In this installment, Dan and Jordan attempt to figure out Alex's response to the cascade of news stories that have broken since they last recorded. Unfortunately, Alex was out of studio Thursday and Friday, so they're left to sort through some special reports to get the lay of the land.
I would say that my dentist is a woman in little Vietnam who has an office that would be more like where you would find a centipede of the human variety as opposed to a dentist.
I think it was because it was early on enough that we still had, like, a real stand-up tradition of, like, you know, we want to do live shit, you want to be in front of a crowd, and we tried to translate it to this, and there was just no interest.
And we got a technocrat in the mix, so thank you so much to the one and only badass thing Alex Jones has ever done and will do in his life was announcing Henry Kissinger's death over Pantera's cemetery gates.
I'm thinking about doing some shows, too, where I run the whole thing myself, just hit record, and sit in the dark with just a few candles and candlelight and talk about the nature of the world universe.
I mean, you know, a big old juicy ribeye, folks, is as good as, you know, sex with your wife.
I'm not going to go through a whole show with Owen hosting because the ding-dong is boring, so in order to try and figure out what the Alex line on some of this stuff was, I had to go over to band.video to see what kind of reports Alex was putting out.
I was shocked, however, to click on some of these videos and see the very low level of engagement they have.
It's absolute shit.
Like, a lot of the comments are spam, and if a video has 100,000 to 200,000 views, there's going to be like 100 likes on it.
And that's only for Alex's show.
If you go to the War Room, their shows are generally under 30,000 views, and the American Journal is lucky to be over 10. Paul Joseph Watson hasn't posted on there since last May.
There are reports of Tucker Carlson interviews, and they just repost them.
They aren't getting the kind of numbers they want.
Roger Stone is posting Stone Zone videos there, but they typically get view counts in the hundreds.
So I went over there to get some news to break down for everybody, and I was shocked to learn that the February 15th video, the episode from that day, was Owen, who's hosting the show, along with Chase Geyser and Harrison Smith in what they called the InfoWars Roundtable.
They do stuff like sell off everything I own, which is fine because I don't care about selling every trinket or every knife or every gun or every book or everything I ever had because truth and justice on the air is what matters, and these people don't understand that.
But I've been following the Russia situation, and I know exactly what's going on with the so-called space nukes.
So I'm going to shoot a special report right now that'll be ready for you guys.
And if I was you guys on Spaces, I would actually make it something about the big Russia threat because Mario Nafal at 3 o 'clock will be popping up with him.
He's doing his own Spaces on this.
I don't know what you guys chose your Spaces on, but I'm going to have the inside baseball for you guys.
A little five-minute report you can air during that Spaces.
I'll have it ready for you here in about 40 minutes or so, okay?
So you can learn two important things from that clip.
One, Alex is dealing with bankruptcy-related issues that are impacting him enough that he's had to take two days off his show.
And two, he's becoming completely obsessed with Twitter spaces to the point where he has time, he'll make time to go on this other person's Twitter space, but not be on his own show.
I think the reason for that is pretty obvious.
If you look at band.video, you can kind of see a picture of an uninspiring landscape.
It doesn't feel like there's a lot of electricity to it.
It's just kind of a bummer.
Posting something on there is not going to hit.
the dopamine button.
But now that Alex is back on Twitter, he has access to what is essentially a dopamine factory.
There's so many scammers and bots and so much inauthentic traffic on there that every time he posts, it's got to feel like a million bucks worth of attention.
And to add to that the distinct possibility that if you have a Twitter space going, there's Mm-hmm.
And you have a combination that's irresistible for someone like Alex.
I would expect that he'll fail to learn from his past mistakes and put as many eggs as he can into that basket, to the point where his show starts catering to an audience carve-out that engages most with his Twitter.
We're already seeing him dabbling and using Twitter spaces instead of phone calls, which I honestly think is a double-edged sword where both edges are bad.
Could there be a more like, oh, you have no boss moment than just wandering on to somebody else's show and just being like, hey, I'm going to give you an update on my bankruptcy stuff, despite the fact that that has nothing to do.
