Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ slurred, erratic September 14, 2023, episode—mocking his "drunk" rants like "Red rum" as anti-vaccine wordplay while debunking his false claims about The Economist’s Rothschild ownership and COVID mandates. Jones pivots to bizarre attacks on UFC and football, then amplifies Judge Joe Brown’s anti-LGBTQIA+ conspiracy theories, comparing them to Nazi Germany and endorsing China/Russia’s draconian laws. Their analysis reveals how unchecked rhetoric fuels division, with Jones’ audience enabling his fabrications despite glaring inconsistencies. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, it is like we talked about it in the last time we had an episode together that like, you know, it creeps up, but it creeped up even more that like this weekend is like, well, get your shit in order.
I think he's drunk because there is a point in the Episode where he just pulls out a paper cup, takes a swig from it, and then stares at it contemplatively like a drunk at a bar, stares at their shot glass at like three in the morning.
I told you 20 plus days ago, my source in the TSA and another source in the Border Patrol confirmed that by the 15th of September, it'll begin rolling out masking and vaccine mandates in hospitals and many other areas.
Yeah, I mean, sometimes whenever a plane says, it would be nice if you of your own accord were to wear a mask, that is exactly the same thing as the government locking you inside of your home.
So there have been individual cases of schools or hospitals that have made requirements for people to wear masks, but it's not like some kind of centralized thing that's everywhere.
The way Alex is like, oh, it's happening.
It's rolling out.
Yeah.
What's going on here is that people like Alex enjoyed such a surge of relevance and popularity during the stretch of 2020 to 2022, when they were constantly screaming about how not cooperating with public health guidance was important.
The people who you're able to get excited on those fronts are the kind of people who need the next big thing on a fairly regular basis or else they get bored.
They need the shiny spectacle of the trucker convoys, the elaborate conspiracies about the vaccine being snake venom.
Sure.
The conspiracies about the vaccines killing off people who didn't take them.
They need this constant influx of dumb shit ideas because if they don't have them, they'll stay on one topic for too long and start to realize that the things that they're being told and led to believe don't make sense.
And so if you're going to keep a conspiracy audience captured, you're going to need to jump around quite a bit.
But those anti-mask, anti-public health guidance days were so exciting for Alex.
The money was flowing and it was actually possible to attract new listeners since the idea that you were losing some autonomy in the face of a public health crisis is something that normal people can feel.
It's harder to appeal to the common person with stories of interdimensional demons trying to make your kids trans for no reason since their mission is just to kill everyone.
Conversely, you don't have to be too far gone to feel like decisions that would be wholly individual in other contexts were becoming heavily influenced by the group's needs.
To wear a mask or not does appear to be a decision that should only really involve your own needs and wants, but the variables that are really at play are the needs and concerns of the people around you.
Outbreaks and pandemics are population-level problems.
So, when you deal with them, you need to be mindful that some of the things that you need to do may be based on population-level concerns more than individual-level ones.
For instance, getting vaccinated does not guarantee that you won't get sick, but it does drastically limit the spread to other people.
And if those people are vaccinated too, that will limit things even more and go a long way towards helping protect the folks who can't get vaccinated, like immunocompromised people.
And it will limit the transmission of it to the extent that it becomes substantially less of a problem.
Those people's health isn't your health.
So, from a purely selfish standpoint, it doesn't feel like it should be a variable in your decision-making.
And this is a feeling that can be exploited very easily by people like Alex and most of the right wing.
It worked really well and excited their base so much the last time.
So, they're desperate to try to recapture some of the magic, but the desperation is a little bit transparent.
Like, really jumping the gun on celebrating your predictions of draconian COVID lockdowns beginning.
Yeah, I mean, I feel like if the general person, even at this level, which I think we kind of have to look at as being somebody who is very like, listen, I can't do any more COVID shit.
I'm just tired.
I'm just tired, right?
So, if I have to wear a mask, fine, fine.
I'll just wear a mask, you know, like that.
I feel like there's that same level of exhaustion on the conspiracy side.
So you look a little confused, and I'm sure it was just momentary, but just for people, he's saying Kathy Hochul is unelected because Andrew Cuomo resigned and she became governor.
But Alex is forgetting that she won an election last year for governor.
