#886: More Like Jimmy Dore, Part 2 dissects Alex Jones’s debunked claims—$40B California surplus misdirection, Rothschild ownership of AP/Reuters, and the "Kalergi Plan"—while Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen expose their roots in Nazi propaganda and anti-Semitic tropes. Jones ties immigration to climate denialism, falsely linking Bill Gates’ nanotech patents to vaccines, a lie traced to Robert Malone’s photoshopped substack. Jimmy Dore’s uncritical nodding reveals opportunistic alignment over substance, as his past pro-immigration stances clash with Alex’s performative outrage. Their mockery of Jones’s oxygen-deprivation hallucinations—blamed for his conspiracy theories—culminates in a critique of his shifting, audience-driven narratives, from COVID denialism to climate denialism, all while avoiding Tucker Carlson’s even wilder claims. [Automatically generated summary]
Yeah, there's some time, you know, like with that 007 show where Brian Cox was clearly like, you are paying me way too much money to use zero amount of my talent on this.
So you don't have all that time of like, you know, Johnny Bananas in a bunk bed with wearing half a shirt looking at four different people arguing about shit.
And now I'm getting very self-conscious about how we talked about the traders for a very long time and maybe didn't give a good enough plug for that podcast that you were on.
What was the name of it again?
Just in case people are like, I don't want to go back 20 seconds.
I was left curious, but not really hungry for more after the hour and 15 minute or so version that I had heard of their interview, which I went into thinking was the whole thing.
But I was able to find the rest of it, and I don't know if it's unedited.
It's what Jimmy put out on his YouTube page.
So I'm not sure.
It seems about the, like, we're going to start up at about an hour and 15, and that's about where the first one ended.
And they could have sent everybody to college for free.
They won't do any of that.
So it's, it's, I'm developing this theory that they're wanting us to be on edge.
And they want us, just like Tucker had talked about it when he was on our show.
They want you to, when you go to the 7-Eleven, you have to step over a homeless person and everything's locked up behind cages and you're going to get a crazy person screaming at you, so that you will welcome authoritarianism, right?
Just like what the terrorist attack on 9-11 did.
We became a surveillance state.
People gave up their freedoms.
By the way, the Patriot Act was on a shelf for years.
They were waiting to implement that.
And so people just forgot that every email, every text, every phone call they make is being recorded and take and categorize and collected by the government.
And so I've tried to stop, I'm starting to develop this theory like, so they keep saying that Trump and Trumpers are going to start a civil war.
The people starting a civil war are the corporate media, which are beholden to a handful of billionaires, which are beholden to no country.
So just off the bat, I'd like to say that Jimmy's theory is dumb.
But it's right in line with him becoming more and more a part of a community of people who like to craft dumb theories, which seems to be his career trajectory.
He'll fit in fine with these guys.
So Xi visited San Francisco recently as part of a meeting for the summit for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC.
And in advance of that, a couple spots that were frequented by people experiencing homelessness would congregate.
Those got cleared out.
Right.
This was achieved partially by opening up a small number of additional shelter beds, but also by stepping up arrests for drug-related crime and by pushing the unhoused people away from these areas that were near where Xi and other world leaders would be meeting.
I don't think that Jimmy is suggesting that they solved the problem of homelessness in order to impress Xi, but his messaging is very convoluted here.
I understand that he thinks it's hypocritical to just do this in order to not look bad in front of another world leader, but does he support the kind of tactics that were used to put a band-aid on this issue?
Like, I feel like he shouldn't, but I'm left unclear.
So, one thing about this clip that I want to highlight is how it illustrates that Jimmy is a person who's prone to bouts of impotent non-curiosity.
He has questions that he assumes he thinks that no one has the answers to, which just results in him spewing and being angry about something that he assumes like with the budget.
The head of the California Department of Finance, H.D. Palmer, was interviewed by Capitol Public Radio, and he explained it fully.
Quote: So, the governor, when he was noting our surplus, said that this isn't going to go on forever.
In the past in California, when we've been in good times, the governors and legislatures have thought this is going to go on forever and we can continue budgeting.
In doing what we've done so far, thinking that we're going to be in good times for a number of years, it's turned out painfully not to be the case.
The governor was very mindful of that back in May, and he said, Let's be smart about how we deal with the surplus.
And the legislature agreed with him, and they were smart in a couple of areas.
They chose to pay down debt for prior years, they chose to build up our budget reserves, they chose to continue reducing our long-term liabilities like pension obligations, and they chose to use a good chunk of the discretionary part of the surplus on one-time spending as opposed to building a higher ongoing level of spending.
And probably the best example of that in terms of one-time spending is the $9.5 billion in inflation relief payments that have been going out this fall to a total of about 17 million Californians and are continuing to go out and will go out through the end of the year.
That's provided some near-term relief for Californians who've been hit hard by inflation, but that's a one-time expenditure on a targeted program where we think it had a very helpful result.
All of this was available information for Jimmy, but no one knows where any of this money went.
You could disagree with the choices of how the state used the surplus, but just to pretend that it's a mystery and no one knows what happened to the money is intellectually dishonest and the mark of someone who doesn't really care so much about the stuff he's talking about and seems to just be looking for talking points to yell about.
Also, Jimmy is saying that the government didn't spend the surplus on ending homelessness or giving people free health care or higher education.
That's great.
In my mind, those are great things to invest in.
But he's talking to Alex Jones, someone who doesn't think the state should pay for any of that stuff.
Alex believes that the state paying for any of that stuff is rank communism, and the state would only do it to make you reliant on them so they can more easily exterminate you.
Unless the two of them address that ridiculous elephant in the room, their conversation doesn't make any sense.
But back to Jimmy's theory about how the man or the globalists want you to be unhoused people around so that the 7-Eleven keeps you on edge to accept authoritarianism.
It's also very similar to a lot of the theories Alex has, and the similarity is dehumanization.
The people experiencing homelessness are people to Jimmy, in the same way that refugees and asylum seekers aren't people to Alex.
They're a weapon that some evil cabal is using against the good people like Jimmy and Alex.
If you buy into mentalities like this, you're far less likely to connect to the subject you're talking about with empathy and more likely to tend toward paranoia and hostility.
The problem of homelessness becomes something that's secondary to the larger problem you actually are focused on, which is the ways you imagine the man is secretly meddling to try and keep you on edge.
The obviously, this is as the result of taking away your interest in working towards legislation that helps unhouse people, because ultimately, what's the point?
If you do that, the man is just going to find some other way to keep you on edge.
So dealing with homelessness is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Having this mindset is a very convenient way to continue to pretend that you have left-leaning politics, but allow your mind and everything you do to be consumed by conspiracism, which seems to be what's going on.
I mean, I don't, these people, all of these conversations from these people should have ended the moment somebody was like, hey, Elon, you can fix world hunger.
