Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dissect Alex Jones’ interview with Vivek Ramaswamy, exposing Jones’ false claims—like his 1996 radio purge over 9/11 skepticism (he lost 170 affiliates in a month) or fossil fuels preventing ice ages—while mocking Ramaswamy’s uncritical acceptance and lack of preparation. Jones’ shifting support from RFK Jr. to Vivek, based on partisan convenience rather than ideology, highlights his opportunistic "anti-globalist" rhetoric, including Hezbollah sleeper cell fantasies and ESG conspiracy theories. Their analysis reveals the interview as a hollow, self-serving spectacle, with Ramaswamy’s name more suited to branding absurdity than serious politics. [Automatically generated summary]
I truly believe that in order to earn the name Big Brother, at least one character per season has to just be disappeared, and no one can talk about it.
The other thing that I want, I'm fantasizing about is he comes out of prison and he enters the InfoWars studios like the guys in that Scared Straight show.
The ones, there's, I remember distinctly at least one or two where the kids refused to be terrorized, and it, like, everybody's world came crashing down.
The people scared straighting were like, I don't know if this does mean anything, man.
God, if he comes out, walks down the court, walks down the steps, you know, you know what I'm saying, and is like, I don't know how it happened, but while I was in prison, I'm going to be doing sports for KSR19 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
So, Jordan, today, we have an episode, and what we're going to be talking about is that Alex did a little bit of an interview with presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.
I'm talking today to somebody who I'm meeting for the first time.
I met him a few minutes ago for the first time.
I actually don't know a lot about him.
The number one thing I know about him is that everybody has told me not to talk to him, which is what made me want to actually sit down and talk to him.
The United States of Red Flag was founded on free speech and open debate.
First Amendment doesn't really involve people not having the right to give you good advice about who to steer clear of.
It's not a violation of your rights if people say that you're bad news and too messy to deal with.
Vivek should have listened to the people around him, except I don't think that there actually are people around him telling him that he shouldn't talk to Alex.
Let me explain what I mean.
Vivek's presidential campaign is completely dead in the water.
He has no shot at the GOP primary.
Trump is a lock for that.
And even if by some bizarre miracle Trump isn't able to run, Vivek isn't even positioned in a way that he can capitalize on the outrage that could cause.
If anything, that will likely drive most people to RFK Jr.'s third-party run because the next most popular, viable GOP candidate is Ron DeSantis, who I'm told is lacking in Riz.
Even as down in the dumps as DeSantis is, he's still polling about three times higher than Vivek.
Vivek knows all of this, and I would be surprised if he's even serious about the campaign at all at this point.
He's part of a long tradition of GOP primary candidates that use the pulpit to launch their own personal brand.
It's impossible to count the number of candidates who have just used running for president as a way to sell books.
And I believe that Vivek is doing the same thing, except he wants to be a talk show or radio host.
So Vivek's guest list so far is a clear indication that he's trying to court a particular type of audience, specifically the more fringe elements of the right wing who are still close enough to acceptability to not get him put into any particular box that he can't get out of.
For instance, he's not going to have David Duke, Richard Spencer, or Nick Fuentes in, but he's going to have people who might associate with them on as guests.
Don't quote me on that.
Actually, I could see him booking Fuentes in the future.
He's popular in a certain section of the internet and culture, and that's not necessarily I don't know all that much about him, but I've seen the name.
never i didn't know that that was a human person i thought that was like a oh you thought it was like an amalgamation of yeah yeah i thought it was like a the libs of tiktok She probably has a team, I would assume, at this point.
No, no, I was trying to figure out that it's got to be something to do with Pizzagate, or it is a pizza delivery person who has just been on Twitter for being.
If I were Alex, I would probably start to get a little offended by this objectification, but Alex is so desperate for anyone with even a bit of clout to have him around.
I don't see him standing up for himself at any point.