I got my friend Harrison Smith and my buddy Chase Geyser up here to the three of us come to terms with how lack of talent can lead to whatever we do now.
Acting like they don't know what's going on to scare the public when there's a very clear history of exactly what's going on with the United States, Russia, China, and other governments.
So I'm about to break down what's really happening in space straight ahead.
Those plans were about creating some kind of a weapon that could shoot down missiles from space, and they famously didn't work.
Conversely, what's being alleged about Russia is that they're developing an anti-satellite weapon, which would be a very severe violation of the non-armament of space treaties that were signed in the 60s.
I have no idea what Russia is up to or isn't up to, and I don't want to jump to hysterics over some vague government announcements, but if what they're saying is correct, that Russia is planning a nuclear-armed anti-satellite...
weapon, that would be a huge provocation and unlike anything the U.S. or other countries have done.
Alex is being very strange about this equivocation.
Any defensive weapon or offensive weapon when it comes to mutually assured destruction, they're all the same.
You know, a protection from destruction is an offensive weapon because the entire basis is that we will all die together, right?
So if you were trying to protect yourself from, which is part of why Star Wars was bad, was not because it could have worked, or not because it didn't work, but because if it did work, it would necessitate an immediate retaliation.
Because on the one hand, I do believe that there is probably a strong likelihood that Russia is exploring these avenues and maybe is closer to developing something like this than you might think.
In many cases, they would actually detonate a small atomic or hydrogen bomb that then fires through the X-ray laser arrays and just fries everything in a massive radius around it.
This would also cause a major electromagnetic...
Disturbances in the atmosphere.
That's why the Pentagon back in the 1960s did Operation Fishbowl, where they tried to detonate the upper atmosphere with high-powered hydrogen bombs just to test and see it was safe.
So what Alex is talking about is the fruit of the research in a program called Project Excalibur.
And it did look at options like having a power reactor for the lasers or having nuclear explosions used as a power source.
But these weren't things that were put into force by the United States.
This was research.
It was done.
They explored it.
And Operation Fishbowl happened in 1962, many years before Excalibur was going.
So his timeline's a little bit weird and all over the place.
The dynamic that's important to understand here is that...
Alex wants to excuse Russia's actions and ideally make it more likely for them to use this capability against the United States.
You can kind of tell based on his tone and considering the possible ways that this could play out, you can see which ones are advantageous to him.
There's the outcome where Russia doesn't use this technology, which is kind of neutral.
Alex can get a little excitement out of talking about it for now and creating narratives about what could happen, but if it doesn't get used, it's all pretty much just static.
I believe that Alex would much prefer the tech being used to take out U.S. satellites, primarily because he's been crafting...
in conspiracies for years about someone pulling off a false flag cyber attack, which would then get blamed on the Russians.
Yeah.
unidentified
But it wouldn't be blamed on Russia for its own sake.
They would only get the blame as a way of attacking Putin's supporting crowds in the Yeah.
Alex has made constantly wrong predictions about this for quite a while now, so if this was used and the U.S. satellites were hit, it would be perfect for a fake outcast.
Alex needs to rush to get out ahead of things like this because the alternative is really dangerous for him.
If there was an attack on satellites like what people are talking about, and it was Russia that did it, that runs the risk of actually uniting people the country around a common fight, and that would be uniting under the umbrella of the United States federal government, who is Alex's real enemy.
Yeah.
unidentified
In order to limit the ability for people to galvanize and unite around shared trauma, Alex has a very strong incentive preemptively to tell these stories as false flags, so they Unifying power.
This is one of the ways that false flag narratives are used on InfoWars.
One major strategy is using the fear of incoming false flags as a way to do advanced damage control when you're pretty concerned that someone from your world may carry out violence, but this is another.
The whole thing about false flag attacks on the power grid is actually an interesting example of a case where both strategies are being used simultaneously.
This narrative framework makes excuses in advance in case any right-wing extremists attack the power grid, and if Russia attacks these satellites, this narrative framework will hinder cohesion around Yeah, you know,
something that's interesting to me about this, because it's something that we've all grown up with as being a totally normal part of life, to just know about, oh, Russia is a threat, you know, that kind of thing.