This is a very important point that she makes in the full press conference that she gave, was that, you know, what we've had so far has been these vaccines, and then there have been boosters, which are a series of the same shots.
This is a different vaccine that is aimed at the strains that are predominant now.
And so what she was expressing was this isn't the same vaccine, and that old vaccine is not necessarily going to help you in terms of what we have now.
In some ways, you know, not to play the old game of comparing it to Hua Flu, but, you know, an old seasons flu vaccine may not help you for the future seasons.
So the Bill Gates clip there is from July 2020, so it pretty much has nothing to do with the current story Alex is lying about.
The Fauci clip is from this week, and he's talking about the updated vaccine, but he also retired like 10 months ago, so I don't know what he's still doing in the villain gang for Alex.
So, two of these clips are from recent times, and one of them is a two-second clip that's played about 20 times.
These are paired with a longer clip of Bill Gates from three years ago to give the impression that everything is happening all over again.
It's easy to sell that impression that 2020 is happening all over again when you just play clips from 2020 and pretend that they're current, which is one of the unspoken lies Alex is passing off here.
Like him saying that it's admitted that the vaccines don't work and make you sicker.
That's all just complete horseshit.
He's established as InfoWars cannon based on fake data, misrepresented and unpeer-reviewed studies, and completely disreputable guests like Dr. Marbles.
I mean, I suppose if the idea is not, if the idea is just like, we need to get this in you to kill you, what doesn't make sense to me for even if that is the smoking gun, then like it's not admitting that the last vaccine didn't work.
It's admitting that the last vaccine didn't kill you, right?
When you see the way that we allow people to treat our water as a resource that can be handed out or whatnot, imagine organs, but like a million times worse.
And I would imagine, I'm not involved in the field, so I don't know this, but I would imagine that there's like an insanely complicated formula that calculates likely human life years that'll be gained by one person getting the transplant over another.
Jordan, very seriously, I hope that's not the case.
You have chilled me to the core.
So, there was a woman in Alberta, Canada, who was on a transplant waiting list, but was told that her place on that list was on hold unless she got a vaccine.
There was another case of a 31-year-old man in Boston who was told he was ineligible for the heart transplant waiting list because of his refusal to get vaccinated.
This is all terrible, but it's not an attack on the unvaccinated, it's a resource allocation issue.
And if there were unlimited hearts and livers out there, I'm pretty sure that people would get them regardless of their vaccination status.
Yeah, as it stands, the argument is essentially that if you're not willing to take precautions against getting COVID, then it's not unlikely that you'll be given this new organ only to get COVID and have it destroy your new heart or liver or whatever.
So, this article that Alex is reading is from Gateway Pundit, and it's just about new rules that are being put in place by the Providence Medical Group, who run 51 hospitals in seven states.
It's not the government or globalists, it's a mid-sized medical group deciding what to require of their employees.
Also, the article in Gateway Pundit has to start with a disclaimer: quote: In a recent statement to the Gateway Pundit, Providence Hospital System has clarified its stance on COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees, distancing itself from the controversial vaccine mandates that have been a point of contention across the nation.
The healthcare provider claimed that its policy is rooted in choice rather than coercion.
So, your whole article is bullshit then.
And now you've put out that bullshit.
People online have spread it far and wide, and Alex is exaggerating a bunch of other bullshit based solely on what he imagines your bullshit article says.
I do appreciate clarifications because in my experience, people always look at them and go, oh, well, then I shall no longer believe in the main thrust of the article.
And you know what, it's like the Gateway Pundit is the kind of organization that's going to really take stock of what it means to like this clarification.
Like, oh, maybe we were 180 degrees off on this one.
So this article on Gateway Pundit, the claims are based on a tweet posted by an account called Chester Tam, who paid for verification and has about 6,000 followers.
He posted a screenshot of a policy update sheet that totally doesn't back up the story on Gateway Pundit, nor the story that his tweet itself is pushing.
Case in point, the tweet says, quote, breaking mandatory COVID vaccine for healthcare workers.
The Providence Healthcare Hospital System has announced a November 30 deadline for all care providers.
Are the healthcare workers going to continue to allow the government to tell them what's good for their health or finally take a stand?