Anyway, I look forward to Alex not asking Vivek at all about his connection to George Soros through his having received the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans, something that Vivek paid someone to scrub from his Wikipedia page before he announced his presidential run.
Sounds like censorship and Soros ties.
Not a good look, Alex.
That fellowship, incidentally, it helps immigrants and children of immigrants get higher education, which seems like something Alex would be super opposed to existing.
Like, with Trump, he was poised to at least win the GOP primary and have a decent chance at the presidency when Alex attached himself to him and appeared with him.
He is somebody who's trying to create his own brand, and Alex is now participating in that, as opposed to attaching himself to somebody who has any adjacency to power, has any relevance.
And I mean, you know, you could say it's beneath him, and I think in some ways that's accurate, but Alex is also only interested in some kind of a media attention-based grind.
Vivek is trying to say that when he hears somebody say that you shouldn't listen to somebody, he says, no, I'm going to listen to them and see what they have to say.
So that must mean that he's gone and listened to Alex's show, right?
Like he must have tuned in and heard the incoherent drunk ramblings of a bigot lunatic and then said, oof, those people were right.
There's no reason to listen to this guy.
That must have been what happened because Vivek is a principled free speech stand-upper guy.
So he must have wanted to really investigate the speech that people were telling him to avoid.
This is total bullshit, though.
When Vivek hears somebody say you shouldn't listen to Alex, he doesn't think he should check out this malign speech and make his own decision.
He sees an opportunity.
If somebody is controversial enough to have people saying you shouldn't listen to him, then he probably has some juice I can exploit by interviewing him, thereby showing myself to be the biggest boy who defends free speech the most.
I would love for Vivek to stand up for free speech in a different way.
Instead of doing a publicity stunt ass interview on Twitter, how about he make a video of himself watching Alex's show and trying to defend the nonsense Alex says?
This is a point I really want to drive home.
Not a single aspect of Vivek's decision to make this interview involves free speech.
It's a craven publicity decision driven by the illusion that it somehow makes you a hero for being brave enough to talk to Alex.
Yeah, I mean, hey, listen, when you're running for president, you got to talk up America's ideals and all that shit.
But nobody likes to kiss ass, right?
Like, oh, yeah, free speech.
Listen, I think everybody in the United States realistically is like, man, free speech might have gotten a little bit out of control.
I'm not saying everybody's like, it's gotten a lot out of control, but I think everybody has looked at our political system and the way they talk to each other and been like, something might not be right.
I mean, his description of it even is like, if you analyze the thought process behind you can say whatever you want so long as I can say whatever I want back to you.
What he's looking for is the ability to not listen, you know, to completely be like, listen, I am not going to listen to a word that you have to say.
Vivek, thanks for doing this because when they censor you and deplatform you, they can then steal your identity and misrepresent what you've said and done and then build a straw man.
They just say I've done these things I haven't done.
And it reminds me of them saying that Trump said after the thing that happened in Virginia and Charlottesville that he said Hispanics are horrible criminals, bad people.
He didn't say that.
He said they're wonderful good people, but there are also a lot of bad people coming across the border.
They wouldn't show the clip.
They would just say he said that.
But he had a big enough bully pulpit to override that.
And so it doubled the number of Hispanics when he first got elected towards the end of his first term who understood that it was a lie and they then embraced him because of that.
But that was because he could show them the actual clip and show them that there'd been a lie.
If Alex is saying that 90% of the stuff that people say about Alex on social media isn't true, then that might be fair.
People post stupid shit.
There's a lot of Alex Jones was right memes that are completely inaccurate.
And people really love to post clips of him with entirely fraudulent context.
I've seen a lot of old clips being recycled by people lying about the context in order to make it seem like he's saying something different from what he actually was saying.
And that's a problem that exists with people who are critical of Alex just as much as it does with people who support him.
But if Alex is really interested in people dealing with what he actually says, he should fucking love us.
And yet, mysteriously, it's radio silence about his most loyal and most clip-heavy critics.