But it really makes no sense to me from a distant standpoint, because for...
That to be a problem for me personally.
So many things would have to go wrong that it wouldn't really matter.
Like, I would already be in such dire straits at that point.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, I don't need to know if there's a threat to the satellite system.
Because if it goes down, I'll know.
Until then, there's nothing I can do to affect it one way or the other.
I guess, you know, this only happened because that one, like, congressperson came out and said something, so who's to know if, like, it was even really something that merited the public's attention in a meaningful way, or if this is just something that should be discussed in the...
chambers where it's relevant.
Right.
unidentified
Where someone can do something about it, as opposed to you worrying about it.
And like most of Congress is, you know, I would say they're professional, but a lot of Congress is also capable of saying weird random nonsense for no reason, and everybody just listens to it.
Why is the Pentagon and the White House all mysteriously, oh, we're not going to say if they have a weapon or what it is, but it's probably nukes in space and nukes that power lasers.
It's because they're ratcheting up a new cold and probably hot war with Russia.
The EU, the NATO leaders are saying it's going to be a 2030-year long-term war.
They're going to bring back national conscription in Europe and the UK.
Setting their entire political future while they make us eat bugs and owe nothing and be happy on using the outside threat of Russia as the pretext for domestic crackdowns and control here at home.
They're not just hyping all this up for war hysteria with Russia.
Just like we saw with Russia and Trump and all the rest of it.
The most important point of all these incredibly important points is this.
The globalists have been hyping for three years that Russia is going to launch an EMP and knock out the power grid in America, or they're going to work with, quote, Trump supporters and knock out the power grid ahead of the 2024 election.
Now, who really believes that?
But now we're being told of this magic power up in the sky.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine what Putin could do that Alex wouldn't defend or pretend to secretly globalist false flag at this point.
And for what it's worth, we didn't get hit.
history lesson in this video.
Alex has repeatedly said that there have been nuclear-armed U.S. weapons in space since the 70s, and the only thing he's even presented as evidence or as passing as evidence is vague references to Project Excalibur, which famously didn't work.
It was the basis of the Star Wars system.
So...
Not quite a history lesson, but it is like, okay, here's the deal.
Why would Putin, when he's just basically won the Ukraine war, had this huge Tucker Carlson interview, is in pole position to win by 80 plus points in the upcoming presidential elections.
Why would he kill somebody who's already in a work camp in prison?
Why does he have a motive so that Biden and NATO and the whole world could come out against him?
Why would he do that now?
They don't have the motive.
And Russia is similar to the United States in that it's full of globalists, full of different operatives.
How do we know somebody wasn't paid off to pull?
They made a movie about it.
The guy who did it admitted it.
And that's what Biden said in his speech today.
He said, we've got to pass this funding now in memory of Alexei.
The UN has come out and said, we want an investigation.
Anytime somebody dies in state custody and prison, there should be an investigation.
So, did the UN call for an investigation of the mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein, where the coroner said it was obviously murder, homicide, his neck was broken in three places?
I think there's a few differences between these situations.
I think probably the reason that the UN didn't wade into calling for an investigation into Epstein's death is there was already an investigation started immediately.
Also, Epstein wasn't the only high-profile political opponent to a dictator who that dictator had previously tried to poison and then sent to a Siberian work camp.
unidentified
So I think there's a few distinctions between these two things.
But what Alex is doing here is equivocating because he supports Putin killing Navalny.
Deep down, he knows that's what happened, but it seems like his primary function these days is to make Putin look good, so it's important that he plays games with this.
You don't want your audience to realize that Putin straight-up kills his political opposition and jails critical journalists, so you gloss over this stuff.
You suggest that Navalny's death might have been a false flag, then move on to whining about unrelated hypocrisy points about the UN.
In a matter of minutes, Alex has managed to hand-wave Navalny's death and then pivot into distraction so the audience doesn't start thinking this Putin character is bad news.
If you go back at any point in time and you're just like, oh yeah, you would totally expect the right wing in the United States to be like, Putin doesn't murder people?
