#905: February 26, 2024 dissects Alex Jones’ erratic claims—from Jacob Rothschild’s death (mislinked to Simpsons memes) to NATO’s "nuclear war" conspiracy (debunked by Macron and Stoltenberg)—while exposing his shifting narratives on Musk’s X censorship. Jones pivots from defending Musk to accusing him of bias, exploiting a fabricated "26-name list" and a nonexistent fraud claim. His reliance on perceived victimhood and media exploitation reveals a pattern of self-serving conspiracy-mongering, undermining credibility even as he clings to audience attention. [Automatically generated summary]
But that's because lately I've been waking up at like 4.35 in the morning, so I was like, hey, what's the difference between trying to play an hour at midnight and then passing out because I'm an old man?
I mean, I think what it is is my need for routine to maintain sanity is so strong that my body literally just shuts down now at like 9.30, 10 o 'clock.
I guess, I mean, look, I don't really have a bright spot, but I'm gonna just say it's that It's now freezing in Chicago, and on our last episode you were bragging about not having to wear a coat.
So on our last episode, we saw him going so far as to personalize criticism about Elon Musk.
Sure.
Elon is giving him nothing but satisfaction.
He is the great wrecking ball against the globalists.
Hey, if you want to complain about him, you Pharisees, you purer-than-thou types, I don't want to be sitting here with the grandpas complaining about how Musk wasn't in the battle 20 years ago.
We're going to stop dissing the Nazis all the time.
Okay.
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.
So Alex comes back, and he's gonna get to some news, but first he has to complain about how the globalists are trying to kill off everyone in order to create a Superman, but they're actually not.
And the globalists believe that they're abusing us as mass guinea pigs and out of this metamorphosis, out of this grand experiment that they are honchoing, the Ubermension or the Superman, the fittest, will come climbing out of that pool of slime.
Now, really, they're just a bunch of evil people that hate themselves and hate us.
And then anoint themselves the high priest and lords of the earth.
Well, one of those lords, and I'll be talking about this later in the hour, but it's not the most important news, so I'll do it later.
The fourth baron Rothschild, the fourth baron de Rothschild, Jacob Rothschild, is dead at 87. And I posted some things that weren't too mean on X today.
But yeah, our apologies also to a friend of the show, Mike Rothschild, who we would have liked to have on to comment about this, but time, just get out of the time to work that out.
But I'm sure he's gotten a lot of shit from people.
So Dan Bongino didn't release any classified document.
He put up a list of 26 names on his show.
He just had a picture of names.
Looks like something from a fucking notepad document.
It is not from any official CIA release document.
And he just said that this was a list of names that an unnamed source told him that were being targeted by the feds.
There's no document.
I have zero reason to put stock into things Dan Bongino is...
That said, I wanted to get a handle on what the deal with this bumping thing was, since Alex seems to give the term a very broad definition.
Seems like it could be anything, really.
I went to the Infowars article about this, and they say, quote, in spy speak, bumping is when a reason is manufactured to meet with the target of interest in order to develop a relationship that could lead to intelligence, the New York Post reported.
So that New York Post article is what this actually traces back to, which is a post on Michael Schellenberger's Substack, co-written by Matt Taibbi and Alex Gutentag from about two weeks ago.
Dan Pagino is just re-reporting this story and saying that he has his own sources on it, but not revealing anything new.
The article also has no document underlying it, and it is based on, quote, multiple credit...
I find that wording a little strange.
Is it not enough to say that multiple sources have told you this stuff?
If we're supposed to take your reporting seriously, shouldn't it be implied that your sources are credible based on the fact that you're basing a report on them?
Quote, unknown details about the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and raw intelligence related to the IC's, intelligence community's surveillance of the Trump campaign, are in a 10-inch binder that Trump ordered to be declassified at the very end of his term, sources told Public and Racket.
If the top secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof that multiple U.S. intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference.
If these top secret documents exist, am I supposed to believe that these documents definitely exist if the person writing this article doesn't even seem to trust their very credible sources about their existence?
So the evoking of this 10-inch binder of super-secret documents that Trump ordered declassified at the end of his term, it smacks a little too much of someone in Trump's orbit creating a counter-narrative to the fact that he's facing criminal charges for his handling of classified documents.
But I guess they could actually just produce the document, or these sources go on the record.
