September 29, 2023’s Knowledge Fight episode dismantles Alex Jones’ baseless "replacement migration" claims—like Bloomberg’s 94% non-white hiring stat (ignoring 6.4M total jobs and white dominance in leadership)—and his debunked ties between undocumented immigrants, policing, and military drafts, including fabricated "Soros DAs" narratives. His cannibalism survivalist rant, framed as dark humor, reveals attention-seeking desperation amid financial losses, while hosts mock the viral shock tactics. Jones’ fear-mongering, rooted in white victimhood tropes, collapses under scrutiny, exposing his reliance on semantic distortions over facts. [Automatically generated summary]
I don't know if it was because of like sprinkling in some sleep on the plane or muscling through and like going to bed later on that Friday when we got back or Thursday, whatever day that would have been.
I don't know what it is, but I'm very fortunate and I'm sorry for you.
It felt like that, you know, we both run shows for comedy, for making people laugh.
And then, you know, we've both been around people who run shows that aren't for funniness or their music shows or any number of different things, right?
So both of us have a kind of ideal way of this is how things should go, how they should look, all of that stuff.
Amersham Arms was about as close to somebody else doing it right as I've seen in a long time.
I wish we had a little more time to spend there because there was a lot of cool, I just can't get over the river running through the west end of the city.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I thought that was so cool.
I would have liked to fuck around in the creek bed a little bit.
I mean, It is about as, you know, even they made the joke where it is like, it's about as them as you can get that they're not here to accept this award.
But in the real world, if someone were going out of their way to, you know, award us something, I would suck it up and deal with the discomfort that I have and be gracious about it.
It is, it is, you know, I mean, it's become, it is, it's a precedent now, though, that it's possible for us to, you know, because it wasn't even like we had that thought of like, wouldn't it be funny if they, or, or like, maybe they would, or like, we could be in the running or like any of those, nothing along those lines.
And then the other thing that was truly great that's my bright spot is like as we're as I'm thinking about the tour and returning to sanity in my own brain, meeting the Wonks after the shows was so amazingly.
I mean, our audience is so inclusive, so loving, so connected to each other.
So many people showed up with solo tickets and left with a group of friends.
That is something that I could not be more shocked and grateful for.
You know, you don't get, I don't, doing stand-up, getting those after-show conversations with people, a lot of times it's an old dude trying to say a terrible word to me.
I was scanning through the clips on Bandot Video, and I didn't see what I just saw them talking a lot about him and how the allegations against him were just proof that he's right.
There's been a big story hiding in plain view that I talked about many years ago because it's part of the larger UN replacement migration plan, but I hadn't talked about it in a long time.
And Scott Bronson, our lead producer on the show, came in this morning with a big stack of news and made the point to me and said, I think this is what's going on.
And I said, no, I agree with you.
That is what's going on.
So I had them print some more articles and get some more videos ready.
At the bottom of the hour, I'm going to cover a massive story.
How are they going to get foreign troops here to confiscate the guns?
And so then Alex gets some more articles and you can see him taking these pieces that he's going to try and connect together into like a harmonious, like overarching narrative.
And it almost seems as though I can follow somewhat of the plan that he is lying.
That's the difference.
Exactly.
Yes.
No, it does feel like, okay, foreign troops need to get into the we disguise them as immigrants coming through either Mexico or Canada, goes up there, and then somehow, I don't know how it gets to the draft, but I'm kind of interested.
So when Alex says that he does full spectrum analysis or however he chooses to phrase it that day, what you should really hear is him saying that he's too lazy to read any actual articles or studies.
So when he covers one, he needs to free associate and connect it to anything else he can think of so the audience doesn't catch on to the shallowness of the information that he's bringing to the table.
If he had a mastery of the subject he's talking about, there would be no need to go off on absurd tangents and rant about whatever comes to his mind because Alex would be able to discuss this one news story in depth in such a way that he could illustrate to the audience how it connects to other subjects that he covers.
That's what people do when they know what they're talking about.
He wouldn't need to do this entire song and dance because his point could be clearly made through the lens of a single story if he wanted to.
This Bloomberg story he's referencing here is a pretty good case in point.
The headline is about how 94% of new hires were non-white applicants between 2020 and 2021 for the data reviewed by Bloomberg.
So naturally, Alex is going to do what he calls full spectrum analysis on the story.
That means he didn't read the story, but it makes him feel like white people are being replaced and cast out of society.
So he's going to rant about other stories that make him feel that way.
It's the full spectrum of white victimhood that he's going to analyze, but it doesn't actually involve the analysis of the story itself or the article.
For my money, if you're going to do full spectrum analysis on a story, you need to analyze that story itself first so you know what you're talking about.
And when you're connecting it to all the other stuff within the spectrum, that helps it make sense.
All we know from Alex's coverage is that 94% of these new hires have been non-white people, but what else can you learn from reading the Bloomberg article?
