Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Tucker Carlson’s 12th city tour, where he hosted Alex Jones—dismissed as a "freak show" by Dan—while promoting figures like Jones as credible despite his baseless claims, such as predicting 9/11 or globalist depopulation via AI and the Georgia Guidestones. Carlson’s paternalistic rhetoric ("love your people like parents love children") and attacks on domestic critics like Josh Shapiro felt manipulative, while Jones’ repetitive, unverified conspiracy theories (e.g., CIA-suppressed frog studies) relied on crowd applause over substance. Dan notes Carlson’s tour underfilled venues, like the Santander Arena with hundreds of empty seats, and mocks his performative outrage over foreign aid, contrasting with his support for violent policies under Bush. Ultimately, the episode reveals how Carlson’s platform launders extremism while his audience seeks validation over truth, leaving both hosts skeptical of its sincerity or impact. [Automatically generated summary]
I went there for the Alex Jones Tucker Carlson live show to take it all in, experience it as like in person because I knew we were going to hear about it.
Next, Dan and Jordan should go on the Blank Check podcast to discuss the David Lynch version of Dude and how much Alex Jones quotes it and the other works of Frank Herbert.
So I left the Tucker event with a few very strong impressions, but none of them were as clear and as vivid as how much this man overuses actually as a catchphrase.
He uses it like a punctuation mark at the end of sentences, the way that some people used to do with literally.
It's just a rhetorical technique that he's using to try to emphasize the things he's saying.
But taken as a word that it means something, what Tucker is conveying is something along the lines of, I really mean this.
His use of actually is meant to augment sentences that sound extreme or like metaphors to assure the viewers that he actually means what he's saying.
Evil really is on the march.
This isn't just flowery language that I'm using for shock value.
Tucker says actually so many times and so condescendingly that I was tempted to make a supercut of every time he did it throughout the event, but then I realized that it didn't matter.
So what Tucker is saying there in the clip, though, when he's talking to Alex, is true.
This show is not really a Tucker event.
It's meant to launder his guests to the Fox News Generation viewers that came along with Tucker after he got fired and went along to this new endeavor.
Many of the people who are on his show are selected specifically because they're the people who Tucker needs to convince the audience aren't that bad, like Alex or Kid Rock or Russell Brand.
This is about creating a new media ecosystem.
And an important part of that is making sure the viewers don't get a bad view of various figures who are going to play into that ecosystem.
The show is about selling Alex.
So Tucker exists on it in that capacity.
It's not a Tucker show.
It's a Tucker presents kind of situation where you want to be like, this guy is the prophet.
I don't know, but I think that Tucker really needs to bank on Alex not being around much longer.
He really wants this whole game to work out.
Sure.
It's really inconvenient for Alex to continue to do his show and continue to be around because he's going to keep making all these bullshit, stupid predictions that don't end up happening.
And you're going to have to be like, oh, wait, maybe this guy's not a prophet.
I'm always wrong in my predictions, but I have a strong feeling of hope, and I'm not afraid at all.
I don't know why.
Because I think victory is coming.
And by victory, I mean specifically the victory of the human spirit over the machine, which is trying to crush it, which is anti-human and non-human, I would say.
But I'm not afraid for some reason.
I'm not exactly sure why.
It's like I'm so rich or something, but I'm not afraid.
I'm not.
But I'm not afraid because I feel on some deep animal level that these people just aren't going to win.
I mean, there may be short-term victories.
I don't know.
unidentified
But there will be no long-term victories for these people.
He's way richer than he's pretending to be, and he's managed to create a new space for himself outside of Fox News that's going to be profitable if Trump wins or loses.
No matter what, he's going to make a lot of money, and that's got to feel pretty good.
For most of his career, Tucker was a partisan hack on cable news entertainment shows.
He got paid by the network to say stuff that would get attention and viewers, which all worked in a really good balance for many years.
When Bush was in office, he was on the side of the power and mostly defended policies and rationalized why things were going.
When Obama was in office, he was the opposition party and attacked proposed policies and demanded that everything needed to be going better.
Tucker was good at playing the game because he was a particularly interesting blend of smart and vapid, and he made it about as far as he could playing that game.
But signing up with Trump had its consequences.
He got huge ratings, so Tucker thought he was bulletproof, treating all the people around him like shit and doing patently libelous broadcasts about the 2020 election.
He got fired by Fox, and then he went on the whole structure of the game went away that he was playing for his entire career.
Tucker feels hope now because he's decided to play his own game free of the rules he's been restrained by before, and it's worked.
He's found the Holy Grail, an audience that doesn't have any standards at all, so long as you make them feel good.
If I were him, I'd feel great and hopeful too.
He doesn't believe all this shit about literal demons nipping at everybody's feet.
He's just found people who will give him tons of money to pretend to be worried about that.
And I don't know how a con man could be in a more hopeful situation.
