In this installment, Dan and Jordan take a trip to the past to take in the episode where Alex spoke to Libertarian political hopeful, alleged friend of someone who claimed to be a relative of the Rockefellers, and former showbiz player Aaron Russo for the first time.
He knows all about the New World Order and we're honored to have him on.
And also the network, he's been on a bunch of the shows, the network sends out some of his presidential material for free if you want to call and get any of that.
But, Mr. Russo, it's good to have you on the show.
For those that don't know who you are, tell us a little bit about yourself, and then we'll go to break and come back and just jump into all the news and get your take on it.
...in the 60s, and Chicago and Detroit, and then I ran into Bette Midler, and I started managing Bette Midler, and I produced the movie called The Rose, and the movie Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Danny Aykroyd, and I received six Academy Award nominations.
I won an Emmy for a TV show I did with Dustin Hoffman.
I always thought that was the most important thing I had done, but most people yell and scream and cheer when I tell them I brought Led Zeppelin to America.
This is like when you watch a documentary on, say, Bette Midler.
You see Bette Midler's life, you see the important elements of her life, and then you have the dark section where she's got a manager who's probably a piece of shit.
So in 1968, Aaron Russo opened the Kinetic Playground here in Chicago, which is a fairly short-lived venue, but one that was a regular stop for the sort of bands that he's listing off.
From my understanding of it, it would be a huge stretch to say that he was responsible for bringing a band like Led Zeppelin to the US.
Factual problems that are happening because of this game of telephone where you have this vaguely dishonest person who's saying things and then now Alex is embellishing them even further.
But I began to realize, you know, particularly Ross Perot was very important for me.
Even though Ross Perot doesn't have a philosophy that I believe in, seeing that when he ran...
All the millions of people that were dissatisfied with America.
So up to then, I thought I was alone.
I didn't realize there were millions of others who felt like I did.
I thought I was this lonely voice all by myself.
So when Ross Perot ran, when I saw the dissatisfaction in the country, it gave me the courage and the energy to say, you know, I'm going to stand up now.
I don't want to, because I didn't look into this too heavily or anything, I don't want to make some kind of a statement like he was never, he never served.
Well, I'll tell you, when I ran for governor in Nevada, even Jack Nicholson, who's a liberal, supported me.
He made radio commercials for me.
Okay?
So if I can start getting the Hollywood community behind my campaign, it's going to get tons and tons of press.
And there's no third party in the race.
Ralph Nader is going to fade away.
You've got nothing to do.
So I'm going to be there to fulfill that.
And there are millions and millions of people across America who, if they had someone to vote for, who believed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and getting rid of this gun control nonsense, they would come out and vote.
We have to tap into the dissatisfaction of America and say to the American people, here's a guy who believes like you believe, and he's standing up and fighting for it.
It feels like putting the cart before the horse here to have all these grand ideas about how you're going to win the election before you even secure your third-party candidacy.
While it is true that Russo has a fair amount of real entertainment industry credits, if you look at his resume, you might notice that they all end in 1991.
Ultimately, he didn't do anything notable outside of his work with Bette Midler, which ended very abruptly in 1979, and Trading Places, which he was one of four producers on.
So who knows what input he even had on that movie?
Oh, my God.
Russo put out a very long and very boring one-man show called Mad as Hell, where he's trying to do so hard to do a Howard Beale in Network impression.
I suspect that the reason that people claim it came out in 91 is so that it explains his complete drop-off from any show business credits in a way that isn't the work dried up.
It's more emotionally satisfying to be like, he put out this dangerous, threatening film and he got blacklisted for it, as opposed to, the work dried up and he pivoted to...
Yeah, they're talking about how Midler had excused Russo as her manager, and Eisner says, quote, he's got a documentary out about to come out about how you don't have to pay your taxes.
Midler replies laughing, quote, that sounds right.
Eisner says, quote, I've seen...
To which Bette replies, quote, I've been in, I was in a lot of very exciting police chases with him.
Then Eisner tells a story about the time that Russo jokingly threatened to kill him.
Not sure anyone took Russo all that seriously at this point outside of these hard right-wing circles.
Another conservative radio guy named Michael Badnerik had 256, so just two below.
And then Gary Nolan was in third with 246.
In the second round of voting, things went pretty similarly, but because Nolan was still in third, he ended up getting the boot and wasn't a candidate in the third ballot.
So, there's one thing that Aaron Russo is really, really famous for.
Uh-huh.
And it's a cornerstone of his later documentary, The America Freedom to Fascism, and also a lot of the interviews that he does with various figures, including Alex in the future.