But that's the type of thing that's almost, like, less likely for Alex to draw a line in there because the bigger it is, the easier it is to be like, oh, that was somebody else, you know?
Whereas something like this that is so clearly personal...
Was he murdered by the state?
What are you fucking talking about?
How dare you say the state when you know that you mean Putin?
You're saying the state because you don't want people to think you mean Putin, even though you mean Putin, which is why you're saying the state!
But Putin doesn't have the motive, and our same media and our same government that made jokes about Gonzalo Lira and could care less...
In fact, before he was killed, he begged for help from the State Department to get out of the country, and they wouldn't even return his phone calls or emails.
We'll, in a moment, show his final statement here before he was grabbed and then basically starved to death.
It feels like you should at least have to try harder than that.
Like, shouldn't you have to be like, okay, well, we're going to give you Navalny's words, and then immediately after that, to kind of wash that out of your mouth, we're going to give you the words of the person.
So this is a video that's supposed to be about covering the news that Putin's primary opposition, whom he had tried to poison and then sent to a Siberian work camp, died at said work camp.
Instead of having any real discussion of that, it seems like this whole video is meant to be about how bad America is and how because of that we can't really judge Putin.
That's weird, particularly for the number one super America loving patriot guy.
Also, Alex could post that headline ahead of time because he does sloppy work and he doesn't care about verifying information.
He constantly posts headlines that are completely full of shit based on...
whims and hunches, so this is nothing new.
It was a pretty educated guess that Trump would be fine to shit, though, so good on you.
Judge Engeron hadn't found Trump guilty a year ago, and then now he was doing this trial to find out how guilty he was.
That's Alex's talking point about his own Sandy Hook cases, and he's trying to superimpose that onto Trump, so it appears like the globalists are attacking them with the same pattern.
The other six causes of action required that they prove that there was intention to violate laws behind the false statements, which was then litigated at this trial.
Alex is just lying about this because if he dealt with reality it would really highlight how much of a con man Trump is and how none of the audience should trust him.
And how much Alex was an idiot to trust him.
He just doesn't want to open that can of worms.
Instead of taking this as a moment where they could realize that the guy they cast as their strongman political savior is actually a fraud, Alex is lying about the circumstances of the case in order to make it seem like political oppression.
That political oppression is then being used to deflect from accusations that Putin killed Navalny.
That's pretty over the top, even by Infowar standards.
Vladimir Putin, even if you believe he's the devil, look like an amateur.
And that is the reality.
So remember Gonzalo Lira.
Remember Julian Assange.
Remember the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of peaceful January 6th activists that were waved into the Capitol that are serving years in prison.
And others that shook the fence, like Joe Biggs, spending decades in prison.
And understand that when the left points their finger at Russia and says, look, they're totalitarian, They should be looking right back in the mirror because they're cheerleading all this garbage.
Putin denies he does all this.
The left is everywhere calling for all of our imprisonment.
They openly support this, so they are guilty as hell.
Alex is very hands-off when it's a leader that he likes doing something that he can't possibly support.
But if it's a leader he doesn't like, it's open season.
Alex has to be a little delicate here because his world operates in black and white.
There's a literal devil who runs the enemy's side, so you have to be pretty allergic to nuance.
Alex needs to maintain Putin as a heroic figure because he represents a lot of societal bigotries that Alex wants to make normal here in the United States, so it's critically important to not do anything that's going to push him onto the enemy's side.
They could theoretically be launching space nukes, killing political opponents, jailing journalists, and Alex's response has to be to pretend that these things are false flags, and even if they're not, the United States is worse, because if he doesn't, he runs Uh-oh, Putin's working for the devil.
The branding and the imagery around him as, like, he wants to raise the birth rates, he wants to make religion central, the traditional family.
All this stuff, like, is so valuable to him that he can't really deal with it in real terms.
Yeah, that, I mean, it's so damaging just as a frame, a point of reference, like, that idea of, like, because if you've condensed things down so clearly to just one or the other, you know, then...
Any conversation is either you're trying to hurt or help me, you know?
And if you're saying, oh, well, this person on my team is bad, you're hurting me because you're hurting the team.