Do not comply, exclamation point.
But the screenshot very clearly doesn't say this.
It says that caregivers need to provide proof of vaccination by November 30th.
But, quote, caregivers who choose not to receive the vaccine may submit a declination form.
If they already have an approved exemption on file, they will not need to submit a declination.
Declination is a strange word.
They will not need to submit a declination this season.
It further says, quote, caregivers who do not obtain a COVID-19 vaccine or decline by November 30th may be removed from the hospital schedule, placed on unpaid leave, or may be subject to termination for construed non-compliance with the facility policy.
When this started flying around as a hot new COVID conspiracy talking point, Providence tried to clarify their position and reached out to this idiot on Twitter saying, quote, caregivers can choose to decline the vaccine.
Those who do not wish to receive it simply need to submit a declination form by November 30th.
They no longer need to request approval for a medical or religious exemption, as many of our states and CMS required at the height of COVID.
This policy has been our practice for many years with the flu vaccine, and we are now extending this to the COVID vaccine.
This is the opposite of draconian, and it's really just an admin human resources issue.
This is them trying to make sure that they have their paperwork in order so they have express written documentation if a staff member isn't vaccinated, probably for legal or liability reasons.
This is not a get vaccinated or be fired issue.
It's a fill out this season's form or you might be suspended issue, which admittedly is way less exciting than how this Twitter user framed it, which was then blindly and irresponsibly repeated by the Gateway Pundit, which is now expanded upon by Alex and all these other shitheads out there.
Because these idiots refuse to read the stuff that they're basing their bullshit on, or because it's in their financial interest to pretend that they have zero reading comprehension, they got this completely 180 degrees wrong.
This was a company trying to make it easier for their employees not to be vaccinated.
And even that was reported as a horrible attack on the downtrodden but heroic anti-vaxers.
And here's my point.
It's useless to argue with someone like this idiot on Twitter or Alex or the Gateway Pundit.
They either are too dumb to understand the things they read, or they care so little about accuracy that they just repeat whatever shit is convenient for their current hustles without ever checking if the information is correct.
It's pointless to argue, but it's critical to understand this dynamic of how information is being misused and exploited for the benefit of these liars.
Understand this dynamic, and when you encounter someone using this kind of behavior to push their narratives, you can just write them off.
They're poor stewards of the public's attention and the information they're pretending to disseminate, and you're never going to get decent information from someone who acts like this.
It's just indicative of being disqualified from being trusted.
And now, I mean, it's nowadays, like, really, the subject of media literacy has become so highly complicated because everything is now kind of media.
You know, you know, you have to, when it once was like trying to understand where newspapers get their sources, what is this based on, like the reporting, the editorial positions of the paper.
Now it's like, who's this anonymous person on Twitter?
He was informed that he was stealing another account screenshot from a person named The Predicament, who has even less followers.
They got into it back and forth, and I think it's really illuminating.
So this idiot asks the predicament, quote, Did you see the response from Providence Hospital?
She replies, quote, yes, I received something similar and added it to my post.
This idiot then asks, quote, Does this seem like a backpedaling response?
Not sure if I buy it.
She responds, quote, Good question.
The original letter was undoubtedly meant to be coercive.
These shitheads have a screenshot of a perfectly clear notification from this hospital system that does not say that people need to be vaccinated.
And the only reason these shitheads think it does is because that's what they want it to say.
When the hospital system sends them a clarification that wouldn't be necessary if these shitheads were good faith actors, they see it as the hospital backpedaling.
They got exposed, so they're changing their tune, except that the tune is exactly the same as it was in the initial screenshot.
Providence hospitals went out of their way to clarify this issue because they were under the assumption that something had been confused by these shitheads on Twitter.
The attempt to helpfully explain what these shitheads were getting wrong was experienced and interpreted as an attempt by the hospital to cover its ass because these Twitter shitheads were just too good at being detectives and the whole case was being blown wide open.
So Providence Hospital was scared.
This is how these folks are going to act.
And pretending to take their point seriously or pretending to believe that they take their own point seriously is a losing game.
No matter what you do, if you're in the position of the hospital, eventually it will lead to coverage like this on InfoWars where you're being accused of murder.
It's just a choice of whether or not you want your attempts to clarify the situation to be added to the conspiracy.