Yeah, what I was saying was that, you know, coming out of the establishment after I made mad as hell, And right after I ran for governor, I was running for governor, rather, through a third-party source, I got a call from a lawyer who wanted me to meet with one of the Rockefeller family, and I did.
And this gentleman and I started hanging out together and talking, because he wanted to learn from me, and I wanted to learn from him.
And it was really, really quite amazing the way they look at the world.
Many of them, not necessarily, many people in the CFR actually think they're doing the right thing.
But just to give you a little bit of a refresher, there's a guy named Nicholas Rockefeller that he claims to be friends with who told him all this stuff.
It is like a little bit of, if you're an opportunist, just find somebody with that last name that you can exploit and then be like, hey, you're my friend, and then go from there.
It's not hard.
You don't need a credential.
I mean, it's like if you're a comic, you're like, oh, he was on The Late Show.
So you had the CFR try to recruit you, and they said, hey, once you're in with us, you know, you're above the law, so don't worry what we do to the sheep.
Oh, I had one of the biggest networks five, six years ago try to recruit me, and they said, do you want to be a star, Alex, around this crusade that's going nowhere?
Here, here's your million-dollar contract.
Join us.
I mean, I've literally had the meeting with the devil.
First of all, that doesn't sound nefarious at all.
It sounds like somebody who maybe offered you a job.
Second, I think that when you have elaborate conspiracies that are based largely on winks and nods, and they never say this stuff, but it's based entirely on your interpretation of...
Imagine this beautiful woman was in a terrible car accident, and her face was completely disfigured, and it needs plastic surgery desperately.
And so George Bush says, okay, let's put a little eyeliner on the right side of the face, and John Kerry says, let's put a little mascara on the left side of the face, and that's what we're going to do.
This country needs plastic surgery.
It needs an overhaul from top to bottom.
We've lost everything that we ever had here, and we've got to restore it.
We've got to bring it back, and that's what's necessary, and there's no one out there doing it.
So I've decided to run and push it out there and use all my knowledge, everything I know in my life, to win this campaign.
Further educating himself and involved looking at all of this.
We've got a whole bunch of phone calls here that I'm sure want to talk about every issue under the sun, and it all ties into why you're running for president against this tyranny.
But before we do that, I know you've got a lot to talk about.
Yeah, so this is a good obsession to have because it scares people a lot.
The idea of a draft is really scary, and you look back on Vietnam War era, the dynamics of the draft are things that still haunt people, and obviously it's very potent to scare people.
Because eventually they get to your door, you know, and you have the options of either going along with them or going to jail or some sort of thing like that, right?
See, I mean, and again, it's just wild to me that you would be afraid of something like that.
Because, seriously, okay.
So, fine.
Now we're past that.
I'm coerced.
I can't go sit in a room.
Now I gotta go do the war.
I gotta war, right?
The first thing you gotta do is teach me how to war, right?
Now, at that point in time, I can learn how to war or I can subtly sabotage the whole war thing to the point where you go, I don't want you to war with us because you're so bad at this.
Well, essentially, first of all, you should realize America has $72 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which means that money has to be created out of thin air, further destroying the currency we have in this country, or they have to renege on the debt.
When Alex asked what the Federal Reserve is, Russo launches into a bit about unfunded liabilities, essentially just parroting conservative anti-government spending talking points.
These unfunded liabilities aren't the terrifying thing that folks like Russo make them out to be.
These are things like future Social Security payments, which the government will need to pay, but the money to pay that out comes from future payments into the Social Security system.
You'll often hear that the government has unfunded obligations to pay X amount of money out of Medicare and Social Security over the next 50 or so years.
It'll seem like a giant amount of money and there's no money to pay it currently.
That's because the system relies on workers paying into that system over the course of the next 50 or so years, thereby funding those unfunded liabilities.
This is a favored boogeyman talking point of the right-wing types because they hate government spending on social welfare.
They don't want to pay taxes, and don't give a fuck if your grandparents can't afford their medications, but...
They know that is not a winning argument to sell to the public.
If they cause a bunch of panic about these unfunded liabilities, you can mask your real agenda behind a fake appearance of concern.
And that's the typical game.
You don't hear this unfunded liabilities stuff when you're in opposition to bailing out or subsidizing some big business stuff or whatever.
That's not the tack that's taken by these conservative types.
And a great deal of the stuff that people like Aaron Russo and folks on the very much anti-government, anti-techs bandwagon, a lot of the stuff that they fearmonger about are these systems that they're misrepresenting, or they're things that we owe ourselves.
Yeah, to continue the plane people thing, that guy you turned to and were like, hey, give me more money, is the guy you're getting the plane stuff from.
And we're going to continue with your phone calls at 800-259-9231.