It should come as no surprise that there's a hell of a lot that Alex is leaving out.
Now, when you say full spectrum analysis, have you considered instead loading a shotgun with spaghetti and then firing it at the nearest person and then throwing a smoke bomb and running away?
So the first thing to note about this article is that it's just a glimpse at data from 88 companies on the SP 100 list, representing 323,094 new jobs that were created during the year 2020 to 2021.
For some context, the U.S. added 6.4 million jobs in 2021.
So while whatever data or trends we can pull from this Bloomberg set is interesting and it represents behaviors of many of the larger companies in the U.S., it still doesn't depict the full picture of employment in the United States.
The SP 100 represents the large companies that Alex would describe as globalists.
These are folks like Apple, Amazon, Disney, BlackRock, Comcast, McDonald's, these sorts of companies.
Big-ass companies that have a lot of different sorts of employment underneath their company umbrellas.
That context is actually really important because if you read on in the article, you find that though 94% of the new hires for these newly created jobs were non-white applicants, this still leaves these companies in a very white-centric place.
From the article, quote, even such big one-time gains and losses represent a relatively small slice of the full picture.
The share of executive, managerial, and professional roles held by people of color increased by about two percentage points compared with 2020.
That still leaves most companies in our data set lopsided, with white people holding disproportionate shares of high-paying jobs at SP 100 companies.
In the article, you find that even with all these things factored in, 74% of executive positions at these companies are held by white people, as well as 63% of managerial positions.
The bulk of these new positions that were created were in the lower-paid, less senior positions.
That doesn't mean that this stat of the art in the article that it's based on is meaningless, but it does mean that it's easy to get the wrong idea about it if you just skim and look at the number.
It does feel like if I was one of these companies wanting to show off how cool I am, I would plant one of these articles that has chosen very specific numbers to reflect.
So there's another aspect here that we need to take into consideration, which is that Bloomberg came to this data set by reviewing EEOC filings made by these companies.
Companies with more than 100 employees are required to send in this information, which Bloomberg reviewed, and then they came up with their numbers and their figures.
But this can only capture so much information.
In this case, like these hires made for new positions.
This isn't the full picture of employment at any of these companies, which is why you see this in the section about their methodology.
Quote, there are several ways a company can change the demographics of its workforce.
For example, when a white person leaves, their position could be filled by a person of color, or a company might opt to hire a person of color for an entirely new role.
However, the EEO1 form doesn't offer data on turnover rates or the volume of new recruits, the kind of detailed insights needed to track these internal shifts.
This analysis is fairly limited, and more than anything, it's sold kind of as corporate propaganda.
The angle of the reporting is more or less a puff piece for these giant companies, which is a little shady.
We know nothing about the exact nature of the jobs that were created.
And from the information that's available to Bloomberg, we don't even know if these jobs still exist and if they're filled by the same people.
There are a lot of unanswerable questions that this coverage can't cover.
And at the end of the day, I feel like an article like this is way more valuable to a white identity extremist like Alex than anybody else.
And I guess maybe to these companies themselves.
The optics of this headline work perfectly for Alex, so long as he doesn't actually get into the article.
Because if he did, he'd have to explain to the audience that these hires did very little to move the needle in terms of changing overwhelmingly white corporate governance at these companies, and that the data behind the article only captures about 5% of the jobs that were created in 2021.
If you shrink the spectrum of your analysis to just the headline and some feelings that they evoke in you, you get the kind of coverage that Alex is going to engage in.
But it's meaningless.
And the only real truth you can find involves Alex's intense feelings of white victimhood and how much he wants the audience to feel those things too.
Now, to your point, though, about the corporate propaganda aspect, the thing that I find really interesting is if we approach this coverage from a critical eye, the way that you might when you're saying, hey, this is a puff piece for businesses.
Sure, Alex is distracting the audience from being able to recognize that with racism.
Yeah, I mean, it is very much that idea of as long as you can convince the poorest white man they're better than a non-white person, then you can rule this whole fucking country, you know?
And I mean, that fucking anytime they're like from this very, very specific period, these very, very specific requirements for this study, these very, very specific numbers that we're using to reflect what's going on.
You're like, okay, if you, so what you're saying is if you spread it out from, say, 2000 to 2020, it'd be mainly white people.
So I'm not going to hand wave away Hunka's wartime activities, though he did join the 14th Waffen Grenadier division of the SS at 18, which I only bring up to say that he was probably a pretty fucking bad person, but he wasn't running the show.
I have a very strong suspicion that the actual advocacy groups that brought attention to this are being ignored because the narrative on Alex's show is that Jewish groups, like the Wiesenthal Center, actually support Nazis.
So it wouldn't make sense for them to call this out.
To dodge that inconvenience, it's easy enough to give credit to this no-name Russophile YouTuber.
I was able to find an article about Thornton's alleged arrest on David Icke's website, but pretty much nowhere else.