That's the only agency you have in this whole thing.
Anyway, I found that really interesting to see the way that this, like, this Twitter nonsense metastasized very easily into an article on the Gateway Pundit and then very easily onto coverage on Infowars.
And it's just from some random weirdo who posts dumb shit on Twitter.
He either is not able to understand what he's reading in this screenshot, or he is such a malicious actor that he understands that it doesn't say this, but he can trick people into thinking that it does.
And there's proof of the pudding in the eating that neither the Gateway pundit nor Alex cared to see if there was any veracity to what this person was saying on Twitter.
No.
They just went along with exactly what this Twitter person's narrative was.
I really, I really believe that we're in a situation where I think we're dealing with addicts.
You know, I think we're interested.
I think we've moved past the idea of even rational thought or irrational thought.
We're purely in addict behavior right now because you can see the way that these people are acting.
It's to get what they want.
It's the desire that they're reaching.
Even this conversation, the Twitter conversation, I find interesting because they both want to feel smart and they feel so fucking stupid because they just read this letter.
It says the exact opposite of what they want it to say.
It's fun to see Alex defensive and self-conscious about this, especially considering the article is not all about him.
Also, Lord Rothschild doesn't own The Economist.
The Economist is owned by The Economist Group.
This is a private company that was founded in 1843 and has a number of stakeholders.
The primary owners are a Dutch holding company called Exor.
This is a majority owned by the Agnelli family, the descendants of Giovanni Agnelli, the guy who started the car company Fiat.
They hold 43.4% of the stock in The Economist Group, which is the largest stake, but there's no single majority holder.
Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild was formerly on the board of directors for The Economist Group, but it's not a current thing.
However, she does retain some ownership interest, but nowhere near the level of Exor.
Something like 20%, perhaps?
According to, that's in a politico article from 2015.
And it's intentional.
Like, they have a structure, The Economist Group does, that doesn't allow for single ownership.
From their website, quote, the company is private and none of the shares is listed.
Its articles of association also state that no individual or company can own or control more than 50% of its total share capital and that no single shareholder may exercise more than 20% of voting rights exercised at a general meeting of the company.
Alex doesn't know anything about the subject he's covering and is, in fact, just throwing out anti-Semitic talking points about the Rothschilds that he vaguely recalls, which ironically is part of Mike's book, an attempt to push back on this.
Now, one thing I really enjoy about his behavior is this cockiness and the joy and exuberance that he feels about the Rothschilds owning The Economist.
One of the most quote elite globalist publications that speaks from the mouth of Sultan Satan.
Oh, Rothschilds, they don't have any power.
They just own the majority of BlackRock that owns 80-some percent of everything.
They're such nice people.
They want to give us a universal basic income to take care of us and give us bugs to eat.
Wow.
Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild.
The Economist newspaper.
LTD.
The Economist newspaper, Limited, is a holy yellow city area of the Economist Group.
Sir Evelyn Robert Rothschild was chairman of the company from 1789.
Although the Economist has a global emphasis on scope, about two-thirds of 75 staff and journalists are based in London, Borough of Westminster, and is still owned by the Rothschild family.
Also, Alex accidentally cold read that to the extent that Evelyn de Rothschild was a member of the board at The Economist, like it ended 40 years ago, even by Alex's reading.
He wasn't the whole owner, which is what Alex is claiming.
He was the chairman of the board of directors until 86 or whatever it was, what exact year.
Alex is fucking stupid.
And also, Evelyn de Rothschild died last year.
At the end there, Alex uses some words that I know he would never use from the top of his head, so it's pretty easy to Google it and see where he's reading from.
Alex says, quote, The Economist has a global emphasis and scope, but two-thirds of the 75 staff journalists are based in the London borough of Westminster, and it's still owned by the Rothschild family.
As he read through this wiki page, he started to realize that he's wrong, and even just consulting a source like Wikipedia would call into serious question his knowledge of the subject.
Thus, he just injects his own claim into the source, presenting it and pretending that it's the source talking instead of it just being his own desperate ass trying to look like he's right.
It's honestly pretty pathetic, but definitely slightly less pathetic than listening to Alex, liking him, and allowing him to gaslight you like this.