That could help solidify these claims.
But for now, we have Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger's sub-stack that has no proof behind it, and then Dan Bongino talking shit, and Alex exaggerating.
Operating that talking shit on his own show for his own purposes.
You know, in Trump's cases, the federal ones that left kangaroo juries, I bet you a billion dollars, which I don't have, of course, that they will never even allow that article put out by the establishment to be like, look, they're the ones proposing it.
Or the New York Times article months before the election in 2020 that was John Podesta, the reporter, at the big war game where they said, oh, if Trump wins, we're just going to disregard it and have our own inauguration, and that's the end of it.
So we've been over it a bunch, but that article about Podesta and the war game wasn't about planning to delegitimize a Trump victory.
It was about exploring what could be done if Trump lost and refused to leave office.
Rosa Brooks, the co-founder of the group in question, the Transition Integrity Project, said in an interview, quote, Turns out that was good forward
thinking.
As for this Atlantic article, it's not announcing plans for Democrats to steal the election.
This was an article about oral arguments that are being made before the Supreme Court in the Colorado case regarding making Trump ineligible to be on the ballot.
The attorney representing the voters from Colorado was warning the court that if they didn't make a determination in a timely fashion, they ran the risk of creating a scenario where representatives in Congress had to, quote, This was a lawyer urging the court not to delay the decision because the consequences of not providing solid legal guidance could be a disaster.
The House Democrats cited in this article all express a desire for the court to decide because, as Adam Schiff said of the alternative, quote, that would be a colossal disaster.
We already had one horrendous January 6th.
We don't need another.
The point of this article is not that Democrats are announcing a plan to steal the election.
It's reflecting an almost universal sentiment that the Supreme Court needs to make a decision on this, and if they don't, shit's going to be bad.
The takeaway from this article is that the court can't dodge this.
If they punt and don't make a definitive ruling one way or another, it will lead to a crisis.
And there's a huge likelihood that some states will try to disqualify Trump.
It's fucked up to be in a situation where members of the House are tossing around possibilities like this, but if they decide to disqualify Trump, Mm-hmm.
It's a completely different legal question than what Trump did in the 2020 election.
It bears certain superficial similarities, but it's entirely different.
And one of the primary differences is that pretty much everyone in this case is just saying, please don't put us in that situation, Supreme Court.
It's either the people that have been elected to be in the places where you elect them are so utterly incapable of learning anything that we're just going to watch this happen.
Or they're like...
I don't know if they're doing it on purpose, but they have some sort of motivation that keeps them from doing anything useful.
You know what I mean?
Because it's either you haven't learned anything over the past my entire life, or you're like, this is great, and I'll die before there are consequences for it, right?
So, another question that I have is that, does Alex think that misrepresentations of headlines are powerful evidence to present in court?
Like, I get that he operates wholly in the sphere of public opinion, but it's hard to imagine that he actually thinks this Atlantic article, or the one about Podesta, would have any relevance in an actual courtroom.
He's saying, I bet you a billion dollars this won't come up in the...
They, quote, go out and mate with the other mosquitoes so they can't carry malaria, but they've got malaria in some weird genetic experiment, and then we get malaria.
So you can see here that Alex is proposing an idiotic conspiracy theory that genetically modified mosquitoes are causing an outbreak of dengue fever in Brazil.
Right.
The reality is that there is a huge dengue fever outbreak that's been going on there this year, with the New York Times citing the Brazilian health ministry estimate that there will be 4.2 million cases this year.
Most cases of dengue fever are very mild, and sometimes you don't even get any symptoms.
However, about 5% of cases become severe dengue, which then has a low mortality rate if it's treated, but if not, kills about 15% of people who get it.
Catch it early, be able to provide treatment so it doesn't become severe dengue.
Yep.
But another is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes.
A British company called Oxitec has created these mosquitoes by injecting a bacteria called Wolbachia into the eggs of these mosquitoes.
Sure.
This has a dual effect of And it disrupts the ability of these mosquitoes to reproduce.
There's been promise shown in the pilot launches of the mosquitoes, like in Medellin, Colombia, where Axios reported that they saw, quote, dengue contagion reports dropped by up to 97% from 2022 to 2023.
Even so, there are plenty of environmental questions that this raises, and the specter of unintended consequences is definitely there.