Apparently, he was recording an episode of his web show on the night of September 24th, and in the middle of it, the police showed up and he disappeared.
But the article specifically says that he disappeared, quote, 20 minutes before the show ended because there was another host who was interviewing somebody else.
I can't find this video.
It's not on his YouTube channel.
And on the 24th, he was just retweeting transphobic memes and posts about how you should lose government assistance if you're caught looting.
Sure.
That's what's going on when this is supposed to have been happening.
So the article on David Icke's website says that there was a Twitter video that was later taken down, but then it describes another video that's still there where Thornton blows hard about the difference between disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.
I don't necessarily believe this story that he's telling about being arrested, primarily because plenty of people were pointing out Hunka's past, and there's no reason that anyone would silence him by feel the need to silence him by arresting him.
That's the kind of story that shithead online liars like to tell about themselves in order to make their content seem more dangerous to the power structure.
So until I'm shown otherwise, that's what makes the most sense to me.
At most, he says he was questioned over spreading malinformation, which Warren characterizes as taking true things that are supposed to be private and making them public.
He means that in terms of like government secrets and stuff like that, but when people are accused of spreading malinformation, it usually means that they're doxing or swatting people or spreading revenge porn.
It can also involve taking a kernel of truth and exaggerating it out to the point where it's no longer true.
And I could maybe see the police in the UK visiting someone if it was a situation where the thing that was being lied about was important or dangerous enough.
So interestingly, Thornton is a regular guest on a Rumble channel called The Charlie Ward Show.
You may recognize that name, Charlie Ward, because he's a figure who Carrie Cassidy looks up to quite a bit.
Great.
Because he's a QAnon weirdo.
Intermixed with Warren Thornton's appearances, you'll find interviews with someone called the King of Q-Drops, a guy named SG Anon, and someone who goes by Baby Trump.
So this intensely pro-Russia commentator who hangs out on QAnon Rumble shows and appears to be at least exaggerating talking to the police in order to give himself the claim to fame is going to talk to Alex pretty much the entire third hour, and it's fucking boring.
Yeah.
Just wall-to-wall Russia is great talk, and insistence is that Justin Trudeau and Zelensky both knew that Hunko was in the SS as a child, or as a youth, excuse me, because they were trying to signal to their Nazi brethren worldwide by giving him a standing ovation.
One thing I want to point out, and that's what you noticed there, is that Alex said that the Ukraine is where, quote, the real Holocaust stuff went on, which I find to be problematic phrasing.
That really leads you to believe that Alex thinks that other, quote, Holocaust stuff didn't go on elsewhere.
And if you know, if it appears that it did, it might have been fake.
Does he not think that the extermination of Jews in Poland was real?
Does he not think that Auschwitz was real?
Like, what about the Gross Rosen complex and occupied Czechoslovakia in Poland?
Probably not real to Alex, I guess.
Dachau and Buchenwald were both in Germany proper, so that was probably fake shit.
You can discuss the reality that the occupied Ukrainian government absolutely carried out a genocide of Jewish Ukrainians during World War II without trying to minimize the things that happened elsewhere.
Alex does need to do that, though, because most of his audience doesn't really believe the Holocaust happened, but they need that anger toward Nazis so they can direct it towards Ukraine in order to support Russia.
Because it serves the interests of carrying water for Russia and Putin in the current invasion of Ukraine.
Alex is trying to selectively evoke the Ukrainian aspect of the Holocaust while trying to be careful not to go too far and anger the Holocaust denialist contingent in his audience, which is fucked up.
Senator Diane Feinstein will continue to serve in office even after shuffling off her mortal coil, thanks to a new power play from the Democratic Party.
Just days after my majority leader, Chuck Schumer, Democrat New York, ended the chamber's dress code, so Senator John Fetterman could dress like an insane org.
You know, usually satire, I think, generally, you want to get to the end of it because there's usually, like, this may come up later on, but Jonathan Swift, you know, with the modest proposal, if you didn't read to the end, you might not have, it would not have appeared to be satire.
Everybody knows Biden, when he was candidate Biden, said when I win the election, and I will, because he knew he would by fraud, I want all the illegal aliens who immediately surge the border.
He was talking about refugees and asylum seekers who Trump had made rules to keep out of the country.
In essence, Biden was just saying that we would go back to welcoming people who were fleeing their home countries after Trump temporarily betrayed the American value of taking people in.
Biden was really clear about this.
In fact, here's the clip that Alex is talking about from one of the Democratic primary debates.
Alex knows what Biden actually said, but pretending he said something different helps him drum up white fear and xenophobia, which is the fuel that Infowars runs on.
So he's never going to admit to being full of shit about this.
The rest of the stuff that Alex could not is saying he couldn't demonstrate or prove this in any way.
It's foolish to think that no crime has ever happened or happens at or near the border, but this is just over-the-top nonsense.
These numbers are all made up.
