March 19, 2024’s Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ bizarre claims—like Leo Zagami’s "Jesus/Mahdi" conspiracy and 9/11 numerology—as pure fiction, then pivots to his misrepresentations of Justice Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court hearing, framing it as anti-free speech despite legal context. Jones also falsely ties Elon Musk’s flawed DEI arguments to "globalist manipulation," ignoring Musk’s own lack of evidence and racial bias implications in medicine, while celebrating a gun-rights ruling for undocumented immigrants as a "Rosetta Stone" moment. The episode reveals how Jones weaponizes cherry-picked stats, Hollywood references, and Zero Hedge promotions to push divisive narratives, exposing his selective logic and moral contradictions. [Automatically generated summary]
My bright spot today was that bespoke new intro for one episode from DJ Danarchy.
I think you and I had become aware just accidentally, maybe, that it was going to be episode 9-11, and we made a conscious decision not to do anything about it.
Not to do any kind of...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because it seemed like it would be a little bit like...
Well, we already covered the actual day on the show, so there wasn't a whole lot to do.
Parallel parked a car and then got into, in a tiny...
Enclosure.
And then got into the situation where they kept going forward and then reversing backward and then going forward and then reversing backward and not moving.
You know, I feel like, and a lot of people might disagree with me, but 17th century kings and queens in Europe were actually very kind people and not whimsical at all.
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 mean, let's just get down to reality here.
I'm gonna go Donkey Kong, King Kong crazy in about 45 days.
America sucks.
We're all racist.
It's over.
unidentified
Doesn't mean I want to go live, say, in some places in Asia where you get off the plane over there, folks.
I was going to say, if we were in a high school kid's basement and he had just had a breakup, I would be like, yeah, man, you just, you got to deal with it the way you got to deal with it.
The first is that Alex is acknowledging that he got something wrong about his coverage with the graphs that he was reporting to his audience to show that other racial groups think white people are evil.
It's a good thing for him to acknowledge that he got something wrong, because he got it entirely wrong, but in this situation, he's required to explain what it was that happened.
What was he wrong about?
How does his reporting need to be corrected in reflection of a mistake that he made that resulted in him leaving the show an hour and a half early?
Any reputable outlet that was taking this seriously at all would include this in the conversation, but Alex can't, because if he did, he'd have to admit that the correction really is, I had no idea what those graphs were and I was just making shit up to stoke white fear.
This is a trend of his narcissism.
Like, he doesn't think...
Depression is real because he didn't experience it, so he thought other people were faking it.
He didn't have allergies, so he didn't believe that other people did.
There's hypochondriacs.
This belies a critical inability on Alex's part to empathize with the experiences of other people who aren't like himself.
If other people describe an experience that he hasn't or doesn't also experience, it must be made up.
This is a pattern that pervades all areas of people's lived experience, not just allergies and mental health.
And if Alex is recognizing that he was wrong about these things, he should maybe open his mind up a little bit and consider other ways he's written off other people's experiences because he didn't personally feel it, and because he didn't feel it, it's not real to him.
And let's move to the Supreme Court in an hour and 45-minute hearing yesterday that I listened to all of it when I got off air yesterday because it was happening during the show, so I didn't get to hear it during the show.
Then Owen did a great job.
I sat in my office in between watching Owen and in between...
Watching the hearing, I went back and forth, or listening to the hearing.
They put out audio.
I listened to the whole thing and wrote some notes.
This was incredible tyranny on display.
And with some recent good Supreme Court rulings, unanimous rulings, that Trump can't be taken off the ballot without being convicted, I thought that was a sign they might do the right thing.
But we saw conservative justices and leftist justices.
Saying, well, if there's an emergency, the feds are the truth, and so they should be able to go in and shut down whenever they want, like false COVID narratives.
But they lied about where the virus came from.
They said it wasn't man-made.
They lied about the shot.
Said it was tested when it wasn't.
Now Obama admits we just did the biggest testing ever on millions of people.
Then he lies and says it's safe.
So this is about the government.