I think a certain amount of uneasiness about this idea, pretty reasonable, but what Alex is doing is absurd.
These mosquitoes are categorically not causing more cases of dengue fever to pop up, but that's the impression that Alex is giving, and, you know, it's just stupid.
I think that, you know, in reality you can take...
You know, sort of a measured look at this and say, you know, there are some potential consequences that you could see, and maybe those are things that we can deal with.
Sure.
The alternative is not doing something that you can do that would save a lot of people from sickness and death.
Yeah.
So, I don't know.
You know, you gotta balance this out, and I understand why people would have slightly different takes on it.
I don't know yet exactly what is actually going on.
We know the specifics of what's happened, but we're not sure if Elon Musk is behind this or if it's Ghost of the Machine.
And employees and people that after he goes by and sees something happening and frees it up, it's a big company, big organization, they come back and incrementally put the shadow banning systems in place.
Yeah, so we have a situation now where Alex is seeing something he doesn't like on Twitter, and now it's either Elon Musk himself who's responsible for this, or there's stay-behind networks of people within Twitter who Elon hasn't taken care of and needs to deal with.
And I think that this is such a complex and nuanced and important issue that Alex realizes that he can't really cover it without getting his exhibits together.
We've been observing a bunch of other things going on.
This we can prove.
And I've asked people that are way more proficient on social media and tech to investigate it.
And this has been going on for a few weeks.
They're like, absolutely, this is being blocked.
When you put your live show feed up on your own profile, people are going there to find it and they're burying it so only a few percentage of people can actually see the show.
So let's go to X for people watching on TV.
Let's go to the real Alex Jones channel right now and let's show people how normally you have the live show feed.
I don't know exactly how it works, but I'm sure...
You know what?
Alex is convinced that one of the likely possibilities is that people have been flagging his stuff, and I think that maybe there is a chance that that is true.
But then when he brought me back on three months ago, we weren't allowed to do spaces.
We weren't allowed to post Band Out Video.
It got raised to him.
He said, yeah, we've got to reconnect all that.
There's a lot of connections.
Sometimes the defaults turn back on.
And so Band Out Video, you can send the link out for a while.
But now all of a sudden you can't send it out and it gives you a notice saying that you need to go talk to and follow a link so that you can learn how you violated the rules.
Definitely, we've seen mass throttling that's been intensifying the last month or so, and all the other conservatives and people and populists I've talked to see that.
So, here's the deal.
I've been looking at this for a while.
Well, if you go into the comments on the live feed, people are posting their experiences, what they've seen.
And there's a lot of things they're seeing, a lot of things they're screen capturing, a lot of things they're getting video captures of.
And so I think we're at the stage here of finding how bad the manipulation is on X. What does that mean?
Way more open and free.
Let's say when Musk took over...
Freedom on there was about, on a scale of 1 to 100, about a 2. Then Musk brought it back up to, like, let's say an 80, as 100 being the best.
And now it's starting to drop down to, like, 70. We need to have a discussion about that and find out why that is and what changes have been made.
Or is he doing what Google did 25 years ago, where they're open and free at first, get everybody on the platform, and it works so great and it's so wonderful.
Then over time, they start bringing in controls.
Until now, it's a complete and total fraud.
I mean, is that all he was doing was buying it, Wild Wild Westing it for a while, kind of reinvigorate it and give it market dominance, and then start going back to what all the other tech giants did?
I mean, I've said I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt, but we're going to watch all this very, very closely.
So Elon probably wasn't just pretending to want to turn Twitter into a Wild Wild West, but I'm guessing that in the time since buying the company, he's just learned that there was a reason why certain things that Alex calls censorship were in place.
Unfortunately for him, he's probably learned too late.
He told advertisers to go fuck themselves, and now people who paid for their check marks so they could make money off engagement harvesting are mad that they're not getting paid.
It's not a model that's viable in the long term, unless you want to pay out of pocket to run your site so you can let shitheads post nonsense.
And now, Musk is going to learn why any engagement with Alex is probably a bad idea.
He cracked open the door to let Alex back on, and what do you know, Alex ended up finding a conspiracy deep in the company that he's going to incite people around about why he's not popular enough.
I'm just a humble outside observer, but I would bet that Alex maybe realized that the shit he did on Friday was a little peasant.