It sounds like the media reported on that one correctly.
Maybe Alex's version is a little bit of rewriting history.
Alex has created a fake version of both what the media said.
He's claiming they said something that they didn't.
And then also a fake version of what Trump said because he's a big old liar.
You might notice here that Alex says that Trump said this after that thing that happened in Virginia, which is a reference to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.
What's happening here is that Alex is mixing up his everyone lies about what Trump said narratives and getting them all backwards.
That one's supposed to be about the good people on both sides comment, not the Mexico sending over their criminals one.
Alex is just, he doesn't know what he's doing.
Yeah, yeah.
Also, Trump didn't double his support among the Hispanic population.
This is just made up.
And Viveka's over there nodding his head along because he gives about as much of a shit about reality as Alex does.
The Hispanic vote went 66 to 28 in favor of Clinton in 2016 and 59-38 in favor of Biden in 2020.
This is an improvement, but it's not nearly the kind of swing that Alex is talking about.
It would be over 50% in favor of Trump if there was a doubling, and this did not happen.
I think that if Alex were the leader of a foreign country, then regardless of how much you might worry about interviewing him, you kind of have to.
Since he's not, I'm not sure that this comparison with the Ayatollah is doing him any favors.
And it doesn't help the argument that you should interview him.
I want to touch on that thing that Alex says there, though, about how people don't want you to interview him because you'll likely end up hearing something you agree with.
That's kind of the point.
Alex is a liar.
And at some point in an interview, you might hear him lie about something in a way that you agree with.
And it's pretty dangerous.
He's basically an impossible interview subject because you cannot possibly keep up with all the claims that he throws out.
So, inevitably, unless you have a very slow, very methodical, and very confrontational interview with him, you're going to end up accidentally tacitly signing off on countless untrue things.
The choice to not interview him has as much to do with protecting your own credibility as it has to do with protecting your audience.
Consider in just the first few minutes of this interview that we've heard, Vivek has signed off on Alex's claim that Trump's Hispanic support doubled from 2016 to the end of his presidency and the mischaracterization of Alex's version of what Trump said.
And just there, we heard Alex drop in the claim that because of our lack of border security, Hezbollah has sleeper cells in American cities.
There was no pushback on that because it was a complete sidetrack to the point being made.
In order for Vivek to chase that down, he would need to completely shift subjects from the one that he wants to talk about, which is how brave and righteous it is to be interviewing Alex.
Alex knows that Vivek isn't going to challenge him on points like this because it works against the basic reason that this interview is happening.
Alex knows that he has all the cards here.
He can lie with impunity and say whatever he wants.
And Vivek essentially has to go along with it or risk undercutting the entire premise of the interview.
People said not to interview Alex, but I stood up and did it anyway.
Well, what if you did it only to find out that all those people were right and Alex is a manipulative liar?
What then?
Then is the point of the entire interview that the censorious people you were complaining about are actually right?
Alex knows that this isn't going to be how it goes.
And by agreeing to have this interview, Vivek put him in a situation that is entirely subservient to Alex.
I mean, the moment you start with that, you have revealed that what you want is to masturbate to Alex Jones masturbating, and you both tell each other that you look great doing it.
You are the most informed, and the leads is to attack him as true.
Geopolitically, you name it, compared to anybody I've ever basically interviewed.
And Tucker Carlson's super smart, and I would say has more charisma, but he's a close second.
Your grasp, because I see the random questions you're asking, of just a wide spectrum of things is amazing.
And you're understanding that America, the idea of a free market, competitive culture is something the globalists can't have because they have a competing corporate oligarchy or tyranny and cashless society, social credit score they're setting up with the ESGs.
And that's the potential of America is so powerful because people aspire to that.
America has to be wiped out with political correctness and all the rest of it so that the whole world can be leveled down to one giant third world population that BlackRock and the mega corporations can exploit and control and, quote, control our behavior, as Larry Fink said.
So congratulations on the work you've done.