They're pulled from other racist and xenophobic blogs and memes and other weirdo fake experts Alex has on the show.
That goes all the way up to people on the debate stage.
That idea of we're talking about illegal immigration.
And so many times you see the opposition to that being like, we support legal immigration, not we don't support crime, you know, and getting into that situation and their misunderstanding that it has nothing to do with legal or illegal.
But the semantics are meant to obscure and make it impossible for you to talk about these things with someone like Alex.
It would just be impossible to have a debate or even a discussion about immigration because the terms that he would use would be foreign to your vernacular.
We're going to set them up and politically control them and basically only give them government-connected jobs so we run their lives.
And then when we want to, we can activate them for political control to vote, to be the police officers, to arrest citizens, to confiscate guns, you name it.
Just like in Tiananmen Square in the late 80s, they trained in and bushed in in a day 500,000 troops from 1,000 miles away that didn't even speak the same Chinese dialect to kill everybody.
I mean, you know, as far as the plan goes, you don't even really need foreign troops if you're going to, I guess, triple the population of the United States within 17 years.
I mean, that's what I'm, that would be a that's a that's actually a good plan to to accomplish the thing that you want as far as like a linear goal plan to solve a problem.
It's just impossible on account of all the reasons that makes it impossible.
Well, I think that one of the difficulties for Alex, and it's kind of one of the benefits of his show, like moving fast, is there's never really time to think about things.
But one of the shortcomings of his conspiracy thought process is he really never engages with if this is true, then what else is true?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Kind of stuff.
Because the implications of a lot of the points along the way to achieving the conspiracy either already have achieved them or are run counter to the plan that you're supposed to be heading towards.
That will have the effect of all of the good people quitting so that they can be replaced by undocumented immigrants who are under the sway of the globalists, so they'll do whatever they're told, unlike most soldiers I've ever heard of.
So, this is all part of a plan to reinstate the draft, which seems like it wouldn't be necessary since part of the plan involves filling up all the recruitment quotas with immigrants.
Why would the globalists want to conscript a ton of random people when they're likely to have the exact same problem with the folks they had to drive out of the service in the first place?
It's an assessment of lessons that can be learned from the conflict that's broken out after Russia invaded Ukraine.
One of the many points that it brings up is that if the U.S. is in an all-out full-scale combat war situation, the existing reserves and volunteer model is not going to work.
There just aren't enough people to fill the expected vacancies you'd end up with due to casualties and injuries.
And this article suggests that scenario, quote, may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.
Now, keep in mind that this article also brings up the 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan as not that kind of war scenario.
So that, as severe as that was, that isn't what we're talking about.
This is talking about what would be necessary if the U.S. were to go into a ground war with a country like Russia or China.
And even then, the article doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that you need a draft, since we might see a, quote, future of largely unmanned or remotely manned ground combat vehicles.
If anything, this article is about training and education, mostly.
A draft doesn't make sense in modern America, and no one would go along with it.
Further, this article isn't arguing for one, nor is it laying the groundwork for it.
And even beyond that, a draft makes zero sense inside Alex's racist conspiracy theory.
It's all just bullshit.
Alex is trying to tie together to kill time and freak out his panicked white audience.
And that at the end of the day, like, if they're drafting you and they're going to send you into some hostile combat environment, what do you have to lose by resisting the draft?
And it really represents something that I don't think can ever be accepted, which is that the government should never be allowed to force me to go die.
So more importantly, Alex is just straight up lying about this demographic breakdown of immigrant populations.
This is a set of data put out by the Migration Policy Institute, which is a group Alex would absolutely hate.
They have an advocacy for immigrants.
By their estimate, there are approximately 11 million unauthorized persons living in the United States.
And Alex is claiming that this report says that they are mostly military-aged men.
A simple scroll down the data shows that 46% or over 5 million are women.
A further 5% are under the age of 16.
Another 25% are people over the age of 45, which we can assume is past prime military recruitment age.
The image that Alex is painting just isn't justified by the data.
And this is the source that he's citing.
He's way off, which is part of why he has to say that these are old numbers and it's much worse now because that's a claim that's too vague to be checkable.
What numbers are current enough?
Where do the goalposts need to be for him to accept that he's wrong?
It's a loser's game to try and chase that down and it is not worth it.
The point here, though, is that Alex wants the audience to think that all the immigrants coming in are military-aged men, and he uses that specific language because he wants the audience to see all immigrants as a potential violent threat.
He wants the idea of immigration to be equivalent in the listener's mind to a hostile invasion because Alex is at his core a white nationalist who doesn't want people to think, he doesn't want people that he thinks are different than him coming into the country.
I found some other newer data sets that contradict Alex's idea that the population of undocumented immigrants has been more overwhelmingly military-aged men.
And actually, one of the interesting things that Alex isn't taking into consideration is that a lot of the people who are in this population have been here for a long time.