And he was like, okay, I'll do it.
And then they were like, you can do it for this money that you won't notice is gone.
And he's like, I'll do it.
And then he's just like, nah, I don't think I'm going to do it.
And it just didn't.
Like, if Elon Musk, by himself, already their hero, can end their problem that they're complaining about right now without noticing a change in his bank account.
Well, but also the other element that you have to encounter with that is that there wouldn't be oversight and governmental red tape to get through where Elon to do that.
Whereas any attempt to deal with these problems through government largesse and expenditure is going to be violently opposed by people like Alex, who Jimmy is talking to.
One of the big reasons why the government doesn't spend more money on the things that he wants them to, apparently, is because of the person he's talking to and the world that he represents.
Also, I know they are sending money to Ukraine, but a lot of those giant figures you hear are like military equipment and stuff.
I really am an expert on this because I read the writings voluminously of kind of the highest people who you all know are Hararis and folks.
And so a lot goes into this.
But at one level, you're 100% right.
And there's some other levels to it, in my view.
Paul Schwab has said, we want an angrier world.
So they want you to see dystopia and pain.
It was declassified.
That since the 60s, the CIA wanted ugly art, ugly architecture, ugly culture, so that you would expect an uglier world and just get used to it and wouldn't demand beauty and wouldn't go along with art was bad in the 60s?
Because they were about to end the experiment of America with all its problems and all the issues.
He knows a couple of out-of-context quotes from them that he's seen in memes, and he knows the extreme right-wing social media talking points that he uses as launching pads to rant, but he's never read any of their books.
Klaus Schwab never said that he wanted to create an angrier world.
Alex is lying about a CNBC interview he did in July 2020 that was given the headline, quote, WEF founder must prepare for an angrier world.
The interview was about how the election was upcoming, and we were in the earlier stages of the COVID crisis, and Schwab was predicting that the world would likely become more angry.
The remedy that he proposes is greater dialogue among countries and stakeholders, as well as a push to provide equal access to things like the medical system.
Since Jimmy is such a big Medicare for all guy, that should have been right up his alley.
But you'll never know that that was what Schwab was talking about if your main source of information is liars who make things up about headlines.
There's nothing in any of Schwab nor Harari's book about a plot to create an angrier world.
This is just something Alex has made up and decided to pretend is a real plan that Klaus Schwab has.
And because society has, for better or worse, and despite good intentions from other people, we are apparently complacent with a government that doesn't step in and mandate some of these things.
So, during the Cold War, the CIA funded groups like the Congress for Cultural Freedom that promoted Western art as a propaganda effort against the Soviet Union.
The thinking was that the U.S. and Western culture was so much more free and thus more creative.
And if it was celebrated, it would be a massive cultural victory over the Soviet system, which is much more traditional and caught up in the past.
All art styles like abstract expressionism stood in stark contrast to the prevailing culture of the Soviet Union at the time.
And many have suggested that part of the push in terms of popularizing this style and artists like Jackson Pollock had to do with cultural fronts like the CCF, some of which were essentially CIA fronts.
The irony, of course, is at the same time, they are blacklisting Jews for being in Hollywood for making things that people would appreciate in a very similar sense.
But even in the most, or I should say, excuse me, the least generous interpretation of that history with the CIA on art, it wasn't about making Americans accept an uglier world and not demand beauty.
It was yet another weird idea that anti-communists put into action during the Cold War.
If you talk to, when I've covered Bilderberg myself more than 10 times, my crew many other times, we get into the hotel a few days before they close it, and I hand out a card and I say, when the Bilderberg group comes here, to the waiters and to the staff and to the bartender, to the bellhop, when they come here and you see how rude and evil and mean they are and you hear what they're saying, here's the remember, call me and give me information.
I learned that from Jim Tucker, an old reporter that had been covering them since the 70s.
And he's dead now, but he was a really interesting old-fashioned gumshoe.
And so they would then be so rude and so mean and never give a one-cent tip.
None of them give tips.
Hillary Clinton at a restaurant gives no tip, a lot of times skips out on it.
And they're all like this.
Gavin Newsom, I've told people that know him, they're all like this because they are such sociopaths slash psychopathic.
They're all on that scale that to them, they don't understand doing good to others comes back to you.
They don't get that if they crap in the swimming pool, they've got to close the community pool because they're so rich and powerful, they're disconnected from ever being in a community pool.
So they feel so insulated and so distasteful.
Last time you were at a campaign, even though their consciousness is evil, that's kind of a body, even their genetics still has the old human there.
So they subconsciously hate themselves.
So they then project onto the public their own self-loathing.
And I've talked to top psychiatrists about psychopaths and serial killers.
They only feel alive when they're doing something bad or being nasty.
Apparently, she and her entourage ate at a maid right in Iowa where the bill was $157 and they left a $100 tip.
Who knows if that's normal for her?
I sure don't.
People should tip well, but this is gossip-level shit that Alex is trying to exaggerate into being some kind of relevant political point about their psychology.
Once you become Secretary of State, how much you tip will always be less important to me in terms of like your standing as a good or bad person than the number of war crimes you commit.
Outside of that, I'm not sure he's gone to any of the others.
And of those, the only one where he definitely got into the hotel was in Chantilly.
The other times he just bullhorned people driving by in cars.
Alex has never produced anything that's been provided by Bilderberg waitstaff whistleblowers.
It's just the Trojan horse that he uses to launder his bullshit.
It's the same trick that Jim Tucker and Daniel Estelin use.
They make up stuff about the Bilderberg meetings, and if they need to provide a source, they can say some disgruntled waiter told them about what they overheard in the shadowy back rooms.
It's just a parlor trick.
Smart move of Alex, though, not to talk about who Jim Tucker wrote for or how the publication he was the editor of was full of Holocaust denial.
So I've noticed that when Alex wants to appeal to folks who aren't as far on his side of the extreme right, he'll often stress his opposition to BlackRock a lot more.
That's a solid strategic move since the people he's talking to, in this case, Jimmy's viewers, probably also hate BlackRock.
They may hate them for a different reason than Alex does, but Alex can use the optics to smooth that over.
But let's track this answer that Alex gives when he's asked who they are.
We know it's the globalists, but here we get Alex being descriptive.
So we can assume this is a description of the globalists.
There's sociopaths and psychopaths in all the world governments.
So then Alex says that it's BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street.
BlackRock manages about $9.5 trillion in assets and is the largest business of that sort in the world, while the other two are also giant financial entities.
It's fair enough to say that these three companies represent a significant problem for our country, but it's not in the way that Alex suggests.
Alex doesn't know anything about these companies outside of the little tidbits of information that he's gleaned from memes and headlines of articles that he's never read.
Case in point, Alex says that these three companies are controlled by the same 12 people, or I think he says less than a dozen, and that they control 88% of all assets and wealth.