Last hour, I got into part of the article.
Found the 9-11 stand-down order.
Jim Hoffman has discovered a document, which I believe may be very important to the 9-11 skeptic movement.
The document supersedes earlier DOD procedures.
And as of June 1, 2001, there was an order put out by the Joint Chiefs that generals could no longer shoot down derelict or hijacked aircraft, that it had to all go through Rumsfeld.
So another reason they didn't shoot down aircraft.
So this is an update to the guidelines for dealing with aircraft piracy, which makes changes like taking instances where the document says U.S. Element North American Aerospace Defense Command and changing them to North American Aerospace Defense Command.
Updates like this to policy guidelines happen all the time, and conspiracy theorists love to pretend that they're making far more sweeping changes than they actually are.
In this case, the argument that Alex is putting forth is that the document made it so only Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, could have any say about shooting down civilian aircraft, whereas previously, any old general could make that determination.
This document updated an almost identical document from 1997, and it doesn't change anything about the chain of responsibility for decision making.
In both, they say that the FAA is responsible for monitoring flights and requesting help from the Department of Defense if they feel like it's needed.
In the updated 2001 version, as well as the 1997 version, they say, quote, In the event of a hijacking, the National Military Command Center will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA.
The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
When the document says, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, it's talking about DOD policy that predated this document and wasn't changed by it.
Essentially, federal military commanders had the authority to respond to emergencies immediately if it was a situation where they could not reasonably get the permission from.
the Secretary of Defense.
Right.
unidentified
It's pretty clear from the language of the document that this authority to respond doesn't extend to shooting down an aircraft full of civilians, and in fact it explicitly says, quote, immediate response authority does not permit actions that would subject civilians to Right.
Even under Alex, Alex's definition, I don't think that it changes that.
Because Alex's version of it is simply that it just made the Secretary of Defense responsible for making all of these decisions, as opposed to generals on the ground.
Because only the Secretary of Defense could make these decisions, Donald Rumsfeld was able to have a stand-down and make nobody respond.
But it's interesting to go back in time, because we can really see the way that Alex's MO has honestly never changed.
It's just that technology has.
In the present day, so much of his coverage is just skimming memes and Twitter posts and pretending that qualifies as a valid source, but in the past it was no different.
He was just using idiotic blog posts as the same thing he was skimming.
Like, how he became what he became is because at the time there weren't 10 million other YouTubers to go to who had the same blog post that they were reading.
So he could be free to lie and misrepresent things.
He could yell.
He could do basically whatever he wanted in a way that all those other talk show hosts couldn't.
And therefore he could make shit up and spread conspiracy shit that was much more interesting and exploited various fears and insecurities of the audience in a way that someone like Sean Hannity...
Probably couldn't get away with doing.
And so that's really, I believe, one of the biggest elements of his standing out back then.
Yeah, it is one of those things that you look at, and if you take a step back over the larger decade-long view, it does feel like there are just these sliders.
There's four different things that you alter, four different little attributes, and you have a different guy.
Remove the boss from Tucker Carlson, and you have Alex Jones.
I'm going to take calls, and I'm giving each caller, and I want to hear from you.
We love you to death.
But I don't like the fact that people tell me they can't get into this show for weeks sometimes because the phones get loaded up and then we don't get to them.
I'm going to give each caller a minute, and I'm not going to interrupt you.
Questions, comments, anything you want to talk about, you've got 60 seconds.
Now, I've heard Alex constantly talk about this supposed bill that would make everyone at a protest subjected to internment in a forest labor camp if someone blocks Okay, if I understand, that is the bill.
So, it was introduced by a Republican from Kansas, Sam Brownback, and it has literally zero to do with the stuff that Alex is talking about.
It was also referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations in March 2003 and died there.
I thought that maybe Alex was talking about a bill from the House and I accidentally said Senate, so I checked HR 742, but that was a proposed code change to reduce the age you're eligible for military retirement pay from 60 to 55. Okay, well that's nice.
So then I decided to check the 107th Congress, the previous one, but S742 that year was the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2001, which also died in committee.
Alex's version of this is very cartoonish and disconnected from reality, but it also is way too broadly written to be...
An effective law.
It was essentially trying to create a catch-all type of offense called the crime of terrorism.
But as you can well imagine, terrorism is a term that has a million meanings, so trying to legislate a clear definition of it isn't going to be a smooth process.
In effect, this was meant to supplement already existing laws and crimes in Oregon by adding this terrorism distinction, which would allow for life sentences for people who commit other crimes in furtherance of terrorist goals.
But it's also not really well thought out, and because of how nebulously it has to be written, it opens the door to the kind of propaganda optics that...