The number one candidate I support is Donald Trump.
If something happened to him, I would support you for president.
And I'm very, very impressed.
A lot of people say, well, five years ago, his views were a little bit different.
Well, so were mine.
And so people saying, well, he wasn't perfect in the past.
Well, I'm not perfect today.
We have to be ready as the world awakens to the real political system to have converts to liberty and freedom in Americana.
And so the fact that you are a leading light, really promoting the truth is amazing.
And the few people that criticize you saying, well, you know, he just showed up on the scene.
Well, that's that, that, that's what happens with innovation and ideas.
And, of course, you didn't just show up on the scene, but exploded on the national scene.
And so I really appreciate your campaign.
I think it's the best thing out there when you watch these Republican debates.
I genuinely can't, but I can't believe how much I have learned in recent times a lesson that I felt like I thought was very easy to learn when we were doing open mics, you know, which is just like, oh, if you're asked to do a homework show, do your homework.
But when you find yourself in a situation where you think you can wing it and you can't, oh boy, not good.
It is tough.
And that's kind of why I think that it's good that we have that history of those open mics and stuff because there is so little stakes to the not preparing for those.
You have the experience of uh-oh, I mean, way over my head, but it doesn't matter.
Since we're meeting for the first time, just a few minutes.
I mean, your audience is probably very well familiar with this.
But in your own words, it's just to hear it without, I didn't Google any of this beforehand, etc.
I don't want to be biased.
What's your journey to the views that you have now?
I mean, what gets you going in terms of your mission?
You're a clearly passionate guy.
Want to revive the essence of our founding ideals of the free exchange of ideas, not be controlled in a way that impedes the sovereignty of the United States.
So wait, if you didn't want to look anything up and wanted to eliminate all possibility of bias, why is Vivek interjecting what he believes Alex's fundamental mission to be?
Well, I mean, back during the 70s, 80s and stuff, before they went from Humet to electronic intelligence, there was a mobilization of the population against the Russians and others.
Wonder if Alex is going to fill the vaccine on how his dad was the smartest boy in Texas and the globalists tried to recruit him into the depopulation plan multiple times, or how his family was full of JBS extremists, or how Alex got his mission from a prophetic vision he had as a child, or how Alex is psychic and God has chosen him to fight the devil.
I wonder if he'll get into any of that stuff.
I'm going to guess not because he understands where he's at and he doesn't want to scare people off too fast.
Because this is an opportunity to potentially penetrate audiences that aren't in his normal revenue stream already.
And so you don't want to freak them out with all your talk about demons and how you see visions and downloads from God and all this stuff because immediately they'll put you in a box of, oh, this person's nuts.
Like, if you're doing an interview with somebody and you ask them a question, then they would give the same response when they do another interview, right?
And so it's kind of good to watch other interviews of subjects that you're preparing to interview because then you can know if, like, wait, you said something different in another interview.
When you were a child growing up hearing all this, I just kind of absorbed it.
I wasn't even really listening to it until later I realized how true it was.
And then I started to go to college a little bit, but I was already very successful in business by the time I was like 19 as a salesman.
And boom, I saw really this anti-American race-based brainwashing that we see out in the open now that was going on here in Austin on the college campuses.
Yeah, whenever I was doing the hearing aids thing, I went to a couple of conferences and there were a few of those guys where you saw them and you were like, you have no morality whatsoever.
So I want to say that Alex absolutely did not start his career complaining about race-based garbage.
It was really obvious even back early on that he was a white identity adherent, but he tried really hard to make the presentation of what he did race neutral.
It was all about the Federal Reserve Bank.
It was about the Trans-Texas Corridor.
It was about the UN trying to take control of national parks.
It was about the ATF malfeasance in Waco.
It wasn't these social issues.
And obviously, that probably was in the background for him, but he knew better than to make it his presentation because he knew to put him in a box of, hey, oh, you know, your extreme right-wing world is really full of white supremacists.