Going into political speech and activist speech and consumer speech and saying if something the public's saying is, quote, hamstringing the government's mission, I thought the government represents we the people, well, then the government has an overriding right, she tells the state attorney general is bringing the suit, to override your speech.
So there's a dead giveaway that Alex didn't watch this hearing and is actually just responding to memes and headlines he skimmed.
And that's that he's saying that Justice Brown Jackson said that people who post things like COVID misinformation hamstring free speech.
That's the misrepresentation that's been flown around in social media, and Alex is just repeating that talking point.
But if he went to the primary source, he would know that this is incorrect.
She was saying that the argument of Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, his view on the First Amendment, would hamstring the government.
The question at hand has to do with the fact that the government can obviously like they can't dictate to entities like social media companies that they remove protected speech, but they can attempt to persuade these entities to remove protected speech that represents a public danger.
Right.
They could do that.
That's the distinction.
Aguanaga's argument is that the government can't do that.
And Justice Brown Jackson replied that, quote, You understand.
I'm fascinated by people because corporations are people in this regard, but the government is not people.
I, and I'm going to throw this out at you, I don't think that the people who are running things actually respect that the law exists outside of their control.
I think they just want to do what they want to do.
I mean, I think they just make up rules like this guy is like, hey, this time they're people and this time you're not people and they can just argue that.
The government's a separate entity from the people.
It knows best, and when it decides, it is then going to do what it sees best and going to put a gag in your mouth.
Absolutely over the top, naked.
Brazen, bravada, hubris, chutzpah-filled evil.
I mean, if you want the government to be separate from the people and in charge, we use a lot of places you can move, like Cuba or Venezuela or communist China and North Korea.
And remember, all over the world, it's the same operating system.
Fish and chip shop.
Come get a British meal.
That's mean because people don't want to hear the word British in your own country.
Oh, you said you support the Nationalist Party that's almost number one now.
It's surging in the polls.
It's come from nowhere the last 10 years to being the second largest party.
Oh, we're going to go arrest you because you did a TikTok video saying I support the Nationalist Party in Germany.
So Alex pivots from being wrong about the Supreme Court story into some areas of foreign interest, continuing his roundup of things he saw on social media that he's decided he's mad about.
The case of the UK fish and chips spot has to do with a place called the Golden Chippy, which is an eatery in Greenwich.
They painted a mural of a fish human holding a Union flag, along with the words, a great British meal.
The shop owner didn't have approval to paint an advertising mural where he did, so the town council told him to remove it, or alternatively, quote, the business owner is welcome to apply for advert consent in line with the conservation area he's in.
He didn't have permission to put up this mural, that's all that's going on, but this naturally is a culture war issue.
This is a painfully local zoning type issue that no one outside of Greenwich area should even give a shit about.
But now here we are being lied about this to us and it's exaggerated on Infowars because Alex saw a tweet and he's decided that it's a war on British people because that makes him feel vulnerable as a white person.
So as for the AFD thing, that has to do with a 16-year-old girl in Germany who was taken out of class after having posted some potentially inflammatory things in support of the AFD party.
She wasn't arrested and the police have said that it was more of a thing where they were trying to make sure she was aware of the possible ramifications of her online activity and like incitement based issues.
Maybe it was more than they needed to do, but I don't know what the exact dynamics of free speech laws are in Germany or how that applies to minors there.
They're a very extreme right-wing nationalist party in Germany, and they have tons of ties to straight-up neo-Nazis.
For instance, in January, Roland Hartwig, a close advisor to the co-head of the AFD, Alice Weidel, had to cut ties with her because it came out that he was at a meeting with Nazi activists.
According to Politico, he was at a, quote, meeting of right-wing extremists at a hotel near Berlin in November, where they discussed a master plan to deport millions of people, including migrants and unassimilated citizens.
He wasn't the only AFD figure at that meeting and someone else who was there was Martin Selner a major figure in the Identitarian movement who had received a donation from the guy who went on to carry out the Christchurch massacre and who Elon Musk interacted with on Twitter last Last week.
In October last year, an elective representative with the AFD, Daniel Halemba, was arrested for being a member of a fraternity that displayed Nazi materials.