And that his support of Musk didn't match where his audience was at.
This is an attempt to realign his position with the audience by creating a completely meaningless complaint about Twitter that he demands Elon fix.
This was somewhat inevitable, as I've been saying for a bit.
The correct conspiracy theorist position is not to trust Musk at all, and Alex is trying to get right with the game now, which David Icke was right about from the jump.
What I'm going to do is cover all the other news and then I'm going to collect all this data and talk to the crew and tell them what I want to show and during the breaks have a few meetings and then I will do a little presentation on this and tell you what I really think coming up at the bottom of the next hour.
Yes, here's that mirrored site that you can maybe get links through.
But here's the thing that I find really interesting, is that when Alex was being confronted by David Icke, he did say some stuff like this, that Musk was censoring him on Twitter or that Twitter was censoring him.
There was some, like, but it was a throwaway thing.
It wasn't really even that big of an issue for him.
So this idea that he's felt that his posts weren't getting enough engagement That, I do think, probably has been lingering for a couple months or whatever, maybe his whole life, but it's incongruent that then he would have this defensive-ass spectacle two days before this.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz tried to clarify, quote, once again, in a very good debate, it was discussed that what was agreed from the outset among ourselves and with each other also applies to the future, namely that there will be no ground troops, no soldiers on Ukrainian soil sent there by European countries or NATO states.
NATO Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg came out and said they weren't sending troops.
And as for the CIA thing, the New York Times did just do a big story about the partnership between the CIA and the intelligence agency in Ukraine, but they didn't say any of the stuff that Alex is claiming.
The partnership was initiated by Ukraine and happened after the ouster of Yanukovych, so Alex has the timeline completely wrong and is just making up details.
It is one of those things where it feels like we started off somewhere.
And then somewhere somebody took a little bit of a wrong turn, and on the way to being like, maybe if we get back on track, we'll go a little bit closer.
And then now here we are like 40 years later, and everybody is like, boy, I think we've got to start all over.
Alex thinks that Jacob Rothschild looks like Mr. Burns, and there have been a bunch of memes people posted on social media claiming he's the inspiration for the character, but that is all made up.
Matt Groening based Mr. Burns on a composite of John D. Rockefeller, the former head of Fox Broadcasting, Barry Diller, and his high school teacher, Mr. Bailey.
This is a good opportunity to once again highlight the way Alex takes information that he's either making up or he got from shithead memes, which he's turning around and presenting as fact to the audience.
In a case like this, it's kind of trivial, just about the basis.
And so that will develop as this goes along, but this is the point where Alex is like, all right, I'm coming up with a storyline of why this is happening.
And, spoiler alert, it's because he thinks it's because he talked about Bongino's dumb shit on Sunday's show.
I think that from what I understand, because I went to the InfoWars article about this, there are a number of screenshots that have someone posting a link.
To Alex's tweet that is, I guess, the live show link or whatever.
Well, there's an element to this that I don't know if it is exactly self-soothing.
I think he might just be like, I need to get off air for a little while.
I'm frustrated, or it's buying some time, or whatever.
A little calm A, a little calm B. Maybe, but it does seem weird that the way he's presenting it is, I'm really mad right now, I need to feel better by watching this Vendetta clip.
I would prefer people think that I was sitting here with a pacifier in my mouth than them think that I was going into the back room to take a gigantic swig of whiskey.
I'm fascinated by what I read about this because it seems like so many people who write about this are ignoring one very obvious thing about polls that we're talking about right now, which is that a large amount of people are voting with the intent of the person they're voting for hurting other people.
Like, they're voting for hurt.
They're voting for, I want this person to hurt others.
Certainly, but they've rationalized that there is an invasion of the country, and so what Trump is doing is not hurting immigrants, he's helping the country and saving it from an invasion.
Go to MadMaxWorld.TV and those links when you send them out of whatever live feed or video you're finding will work on X, which is important in the info war.
We created that because before Banned.Video was banned everywhere, but especially on Twitter.
Once Musk let me back on, for three months or so, it worked.
Now it doesn't work again.
So did somebody go in there and flip some switches?
Did it happen under Elon Musk order?
So we know that's going on.
And so we're just starting to look into this more.
Elon Musk doesn't give a reason why Bandot Video's been banned, or if he doesn't fix it, he doesn't have to make a statement, obviously.