And you're intentionally hiding.
You're putting a mask on some of your white identity beliefs and how you're angry about this race-based garbage because you don't want to be too obvious with it.
It is weird with his mask, though, insofar as you can't really take it off because when you take it off, then he turns around to the people who already know the mask and he just puts it back on and it's fine.
We have to take away the mask, but it's inside of his brain.
Yeah, and he has such an interesting position as somebody who requires to have a mask and not at the same time because of the way that the financial pressures of his business work, the extremist expectations of his audience.
That balancing act requires mask and not mask simultaneously.
Like when you have a mask on, you have to deny that you're wearing a mask.
And that is frustrating because he doesn't realize, like, oh, you got to learn the basics.
That's kind of the part of education.
It's a progress, it's a process thing.
But at the same time, his instinct is to like, I'm going to fucking teach myself.
And there's something to be said for that.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with people who are like, this path of education isn't for me.
I'm going to learn by doing.
Because some people's brains work better that way.
But that is not a refudiation or a repudiation of education as a whole.
He just doesn't understand that there are multiple paths towards the goal that he wanted, and he was too impatient, or his brain just didn't work in the way that education goes.
I don't know if 101 is going to be enough for him.
The complicated immoralities that he is dealing in.
It's also, he's conveniently leaving out the part where his dad got him his first radio show, and of course, the entire section of his syndication that came from his partnership with Ted Anderson and Midas Resources.
It just allows all that to be presented without question.
But it is an interesting question: the dynamics of losing stations over 9-11 conspiracies.
For one thing, I don't actually believe that they lost that many stations because of it.
I have a strong suspicion this is overblown.
And honestly, based on my multiple assessments of Alex's radio reach over the years, I don't think that radio has ever really been that important to him in terms of a financial kind of construct.
Ted and GCN needed Alex to sell gold.
And if he was able to do that by radio commercials, that's great.
But if Alex is able to sell more gold with less stations, Ted wouldn't have any problem with that.
I suspect Alex understood that.
He stood to gain far more by positioning himself as the world's primary 9-11 truther, and that that brand was actually much more profitable for him than whatever low-level radio markets his show stopped running in.
He understands on some base level, whether it's an intellectual understanding or an instinctual one, what kind of works.
And especially he was much better prior to the erosion of his brain from alcohol and drugs and whatever he's done now.
But back then, he would have been very keenly aware that there is an intense excitement on message boards and all over the internet about this 9-11 stuff.
This is an untapped market.
I can be the voice and the face of this.
Bill Cooper's dead.
There is a lot of opportunity here in this space.
What do I have to worry about losing some kind of fourth-tier market radio station?
That doesn't matter.
And plus, Alex, a lot of his audience is rural and outside of the range of these larger radio station transmission signals.
All of that area is covered on shortwave.
His WWCR extreme right-wing radio station that does the shortwave broadcasting, they would have never had a problem with his 9-11 truther stuff.
So I don't really think that there was a hit that he took from that.
What I'm saying is that I don't buy into the premise that Alex, like him being willing to lose stations over 9-11, means he's not motivated by money.
I think it's a good way to create that presentation.
But that's not the person that Alex is being for this interview.
No.
Alex isn't being a great businessman for this interview.
He's telling you all of his business accomplishments as a way of telling you that people will follow, even though I'm not going for all of these business accomplishments kind of thing.
No, I'm pretty sure that he's legally not a journalist, according to a well, I mean, in certain sections of time, circumstances, he'll say he's not a journalist when it's convenient.
But other times he'll say he is.
Either way, that's irrelevant because this is Vivek saying that he's a journalist.
Let's say you're wrong and you just realize that you had one thesis and you were getting to the bottom of it, but then you get to the hard facts and you say, hey, you were wrong about it.
Give me an example of where that happened, actually.
Debate was Jesse Smollett really attacked, which we now know that was fake.
Or, you know, so many of these other events like Operation Northwoods and things did plan to do atrocities or did plan to stage atrocities and blame on an enemy.