And according to The Guardian, had neighbors, quote, complaining of often hearing the Nazi Zeke Heil victory salute.
Earlier that year, Bjorn Haak, the head of the party, the AFD party, in Thurnigia, got in trouble for using Nazi slogans at a rally.
At least two members of a coup plot organized by the Reichsburger movement were politicians from the AFD movement, from the AFD party, excuse me.
Alex is watering this down a little bit because he wants a party like this to be seen as milk toast.
Don Lemon approaches him and says, I want you to sponsor my show on X. He says, okay.
He goes out and attacks him for an hour straight.
He says, you know what?
I don't want to be associated with you.
I'm not going to sponsor you now.
He calls that censorship.
But throughout the entire interview, which I watched last night, boy, that was time lost, but Elon was very, very patient with Lemon.
Over and over again, he said, you refuse to censor.
It's your responsibility.
It's a virtue.
There's all this evil.
You're going to get all these minorities killed.
When you say the border is open, it's going to kill illegals.
What the hell does that mean?
And Musk was just done with him.
So here's Lemon calling for censorship in these clips coming up and then turning it around that it's censorship that Musk isn't going to pay him to do this.
But that's all Lemon knows is this trick of divide and conquer.
I was a little bit confused why more people weren't like, Oh, seeing a billionaire behave this way is pretty much the perfect example of all that's wrong with everything that's going on right now, right?
It is pretty clear, I think, if you kind of step back and look at the way Twitter's algorithm kind of treats you, is people who fight get filtered towards people who fight, so they fight.
I want to fight and be the smartest, and then the only way for me not to lose an argument is to own the place, because the only way for me to win a basketball game is to take my ball and go home whenever I start to lose.
I mean, I think it would be especially worrying for Alex if he was being shadow banned as opposed to being given a massive contract to make content for Twitter.
There was just a total eclipse of the sun, the moon in front of the sun, last year.
I posted on my wife's Twitter account at the time, because I was still banned on X, amazing photos of it, because when the light shines through trees, it would show the eclipse.
Without having to look at the sun, you could see it, and there was finally a perfect corona around a black dot on the ground.
But if you go back to the most ancient times, the mystery schools were set up thousands and thousands of years ago where mathematically they would mark down the Greeks, the Aztecs, all of them, the Romans later, the Chinese, when it was coming.
And then the witch doctor would say, next week the god will, you know, cover up the sun, or the snake god will eat the sun, depending on the culture, and people would all prostrate themselves.
In front of it and beg and plead.
And so now, Homeland Security and the National Guard's out over Texas when this happens, coming up next month, and it's the end of the world and all this fear.
It's all a psychological manipulation.
John Bounds' report is very important.
I'll be getting into it later.
It's up on Infowars.com.
We're going to post it right now on X. Solar Eclipse 2024, National Guard could be brought in as huge crowds expected to gather.
April 8, Solar Eclipse could impact power.
Here's why.
And it goes right over Austin, right over Waco, right over Tyler, right over Texarkana, because that's how the shadow gets cast.
It doesn't do it everywhere.
And there's solar eclipses going on on the planet every week in different places.
But they treat us like a bunch of ignorant savages and are hyping all this up, and God knows what the globals are going to pull because they've made major...
In the context of this total solar eclipse, there will be an impact on solar-generated power, and they predict that for about three hours on April 8th, this will be an issue.
Solar accounts for about 6% of the power in Texas, but given the predictability of this event and the lead time, ERCOT doesn't expect there to be any issues at all.
This is all in the article that Alex is covering.
But I guess he's amping it up as a possible time the globalists will launch their long overdue attack on the power grid.
I look forward to him forgetting he ever said this in a few months.
So getting back to Elon Musk, Don Lemon is a globalist.
He's a...
A member of the system trying to create division, trying to create guilt, trying to make people hate America so we can absolve America by giving up our rights and doing whatever he says.
And I'm going to start the clip over, clip 16, where, oh, America was founded on slavery.
America was founded on evil.