So Mortimer Buckley has never been a constant obsession for Alex.
Obviously not, because he isn't memeable, and Alex just covers memes.
But for real, who the fuck are these 12 people?
Vanguard has a page on their website with profiles of their managing directors, and there's 12 of them at that company alone.
They have 13 members on their board of directors and not much overlap between them.
You go to BlackRock and you've got a global executive committee of 24 people, double the number that Alex is saying make all the decisions between the three companies.
What Alex is saying is stupid.
There aren't less than a dozen people at these three companies that run everything.
It's just that there's a very limited number of people involved in these businesses that Alex has been able to turn into characters.
These are businesses, and even if we disagree with their aims and their particular way of making money, Alex's view of them is very reductive.
Part of this is due to the nature of conspiracy and how everything has to be boiled down to a small cabal that's in charge of everything.
It doesn't serve the conspiracy theorists to deal with BlackRock as a business with 24 members of a global executive committee and who knows how many hundreds or thousands of employees downstream, many of which are the people who manage the investments they hold and who make decisions about those holdings.
That gets super complicated really quick.
So the image of it has to be that these companies are essentially dictatorships run by figureheads that Alex has been able to turn into characters.
Thus far, that's only been possible with Larry Fink, which is why BlackRock comes up much more in Alex's diatribes, but he includes State Street and Vanguard when he rattles off the list because it makes good window dressing.
And what about his claim that these three companies, quote, control 88% of world assets and wealth?
These companies are investment companies and they put together portfolios for funds for corporate or individual investors to put money into for a bunch of different purposes.
Some of it might just be for individual investment.
Some of it might be putting together a retirement package or corporate pension funds.
And in order to do this, they pool individual and corporate money to invest into these collections of stocks and funds that they put together.
Index funds.
It can be a little more complicated than that, but as a fairly basic elementary way to view their role, that's a decent summation.
The stat that Alex is citing, the 88% number, is not a percentage of assets or wealth that they own or control.
It's an approximation of the percentage of assets that are being traded in the context of index funds that are managed by these three companies.
They have what many consider to be an effective oligopoly over the exchange-traded funds or EFT market, but this is not the same thing as what Alex is saying.
Still a problem, not the same thing that Alex is saying.
That number, which may well be in the lower 80%, does not account for all investment, and it certainly doesn't account for all wealth.
That said, these three companies do pose a very serious problem, and it's one that should be addressed.
The amount of assets these three companies manage has generally been increasing in recent years, and there's every reason to assume they'll continue to remain in that position, squeezing out smaller index fund management companies.
This is worrying from the standpoint of the economy, but there's also another issue that Alex is somewhat right about, but gets pretty much entirely wrong.
As the holders of a great deal of stock, which they own in these funds, which people then invest in, these three companies have an outsized say in votes within the companies for which they hold stock.
In a 2019 paper in the Boston University Law Review, Professors Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hearst cited a statistic that from 1998 to 2017, the average combined stake of BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in SP 500 companies quadrupled from 5.2% to 20.5%.
And that, quote, assuming that past trends continue, we estimate that the share of votes that the big three would cast at SP companies could well reach about 30% or 34% of votes in the next decade and 41% in two decades.
The issue with this is pretty obvious in that it represents a consolidated and very outsized influence that these companies could have on corporate decisions.
And this is exactly where Alex has a valid criticism about these companies.
He brings up that they have these investments and holdings in other companies that gives them sway, but the only time this ever comes up is when he needs to complain about people being too woke, which is where the criticism goes entirely off the rails.
Why is the new little mermaid not white?
Because BlackRock owns Share in Disney and they're pushing their woke agenda.
Why is Bud Light putting Dylan Mulvaney on a single promotional can?
Because BlackRock invests in Anheuser-Busch, and they're pushing their woke agenda.
This is the place where the anti-BlackRock type narrative fits in Alex's world.
And the fundamental irony is that the role these three companies play in their corporate existence is far more aligned with Alex's politics than he likes to pretend.
Alex and his ilk drum up this meaningless but loud opposition to these companies, and maybe they'll make a small dent in their earnings for the quarter, but then things fizzle out and the right-wing culture war obsessives move on to the next meme they're told to get angry about, and nothing really changes.
The conversation may at times dip its toe into talks of boycotting these companies that BlackRock holds investments in, but even that's an impotent action.
But it's about as far as someone like Alex can go.
And the reason for that is that all the viable solutions for the problem that these giant companies present are things that Alex directly opposes.
Things like changing tax structures and regulations around retirement funds, things like entirely new regulation on corporate governance in the landscape that these giant funds create.
Things like hypertaxation on money management.
These are all things that would work to deal with the issue this outsized influence has.
And they're all things that Alex would start a war to oppose.
Well, and it's paved enough of the road that you can veer off it where you want to go, which is the complaining about the little mermaid and Dylan Mulvaney.
If anyone is in a conspiracy with BlackRock, State Street, and et cetera, it is Alex and the right-wing media to make sure that we don't actually address, because in a real situation.
I think that there are at least a fair amount of voices who recognize the danger that this organization, not the organization of these companies, but the organization of the economy in this way, the dangers that it can present.
And some of the things that I was reading did somewhat compare this to early antitrust times in a way that makes a fair amount of sense.
So Alex can't really oppose BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in any meaningful way because there really isn't a solution outside of getting the government to impose some kind of guardrails.
The only other option really is to get investors to not invest in their various funds, but the odds of that happening is essentially zero when their funds are the best performing ones.
The solution Alex has of demonizing companies that are too woke and maybe getting their profits down temporarily doesn't make even the smallest difference for the companies at the top.
So if these three companies are the ones behind the globalists, then strong government intervention is what needs to happen.
And you can count on Alex to never support that happening.
Trump isn't going to do it.
Vivek isn't going to do it.
But ironically, there's a decent chance that Biden could.
For all the criticism that he gets, one of the things people don't talk about enough is Biden and his administration showing a lot of promise in the realm of antitrust issues.
They have multiple investigations into things like Live Nations, effective monopoly over ticketing, and Visa's relationship with competition in terms of payment processing.
A lot of that has not come to fruition yet.
And, you know, it's not for, it's not that it never will.
And it's not stuff that's gotten to the level of these index funds.
But there's an indication in how Biden's administration has moved that they're taking monopolies more seriously than predecessors and more seriously than he often gets credit for because it's easy to see very obvious ineptitudes in some of the things that he puts forth and the Biden administration does.
But I mean, that's also part of the that's hamstrung by the stuff he did in the past.
You know, like part of the reason that the executive branch can't handle this, because that's a case that'll take 10 years in court to really deal with.
But I mean, then there's a new executive, and then all of a sudden, you know, and it's like because of the amount of money and because of the way that they've set this up over the past 40 years, that is a thing that they can take advantage of.