A large percentage of undocumented immigrants are people who came here and then overstayed their visa.
A 2019 paper put forth an estimate that about 62% of that population had been living in the United States for more than 10 years.
Anyway, just further full spectrum analysis, Alex is refusing to do because what's more important for him is to demonize vulnerable populations and make his audience fearful of them and angry at them because that's what sells super male vitality.
And part of the reason that this is the way that it's going is because there's such an obsession in Alex's conspiracy community of the idea of the UN bringing in foreign troops on U.S. soil in order to impose one world government edicts.
But see, that one, at the very least, makes sense insofar as these are not people that are going through the military training system that we created to get them to do what we say.
Yeah, I mean, I just feel like it's impossible to believe that a bunch of people could go through military training assimilated with everybody else and then somehow still have the strength of will to be like, hey, buddy, we're going to kill everybody, right?
So this page that Alex is reading off of is the Customs and Border Patrol Enforcement Statistics.
It doesn't have any of the information that he's reporting.
You have to go deeper into the CBP stats section to find demographic breakdowns, and even then, they don't specify genders.
If you do trace it down, you find that in 2023, encounters with single adults was down 16.3% year over year, and encounters with family units was up 18.2%.
Not sure how Alex accounts for that, but I guess a family unit is just code for multiple military-aged men.
So I'm always amazed when Alex reads off three or four headlines about the same story and is seeming to be acting like it's about different things.
All those headlines are about the same Bloomberg analysis.
It's the propaganda radio show equivalent of a high school student throwing a bunch of bullshit into their work cited page to make the teacher think that they actually did the work.
Right.
It's really transparent and screams that he's not prepared or has read any of these articles, so it's pretty embarrassing.
That Illinois law that Alex is talking about only covers legal permanent residents and green card holders, as well as people who have had asylum approved or their refugee status approved.
Further, it only applies to people in such a situation like that who are legally allowed to work, who are also authorized to carry a gun, which is an even smaller substance.
All of these actual details haven't stopped people like Ron DeSantis and Lauren Boebert from claiming it's all about making undocumented immigrants cops because they're stupid and they thrive on inciting white panic.
Further, I don't understand how Alex made that transition here.
If you pay attention, he's talking about immigrants and his fears about them, specifically that they're all military-aged men and now they're going to be allowed to be cops and rule over everybody.
Then he jumps right into the barrage of headlines about a Bloomberg analysis of SP 100 companies and their new hires being 94% non-white.
That isn't about immigrants.
It's a completely different issue, but Alex is making them connect, and it's really easy to see why the audience would go along with it.
That's because the non-whiteness of the immigrants is the thing that Alex is concerned with.
So the non-whiteness of the corporate hires matches up with the theme of what he's saying completely.
If you're paying attention to the actual subject he's talking about, it's confusing because these things aren't related.
But in Infowars linguistics, this makes perfect sense because it's all about white victimhood.
So even just from a visual perspective, Alex should know better than to try and pull off this lie.
This is definitely not what the Bloomberg article says.
In fact, it shows super unequal levels of employment through different levels of jobs.
The infographic Alex is showing here shows the number of jobs gained in each of these different strata of employment, broken down by race.
In terms of less senior roles, which is described as like sales, labor, and service type roles, there were 16, or I'm sorry, 18.8,000 less white people in those positions year over year.
Comparatively, there were 106,000 more Hispanic people, 50.8,000 more black people, 19.2,000 more Asian people, and 19.4,000 more folks of other races holding these jobs.
Big increases in these other groups, decrease in white folks.
This is where the bulk of the numbers you're seeing reflected in this report exist.
And as you go up the ladder, it doesn't become more equal.
In the professional category, which is jobs that generally require some higher degree, 29.2,000 more positions were filled by white candidates compared to 15.5,000 and 15.6,000 by Hispanic and black job hunters, respectively.
Asian applicants ended up getting 41,000 of these positions, which admittedly is a big jump year over year and is closer to, well, actually, higher than the number of conditions of white employees.
Low and mid-level manager hires were fairly even across the board, but when you get to senior-level executives, it's very white.
White hires made up a little less than the number for Hispanic, black, and Asian hires combined on that level.
A little lower down in the article, there's another graphic that reflects the fact that most of the employees at these S ⁇ P companies are white.
For instance, over all levels of employment, 12 of the companies reviewed had workforces that were over 70% white, including three over 75% and one over 80%.
All of these dynamics are not captured by Alex's analysis because what he's doing isn't analysis.
Knowing more about this subject in an article would get in the way of his ability to use it for his purposes.
So he's incentivized to know less and make up more, which is what he's doing.
I feel like maybe some unengaged types of people who may of goodwill, but sort of milquetoast people on the left could maybe feel a sense of we did it.
You turn off the resources with global investment and with lockdowns for three years in the third world.
Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, poor areas of Asia.