It was going on everywhere else in the world, but America started the process of ending it.
The only other country more further ahead of us on this was England and Mexico, of all places.
That's the reality of this.
So you don't have a guilt for what eight generations ago did.
If your dad went and robbed a bank, you didn't know.
You're not in trouble.
But they want you to bow down and go along with this agenda.
So Musk is explaining this to Don Lemon, and Don Lemon's playing stupid, that slavery, everybody alive on Earth had ancestors that were slaves.
But they want black people to think they've particularly been abused, so you're a special class, so you're going to get special things from the globalists that sets the precedent for the social credit score.
You're being used.
That's why almost every spokesperson for corporate media and corporate products is black now.
So Alex's own argument kind of falls apart because he's not focusing on the actual issue.
If your dad robbed a bank, you aren't guilty of robbing that bank.
If you own a home that was bought with the proceeds of that bank robbery, your life might be fundamentally benefited from that bank robbery.
And if the impact of that crime that you benefit from involves the historical exclusion of wide swaths of the population from being able to participate in the economy and all sorts of other issues, you're essentially living in a privileged position enabled by a crime that hurt tons of people.
It's not that complicated, and that's why Alex always brings us back into the territory of guilt and accusations that you're a bad person because...
It's nonsense.
But dealing with the point behind that facade is essentially impossible for him.
And he even, like, he'll say things like that.
Like, your dad robbed a bank.
You're not guilty.
And there's just very clear implications that he's so close to.
Yeah, I mean, if you can't recognize, like, oh, after they freed the slaves, then instead of owning slaves, they just had people that worked on their land who they could hit whenever they wanted to for another hundred years.
Like, then you go, wait, I don't know how much slavery just ended.
But, you know, I think we want to look to the future rather than the past.
And instead of engaging in constant rehashing of the past, because, in fact, if you look at history, if you study history broadly, everyone was a slave.
I think you can take Elon Musk about as seriously as he presents himself to be taken.
He's saying that there was no slavery in the northern states and the United States, and that indicates a very serious lack of awareness about the history of the country and the issue that he's expounding on.
There absolutely was slavery in the north, but the dynamic of it was different, and in many places it was banned earlier than in the southern states.
A large aspect of that was that the north didn't have as many large plantations, and the southern economy was far more dependent on that enslaved labor.
If Musk is entering this conversation with the kind of perception that he's showing on this issue, then I don't know if it's why it's to take too many of the other things he's saying seriously.
He doesn't have much of a grasp about the subject he's talking about, but he has a lot of feelings about it, and those feelings are mostly reinforced by shit he sees posted on Twitter, which he owns.
And that's something that I think runs through this entire interview.
Here's another clip from Lemon's interview that I thought was kind of shocking, and that Lemon, I don't think he pushed back on in a sufficient way.
Some of the things that you post, a great replacement theory.
You claim that Democrats, President Biden's immigration plan to open up the border, you said that the president is getting, and Democrats are doing it, to get more votes.
But undocumented immigrants cannot vote in federal elections, so how is that possible?
The other is, which I don't subscribe to that, I'm simply saying that there is an incentive here.
If immigrants wish, I think, have a very strong bias to, at least everything I've read, a very strong bias to vote Democrat, the more that come into the country, the more they're likely to vote in that direction.
But it is, in my view, a simple incentive to increase voters to Democrat voters.
And, yeah, so the question is, like, how?
So there's a few...
One is that when the census is done, the census is based on all people in an area, whether they are citizens or not.
So if there are a concentration of people who came here illegally in a particular state, that state will actually then get an increased number of house seats.
So the house seat apportionment...
It's proportionate to the number of people, not the number of citizens.
So the illegals overwhelmingly go to places like California, New York.
And if you just look at the math, if you look at the apportionment with and without illegals, I believe California would lose, I believe the blue state, there would be a net loss of blue states of approximately 20 seats in the House.
This also applies to the electoral college.
So you say, well, this also applies to electing the president because the same, the electoral votes are also done by, by apportionment the same way that how So all this is just false.