So, yes, he's doing this, and the reason he's not doing it as fast as people want him to is because of shit he did in the past.
If Alex were going to bet on a candidate to take on the fight that he wants, he should choose Biden.
He's not going to do that because his opposition to these companies is not sincere.
It's political theater.
But, you know, it is, I think, important, generally speaking, when there's something to Alex's thoughts and ideas that does make sense and has some kernel of truth to not shy away from that.
And his criticisms about how much control in theory over the voting by virtue of the ownership of stock that these companies have is at its core a decent point.
It goes wrong, but to pretend that that isn't the point just because Alex is saying it is not fair.
Don't affect the future because we have the Renaissance system of believing in humans and egalitarianism and classical liberalism and really empowering people, but doing it through the classical human system.
That's the great awakening that we're in that's countering the great reset, the war against the globalists, defeating the globalists and launching the next great renaissance.
And they can't compete with that.
They are a evil stinking witch that's literally trying to hand out poison apples versus Ritter Monroe in their prime.
Freedom in the Renaissance and liberalism, real liberalism, is Marilyn Monroe in her prime.
And the new world order is like a Skexy from the dark crystal.
They have to make everything ugly because they're ugly spiritually, culturally, metaphysically, and they need everything ugly to camouflage themselves because they're so fallen.
The only reason you'd say something like this is if you're a complete idiot drawn in by conspiracism so deeply that you have no clue what direction is up or possibly to lay an expert trap to get Alex to endorse this obviously idiotic position that is based in an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
So anyway, the rest of all that, the stuff that Alex is saying has no connection to reality.
He's just taking input he refuses to understand, like Harari's writings or the article with that headline, Looking Forward to the End of Humanity, and ranting about his feelings about them.
If you're drawn into this meaning anything, the only thing you're doing is taking Alex's emotions on as truth and then pretending that it's something that's based in sources and information, and you're a fool.
And yeah, the Rothschilds, and that's a whole other story.
I'm sure you know it, but the British Empire was dominant until 1815.
Oh, God.
But it was in complete control for 100 years after that because the Battle of Waterloo was so decisive, defeating the continental forces of Napoleon Bonaparte for the second time with the Prussian British pincer attack that the Rothschilds,
this is on record, sent a carrier pigeon to a fast Corvette ship to race across and to tell everyone when the stock market opened that morning that Napoleon had won and that Lord Wellington had been smashed.
And the stock market went down 99%.
The Rothschilds then bought up 99%.
This is on record, 99% of the stock market.
So they were just the richest family in the world up until that point.
They were the richest family in the world up until that point on record.
Okay.
Married into the British royalty, everything.
Then after 1815, the Battle of Waterloo, they owned the British Empire.
All the major stocks, they got it.
Of course, Napoleon really lost.
And they only had six hours, six hours before they came in and said no.
So we've talked about this many times, so I'm not going to belabor the point, but in case there are people listening who haven't heard some of our older episodes, this story about Nathan Rothschild is not true.
It's a piece of anti-Semitic lore that's been passed down over time, most prominently by the literal Nazi propaganda film called The Rothschild Share at Waterloo, produced at the command of Joseph Goebbels.
So anyway, this film, The Rothschild's Share at Waterloo, was part of a concerted media campaign to demonize Jewish people that included this film as well as the a little bit more blunt, The Eternal Jew.
So this story about Nathan Rothschild and the getting early information about Waterloo and using it to his advantage at the stock market traces further back to an 1846 pamphlet that was written by someone using the pen name Satan.
The person behind that was a deeply anti-Semitic dude named Matthew George D'Aarnville, who really hated the Rothschilds.
He wrote that pamphlet making up this story.
It gained popularity in anti-Semitic circles until it was made far more popular by literal Nazi propaganda material and is now endlessly parroted by idiots like Alex Jones and probably Jimmy Doerr in the future because he learns from memes.
They all admit this at the academic level like we're young animals.
I'm just reading what they're actually saying.
And they, in mainline PhD history books, they admit all this about the Rothschilds.
Now I go on there and say it.
They go anti-Semitic.
It has nothing to do with Jews to say that the Rothschilds did this and are super powerful.
I have an argument against Chinese because Ziji Ping is bad.
Am I saying Chinese are bad?
No, I'm not.
But it really is true that that's how a German Jewish banking family who ran pawn shops basically in Germany and loaned money to people.
That's how they parlayed their wealth from 500 years ago by 1815 to rule most of the earth.
The sun never set on the British Empire.
Then World War I, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had gotten so dominant.
I don't mean to give a history lesson, but it's important to know that the British intelligence and the Black Hand assassinate France Ferdinand, the Archduke, the Germans all go crazy because they were winning with all the new patents, all the new science.
The British newspapers were talking about the German problem.
So the British Empire was corrupt, overextended.
And so World War I was started by them.
World War II was Hitler.
He was bad.
But the Versailles Treaty and all that led to Hitler coming to power.
You can read too many intelligence to control Hitler, but nudged him and funded him early on to have a new enemy.
I'm amazed really that people like I don't think in this one space, truly, I don't believe it is anybody's fault, not Alex's, that he does not know the accurate, any accurate history at this time period.
I mean, you know, if you're like a 60-year-old dude, you have to stop and think: how many documentaries and shit on World War II and World War I have I watched?
So I'm going to give Kurt Metzger an amazing and undeserved benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he's talking about the American film The House of Rothschild, which was not made by the Rothschilds, but was created as an anti-Nazi film in 1934 and presents the Rothschilds family in a positive light.
It doesn't, however, look like Nazi propaganda.
And if Kurt is suggesting that the film he saw seemed like that, I think he might have seen the Nazi propaganda film The Rothschild Chair at Waterloo.
But I noticed that it's being, this situation is being manipulated, and I couldn't really put my finger on why.
Why are they having an open border and which they are?
And right now, you have cities like Eric Adams in New York is screaming that their whole city is going to going down the toilet because they can't handle the influx of all these immigrants that are coming to his city.
It used to be a sanctuary city, and now he's trying to find a way to get them to stop, but they're not stopping.
And I was listening to Dick Durbin, who's a senator from my old home state, Illinois, and listen to what he says.
Here's one of the reasons why they want to get as many immigrants as they can in here.
The presiding officer, my colleague from the state of Illinois, has legislation which addresses one aspect of that.
Her bill, and I hope I describe it accurately, says that if you're an undocumented person in this country and you can pass the physical and the required test, background test, the like, you can serve in our military.
And if you do it honorably, we will make you citizens of the United States.
Do we need that?
Do you know what the recruiting numbers are at the Army, in the Navy, in the Air Force?
They can't reach their quotas each month.
They can't find enough people to join our military forces.
And there are those who are undocumented who want the chance to serve and risk their lives for this country.
I guess if I'm to be as generous as possible, then this must be coming from his stated anti-war position.
