say to them, we're not going to buy your product.
And that's the equivalent of the little people together saying no through information and research.
And now BlackRock publicly lost trillions of dollars in their quadrillion portfolio, which is still a lot.
And so they announced in December they were pulling out of ESG scores.
But what did they do?
They control most of the major companies in the Fortune 1000 with their investment.
So, what did BlackRock do?
Along with Vanguard, same people on both.
They kamikazed and said, fine, we won't implement ESGs.
We'll have all our sub-companies implement ESGs, and we think our investors are too stupid to know it.
But now everybody's just looking where BlackRock invests and pulling out of all those sub-companies well.
So, humanity's really battling back.
I should have started the show with this, so you understand what I'm talking about.
It's really heavy.
So they're trying to bully us through corporate power to buy their products, live the way they want us to live, to shut down all their competition, just like the lockdowns did.
Oh, big box stores are critical, but your small shop isn't.
You go bankrupt and commit suicide, they stay open.
Also, just really quickly, because it was at the beginning of that long nonsense rant, it's not illegal to protest, say, the N-word or be a transphobe in Canada.
Or how you can't deny somebody a lease on an apartment because of their race or gender because that's illegal discrimination.
When you hear Alex say these kinds of absurd things, it's important to understand that he comes from an intellectual tradition that strongly opposes civil rights.
Once you see it through that lens, the exaggerations he makes don't seem so confusing anymore.
It all tracks.
All the rest of that shit about ESGs is just meaningless garbage that's playing real well in the right-wing media at the moment.
I think most people got tired of hearing scaremongering about the Great Reset and Build Back Better, so this is...
This is the new term that's horrifying patriots.
Oh my God.
Essentially, an ESG score is a number that a company has that reflects its environmental, social, and governance efforts.
It can be self-calculated.
Or there are multiple independent companies that can calculate it for you.
Or you can choose not to participate in it, considering it's a metric that's not necessary to have.
Alex is acting like it's an edict that comes down from on high.
I recognize that because people think that this is important and companies will pay money for it, that it's not the same exact thing as a made-up PSR score, but it is the exact same thing.
It's a benefit for companies to engage with the scoring system, apparently, because it implies a level of transparency that would make investors more likely to commit their money to you.
But ultimately, this has nothing.
So, for instance, two examples came up in that clip that are illustrative.
Stoves and Bud Light.
So, in the case of the stove situation, this has zero to do with ESGs.
It has to do with states deciding to pass regulations about the production of new stoves that are outmoded and polluting.
A company could still make them, I guess, and it wouldn't hurt their ESG, but it would be a violation of state regulation.
In the case of Bud Light, again, ESGs don't come into play at all.
Alex is trying to pretend that having Dylan Mulvaney on a novelty can so she could do a one-off online sponsored video was an attempt on Bud Light to get some ESG points, but that's stupid.
It seems conceivable that you could see a dip in your ESG score if you ran an ad that was openly transphobic and hate-filled, unless you calculate the score yourself, but you're not going to be docked points for not running a one-off ad featuring a trans person.
You can calculate the score yourself because there's no uniform standardization in it.
If you're an investor, you can look at it and maybe it means something.
But given that an identical business could get a different score from different calculators, you got to take it with a grain of salt.
Yeah.
unidentified
Plus, there are negative aspects to the whole ideology, which largely comes into play when you think about businesses playing up their environmental efforts or social responsibility in ways that aren't actually meaningful.
Think about how every business puts out rainbow stuff for Pride Month and then does nothing for the rest of the year to indicate support for the LGBTQ community.
Right.
unidentified
For the most part, ESGs are not a serious part of business, necessarily.
This is a massive thing for folks like Alex, though, because it has the appearance of being a formalized, uniform, financial version of being arrested for saying the N-word.
All that being said, I'd like to congratulate Alex for discovering one of the very elementary versions of protest and pretending he's invented the wheel.
What he's describing is just a call for reactionary boycotts.
If you see a business supporting the environment or the LGBTQ community or being against racism, drive that company into the ground and pretend you're doing it.
Not because you're full of hate.
It's because of ESGs.
That's all that he's doing.
That's the way you fight back against the globalists.
Anytime there is a business that has a rainbow flag up, boycott them.
We're going to have to now realize they did it, organize, win the war against them, arrest the globalists, stop the secret eugenics, depopulation operation, clean this up, and then mitigate it.
But they may have heard it so bad it may cause civilizational collapse.
That's what Musk has been warning of.
Yeah.
unidentified
If you don't have a 2.1 replacement level, the civilization level collapses.
Except I know everything about it and I love it desperately and I speak about it with a confidence that I know what I'm talking about that I have in no other aspect of my conversations.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with the epigenetically designed thing, but I do agree with him that when you're growing plants, there is a rush to it.
Whether you're doing carpentry, or whether you're fishing, or whether you're butchering a cow, once you get in the rhythm, Of sewing or, you know, in the rhythm of cooking food.
I mean, it's not slavery to fold the laundry.
It's not slavery to cook the dinner and wash the plates.
It's a rhythm.
It's a rhythm.
We're supposed to do all this ourselves.
So, I mean, I love cooking.
I love washing the dishes.
I love doing the laundry.
The problem is I got somewhere I got to go.
I got something I got to do.
I got to fight the New World Order.
And so then I compartmentalize it and have a maid come do it.
Instead of me, and in the process, I'm losing my humanity.