You set up UN refugee centers to take military-age men, set them up, give them debit cards, give them paths to enter, and then send them to Europe, Western Europe, and the United States.
As of the larger picture of that clip, nothing that Alex is saying is real.
This is literally entirely built from his own paranoid racist imagination.
One of the things that's worrying about this clip in particular, however, is that there's a coherence to the narrative, like we were talking about at the beginning.
It's all bullshit, but there's connective tissue that links the thoughts together.
The threads of various other conspiracy theories are being intertwined here to present to the audience a larger meta-conspiracy.
And the only point of that meta-conspiracy is to sow fear and distrust of immigrants and non-white people that you might suspect are immigrants.
I don't know how else to put this other than to say that this is beyond Alex's capabilities.
Someone else helped him with this.
And if I had to guess, it's something that he's getting from an explicit white nationalist or from a white nationalist website.
Alex is doing his level best to sanitize the message and make it appear to not be white nationalist in nature, so the less extreme members of his audience can accept it.
But make no mistake, this is intensely racist white nationalist coverage and messaging.
There's also just a bunch of factual errors in what Alex is saying, so I've chosen just a few to discuss.
Alex says that 80 million plus people died from starvation because of the lockdowns.
That's just not true.
And if Alex cared at all about this issue of food insecurity around the world, he would never behave this way.
There are many countries in the developing world where hunger is a severe issue.
And if you consult the folks who work to fight that hunger, you'll never hear them cite a globalist conspiracy involving fake outbreak lockdowns as a serious factor.
The number one driver of food insecurity in many of these countries, like Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan, is the climate.
These are countries that were already food insecure generally and have been facing catastrophic situations like extended droughts and flooding.
Other countries have conflict-related food dynamics, like in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Yemen.
Outbreaks of fighting limit the importing of necessary goods like food, and the people suffer for it.
This is a very real problem, but the way Alex talks about it is bullshit.
There were impacts that COVID had on supply chains, which were felt in these developing countries, but 80 million additional people didn't die of starvation because of it.
Alex just has a headline from like two years ago where the UN food program head was warning that food insecurity could get worse, and Alex has lied about and embellished that headline since in order to use it as a touchstone in his conspiracy theory.
He's using the dead bodies of people in developing countries as a prop for his presentation, which is meant to make his overwhelmingly white audience hate people from developing countries even more and make them resist aiding them in any way.
Alex further says that the military is the largest employer of immigrants, so that's complete bullshit.
The military doesn't even rank compared to manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and employment in private household capacities.
This is just a completely fabricated stat that Alex is throwing out because he needs to make the audience scared that this bullshit conspiracy he's selling them is much larger than they think.
I know it had to have been helped by someone else because the ultimate goal of this conspiracy does not square with the ultimate goals of other globalist conspiracies.
How are we eradicating 95% of the population through this?
Well, I guess you could link that pretty easily because these troops that are coming in will take the guns and taking the guns is an essential step to killing off 95% of the people.
As I mentioned earlier, the law in Illinois only applies to immigrants and refugees who would be legally allowed to work and who are allowed to carry a firearm.
There have been historical tensions between the Sikh community and the police for a number of reasons.
One is the desire for the creation of an independent state, ideally carved out of what is currently India.
That causes a bit of tension.
Another major issue is that the Sikhs are required by the articles of their faith to carry a ceremonial dagger called a carpon at all times, which has led to tension between security forces at places like airports.
Sikh folks have been arrested for wearing their carpon in public, and this has caused a lot of distrust aimed in both directions.
Another article of faith is that Sikhs must wear a turban, which is a problem for some branches of the police who are required to wear bulletproof helmets.
This was an example of a situation that got resolved, where Sikh officers are allowed to wear smaller turbans that fit within their helmets.
The National Sikh Police Association is an attempt to smooth out these relations and mediate in a way that's productive to both groups' interests, spearheaded by Sikh individuals who are employed as cops.
And Alex is representing this as groups of Sikhs who will do the government's bidding and kill everyone.
In many ways, this is no different than any other group representing specific interests, like the numerous Christian police associations in the UK and here in the United States.
And then the majority, the largest block, look it up.
Type in migrants.
People immigrating.
Just type.
They don't call me legal aliens.
Migrants make up the biggest percentage of the new military sign-ups and recruits.
And so they get here, they sign them up, they get military training, and now our military is being transferred from being a U.S. citizen volunteer force.
And they do that to run out the volunteer force, transgenderism, critical race theory, all the anti-white crap.
So all the rural people, all the southerners, all the folks that know how to skin a buck, run a trot line that made up our military, the world feared.
You kind of have to sit back and admire how desperately he's trying not to say that the people he wants in the army are white people with how many attempts at euphemism he employs.
You can't just be an undocumented immigrant and join the military, although you also don't have to be a citizen.
There's a middle ground that Alex is pretending doesn't exist, which is if you're a permanent resident but not a citizen.
You can have a green card and join the military, for example.