He must not like this because we don't need any more soldiers since we shouldn't be fighting in all these wars.
But in that case, this is a military size issue, not an immigration issue.
And Jimmy said that he flipped on his position on immigration, which is where this idea started.
Jimmy used to think that more immigrants coming in, the better, but now he doesn't.
He hasn't specified what his actual position is, but the change in thinking has something to do with offering immigrants paths to citizenship that involve signing up for military service.
I don't know, but maybe I'm small-minded, but I have a tough time seeing a way this shift in position isn't really just him catering to the audience he's carved out by hanging out with folks like Tucker Carlson.
Why would you, why would you, here's the only reason you can have an opinion on that is because you watched Starship Troopers or you read Starship Troopers and you either agree with the movie you watched or the book that you read.
So either you go, this is dystopic, fucked up shit, or you go, yeah, we should really kill immigrants.
Before that, there's a 100-year-old called Kalergi Plan in Europe.
And the royalty got together and they said, our people are too uppity.
But if we bring in giant third-world populations that we control and that we put on government jobs and government assistance, it'll be a new Praetorian guard for us.
But it's worse than that.
If you go back to the lockdowns that only went on for like a year and a half here or in Europe or Australia, they went on under IMF World Bank control over those countries that are in deep debt to the central banks.
They were under two, two and a half, three-year lockdowns, and they did big polls of the migrants.
So pure and simple, Alex is just regurgitating white nationalist talking points.
He whipped out the Kalergi plan reference real fast.
That was interesting because, man, he doesn't use that name much.
I think that Alex knows on some level that using that name, the Kalergi plan, is kind of signifying pretty clearly that you're a white nationalist or white nationalist adjacent.
And I guess he's fine doing that here.
I have a strong suspicion that what's going on is that Alex is subtly testing Jimmy.
Alex very seldom uses that name, even when discussing his immigration-related conspiracies.
So it seems to me that this might be a bit of a trial balloon.
If Jimmy shows awareness of this name, and actually Kurt seemed to, then maybe they're on the same team as Alex.
If Jimmy doesn't push back on him when he brings it up, Alex at very least has learned that he's talking to someone who has no idea about the history of these ideas that they're discussing.
So he has free reign to just say whatever he wants.
There's no such thing as the Kalergi plan.
Richard von Kudenhoff Kalergi wrote a book called Practical Idealism, which speculated that in the future, distinctions between ethnic groups would disappear as cultures intermingled.
This was repurposed by Nazis and white supremacists as being indicative of a plan to force non-white immigration into peoples to destroy the white race through forced intermingling.
In his text, Kalergi is wrestling with the differences in different sorts of population.
Rural versus city dwellers, the junker versus the literati, the gentleman versus the bohemian.
And in this particular section, the inbred versus the crossbred.
Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they bear witness to the highest type of human being.
The strongest character combines with the sharpest mind.
Where inbreeding and mixture come together under unfortunate auspices, they create degenerative types of weak character and dull mind.
Man will be hybrid in the distant future.
Today's races are increasingly falling victim to the fact that space, time, and prejudice are being overcome.
The Eurasian Negroid race of the future, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptian, will replace the diversity of peoples with a variety of personalities.
So anyway, Calergy sucks, but in a different way than Alex and his white supremacist buddies say.
So we talked about this on a recent show, but all these blue cities aren't legalizing undocumented immigrants voting in local elections.
There are a couple of places that have made it so non-citizen permanent residents can vote in things like the school board election where their kids go to school.
Racist lie number one.
These non-citizen residents are not under the sway of community organizers who tell them how to vote for school board elections.
I can't pull a good reference, but you just chase people around the room with a book, I guess, by one of the people who wrote about critical race theory.
That's just the propaganda narrative that Alex has fraudulently been peddling for a decade.
Racist lie number five.
No one is passing laws to allow undocumented immigrants to be police.
There are conversations about how it makes some sense to allow non-citizen permanent residents to be allowed to pursue careers in law enforcement, which is a very different thing.
Racist lie number six.
As you can see in that short 45-second clip, Alex spews out six distinct lies that are all based on fake, racist, and xenophobic propaganda.
This is what his entire point is based on.
And all Kurt and Jimmy can do is impotently nod along and let their audience digest this as if it's real.
This is either an indication that they're dangerously ill-equipped to have the conversations that they're having or they belong on fucking Infowars.
And this is lowering the standards, not helping the third world, but lowering them and lowering us again so no one can aspire to the big carbon footprint.
Austerity is good.
Humans are bad.
Cows are evil.
We've got to get rid of them.
The cow farts are bad.
Well, we fart too.
And I said that years ago.
I said, when they're done going after the cows, which they've started, Netherlands is getting rid of a bunch.
Ireland, you name it.
Sri Lanka, Massive Stars, Ireland.
Notice what they said.
I said, next will be our breath is bad.
Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, London Guardian, all two weeks ago said breathing is bad for the earth.
No, the gases we put off hold actually in the sun.
So Alex's whole, they're saying breathing is bad is based on a daily mail headline he skimmed, which is about an article published in the PLOS One journal titled, Measurements of Methane and Nitrous Oxide in Human Breath and the Development of UK Scale Emissions.
The aim of the study was to get an idea of the scale of human breath emissions by assessing 104 volunteers.
One part of it was looking at emissions, but another part was seeing if there was any difference between demographic groups or between people who had different dietary patterns.
They found no differences between these groups that was significant.
Ultimately, here's what their conclusion found: quote, while emissions of CH4 and N2O account for only 0.05 and 0.1% of total emissions in the UK national greenhouse gas inventories, respectively, we would urge caution that the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.
We report only emissions in breath in this study, and flatchous emissions are likely to increase these values significantly, though no literature characterizes these emissions for people in the UK.
Assuming that livestock and other wild animals also exhale emissions of N2O, there may be a small but significant unaccounted for source of N2O emissions in the UK, which could account for more than 1% of national scale emissions.
Naturally, there were a ton of publications that are desperate for clicks, like the Daily Mail.
So they really zeroed in on that line: quote, we would urge caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible because that's the part that drives attention cycles for climate-denying fabulous like Alex, which in turn drives traffic to their sensational ass articles.
Even at their highest estimate, they're saying around 1% of national emissions may come from human exhalation, which isn't a significant thing.
Human breathing is, first of all, necessary to life, whereas burning fossil fuels is not, strictly speaking, necessary.
In theory, human CO2 production is almost exactly offset by the amount of CO2 we take in in the form of the products of photosynthesis, like plants and animals that were fed with plants.
There's a difference between CO2 emissions, which aren't necessarily bad, and excessive CO2 emissions, which are bad.
Alex knows there's a difference between those two, but he uses sensationalized and inaccurate coverage of Daily Mail articles like this in order to blur those lines to the audience, because if they understood the difference, they'd probably see through his ridiculous farce of an argument.