And I know some of the high-level people at X, whenever I was unable to get turned back on for Spaces, and I had to do that interview with Elon Musk on Chase Geyser's account, he said, yeah, there's a lot of stuff on the back end that's got to be fixed, a lot of links that have got to be done, the censorship's baked into the thing.
Basically, he said Twitter's, he didn't say basically, he said...
Twitter was a crime scene.
And so I'm still trying to fix all the code they put in there to control things that mess things up.
And I tend to think that's the case.
Okay?
Because why would he go do all that and then allow it to be reversed?
I think somebody's game in the system.
But you can say, well, a bunch of bots went and flagged your show last night.
I think that what's going on is Alex is making a demand of Musk, and he's creating a scenario wherein he can have a personal complaint to base some kind of breaking with.
But the alternative is also pretty attractive, which is Musk does what Alex wants, and then he has basically made the owner of the site subservient to his whims.
Here's Luke Radowski, this is like eight years ago, who's done the best peaceful, friendly, professional confrontations with globalists I've ever seen.
In front of like 300 plus of them?
Try to get Luke on the next few days.
In front of Henry Kissinger a whole bunch of times.
He's in front of basically anybody who's anybody in the New World Order.
Here he is talking to the head of the Rothschild dynasty.
So this is the level of shit we're dealing with here.
Jacob Rothschild gave Luke Radowski a quizzical look for a split second, and Alex has decided to write a story about how they prove there's a demon inside him.
Utter garbage.
And for what it's worth, Jacob Rothschild never admitted to the Napoleon Bank thing, because that's an anti-Semitic fiction that traces back to Nazi propaganda and a bigot pamphleteer who went by the pen name Satan.
It's not true, so there's nothing to admit to.
Alex is not exaggerating here, he's just lying.
As for the founding of Israel thing, Alex...
I was thinking of Edmund James de Rothschild who wasn't Jacob's father.
Edmund was from the French branch of the family whereas Jacob's dad Victor Rothschild was from England.
Edmund and Jacob are related through Mayor Amschel Rothschild, who's Edmund's grandfather, and Jacob's great-great-great-great-grandfather, so I have no idea what their familial term would even be.
Alex is just exploiting the fact that this audience has no idea what any of these things mean, and they're just blindly trusting the shit that Alex makes up so he can sound smart.
There's a part of me that is like, okay, when I say this is kind of like evolution, there is a...
So much of what we see is based on pattern recognition and the fact that we've evolved in such a way as to look at each other and the slightest facial changes are so important to the social survival of the group.
I think that that would explain a whole lot of the constantly seeing demons in the grocery store and people's expressions changing to that of a demon and stuff.
That could explain if he just has...
No ability to read those social cues and facial expressions and that form of communication.
What he's doing now is trying to pretend to have a spine because he embarrassed himself with his subservience in the last episode.
You may notice that Alex is claiming that he's thrilled with the good from Musk and criticizes the bad, but that's not true.
He's not criticizing the bad, which should be things like Musk's government contracts or his desire to put chips in people.
Alex is criticizing something really personal, which is his feeling that he's being shadow banned.
This isn't a real criticism about Musk, anything that he's doing.
It's really more of a press gambit.
What Alex is doing is trying to drive traffic to his Twitter and band-od video, while at the same time hoping to provoke a response from Elon.
If Elon just unblocks Alex's shit, if it's even blocked to begin with, Alex will be able to claim that he has pull with Musk.
Or even better, maybe the two of them can get into a little fight that nets both of them a bunch of attention.
The kind of fight where Alex is totally sincere about his complaint that he yells about for a really long time, then drops it really fast once his target gives him the attention that he craves.
The story is developed into, we covered this Bongino thing, and obviously the deep state is attacking us for it, which raises the question of why is Bongino not, and then secondarily, what about the ban.video being banned?
That doesn't help with that at all.
So we still have some confusion with the narrative, but Alex has decided that this is the path that we're going to ascribe this part of the censorship to because it works.
It makes this seem like much more dangerous information.
It creates a whole new sort of side narrative out of this.
There's a lot of monkey business going on, not just starting last night.
And of course, we have proof.
Band.video, which was banned for years on Twitter.
Was brought back as soon as Musk freed us up three, four months ago.