Right now is not the time to go after this guy who's on our team.
Now, it seems strange that this has been going on for your entire life and the lives of the people before you and the people before you and the people before them and so on and so forth.
So, look, I understand Alex does caveat some stuff with, like, this is speculation and shit, but, like, your speculation is there's no reason that this could be Putin.
If it's foul play, it's a fucking globalist who's trying to false flag Putin.
So the Wall Street Journal did have a headline, quote, to save money, maybe you should skip breakfast.
But the body of the article doesn't really match the tone of that headline.
This was a bit of a clickbait situation where the actual body of the text is just about price increases in many of the categories of foods that generally make up breakfast and how these prices are rising.
But Alex doesn't realize that since he's not covering this article itself, he's covering a Zero Hedge article that uses the Wall Street Journal as a prop in the middle of the article.
The Wall Street Journal article is a year ago.
A little over a year old.
Zero Hedge article itself doesn't even seem to realize that.
But the first thing I wanted to get into is Fannie Willis and the incredible testimony yesterday, and I guess more of what's coming up today, and we'll be covering it live.
I mean, here is this corrupt prosecutor that hired her boyfriend, lied about it, and then got caught giving him hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of it in cash, that he would then go pay for trips in her name.
So just because I'm sure this is confusing with all the cases that Trump is facing, this has to do with the Fulton County, Georgia criminal case against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
The district attorney in that case is Fannie Willis, and she at one time was in a romantic relationship with a man named Nathan Wade, who she appointed to be the special prosecutor over the case.
Wade received $650,000 in his role, and he paid for some trips with Willis, which is being characterized by Trump's side as a corrupt arrangement where Willis sought to...
It's been a while since I've seen an event where the exact same information was being experienced in two polar opposite ways.
The same clips of Willis testifying are being shared by people on the left and right, with each clamoring about how the context of the clip is that they're right.
You know, celebrating her on one side and the other people being like, this is complete I think we're all insane.
This is very disorienting, but I think at the end of the day, this is more or less nothing too important.
A woman had an unadvisable and possibly inappropriate work relationship.
They probably shouldn't have done that, and there's no evidence that the relationship involved any professional wrongdoing.
And this is the best Trump side could do to try and investigate.
Also, Alex just has basic facts here wrong.
See, so far, that is not true.
Willis and Wade had known each other since 2019, and he was hired as the special prosecutor in 2021, but their personal relationship would not start until after that point in 2022.
There's no romantic relationship, as we've been able to establish at the time of her hiring him.
Alex also said she lied about the hiring, which is not true.
Willis did not respond to a lot of salacious accusations until recently, but there's not a specific thing that Alex is accusing her of lying about that she has, in fact, lied about.
Alex says that she gave him, quote, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of it in cash.
That is not true.
He was paid $650,000 for his work as a special prosecutor.
This was not giving him money, and it wasn't transferred in cash.
To the extent that there was any cash, it was Willis repaying Wade for things like a trip to Aruba that he paid for, and then she re-upped him for.
Pretty much all of the basic details of this story wrong because the goal isn't to discuss things as they are.
The goal is to fudge details so they fit the conclusion that he's going to report no matter what, namely that this is a clear case of money laundering.
You can say, if you are part of prosecuting the former president of the United States who attempted to overthrow said country, maybe, maybe take it super seriously.
At least everything that has been brought up has not indicated that there is any reason to think that it's caused any kind of change to how things are done.
The Wall Street Journal tells readers, to save money, maybe you should skip breakfast.
Now remember...
Cutting off much of the fertilizer, shutting down many of the farms around the world.
This is all good to save the earth from climate change because particularly organic farming is bad.
Factory farming is good.
That's the UN and London Guardian and many other establishment mouthpieces openly saying that.
Of course, this all flies in the face of common sense and reality.
Then separately, the UN comes out and says, oh, hundreds of millions are going to starve to death.
UNICEF needs billions and billions of dollars more because the virus caused a breakdown in food production.
No, the lockdowns that went on for all these years did that.
And now, oh, guess what?
They didn't end when it comes to farms and food production around the world.
In fact, the controls incrementally shutting down that key infrastructure have only intensified.