So, I guess Jimmy and Kurt don't believe in climate change.
It sounds like they're on board for trans people not existing, but pretty difficult to find any position that Jimmy has that's even remotely close to any kind of left politics that I recognize.
Seems he's kind of just a Trump guy who doesn't want to be called that.
So I really hope this is just paid programming and Jimmy got money to do this interview because otherwise he looks like a fucking idiot getting steamrolled.
So then, on September 3rd, Alex finally pops in at number two behind Jeanette McCurdy's book, I'm Glad My Mom Died.
The next week, September 10th, so Alex should have some kind of like really good pre-9-11 buzz going.
Sure.
But oops, he dropped down to number nine, then disappeared from the list altogether.
He had that little blip because every audience member he had that was going to buy the book bought it at the same time, and it was good enough for number two.
That's a kind of unbalanced path that really doesn't indicate that much global interest in a piece of media, which you can compare with something like McCurdy's book.
By January of 2023, she was still at number three, and her book had been released two weeks before Alex's.
That was a genuine hit.
Whereas Alex's book was a desperate cash grab that he didn't even write, and the sales figures represent that.
The second reason his book didn't make any of those lists isn't because of censorship, but probably because people bought the first one and they were underwhelmed with the second book.
I got to pause it again because I didn't realize when I first was listening through this, he was saying that that flea story is the one thing that got cut out of the book.
And they're going to say, I never knew this guy talked about all this because all they see, and they're going to do this, they're going to take me talking about Willie Nelson's spit, and that'll be the story.
Instead of, you know, Zuckerberg and the WEF say, we're going to control you in the workplace reading your thoughts.
I mean, people should know that they're collectively building a digital prison.
I paused it a little bit, so it probably took away some of the ways that it felt like this is just jumping from A to B to C to D. He's in mid-season form, and by that I mean he's high on something.
I have a strong suspicion that Jimmy asked Alex about Kent because he knows who Kent is, and Jimmy may have wanted to talk some COVID vaccine conspiracies.
But instead, here we go, and Alex is off to the races.
And because I'm insanely petty, here is the oldest clip, or a clip from the oldest video on Jimmy Doerr's channel where he's making fun of somebody who is a climate denier.
Right now we're going to talk about, so you know how the oh my God goes, I play something from a religious nut and then we make fun of it.
This is from Brian Fisher.
We've had him on the show before.
Brian Fisher, he's the director of issues analysis of the conservative fundamentalist American Family Asshole Association.
And on Thursday, he had an expert to come on and talk about fossil fuels.
And here, let's have some fun.
Here we go.
unidentified
Let me just connect that to a biblical parable, the parable of the talents.
You know, the unfaithful steward, the wicked and lazy steward, as the master calls him, was the one who buried his talent in the ground and didn't do anything with it to multiply it.
That's essentially what those who say we need to stop using oil, coal, and natural gas are telling us to do.
Just leave those resources buried in the ground rather than pulling them out and multiplying their value for human benefit.
Yeah, that's what they're saying because when you pull them out of the ground for human benefit, it releases carbon into the air and causes climate change.
And it's very close to the thing that Alex just said about how we need to off-gas and all of this stuff.
He just didn't go as far as his, maybe would say in another place, which is God put it there for us to find to terra farm or, you know, what's it called?
So I'm glad these guys are so researched and they're so on the ball and write all the time.
Like 95% is a very accurate number.
It makes it really reassuring to listen to them because I know they're really good at this and they're right all the time and they're basing their points on facts.
So I can just turn off my brain and critical thinking skills.
I can just trust they have it covered and really enjoy myself.
What's this now?
Bill Gates wants to put mRNA into the food.
I better look into this one.
It's a little too serious to take just on faith.
Oh my God.
I Googled it and I found this tweet that Bill Gates posted that says, quote, vaccines in our food supplies solves the problem of vaccine hesitancy.
Oh my God, he does want to put mRNA in our food.
That's what the image of this tweet says.
This picture, it says, quote, Bill Gates vows to pump RNA into food supply to force jab the unvaccinated.
That's certainly written like a facsimile of an actual headline.
So I probably should believe it.
Oh, wait, that's a fake tweet that someone photoshopped that's circulating on right-wing social media.
Oh, man.
This is just a link to an article on Robert Malone's insane substack.
Ah, shit.
Looks like maybe Jimmy didn't have a source on this one.
I'm sure he's like 95% right.
This is just one of those few cases that it's not.
To the extent that any of this has any connection to reality, there are promising potentials in mRNA technology in terms of livestock vaccinations.
There's no way that that could then vaccinate you by eating vaccinated animals, though.
That's stupid.
But then again, clearly, Jimmy's pretty stupid.
This happens all the time.
Like a couple months back, Gates had invented, quote, an air vaccine to force vaccinate people.
But guess what?
That was bullshit, too.
But this information economy relies on a constant flow of scary and exciting claims to survive.
So it will never stop.
Also, Alex is making up that stuff about Bill Gates getting a patent for like nanotech spikes.
This was a patent.
It was numbered 060606, which is actually 666, which of course is the devil.
Alex's example for how everything is so crazy that he doesn't need to make things up is, in fact, a made-up thing.
So in their world, they are of the belief that these cows or animals can be given some sort of an mRNA thing that will alter their DNA and then make it so when you eat them, it will also alter your DNA.
It's all a load of shit.
I get what you're saying, though.
Like, I also don't understand science on the deep level that a scientist does.
And I understand that.
And typically, a lot of my understanding about these things has to do with you made a claim.
I just saw a clip the other day of Brett Weinstein, the professor who got mad at the no white people on campus day thing that became a right-wing celebrity.
He, you know, he's a big COVID vaccine opponent now.
Like, if you're a scientist, when you say that you should get to mug to the camera, like there should be a moment where you turn and you're like, 17 million, aren't I a stinker?
I thought they just had some kind of like dumb COVID tyranny kind of thing, but I guess Jimmy's just gobbling this bullshit up and signing off on Alex's really dangerous and offensive rant.
That's really bad.
So Alex is so goddamn full of shit.
Leaving aside the rank flippancy about rape, there's a little piece of information that he's conveniently not saying about the polio vaccine.
In 1988, there were approximately 350,000 wild cases just that year in 125 countries.
Because of the vaccine's wide availability, there were six reported cases of wild cases in 2021.
There are only two countries in the world where there's still wild polio that's not been eradicated, which are Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And even their cases are super uncommon, thanks to vaccination programs.
Alex knows that.
He knows that the polio vaccination campaign is one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine.
And he knows that this most cases are caused by the vaccine is a fraudulent talking point that he uses to attack vaccination.
He knows that the words most cases are caused by vaccines is true, but he also knows damn well that he's lying by omitting the surrounding context, which he omits because it illustrates how wrong his overall point is.