Sure.
Alex is pretending you can just illegally cross the border and then show up at a recruitment center and they'll take you in and give you a uniform and a gun.
That's absurd.
That's not how any of this works.
You have to be a permanent resident and you have to pass certain English fluency tests in order to be able to make it even in the door.
This is how our country has always worked.
And approximately 5,000 non-citizen applicants enlist each year.
This isn't the majority of enlistments like Alex is saying.
It's closer to 6% of the total number of new recruits.
It's important to understand the way Alex is misrepresenting this because underneath that, his flagrant racism and xenophobia are on clear display.
But it's the misrepresentation kind of has to be understood in order to get under it.
They don't parachute in like the 1980s movie with Charlie Sheen and the rest of them.
No, they're brought in, they're prepared, they're brought into the cities, they're given jobs, and then later they will do whatever their sponsors say.
Because if they don't riot or they don't kill or they don't commit a crime, they are deported.
U.S. service members, veterans, and other families may be eligible for certain immigration benefits in recognition of their important sacrifice.
Specifically, veterans and current service members may be eligible to become U.S. citizens through naturalization under special provisions of the Immigration Naturalization Act in INA.
These provisions reduce or eliminate certain general requirements for naturalization, including requirements for the applicant to have resided or been physically present in the United States for a specific period of time for naturalization.
That's the new rules 2002.
That was changed.
So that's what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen.
But I do think, as a standing policy, if somebody is a permanent resident and they care about the country and want to serve the country, I think not offering some kind of, hey, you know what?
You are exactly the sort of folks we like to have around here.
You certainly would like to be a part of our country.
We'd like to help you become a citizen.
If you didn't do that, I think that would be real shitty.
Just before that clip that Alex played, Obama says, quote, when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem.
They are the answer.
So we're going to send more college graduates to mentor our young people.
We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods across the country.
This part of the speech wasn't about creating secret minority-only police forces.
It was about the government facilitating civic projects through things like AmeriCorps.
It was also about expanding the Peace Corps and Foreign Service, specifically as an attempt to undo the damage the Bush administration had done to the country's position in terms of diplomacy.
Alex knows all this, or the most generous interpretation I have is that he's so painfully uncurious that he just saw this clip of Obama and said, that sounds scary enough.
And then he never looked into it, which I find almost impossible, but maybe possible.
No, I would definitely keep that one in my back pocket because there's a lot of uses for, we're going to get a civilian national security force as strong as the military.
So we've talked about the way that this has connective tissue, that this conspiracy makes some sense generally.
Sure.
But it also lacks coherence in that Alex is taking this from like, okay, they're trying to create these ways to have these immigrants come in and then make them the military police and such.
But then he's also trying to weave this into like Soros DAs not prosecuting black crime and stuff like that.
He's trying to use this very specifically to fuel his more general race conspiracies.
Starting six years ago, the George Soros DAs that control every major city in the country, any major city, most even mid-sized cities, it's like a thousand-plus cities.
Look it up.
Said, we don't care, as long as a person's brown or black, if they shoot somebody, they rape somebody, we let them out, we don't even charge them.
You see it all in the news.
We're going to allow people to loot and rob.
And then, of course, the majority of black folks and people aren't criminals, but there's a large minority of that minority that are going to do it.
And they're in Bolden.
And so they rob all the major blue cities until the malls close, the Walgreens close, the CVS close, the government store close.
And they go, oh, don't worry.
We're going to federalize things and open up the old Walmarts.
Biden's going to give us billions of dollars.
We're going to give you free food through these things.
So, this is the process, the processes.
And now the criminals are fanning out into the suburbs and the rural areas.
And when you shoot somebody, even in your small town, that's breaking into your house at 2 a.m. with a gun, you learn that your small town of 5,000 people elected a Soros mayor or a Soros DA and you get charged.
But it's important to point out that this is indistinguishable at this point from outright white supremacist messaging.
One of the hallmarks of the Klan and outlets like the Council of Conservative Citizens is the fantasy that the system doesn't punish crimes committed by non-white people and crimes committed against white people.
The reason that this is the case is that these groups know that fear and white victimhood narratives are some of the most potent recruiting tools.
Amplifying these feelings can have the effect of overriding a person's critical thinking skills and putting them into an emotional decision-making state where they're forming impressions based on a fraudulent sense of existential doom.
It's a tried and true tactic in big communities over time, and Alex isn't going to be the only one not using that.
If the Soros DAs are in charge of immigrant police departments that already have full sway under the law, like what that seems, that's just, that's overkill.
But it is interesting that this is the way that the entire pageant and presentation about his conspiracy hidden in plain view ends with him passionately screaming at black people to condemn attacks on white people.
If you look at it as all really just different tendrils coming out of white victimhood narratives, then it all makes total sense that that's where his brain goes.
Like that's the essential through line that I think is important to approach this content with.