And so with that, I started saying, oh, two or three years before I got sued, I said, I don't want to talk about this.
I think the people that said this, it turns out, are lunatics.
I think the info they put out, you know, they were professors and school safety experts.
I found some of what they said, the anomalies, wasn't true.
I think school shootings happen.
And because every time there was a school shooting, people would say, Alex Jones is saying this isn't happening, whether it was Parkland, any of that.
So I was saying, no, I think this is happening.
And then the media and the system went, oh, he's weak on that because they would never, they would sweep it under the rug if they were wrong.
I swear to you, once he started talking, I immediately in my head had these terrible flashbacks of just being like, all right, I need to remind you, this is not to determine innocence or guilt.
If you're not participating in the process, according to the standards that they set, and they set a bar, you can't really judge.
I'm going to go back and learn the heck about this because this is that's a, I mean, if what you described is true, that is a real danger to the integrity of the judicial system.
unidentified
I'm going to independently learn about this myself.
As a matter of simple personal interest, you should, if you are talking to a man who has got the largest individual judgment in history against him, at the very least be interested in how it came about to have the largest judgment in history against him.
That was one of the big reasons that even the quote elites of America fought the British elites because they were tired of saying, well, I'm actually your cousin, but I'm not a lord, so I can't ship products out of the colonies.
And so if the rich guys want freedom and they finally set up for themselves, that will have to trickle down.
And that's why they can point at America's beginning and say we weren't perfect.
But it was the idea of the process.
And as more people get into that, that's the victory.
So now you look at who is the leader of the military.
They'll have some token people.
Oh, look, a black guy, you know, a white lady or whatever.
But that's what?
Look, it's a bunch of blue bloods whose grandfathers were in control in World War II when America absorbed the British Empire and became this new globalist system.
I would suspect a large part of it is the opposite, but the romantic version of Americana Past would tell you the story of the grew up on a farm and became a general.
There is a great apple pie-ass narrative that is there, but like, and I'm sure that is the case for some folks, but like, I don't know what quantifiable thing Alex is talking about.
Yeah, I mean, I can't, I mean, I can't think of a single war that I have read or know about that isn't like littered with commanding officers who are timid and stupid because they're rich, who eventually get kicked out and then shit happens.
He invented the swivel chair and invented a bunch of things too while he's writing the Declaration of Independence.
That spirit, in some ways, would he produced the Thomas Jeffersons and the Alexander Hamiltons of the world if it weren't for the fact that they had this oppressive regime to stand up against?
Because I am sick and tired, even myself, of you may have, I don't know if you've read some of the books I've written or anything like this, of pointing out the problem.
And I do think that if you're not being critical thinking about what he's saying, there is something that does draw you in about this idea of being alive in 1776.
Everyone is just invigorated by the oppression that they're living in.
It creates the opportunity to be such a brave, great person.
You become historically important because of the terrible times that you're in.
And I guess that that's probably why you would want to really overinflate your own oppression in order to create the perception that you will be historically remembered as a great man.
I would say that the boy, I feel like people, if they really thought about America's birth, you know, like you see those polls, it's like people are worried.
They're like, 25% of Americans think political violence is okay.
How can we imagine that?
And you're like, man, I don't know if you know shit about America.
I think that there's a lot of various ways things could have gone differently in 1776 that still follows a lot of the ideas of freedom that they would have been, these people would have been very appreciated.
Tell me all about rainbow flag stuff, but it's the new flag.
They're even talking about getting rid of the American flag.
They're now trying to take George Washington's statue down in New York.
They're now doing all of this, and this is all unfolding.
And we're having our symbols that recognize who we are and what we stand for away from us and giving us a new one that is a government corporate-directed sex cult.
I don't care if it was a heterosexual cult showing me their flag and taking down my flag and telling my kids about it.
I think that he actually does believe that there is something intrinsic and objective in its reality about the country because of his belief that it's divinely inspired and all that.