Also, in these cases where the vaccine is leading to a case of polio, it's often not the person who got vaccinated that is getting polio.
The live weakened virus version of the vaccine can, in some cases, lead to people spreading that weakened virus.
In well-vaccinated communities, this isn't a problem.
However, to quote the polio eradication project, quote, in communities with low immunization rates, as the virus spreads from one unvaccinated child to another over a long period of time, often over the course of 12 to 18 months, it can mutate and take on a form that can cause paralysis, just like the wild polio virus.
This mutated polio virus can then spread in communities, leading to circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus.
This is not difficult to understand, which is why Alex lies about it the way he does.
Alex attacks the polio vaccine not because it's giving tons of people polio, but because it was so effective at protecting people from polio, particularly the people Alex would rather see dead, like folks in the developing world.
I understand where Alex is coming from, and his lie is really transparent, but what the hell do Jimmy and Kurt think?
Do they really think the polio vaccine is bad because in 2020 there were 959 reported cases of vaccine-derived polio in the whole world?
I find it difficult to really believe they don't understand this dynamic.
So there's really only two options.
The first is that they are fully committed to this anti-vax propaganda world and they're comfortable lying about this stuff the same way Alex is.
The second is that they're the types of people who are so irresponsible with information that they can hear someone say most polio cases are caused by the vaccine and have their mind blown to the point where they don't need any further context or information to make up their mind.
Either way, this show is fucking dumb.
And it's dumb in ways that I didn't even realize.
Like I thought Jimmy was kind of like it seemed weird to me the ways that he had presented himself as, you know, kind of this left-leaning guy.
Well, it makes me believe that there's a language that we're not hearing.
You know what I mean?
Like, it makes me believe that something's going on that these people are listening to that we're not because I just can't get inside the head of a person who is responding to what Alex says.
Like, if Jenny, I genuinely feel like they're like Alex may be hearing that.
Like he's I mean, in this interview, to the extent that there's information about it, I'm not sure what his landing point is on it, but he's turned his position on immigration.
He seems to be spouting anti-Semitic Rothschild conspiracies.
And it's so strange with stuff that it seems like you simply can't go backwards on.
You know, like if you were alive and politically active and aware when an idiot brought a snowball into Congress, and then now it's now, you can't, you can't be like, yeah, these people think you can't do that.
Anyway, Alex's thing about Fauci isn't really accurate.
So in an interview he did with MSNBC, he said, quote, you use lockdowns to get people vaccinated so that when you open up, you won't have a huge surge of infections because you're dealing with an immunologically naive population to the virus because they've not really been exposed because of the people.
There's a difference between this and what Alex is claiming, but also it's important to recognize that he was answering a direct question from Andrea Mitchell, who said, quote, how concerning is the outbreak in China?
It was part of a much longer answer that was critical of China's zero COVID lockdown strategy, essentially the opposite of what Alex is saying when it's actually in its proper context.
But it looks good.
You know, it's enough.
He is saying that you use lockdowns to get people vaccinated.
What I think what I'm listening to is maybe like for me, now is when the government really focusing on COVID and vaccines and all that stuff would go a long way towards protecting against the next anti-vaxxer kind of thing, you know?
Now is when you have to do the grunt work, when people aren't paying attention, when everybody's not panicking all the time.
I just have to show you the reach of Bill Gates, who funds the WHO, and I'm on YouTube and Google, and I'm not allowed to contradict them, which means I'm not allowed to contradict Bill Gates, who's just a simple farmer.
So the term holiday heart was coined in 1978 to describe incidents of heart attacks that people had around the holidays that were directly related to heavy drinking.
Alex is pretending this is a new thing that's meant to cover up COVID vaccine deaths because he's a fucking idiot.
But these dudes, man, they are having a blast.
You were asking where their comedic riffing chops are going to be.
Yeah, and to be fair, I'll even point the finger back at myself earlier when I did that whole thing about Bill Gates wanting to put mRNA in our food and I pretended to be sarcastic.
And so I've talked to a lot of people, and my view is that they're, you know, this is my opinion, that there are things about this that are really disturbing.
And while I hate any kind of government secrecy, and if I could prove any of this, I would say it immediately, consequences be damned.
I do sort of understand why they don't want to let this stuff out.
It's not about, oh, we've got fragments of one of these crafts at a walkie, you know, facility in California, and we have biologics from the craft.
You know, everyone knows that that's likely true.
Well, it's certainly true that they have the pieces of this stuff.
But I think it's likely that it's darker than that and that the U.S. government is, I said the U.S. government, people in the U.S. government, not the U.S. government, but there are parts.
It's a vast, it's the largest human organization in history.
Parts of it have knowledge that is very, very disturbing.
And I personally think, strongly think, that there's a spiritual component to this that I don't understand and will not pretend to understand.
But I think it's very clear that there's a spiritual component to this.
That's one of the reasons the Vatican, and I'm, again, not Catholic, but has been involved in this for over 100 years, has an observatory, et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that these are not men from Mars.
I think that was a psyop because I think the truth is a little bit wilder and has deeper implications just than that.
And from my research of the globalist and what they're really doing in DMT research in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and that also goes to a connection to a family friend who was the deputy head of a major psychedelic research group in San Francisco.
And Alex's answer is very much trying to insist that he has something confidential that Tucker has told him and be like, I'm not going to talk about this.
And then just starts rambling about DMT research and familial relations of his that are deeply entwined with the 12 dimensions of our single part of the multiverse.
All this comes from with psychedelics and, you know, and the ancients and then all the other cultures taking these drugs is that they believe they're talking to the gods and the servants of the gods.
But the rule is the higher level angels or good guys don't interfere in the third dimensional manifestation of our bodies that is a dimensional manifestation or signature of something much larger.
So this is kind of the tether of what we are and a signature footprint that's interdimensionally there.
It's way more complex than that, but no.
Basically, that's where these people have these experiences.
That's where people who've never taken drugs, have no mental illness in their family, will walk into their bedroom and a poltergeist will appear or won't and will throw you up onto the ceiling.
Or will put giant bloody scratch marks across your chest.
And so more and more people are having this experience.
And so they didn't believe in God.
They didn't believe in aliens till they get demonically attacked.
And I'm not going to say who this has happened to, but let's just say it's happened to a lot of people and they're suddenly discovering all this and trying to then say, what did this to me?
I'm not drinking.
I'm not on drugs.
And I just got, it's usually when you're alone and these things will attack you.
Oh, what's happening is we're teeming with energy, teeming with consciousnesses, but we're dialed down because you couldn't have a wife or a husband and go plant corn in the field and do your work if you could see all the different things interdimensionally that are there.
And so I naturally have a 21-inch neck and have really bad sleep apnea since I was a kid because I guess it's you almost call it a burnt effect.