His audience really should, you know, really hold him accountable for lying.
And you know what's crazy about it is that I would bet five minutes after he said that, Alex remembers the Wikipedia page saying that it's still owned by the Rothschild.
You make a very interesting antagonist when they can make a compelling argument for why they're right, but they are wrong.
In many ways, it's kind of, you know, what creates a good villain is a kernel, or at very least, the belief held by themselves that they're the good guy.
And at the same time, create empathy for the people who aren't villains who are in the same position as the folks who are suffering from the things that that villain was trying to solve the wrong way.
If that characteristic is true of somebody else, then you're kind of, you know, you have a responsibility to either hate that person or explain why you don't.
Because men aren't supposed to spend their time looking at simulated war and getting obsessed with that.
You're supposed to spend your time in reality and the instincts you have for calculus and plays and information, like a football game or a basketball game, is what you're meant to do in business and life for your family and your country and your nation and your world and your people.
Hey, look, I like Mike Tyson because he's anti-globalist now.
And I've been on his show and he's been on mine.
I like Mike Tyson, but I don't care that Mike Tyson can knock people's heads off.
The real war is understanding the globalist operation and its energy and is building our own systems in a pro-human future.
The real war is getting our sperm count that's 90 plus percent down back to full power.
These are new converts who are zealously attempting to force this new religion down everybody's throat and make it the official religion of the country.
If you go to an American building, government building, consulate, Senate, not Senate, embassy, anywhere in the world, you'll see.
It turned out, just interrupt, I'll let you take over.
But they just came out with a new project, Veritas, but now James O'Keefe with his program that major corporations tell their employees you can't wear crosses.
And they're like, well, why is this LGBT festooned everywhere?
You can't have a nativity scene in City Hall or the courthouse, but you can have a rainbow flag hung from the 11th floor of a federal building in D.C. put up there by government employees, the sidewalks, crosswalks painted in rainbow.
Because LGBTQ isn't a religion, having a rainbow flag up at a state capitol building is not in any way comparable to having religious iconography up.
The state sanctioning, respecting, and defending the rights of LGBTQ folk is not the same as the state supporting a particular religion over another.
This guy's a judge, so I know that he doesn't not understand this.
This is for show.
The other thought I had is how malleable all this stuff is, depending on what the bigots need on any particular day.
What is helpful to scare their audience into marginalizing and hating the group they need them to hate?
That is the key.
In order to justify the indefensible transphobia and homophobia of their content and community, Alex and Joe need to turn LGBTQ into a religion.
They don't hate anyone.
They're just against the formation of this state cult that's using gay people and trans people to bring in their tyranny.
It's a Trojan horse that they're using.
But it wasn't so long ago.
In fact, just a few years since Alex was primarily focused on hating Muslims.
The trans panic wasn't hot in his audience yet.
So the prime scapegoat was Muslims and Islam.
However, he can't hate a religion.
That's just definitely outside the spirit of the freedom this country was based on.
And Alex knew full well that he'd be on shaky ground doing that.
So what he and all of his compatriots did was turn Islam into not a religion.
You can't be accused of hating a particular religion if you pretend Islam isn't a religion, but is a political war machine.
So that's what they did in that case in order to make that hate and bigotry into something that's slightly more palatable and doesn't clearly offend the sensibilities of what freedom in America means.
But what we have right now is people who are not so brave and they want to be protected because they do not perceive that they can do this themselves.
So when you have people who are so fearful that they are willing to give up their freedom in exchange for safety, you have a problem.
Now, if you analyze the 20th century, probably the most safe place for anybody outside of being in disfavor or say Jewish or a gypsy was Nazi Germany in the early 30s.
They had probably the lowest crime rate of any society.
unidentified
Yeah, Hebo Tea Club's original pure potty Arco Super Tea come from the only tree in the world that fungles.
Now, if you analyze the 20th century, probably the most safe place for anybody outside of being in disfavor or say Jewish or a gypsy was Nazi Germany in the early 30s.
They had probably the lowest crime rate of any society in the Western world at that point.
But there were some severe problems with surrendering your personal liberty to some autocrats.
So one of the things that I can't really suss out, and he never speaks plainly about, so I don't really know, but it seems to me that the lie he's talking about is that gay people exist or trans people exist.