Well, I just saw a photograph of Josh Shapiro, who's the governor of Pennsylvania, who's evil, not saying that lightly, with Zelensky, who's campaigning for Kamala Harris and Democrats using U.S. military aircraft to get around using our tax dollars.
When it's the biggest nuclear power in the world, what'd you make of Biden going, yeah, we don't want the blame, but go ahead and use the storm shadows.
So Zelensky visited an ammunition factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania the day before this, and Tucker has decided that this was a Harris campaign event.
This is something I think is kind of on the line.
It makes total sense that Zelensky would visit this ammunition factory, and it doesn't have to be a partisan event.
Because the Republican Party is very much in support of Russia and Putin, the only people who would tend to show up for an event like this would end up being Democrats.
The timing is iffy, though, since the election is so close, and Pennsylvania is a swing state, so I can kind of understand having some complaints about that event happening at all.
I kind of get it, but also Tucker's being a little dramatic and going overboard about this whole thing as a whole.
Earlier this year, Nikki Haley wrote, finish them on an artillery shell when she was in Israel.
And in the sake of fairness, I do have to say that Tucker did complain about this, as well as her saying, finish them in a news interview that she did.
I think it's less a case of intellectual consistency and more a matter of her being Trump's primary opponent at the time.
But, you know, in the interest of fairness, he did call that out as well.
You know, I guess it makes sense for everybody to do what it is that they are doing from where they began.
You know, like all the things that they chose that led them to this point.
But if I'm just sitting there, like, not knowing all of the details and I just saw this, I'd be like, all of you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and go do anything else.
I get that Zelensky signing a bomb is a tough image for Tucker, but he needs to stop pretending that the people he supports aren't just as bloodthirsty and violent as the people he's critiquing.
His savior Trump took out an ad in the paper calling for the execution of the Central Park 5 in 1989 and hasn't been particularly chill since then.
I know that people remember that Trump paid to publish that open letter, but it's easy to forget what he wrote.
From that letter, titled, quote, bring back the death penalty, bring back our police.
Quote, Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts.
I do not think so.
I want to hate these muggers and murderers.
They should be forced to suffer, and when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.
They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence.
Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers, and I always will.
I'm not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them.
I'm looking to punish them.
If the punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people will stop.
He wasn't calling for some preferred policy.
He was expressing a deep desire for revenge against five dudes who were wrongly convicted of crimes that they'd later be exonerated for.
We could spend all day going over all the threats Trumps has made, reveling in violence and blood.
He threatened to obliterate Iran, bring fire and fury to North Korea, and he wanted to nuke hurricanes, which doesn't seem like a problem for Tucker.
I just think that this would come off a little bit more sincere if the person that he defended and supported wasn't a complete lunatic bent on violence.
So, no, also, here's the issue, too: that no one worships any of the stuff that Tucker is whining about here.
Ironically, all of those things that he brings up are issues that Tucker's on the side that opposes self-ownership and autonomy about, like euthanasia and reproductive health care.
The reason he has to pretend that people support those things because they love death is that if he didn't, he'd have to deal with the issues like a rational adult and he couldn't maintain his positions.
It's impossible for him to justify the state telling you that you don't have the right to end your own life on your own terms and simultaneously pretend that he's so mad about the government controlling your life.
You know, like it's can't complain about regulation and be like, yeah, well, you know, euthanasia is possible to.
Yeah, I mean, it does feel like once you start calling for a theocracy, but then like the trick is, even if you don't, if you don't call for a theocracy, but you purely base everything on theology, then you're no, you're never held accountable to either.
You're never held accountable to what should the law be or like, okay, okay, fine.
I mean, it was a Washington Post back in the middle of the Second Gulf War.
It was like 2006 or so.
And Richard Pearl, they call him the Prince of Darkness.
Can't even find his ass with both hands.
Definitely can't get a woman.
He sidles up back when there were times we still told the truth occasionally to a bunch of gorgeous female reporters and they ignore him and he goes, Don't you know who I am?
And he says, I kill a lot of people.
They went, ugh.
I mean, imagine the job was like, I kill a lot of people within Obama.
You know, I'm really good at killing people with predator drones.
And the guy probably couldn't win a fist fight.
There's something inherently sick and twisted and also stunted about that.
unidentified
Oh, I remember Paul Wolf voice very, very well early in the war on terror.
This is all a lot of fun for them, I'm sure, but this conversation is pretty fucking stupid in context.
Alex has done multiple shows with a giant gun on his desk and frequently discusses weapons in highly erotic terms.
If Tucker really has a problem with people sensualizing violence or guns, he's sitting next to possibly the biggest offender in that realm.
Plus, I know that Alex only half remembers this story that he loves to tell about Richard Pearl, but does he not remember that Tucker was a huge advocate for the Bush administration?
Like, on November 11th, 2001, Tucker was hosting Crossfire and Richard Pearl was his guest.
Pearl was asked where the U.S. should attack after Afghanistan in order to further the war on terror.
Pearl replied, My candidate is a rock because Saddam Hussein is very dangerous.