Now, banned out video is banned again.
So if somebody went in there and blocked that, Elon Musk either needs to behind the scenes restore it, or if he'd like to make a statement of why he's done this, then I'll listen to him.
But this is a big deal.
We're a big story.
We're a big news outlet.
And I've really supported what he's done so far.
But I've got some numbers I can call to get messages to Musk.
I'm going to do that after the show today.
And I'll give him a week or so.
I know he's a busy guy, but I think he needs to respond to this, Jason.
Even he himself admitted that his own account was censored from trending because they had some algorithm in place where if an account had been reported any number of times, any minimum number of times, then it automatically would remove it from trending.
Not only is it difficult for me to think of a single thing that he's actually done throughout his career that I disagree with, but you have to look at these figures from the standpoint of, okay, who hates them?
Just like you said, Alex.
And that's one of the reasons why I'm voting for Donald Trump.
It's not because I agree with everything that he ever did or said, but it's because all of the world's supervillains hate him.
So he must be our best shot if he is most hated by the enemy.
I think the same is true for Musk.
In the tech startup world, it wasn't only these lawsuits, but also the subsidies that were pulled.
So that strategy of who my supervillains are against is a little bit of a bad strategy, kind of is a good way to talk yourself into supporting ISIS.
One time, I'm packing my bags, leaving Trump Hotel, just gone and confronted Congress, and just confronted Rubio, like two hours before, and I'm literally eating a hamburger in the bar area, because that's all that was open, and in comes this person, well-known person, and they're like...
Hey, this company, the Internet Research Group, the Russians wants to give me $3 million right now.
Alex is totally in sync with their line about the war in Ukraine, and he's even aired a recruitment video put out by the Wagner Group multiple times.
I don't think that anyone working in espionage like this would feel the need to try to bribe Alex, since he does the job for free, and he's clearly not someone you can trust.
This is a great example of the Soros-funded media, and it's on record that Raw Story and BuzzFeed and those other groups, Vice, you name it, are funded by Soros.
And they're propped up to put out fake news and incredible deception.
So this story came out yesterday and was trending on Twitter.
Alex Jones calls Elon Musk a complete and total fraud.
Turns on Elon Musk after he's massively censored.
Now, I never called him a complete and total fraud.
It's misleading that way, and anyone posting this would understand how someone is going to read the headline, and you'd know that.
It's ridiculous.
Second, it's not totally fair to say that Alex turned on Musk.
I guess that's kind of true, but it's an over...
He's trying to course correct from his absurd support for Musk that got a lot of pushback from the audience, and he's trying to turn that into an opportunity for him to harvest attention.
In that sense, this article was giving him exactly what he wanted.
Oh!
There's a sort of mainstream article about him.
This raises the odds that Musk will take notice and respond in some way, and now Alex gets to go on his show and insist that the media is lying about him.
They're not, but this headline kind of makes it look like they are, and with bullshit artists like Alex, that's all that really matters.
So I just, while I was preparing this episode today, I went and checked the Raw Story post about this, and there is no community note on it calling it fake news.
In the replies, though, you can find Chase Geyser reporting it to community notes, just begging for censorship, calling the hall monitor over.
The Raw Story is not, strictly speaking, fake news.
It's a correct story with a bullshit...
Alex understands all about writing bullshit misleading headlines, so he's not really in a position to judge here.
But if Alex really wants to make some hay here, he should complain about the Uproxx story covering the Raw Story article.
That one definitely did say that Alex called Twitter a complete and total fraud, with their headline being, quote, even Alex Jones thinks X is a complete and total fraud since it was bought by Elon Musk.
They misrepresented the Raw Story article in exactly the way the headline was at risk of people misinterpreting it, and it's just a pointless article.
It's not covering Alex's comments, it's a blog post covering Raw Story's blog post about Alex's comments, and the game of telephone isn't good for anyone in terms of actually getting at what was actually said and dealing with it.
It's causing harm to information being disseminated as opposed to the alternative.
We wrote an article about it at Infowars.com last night.
Ben Warren worked late to get that done, did a great job.
We wrote another one this morning, Kelly McBrain did.
Fake News 101, media falsely claims Alex Jones called Elon Musk a fraud.
And it chronicles it and has all the screenshots if you want to see it.