Maybe he's saying these things, and they don't make sense, but maybe he's actually talking about something else underneath the surface that does make sense for this connection to be made.
Some leftist Schroeder sneachy belly says, I swear to God, every historical fact trotted out by the right is either some tinfoil hack conspiracy theory made up by someone like Alex Jones or like in the case of this map, something literally everybody but them has known since learning it in junior high.
No, it's not taught in junior high that 98% of black slaves were sent to the Middle East or to South America or to Central America or the Caribbean.
For good crazy numbers, yeah.
90 plus percent of the slaves were sent to Brazil and were sent to the Caribbean and were sent to the Middle East and were sent to India and were sent to Madagascar.
And people who act like that should be mocked and at least not taken seriously.
This map that Alex is clearly mad about is pretty misleading, too, but it misleads by using actual data.
For example, Brazil was the destination for about 60 to 70% of enslaved persons sent over from Africa during this time period that it covers, with only about 6% of the people going to the United States.
Yet, mysteriously, by the time of the Civil War, the U.S. enslaved population made up over half of the enslaved population in the Western Hemisphere.
Between 1790 and 1860, the enslaved population in the United States went from 697,624 to 3,953,760.
The U.S. didn't need to import as many enslaved persons because our system of chattel slavery included having enslaved people reproduce and then enslaving their children.
Thus, when you look at numbers that just include importation figures, you miss out on the larger context, which is exactly what Alex wants to do.
He wants to eliminate the context and reality of American slavery in order to minimize its impact because he's a flagrant racist.
As to the question of whether or not someone in Brazil should be responsible for their ancestor enslaving people, it's the same question as it relates to the United States.
You aren't personally responsible for the actions of your ancestors, but you do exist in the context of their actions.
The legacy of American slavery involves the theft of billions of hours of labor, and after the abolition of slavery, the intentional effort to keep black people unable to interact with the public market, thereby destroying generations of wealth.
All this has a tremendous impact on the world that we live in today, and it's only one of the variables of our unresolved history as it relates to slavery.
To the extent that that exists in Brazil, it's the same problem if it does.
I'm not entirely sure.
I don't know the most about Brazilian culture, but to the extent that that exists, it's a problem.
Another important variable that Alex is failing to recognize is that a lot of the places on the map where slaves were being sent were territories being held by imperial powers.
For instance, through almost the entire history that map covers, Brazil was a colony of Portugal, and they had a giant interest in the sugarcane exports from Brazil.
Many of the large destinations for enslaved persons had a similar dynamic.
Cuba was a Spanish colony at the time.
Saint Dominique was a French colony.
And Jamaica was a British colony.
All of these places were major sugarcane producers, as well as some other crops like coffee.
So the imperial powers came in, enslaved local populations, but then needed more labor.
So they imported humans from Africa.
This is a far more complicated issue than Alex wants to recognize because his only interest is in pretending that the history of racist structures in the United States really isn't that bad.
He's wrong, and he really needs to stop getting so mad at tweets.
This type of argument and this type of thing is one of those deceptive, lesser of two evil kinds of like what I'm trying to say isn't that, oh, we didn't slave.
I'm trying to say that they're overestimating the slave we did.
I think one of the ironies ultimately about this, I find, is that the people we most associate with fasting or not eating for 10 days are the most peaceful people that can be.
It's pathetically intentionally designed to try and get people to post about it.
Yep.
And for what it's worth, I'm fairly glad that I didn't see people taking the bait.
So that's good.
But here's the dynamic that I think is important to understand.
Alex does stuff like this in order to bait attention and go viral with people making fun of him.
Now, on the same show, he did this ridiculous xenophobic racist pageant.
And that's the content that he wants people to accidentally find by way of advertising it through this, I'm going to drink your blood in a stew kind of shit.
There is an intentionality to it.
There is a, he's like a really fucked up dude and he says really fucked up things, but there is definitely, maybe it's even kind of subconscious.
But there's an understanding, though, of like these ways to hijack attention.
No, it is, it is so much that Douglas Adams, you know, serious cybernetics corpse, the superficial flaws are purposefully put there to distract from the fundamental flaws.
You know, and yeah, in the same way, I believe the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Indicates the lack of seriousness that any of this involves.
So, yeah, we come to the end of this.
And I mean, I just, you know, you go in, you're looking for this Russell Brand episode.
You accidentally stumble across Alex actually seeming to try in a weird way, throwing a bunch of, as you described, shotgun spaghetti around about this elaborate conspiracy in order to make undocumented immigrants into the police and military.
You know, like, I don't know if it's because we've been gone and I've been a little bit out of the loop of the workflow, but I find this episode is one of the more interesting ones that I've seen in a long time.
I listen to that barrage of racism and I wonder how we've ever even gotten to this point.
You know, like this, this is not something that you wake up one day and you're like, now here's my racist globalist conspiracy that includes just about everybody that's non-white and how much I hate all of them.