So imagine the globalist party, the WFUN trillionaire club.
And their slogan is, you will eat the bucks.
You will owe nothing, you will like it.
And you say, that's so dystopic.
They'll never get away with that.
But they are, to some extent, because the public is so incredibly ignorant about the nature of just how evil this plan is.
Because even though they're saying we've broken the social contract, even though they're saying we're shutting down the normal infrastructure and killing oil drilling and gas.
Even though they're shutting off the coal, even though they're saying the West isn't open for business, but it sure is in China and India where their investments are, the public still hasn't wrapped their mind around the fact that this is administrative deindustrialization, which will lead to poverty, crime and death, especially in the third world.
So here's the amazing headline.
Wall Street Journal tells readers who save money, maybe you should skip breakfast.
articles in Cosmopolitan about have a baby, go to a satanic temple abortion clinic, and they will sacrifice it with you.
They actually have satanic sponsored.
abortion clinics now where women go to say it's a sacrifice and okay completely over the top they're trolling us no they're getting ready for a post-industrial world and training you to not stand together and training you to be nihilistic and satanic or Oh.
But I mean, just like in the abstract, like the idea of just being able to sit down with somebody in the quiet and to know that everything that you are saying is also applicable.
Like to just sit there with that information and then to still move forward and say, don't care.
So Alex talks a little bit more about the Fulton County situation, and he talks about another character in that case that he's really, really writing an interesting story about.
We're now into day two of the hearing, where a judge is determining whether Fannie Willis has to step down from a political prosecution of President Trump there in Atlanta, Georgia.
This is a complete meltdown.
We've got clips for meltdowns.
Coming up here in a moment.
But that was on day one.
Right now we are in day two.
And a gentleman named Terrence Bradley that worked with Fannie Willis' boyfriend, Nathan Wade, had signed an affidavit that indeed they did have a relationship, Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
Now he's had the lawyers threaten him and claims that he'll be disbarred.
And lose his law license if he doesn't claim all activity that he's ever had in the last, what, four, five, six, seven years with Mr. Nathan Wade is now attorney-client privilege, and so he can't comment on the affidavit.
So Terrence Bradley was expected to provide testimony that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade had been dating already in 2022.
Like prior to that.
That was what the expectation was on Trump's side.
He was called to the stand and asked about the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship because he was in contact with Trump's side's lawyer while she was trying to confirm some of these rumors about the relationship.
When Bradley took the stand, he couldn't answer most of the questions because of attorney-client privilege.
That's because he was Nathan Wade's lawyer in his divorce.
So the judge decided eventually that he would speak in private about this.
He wasn't threatened with disbarment if he didn't change some testimony and he didn't sign an affidavit.
Which, for people who have just been hit with half a billion dollars worth of go fuck yourself for the type of shit that you are blaming other people for.
Well, I'm glad you raised that up front because you sent me a few questions, but you didn't add that one.
That's what I was going to say.
What is it like when you had the top show in the English-speaking world?
We're not trying to be first place here, but a bigger show than Tucker had on Fox.
When you were on CNN reaching 10 million people a day conservatively predicting 20 years ago, 18 years ago, everything that's happened.
So our job is much easier as patriots that are anti-globalist.
I mean, you pioneered on mainstream media the first person to ever break all this.
So I was going to ask you when you asked me questions, what is it like now to now be here when Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson all sound just like you did 20-something years ago?
And one of the things that I was like, I'm very bored by Brett Weinstein as a person.
I find him difficult to listen to.
Yeah.
One of the reasons that I ended up not covering that is because that's about the sensational headline that there is HIV denialism and shit is ascendant among these ding-dongs.
Saying this stuff is kind of like, yeah, Alex had John Rappaport on as an expert for years, and probably he still shows up in the fourth hour every now and again, if he's not dead.
I have no idea.
But, like, John Rappaport is one of the big figures in HIV denialism, and he's a guy who hypnotized Alex with his neurolinguistic programming and made Alex cry a bunch.
So, like, it's not that shocking in the context of InfoWars.
It's shocking that Brett Weinstein is engaging in it.