So that's a great example of people going off half-cocked.
Here's another one.
Because this became a big story on X and got picked up by news, and we talked to Bongino, my producer, this morning, and he said he's had 50 calls this morning.
Hundreds of emails, you name it.
Former Secret Service, senior Secret Service agent, whistleblower.
And he called my producer back and said, listen, I'm not talking about the story anymore.
My source is already scared to death for their life.
And I can't give Alex any more information.
And will you just please tell people, stop contacting me.
But the internet turned this into a fight between me and Bongino.
Bongino breaks a story from a high-level source inside the intelligence agencies about a lot of which has been declassified, that I was on a list of 26 people, including President Trump, to be harassed.
Of course Bongino doesn't want to talk more about this.
He was just talking shit on his show, and now Alex has turned it into him releasing a page from a classified document which he's planning to release the rest of soon.
There was no document, and Alex has entirely misreported this story because the fake version is more exciting and makes him look like more of a victim.
So, here's the long and short of this, according to Alex.
Dan Bongino used to come on Infowars a bunch, which is fairly true.
I'm not sure he was ever a super regular guest, but he was on from time to time.
Back then, Bongino was a no-name guy whose only claim to fame was that he used to be in the Secret Service protecting Obama.
He parlayed that into a little right-wing media career, and it led to him getting Alex's attention.
At that time, as is the case in the present day, Alex would embellish things that primary sources would say, and this applied to Bongino.
Alex would come up with completely absurd things the Secret Service people were claiming about Obama and not use Bongino's name, but everyone would put two and two together and realize that was what Alex was trying to imply.
According to Alex, Bongino confronted Alex multiple times, asking if he was claiming Dan as a source, and Alex would deny it, saying things like, you think you're the only person in the government I know?
I still don't know why Bongino, years ago, repeatedly called me, and I talked to him also off-air once during an interview, and said, hey man, is it you?
You know, that New York tough guy deal.
And he is a tough guy.
I'm not saying that New York tough guy thing.
Hey man, is it you telling people you're getting your stuff from me?
And I said, no.
What, you think you're the only person I know in the government?
So at some point a while back, Bongino had had enough of it and he stopped coming on the show.
Now, Alex is doing the same shit.
He's taken a small snippet of Bongino's show where he shows a Microsoft Word-ass image of a list of names he claims a source told him were to be bumped, and Alex has reported this as Bongino releasing a page of a classified document and the rest is coming soon.
Bongino is full of shit and I don't really care about him at all, but I can understand how he would be pretty pissed about this whole thing.
Alex is trying to hijack his story and take ownership of it away from Bongino, which is kind of ironic since Bongino is just trying to hijack the story from Michael Schellenberger and...
Matt Taibbi.
But, like, you take control away from Bongino, and now, if Bongino doesn't produce a classified document, Alex's audience is going to think that Bongino's covering this up.
I totally understand the limited sympathy, and I'm not trying to be like, woe is Bongino.
But I am saying that understanding this dynamic, I get where Bongino would be mad at Alex.
That's more my point than to be like, I feel bad for him.
I do kind of feel bad for him because there's probably, based on what Alex is saying, seems like a lot of Alex's audience is probably contacting Bongino and being like, hey, where's the rest of this shit?
So it appears that Bongino reached out to Alex to say he doesn't want to come on and doesn't want to talk more about this story that Alex is misrepresenting, and that jogged Alex's memory about why Bongino doesn't come on the show anymore.
And so I guess that's some kind of a victory, but it doesn't address Alex's main complaints, which are the censorship and him not being able to post ban.video links.
So, we come to the end of this, and it is an interesting...
episode that we covered on Wednesday yeah this this gushing defensive I identify with criticisms about musk and it hurts me personally yeah into this and I think that in terms of conspiracy ass shit this is a move in the right direction for Alex right this is him getting where he needs to be that's more sustainable yeah you know defending musk in the long term is not going to work it's going to end up Having too many things you're going to have to wallpaper over.
Or come up with some rationalization to make himself not sound like he's saying, I was wrong to let Alex Jones back on, and yet at the same time admit that he was wrong.
I mean, the reason that he said that he wasn't going to let him back on in the first place was the Sandy Hook stuff, and he could just say, I looked into it more, and Alex is lying about what he did about Sandy Hook.