They've kicked God out and now some other poison fills the void.
Demon is filling it.
And so my version of that in a civic sense is if we don't pledge allegiance to the American flag or to a true flag of our nation, we're going to pledge allegiance to a different flag instead.
It's not coming from dead whales and dead dinosaurs.
They now have the devices and systems.
They keep finding oil deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, 50,000, 60,000 feet all the way down to the mantle through the crust.
And they're hitting oil and gas deposits that are so big, they don't have pipes that can contain what's coming up.
And what it is, is if you look at Mars, scientists now believe that it once had an atmosphere, but it's this is a short science lesson, but it once had an atmosphere, but its gravity wasn't big enough to hold the atmosphere.
So there's actually giant reserves, and they're saying these gases are bad.
The Earth used to have way higher concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, all these things, but it's off-gas into space and it has retreated underground.
So if you look at millions of years ago, the gases have retreated.
Now what carbon dioxide is 0.14, I mean, it's a fraction of a percent.
And things used to be healthier.
Plants can take 10 times carbon dioxide.
They grow faster, need less water.
We need this.
So it's really a magic moment.
Talking about God existing, that right as the Earth starts to slowly lose its atmosphere, probably still be a few million years, we come along and are digging all this up and terraforming geoengineering, putting it back up.
It's good, folks.
They want to ban cows because they off gas methane.
So do you.
Methane is cold, heat in.
We're due for another ice age, a 12,000-year cycle.
And then I went back and looked at the books because I remember playing football in 1990, and they had to cancel two a days because it was 112, and people were dying all over the city of Dallas where I lived.
The idea about the predictions of an ice age in the 70s, that's really interesting.
This is a talking point thrown out by climate change deniers meant to invalidate the points being made today.
They say it was going to be an ice age, but now it's all warming.
In reality, a paper published in 2008 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society looked at the published science from the 70s and found that only 10% of the papers published back then were suggesting a cooling trend compared to 62% that predicted warming.
Folks like Alex and Vivek have created this image of a false consensus existing in the past because it helps them score points for their fraudulent arguments in the present.
It's all a facade and a lie.
But more to the point, you were having a, you got swung.
It's interesting that you have this presentation of like, we can't make drastic changes to reduce carbon emissions because it's too drastic and it's a real severe change that we're going to need to make.
When he's saying, like, hey, we would be fine in the Cretaceous period.
The drastic changes we would need to be able to survive in that environment are much larger than those that would be needed to, you know, focus more on renewable energy.
But I think when you have the argument that it's like, no, no, no, we need to burn more fossil fuels in order to geo-engineer the planet in a way that God intended by leaving behind all of this oil and all of this stuff that has retreated under the surface.
When you have that argument, you can't really, there's no discussion.
I am really glad you are the most successful person on injecting these topics because I see you inject topics at the national level that would have never been there that are so vital.
Everything that he's ever said is demolished by the, like, hey, listen, we need to pick the lesser of two evils and toe the party line, even though we don't necessarily like everything, and it's not perfect.
Now, okay, sure, maybe DeSantis will be the candidate, and I don't really like him all that much anymore because he's fallen out of grace with the extreme right wing.
But, you know, he's going to be the GOP candidate.
I can't support RFK Jr. because he's going to pull votes away from the GOP.
And I really actually just want the GOP to stay in power.
It has a lot of the same vibe of like, Owen being like, I can't believe that they're hanging me out to dry just because I'm going to jail for two months.
There's a lot of those issues that they have common ground on.
Now, What extent Vivek would want to be associated with Alex talking about literal demons and all that stuff?
That's an open question.
I'm not sure.
I think that if he actually watched Alex's show and wanted to ask him questions about like, what the fuck is this about your prophetic visions and stuff like that, that would be the interesting interview I'd like to see because I do think they agree on a lot of policy stuff, but the clownery, I'm not sure that Vivek would want to.