I can see the complaint in heavy quotes from people like Joe Brown being like, there is a preferable or a positive presentation of LGBTQ folk in the media, generally speaking.
And if he wants to be mad about that, I guess he just wants media that's hostile towards gay people.
And people are making me aware of the behaviors that I engage in and profit from that are directly related to the fucking over of these marginalized people.
And I'm kind of tired of that.
So I think you should shut up and my freedoms are being taken away.
Well, we are being shown that we have a common enemy, those who are against the traditional nuclear family, decency, morality, ethics, and good governance.
So black, white, brown, red, yellow, we can all come together to impose this new imposition of a modern secular religion that threatens the very thing that allowed them to arise in this country.
So we have to protect our system at all costs, and we need to turn everybody out of office who supports this.
Yeah, I'm struggling to find a way to contextualize this that isn't Joe Brown throwing out fighting words, and I don't give a shit if I trip him and he falls and breaks his nose.
The problem that I have, and I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you, but the problem that I have is that he still has this pretending to draw a line between the cult and just, you know, everyday gay, lesbian people, trans people going about their lives.
You know, and it's, it's bullshit.
He's pretending that it's like, oh, I'm fighting against this satanic cult that's trying to take over the government.
But in actuality, you're just mad at LGBTQ folks who are trying to live their lives.
And you can tell because this is not a fucking serious person.
See, this joking fuck and Alex's drunk ass talking about subjects that are essentially about extermination and elimination of LGBTQ people, at least from public spaces, if not from the entirety of our society.
I know, like, they, we just can't process the idea because every time we've, we've all been like, oh, how can people just do this?
How could people put Jews into the ovens?
How could they do that?
And that is all going on while in the middle of people fucking throwing black people into dogs and letting them like this is all happening simultaneously.
And we're all confused.
How could the Germans act so fucking crazy?
You know, and it's like this is happening concurrently with you confused as to why it's happening.
It is happening because this is what people want to do.
This is a comically childish understanding of how attraction and relations work.
Oh, not for nothing.
Maybe Joe is bringing his own baggage into this.
He's twice divorced and was arrested in 2014 for contempt of court during a child support hearing.
He did five days in jail, and when he got out, he compared himself to Nelson Mandela, which made a lot of people think that the whole thing was a publicity stunt since he was involved in a very unpopular run for district attorney at the time, and he needed the press.
He's essentially in a position where he gave up his ability to practice law by placing himself on the disability inactive list rather than face a disciplinary hearing where he would almost certainly have been disbarred.
That case is still on hold, and he'll have to face it if he ever comes off that inactive list.
So he's basically just like a voluntarily disbarred person.
I don't know if there's anything more like straight up, just you're no longer supposed to live in our world than being like, they ruined my favorite sport, girl watching.
So, see, this is our collateral damage to our system.
They have a right to advocate doing it, but we have a right to oppose it.
So what they're trying to do is strip our right to oppose it.
So they use the system For purposes that our way of doing things would not allow them to get because they could not convince the public that this is the way to go to give up boys and girls 101A and B and give up girl watching and boy watching.
It's fascinating that he's so out of shape, bent out of shape about this idea that he's not allowed to hate gay people when he's on a completely anti-LGBTQ platform, a violently anti-LGBTQ program in the form of Infowars.
They're having this conversation openly.
He has the ability to run for the fucking mayor of Memphis position and no one's stopping him.
He can say whatever the fuck he wants.
And guess what?
Everyone else can say the same shit that they want in opposition to you.
And unfortunately, more people are against you.
You fuck because your views are outdated.
They're awful and they don't match up well with the actual idea of freedom and liberty.
The outdated thing, I'm starting to think that we should never have views associated with date whatsoever, you know, because it's outdated everywhere, and yet it's the law of most of the world to hate gay people.
Like, I don't think we should have other laws written until we figure out why it is that it can be legal and yet we still have to keep people in prison.
So anyway, that's the breaking news that Alex is at an airport, probably going to Hawaii and decided that he had to preemptively, before any of the actual information and the evidence that's laid out in this expose, before any of that came out, he had to do damage control preemptively because Russell Brand agrees with some of the stuff that he says.