I was thinking about this because I was like, I feel like my generation, none of us know how to do basic things like that because we all grew up on all this technology.
Go read an article written in 1999 by Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, in Wired Magazine called Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.
Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.
And he met with hundreds of top billionaires, and they said, we let them play video games, just make them obsolete, and then sterilize them, or we just kill them all.
And the consensus was, let them play video games, get them done down so they don't cause a problem, and then go ahead and kill everybody.
So you can read that article.
The decision's been made to just go ahead and get rid of everybody.
Most of us are already dead.
But don't worry, by the time they kill you, you're on so many drugs and so much psychology and so much entertainment, you don't even know what hit you.
And then you're told, hey, you get two years of credits, you get all the trips you want, all the parties you want.
You just got to sign on your carbon credit that you agree to be...
Euthanized by the state in a year, two years.
Or you could say, hey, we'll give you a million bucks, go to Vegas, party all you want, all the drugs you want, everything, hookers every day.
You get one month, but you die in one month.
And the future will be, well, for the Earth, I'm going to do it for a month, and then I'm going to get out of here.
And so the new thing won't just be cut your genitals off and cut your breasts off and all this.
It'll be the heroes that commit suicide.
And the government now in Canada is the model, and they tell people, hey, you're back, got, you know, bad disc.
You've been on welfare five years.
We can't give you the money to buy your food anymore.
Why don't you kill yourself?
In fact, we'll give you, you know, a year of your painkillers and let you live for another year and even let you live in a nicer apartment, but then when the credits are out, we want you to go ahead and sign this agreement to kill yourself.
Well, that's the government saying we're going to kill you.
Why do they even need to have done COVID if they're going to seduce everyone into committing suicide by making it the sexy thing to do with a celebrity?
Why do they need elaborate conspiracies about ESGs if this is what they're going to do?
If you're listening to Alex talk and not picking up on how his conspiracies really don't seem to work together, you're a mark.
And I think Alex sees a big old dollar sign over Pearl.
It's a complete fiction Alex is making up, just lying to Pearl's face.
Yeah.
Two...
It's really cute to hear two multi-millionaires whine about how they don't get to do laundry or vacuum a carpet.
I think a lot of people in Pearl's generation know fully well how to do all that shit that she doesn't because they didn't grow up in the lap of luxury in a giant mansion and then live there till their mid-twenties.
Well, I mean, again, again, it's like saying, can somebody get food poisoning at a hamburger shop?
Well, there's a million hamburger shops.
Some are great, some are bad.
You have to know the place you've gotten food poisoning over and over again.
It varies.
To just say hospice is bad is an oversimplification.
There are big hospice rating groups.
There's a thing called bioethics.
It depends on the region, the hospital group it's associated with, how it's certified, and their history.
But hospice has been moving for 30 years towards giving them massive amounts of morphine and killing you and accelerating end-of-life care.
And some people want that, so it's like a wink-wink.
Hey, give me what I need for pain.
I don't want to go on anymore.
Then you just sleep all day, you stop eating, and you die.
So, yeah, it's a wink-wink.
I don't want to do this anymore.
Go ahead and kill me.
Okay, and then they got some Christian hospices that are really hospices that really just take care of you and give you enough to mitigate the pain but don't kill you.
I'd say...
30 years ago, half the hospice was killing you on purpose.
And so they were in jail for three months with no charges.
Now they've been on house arrest for months, three months with no charges.
And it's because it just isn't true.
And he came out against Greta Thunberg.
He's telling men to be masculine.
And I think it's kind of an extreme masculinity.
But compared to where they want to take us, it's kind of an Overton window.
Like, do this.
You'd be a Superman over here.
Super macho.
And then that drags the young people from being total sissies and total weirdos that want to cut their penises off to even being more like Andrew Tate.
So they'll never probably get where he's at.
I'm not sure you'd want to be there.
But those guys are definitely alpha males.
I mean, they've got a whole bunch of kids and, you know, are living like, you know.
Also, he just got out of house arrest, so it's not current anymore.
On video, Tate has routinely discussed how he grooms young women through seduction, which then leads them to working on cam for him and results in them not being allowed to leave the house without his permission.
He's never made a mystery about what he does and what he's about.
He hates women and is essentially an abusive pimp, and his side business is scamming dudes by claiming he could teach them to become abusive pimps themselves.
It is true that two, not three as Alex said, two women who were named in the initial indictment as victims came forward and said they weren't victims They did have tattoos that said property of Tate, so this might be a perspective thing, but if they aren't pressing charges, I have no place to convince them that they should.
Even so, that leaves four victims who have not recanted shit, even with him attempting to intimidate with lawsuits and what have you.
In their indictment, you can see Tate and his brother luring women from other countries to Romania, pretending to be interested in marriage, only to have the whole thing flipped on them.
We'll see what happens as this case goes to court, but no matter the outcome, Andrew Tate and his brother Yeah, I don't...
I would love to play the audio of Tate talking about fucking a 16-year-old and say it's some soy boy leftist and see what Alex says about that kind of behavior and that brazenness and that bravado about, I don't give a fuck that you're 16?
Yeah, if they do a part two, that's going to be brutal.
Yeah.
I might do it, because there's at least some kind of a, like, A lot of these issues are things that we've touched on before and stuff, but the way it's being discussed, because she's so unaware of anything, it does give an interesting lens into it.
And I feel at the end of this, similarly, there is a reason to do this, and there's a reason to have this conversation and look at this, but at the same time, it's like, I think this sucks.