These games that Alex likes to play.
You are never going to be sent to a forest labor camp if you're at a protest and someone stops traffic.
but because of how the bill is written, Alex can make that impression.
The list of crimes that this applies to is at the bottom of the bill, but at the top, it says, quote, a person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in, or carries out any act that is intended by at least one of its participants to disrupt A, the free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the state of Oregon, B, commerce or the transportation systems of the state of Oregon, or C, the educational or governmental institutions of Oregon, Yeah, that's not going to be applied.
Well, without the context of the acts that it's meant to apply to, it sounds like anything anybody does that's in any way disruptive is going to be classified as terrorism and make the person subject to life in prison.
Alex removes that context because it makes this job way easier.
You can pretty easily come up with an argument against this bill, even with the context intact, but it's so much easier to create this cartoon-ass version of it to attack.
It's lazy, but it's more interesting.
And it creates the impression of the comic book villain tyranny that you're pretending to be up against.
Yeah, I was thinking that while this is going on, there are so many times where you think of people talking about these laws that they want, all that stuff, and what they're not thinking is, what if these laws were to apply to me?
The assumption is like, this is for other...
The smaller people.
That kind of thing.
Right?
Alex kind of seems to have the opposite point of view on this that I would expect from him.
Because if he was the person who was determining who was terrorists, he would love this bill.
This is exactly what they want.
That's why they make it okay for you to hit somebody at a protest with your car.
That is the bill that they are arguing against falsely here.
And I think that also Alex is, you know, I think maybe somewhat intentionally trying to obscure the fact that this is a Oregon State Senate bill that didn't pass.
And that's why I've heard him talk about it so many times, but never had any kind of specific, like, that bill number that was able to latch on to, like, what is this?
What are you talking about?
And that makes it more difficult to realize what a fraud.
When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section, the court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum of 25 years without possibility of parole, and only to be released on work release to a forest or work camp.
You get 25 years if you agree to the forest work camp.
And so there you go.
And then they give the things that you can get life in prison for, not just blocking traffic.
And some of this stuff's bad.
Some of it's stuff that's not bad.
So they make some real crimes in with things that aren't crimes.
So blocking traffic isn't found anywhere in the bill, but you can see an interesting thing happen here.
Alex is reading off the offenses that this bill relates to, and all of it's pretty bad stuff, but he needs to be opposed to this bill.
In order to do that, he has to cling desperately to the idea that it also includes life sentences for people who block traffic, which he's just making up.
Yeah, and if you go down the full list of these offenses, there are ways that you can kind of understand how these could be part of a terrorist enterprise.
There are a few things like that, but then the rest of it is stuff like, you know, fraudulent ID stuff, identity theft, illegal purchasing of handguns, things like that.
You know, a lot of it does make sense.
But Alex is pretending that it's like, oh, they threw a few things in here, and then it's blocking traffic.
He says that you can get out of prison if you go to a forest labor camp, but actually this says the opposite.
Quote, "When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section, the court shall order that person to be confined for a minimum of 25 years without the possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision, release on work release, or any form of temporary leave or employment at a forest or work camp." The Forrester work camp stuff is only in this bill as an example of a thing that you would be prohibited from being sent to if you're convicted of terrorism under this.
I would normally say that this is a case of Alex being lazy, but as he's reading that passage, you can hear him pause and add additional words so it fits his narrative.
He paused and added, and only to be released in there, because he needs those words to make the narrative work.
He's intentionally lying to the audience to scare them about this bullshit, and it's a bill that didn't pass already by this point, and he's just making shit up about it.
I feel like people, particularly on the pretty far right, are very desperate for anybody who has the appearance of mainstream pop culture kind of adjacency.
They really, really like those people.
And Aaron Russo is a perfect...
Example of that, because you can't take away the fact that he was a rock band promoter, that he was Bette Midler's manager, that he did produce one of the producers on Trading Places.
Those things are not in dispute.
And so he has a really easy thing to be like, this showbiz guy, he knows everything about the inner workings of how the machine works, the establishment.
But, yeah, you know, it does, you know, that instinct of desperate clinging to anybody who's, like, mainstream popular who will go along with your stuff.
It explains a lot of the stuff, like, why...
Tucker Carlson interviewed Kid Rock.
And as we're recording this, apparently it just came out that he interviewed Kevin Spacey.
It's that desperation of pop culture adjacency.
Because it's something that they're denied.
It's something that they do not have access to because of their fringeness.
They are not accepted into the mainstream of people's...
That is when the hood, when the dark hood, and the skeletal finger points, and you hear bah with the bah, you know that's the ghost of Christmas future coming for you.