I mean, my head is huge.
And my neck's huge for my body.
But the point is, is that I've had two sleep studies done.
I get down to 63% oxygen.
And there's only at night that causes brain damage long term.
But there's only one thing in studies that will bring you into the rest of it.
And that's low oxygen dreams.
Well, I have low oxygen dreams.
So since I was a small child, especially when I grew up and got bigger, I don't dream in REM sleep the last two hours like most people.
I dream from the time I go to bed till the time I wake up eight hours later.
And a lot of it is a brain function, going over the data, creating scenarios for the brain.
Because there is a Joe Rogan adjacency to the audience that Alex knows that Okur Metzger and Jimmy Dore have, where he wants to have kind of like that psycho not thing going on.
I feel like what we just heard was: imagine a guy spent 25 years building a career around the idea that every night someone was in his house moving stuff around.
Yeah.
And then about an hour ago, he's like, yeah, there's a guy.
He's in my house every night, moves stuff around.
And then last night, found out I was a sleepwalker.
Crazy.
Anyways, this guy, I'm going to catch him next time.
Or is it just to see if we'll do what they tell them?
And then they go, okay, open your mind.
I'm giving you a design for something.
And then they're giving us a design to build a system to enslave us.
It's kind of like the movie, cheesy 1990 sci-fi movie, Species, where they've got a radio telescope aimed at 50 light years away or whatever it was, and they get sent a DNA sequence from aliens.
And they go, let's inject this into a female egg and see what happens.
And so basically, the aliens don't come in flying saucers from Mars.
They don't come up out of the, you know, the Pacific rim, you know, from the hollow earth vortex and then communicate that is operating in the third, fourth, sixth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, and even 11th and 12th dimensions.
And so the invasion, ancients would call it spiritual, but it's not spiritual in every culture.
I mean, they got the Dugon tribe and tribes in Africa that said up there in the sky is this pole star, multi-star, and it's got seven planets around it, and they came from this one.
And no telescope like 70 years ago could even see it.
And they say aliens came from here and taught us about all this stuff, but they also told us about these other interdimensional things that are here to destroy us.
And see, I don't know, but all I know, and then you see Prometheus, the movie, they go.
None of the globalists really believe that some salts in the ocean turn into a cell, turn into a sponge, turn into a fish, crawled out on the land, crawled back in.
Like, we could just get rid of all of them and then just have a captive quarter of the American population just always watching Event Horizon on a loop.
And it would be about the same in terms of belief.
Because it makes me wonder, like, should we almost entirely give up on that idea of the consciousness has control and more just really truly accept that we are only aware of the physical processes after they occur.
You know, like Alex cannot be anything other than what Alex is because biologically, Alex is Alex.
And there's nothing that can be done about that.
Those low oxygen dreams, if somebody had gone to him and gotten him a sleep apnea machine when he was nine, if everything had gone the exact same way, but the man dreamt normally for a fucking month a hundred years ago.
I mean, because here's the more interesting thing about that, right?
The more fun thing about Alex's bullshit is not that it takes 50 light years to get from here, or it takes 50 years from here to a star 50 light years away.
It's that in order to accelerate up to light speed, you can only go so fast, right?
You can't accelerate from zero to 300 million or 300 meters per second sky square.
So it takes you a year and a half, two years to get up to percentage of light speed.
And during that time, you're also moving at different speeds relative to the rest of the universe.
So not only are you moving at like, say, a day faster than your buddy as you go along, but over time, that's also changing.
So you don't even know how old you're going to be in relation to other people until you leave, right?
And then after all of that is done, after all of that is done, you're never going to get back.
I wish I had crew in the studio because they've been showing for about a month this AI rendering of castles and mountains and the universe and how it changes.
And when I saw them play that, I went, that's where I go.
That's one of the things I've seen basically exactly.
Well, here's AI scraping the art and visions of billions of people.
And then you put into it the cosmos, heaven, and then it literally shows you what the collective unconscious already has.
So that is the power of AI.
Wow.
Is that it scrapes fragments of what we're doing in the conscious and unconscious that bubble up to the conscious.
And then it is, and many of these things I've seen manifesting some really deep, powerful stuff.
There's no crew in there, is there?
Too bad everybody's probably gone or that's a metaphor.
Okay, and I'm telling you, the stuff I see in these dreams is just like this, but even more blazing and gorgeous and just, you know, way more powerful.
But when I saw this for the first time, I was like, whoa, that's very similar to what I see.
And I've never seen art like that, never seen culture like that, never seen what I'd seen.
One of the things I see.
And then AI, though, it saw it because it's scraping millions of people.
I wonder: are people just like legitimately afraid to call him nuts?
Like, are people just afraid to listen to that and push back because they think he's going to push back even harder?
I don't know what the deal is, but if you have any self-respect, first of all, you're not going to then ask your closing question about some very serious topics.
But you're not going to listen to this whole Tucker Carlson got attacked by a demon nonsense.
I have oxygen-deprived dreams that have formed my worldview that you should all take very seriously and is based on science fiction movies that I can't stop name-dropping.
How would you, if you had any self-respect, not be like, here's a follow-up question, but these dreams, they're not real.
You know, the only thing that I've ever, as far as comedians go, you know, that whole like, oh, comedians are truth tellers, you know, that whole thing.
I've never bought into any of that.
The only thing, truly, that I think comedians and clowns are that cannot be done by anything else is the kid who says the emperor has no clothes.
You know, like, that's who we are.
We're the people who, yeah, everybody else is standing around.
I'm just, I'm just, I just mean, like, that's what we're here.
I'm willing to be called a clown.
I'm willing to have everybody laugh at me because that's what it means for me to be able to say, Jesus Christ, Alex Jones just said he only has enough oxygen to barely survive, and that's where everything you think he believes comes from.
Yeah, I mean, it does describe, explain a whole lot.
Yeah.
And I mean, where the Reubber meets the road is that the politics that he has created on top of those delusions and those hallucinations that he's deemed prophecy are things that are really dangerous.
They hurt a lot of people.
People were obviously killed through the vaccine denialism, the hydroxychloroquine stuff.
Yep.
People are targeted and at risk due to his transphobia and his increasingly towards just outright entire LGBTQ community denial.
He's a racist.
He would see all immigrants banished.
Yeah.
I mean, these are the real world pieces that are built upon his house of lack of oxygen.
That's me being like, hey, listen, you have built an entire fucking worldview that is all structurally dependent on not enough oxygen getting to this man's dreams.
So I don't know if you want to start from scratch, but maybe I would.
Second, Jimmy does seem like maybe he's someone who it would be more interesting to cover because I do think he's further down the road than I had assumed.
And we got to learn that I'm not going to be able to handle a couple of, like, this was a couple of revelations on this episode really truly make me both furious, like, hopeless.