The assessment that Elon is working off of, his idea that 20 or so seats would be swayed by including or excluding undocumented immigrants, comes from the Center for Immigration Studies, a designated hate group started by white nationalist and noted eugenicist John Tanton.
More legitimate research carried out by outlets like Pew Research have shown that excluding undocumented immigrants would result in Texas, Florida, and California losing a congressional seat, and Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio gaining one.
It would be a net zero in terms of gain or loss for red or blue states.
Also, Musk is just wrong and citing propaganda put out by a hate organization founded by a eugenicist, and that is allowed to stand.
It's his perspective.
This is what I think based on...
And the problem is that the pushback I don't believe is sufficient.
You can hear in this next clip how Lemon responds to Musk's very clearly inaccurate and bigot-rooted talking point.
And if he wasn't a billionaire who owns everything, then you'd be like, aha, we can neutralize his ability because everybody knows he's a fucking idiot.
But he's just going to be a billionaire tomorrow and still believe bullshit.
And, you know, you do all this, you know, being a shithead and trolling and all this shit on Twitter, but when you're sitting across the table from someone who is not fighting with you and not, like, engaging in the PvP-style shit that you maybe want to do on Twitter, you want to be in this situation where you're like, no, I have these really smart things to say.
If the power dynamic is this, you know, that's why it is, like, you know, capture.
You know, the White House press corps, the capture of it, you have to be close.
And part of being close is making these people like you.
And if you don't want them to be, if you don't want them to not like you, you have to be nice, you know?
You can't be like, hey, Elon.
You are a fucking con man who has gotten billions of dollars by telling rich people what they want to hear.
You had access because you had a fucking emerald mine that gave you a platform to continue telling rich people what they want to hear, despite the fact that it's transparently bullshit.
Now, I have one more clip here from the things that I took out of the Lemon Musk interview.
And it was just something that I found really shocking.
This stuff that he's presenting, Musk is presenting about the undocumented immigrants, 20 seats, all this, DEI is causing us to get unqualified surgeons.
I mean, but isn't that—that, to me, is the problem with this interview, is that it fundamentally is purposeless, because there is no, like, there's no stakes.
I don't see any—well, I mean, for Don Lemon, there might have been stakes.
He might have been millions of dollars of stakes for Don Lemon.
But, like, you know, like, I've always felt like if the idea is— You're doing an interview with somebody who's really powerful.
You have the access to bring this, and that means that you're either getting information that is valuable to people or you're revealing something that's valuable to people.
And a lot of that is also a threat of, like, if you look like a complete idiot, everyone's going to know you're a complete idiot.
Those are the stakes.
You prepare.
You learn things.
You have information to back stuff up.
If the stakes are literally like, I own this website, And whatever I say, people will tell you it's true after the fact?
Everything about this makes me so angry, not least of which, like, I know it's part of what he can do so well, but it's like, no, soul food specifically is black food.
It is not southern cooking.
Soul food is because slaves brought shit from Africa to here to make food from because they didn't have the...
Now, Elon does an okay job here, but he wasn't definitive enough.
They've lowered standards in the military, law enforcement, the legal departments, engineering.
They're teaching with fuzzy math and Common Core, now for 20 years, that 2 plus 2 doesn't really equal 4. And here's an example today.
Supreme Court, bar exam will no longer be required to be an attorney in Washington State.
You don't even need to pass a test because they say it's racist to make you pass a test.
I was recently in court for a family law issue and sat there all day because our case was in the afternoon, but it could have been called early, so I sat there eight hours in court, and it was white young men, white young women, black lawyers that were young.
Folks, it was like idiocracy in the court scene.
In fact, pull up idiocracy court scene.
They literally couldn't talk.
They were black.
They were white.
They were morons.
They've graduated more lawyers the last 20 years, look it up, than existed in the entire history of this country.
And they don't even have to pass a test now.
Now they're saying they're going to hire schizophrenics to fly the airplanes.
It's not like airlines said we're going to go out and have a jobs program.
And pick highly skilled black people to put them through a program, and those that pass the test, and you would get them to pass it, can be airline pilots.
No.
They're simply saying, we're going to have schizophrenics fly the airplanes.
We're going to have people without...
Any training, fix the parts on planes.
It's to destroy civilization for the general public and the globalist on words.
So the Washington Supreme Court commissioned a study that found that the requirement of the bar exam is an exclusionary burden that disproportionately affects black law students and recommended allowing an alternative pathway to completing a law degree that requires 500 hours of apprenticeship and three additional courses.
This isn't lowering standards.
It's adjusting them, and no law schools are required to even do anything.
It's creating an alternative.
Yeah.
A bit of a history of the bar being used as a means of exclusion over history.
So here is Musk just sort of floundering around about his feelings about DEI, and then Alex comes back to try and save the ship, and it doesn't really work.
No, I said, so if the standards, like let's say, I think that particular thing was referring to surgeons.
Let's say a surgeon in training is asked to do a series of operations out of the supervision of a senior surgeon, and they get a bunch of those operations wrong.
If that happens, and yet they are still approved to be a surgeon, the probability that someone will die, I think, at some point is high.
No, I'm very basically saying that if we lower standards for what it takes to become a board-certified surgeon or an oncologist or something where the kind of disease we're talking about, if you make a mistake, causes someone to die, then...
It is interesting because I wonder, like, it does seem that Don Lemon is very confused by what seems very straightforward, which is Elon Musk is working backwards and saying that...
Yes, black people are underrepresented because they are inherently worse at surgery due to blackness.
Alex thinks that this is some kind of a big dunk, because the court ruled that this undocumented immigrant who, he had a gun, and they said he can't be charged with a gun charge.
And I think that here's the thing that I find interesting is Alex's rationale for this and being in support of it has to do with everyone's going to have guns anyway.
But I see a story, and I've seen two the last few days, that I would call a Rosetta Stone.
That if you understand these stories...
You understand the entire enemy mindset, their philosophy, their modus operandi.
And you've got to know the enemy's modus operandi because it's very, very OCD.
It's very myopic.
They follow the same plays over and over again because it works until we get in a bad enough position to analyze it and reject it all.
Like, don't drink that, it's poison.
Don't drink antifreeze, it'll kill you.
Don't pour gasoline on yourself and light it on fire.
You need to reject it all.
But you've also got to know then what to counter it with.
So, the Letitia James last week goes to the New York Firefighter Association Union and gets resoundingly booed and they chant Trump, Trump, Trump because they see the injustice.
The head of the union says, we're going to have you fired or demoted or your pay cut.
Quote, we're going to hunt you down.
The firefighter said, screw you, we're going to sue your ass.
We have a First Amendment.
Within three days of that happening.
Happens Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
They back off and say, fine.
Because the firefighters started marching to ticker tape parades.
The people said this is wrong, and it rallied the people.
Because when the firefighters got threatened with firing, they said, screw you, go ahead, let's go to court.
So I really thought about this for hours last night.
And it hit me.
Let me look at her record.
Okay, she's anti-gun.
Why would she do this?
Because she sees that let illegals vote, let illegals do whatever they want, pissing in our face.
But she's just ruled, there it is, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which means the free people, where the government's not the boss.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
She means it as, I'm going to take citizens' guns, and I'm going to make illegal aliens the police and military, and we're going to selectively let them have guns, but not you.
But at the end of the day, a criminal, whether they're an illegal alien or a white bank robber or a black shop robber, it doesn't matter.
It is not just xenophobic, anti-immigrant and racist ideation that Alex has that is coloring his interpretation of this story that he didn't even read.
She thinks she's giving special rights to these people, but she's just undermined themselves, and she's now quoting the Second Amendment, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
She's saying, you're a citizen, you can vote, you get welfare, they're as good as the citizens.
So she uses a Supreme Court ruling to say you can have guns, because the people are the citizens.
The illegal aliens are going to have guns anyways, folks.
And a lot of them aren't criminals other than passing the border.
I say, fine, let the chips fall where they may, but don't take my guns.
So this is, again, the illogic of the left, how they only think one step.