He has weapons of mass destruction that he's used in the past.
Tucker replied, It seems to me that the case for taking out Saddam Hussein is pretty straightforward.
He has, as Mr. Pearl said, weapons of mass destruction.
We know he would like to use them against us.
Why wait until he does?
Consider it this way: if you had a neighbor who was heavily armed, a gun nut, and he was making threats against you, and you called the police and said, My heavily armed neighbor is making threats against me, they wouldn't say, Well, he's popular with the other neighbors.
We're gonna leave him there.
No, they would arrest him immediately.
They would take preemptive action.
Why shouldn't we do the same with Saddam?
The other guest on the show was suggesting that we take a more cautious approach, to which Pearl said, Quote, Hearts and minds and messages are fine.
I want to get Saddam Hussein before he gets us.
You know, we're not going to protect this country by winning hearts and minds when there are people like Saddam Hussein.
Tucker's response, quote, Get him before he gets us.
Well expressed by Mr. Pearl.
I think it was put another way, even more profoundly, by Donald Rumsfeld earlier today.
Later in the episode, Tucker and his co-host Bill Press were arguing about preemptively killing terrorists.
Press felt that even terrorists deserved a day in court, which Tucker was super against.
Discussing the prospect of trying Bin Laden in court, Tucker said, quote, at what cost?
He goes to trial, the jurors are killed, people are kidnapped, more terrorist acts are committed in the name of freeing him.
He has a platform for spewing his garbage for months, if not years.
It's ludicrous.
He doesn't deserve a protection.
He doesn't deserve a jury trial or protection of our Constitution.
Press replied, quote, You know what the cost is?
The cost is we show the world who we are.
We show the world that we have a system of justice that depends on evidence.
Tucker said, quote, that we're stupid and naive and soft-hearted and worthy of their attacks.
Tucker was compatriots with Richard Pearl, and he argued for the war on terror with a passion that he would now probably call bloodlust.
And then, when it didn't go well, he changed his mind.
By 2004, he told the New York Observer, quote, I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it.
It's something I'll never do again.
Never.
I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that.
Even in his backpedaling about his fervent cheerleading for war, he has to insist that secretly, deep down, he was actually right about this whole thing.
He was only wrong because he listened to this smart friend of his.
If you are opposed to a global war and support it aggressively in the media because some smart friend of yours told you to, you're a fucking idiot and you shouldn't be trusted.
If you're actually for the war and were for the war, but realize that now it's unpopular to have had that position, so you come put the story about how some smart friend convinced you to support it aggressively in the media, you're a fucking coward and I don't care.
The joke is like, yeah, that's exactly what I am going to do.
Write it.
You think that when you write it and you tell people, you will be able to have an effect on me, and you have failed in that and you refuse to acknowledge it.
Like, Allentown is about 40 minutes away, and they have the PPL Center that seats about 3,000 more people.
Some of those bigger stadiums that, you know, the 31 bigger ones are sports exclusive venues.
So you can't really include those in this tally.
But Santander Arena in Reading, Pennsylvania, if that's your first choice and you're Tucker, something is wrong.
The image is that he's much bigger than this.
And if you're having Alex Jones on, why the fuck isn't it somewhere in Texas?
He has zero connection to Pennsylvania, and it really screams of this is the only place that said yes.
All of that is fine.
I get it.
They're oppressed and times are hard for people who yell about how trans people are possessed.
I think Santander Arena is a fine venue, but the problem is that they definitely didn't sell it out.
If you're going to do a show at a 7,000-seat arena in a B slash C market when you're Tucker Carlson and your guest is Alex Jones, you better sell that thing out.
We couldn't fill an arena if our lives depended on it, but for Tucker, it's embarrassing.
You know, he had a little trouble finding a venue because we were like, Josh Jones, he's so scared.
Sold it out, like, immediately.
And I don't think that anybody tonight at that event will think, wow, Alex Jones is crazy.
I'm like, no, Alex Jones is like way ahead of his time.
There's not anything, I'm just guessing that you're going to say tonight that is particularly radical or far off the mark or not sort of obvious at this point.
unidentified
You were way ahead of your time, decades ahead of your time.
So Tucker is absolutely lying about selling out the show, let alone selling it out immediately.
I checked the site the night before the show, and there's still hundreds of seats available.
And it's not resale tickets either.
These were first-time purchases.
There are probably 700 or so empty seats, which isn't awful, but that's like 10% of the venue.
As for whether or not anyone walked away from the event thinking Alex said some crazy stuff, that's anyone's guess.
When I got back to my hotel, I did overhear three people talking next to the elevators, and I didn't eavesdrop on them long.
But what I heard was one of them saying they had no idea what Alex was talking about, and that you kind of just have to convince yourself to believe him because he has so much deep information in his head that it's driven him to the point where he sounds crazy.
I suspect that there were a fair amount of people rationalizing his performance that way.
But that was the only review that I got from a random person.
I remember a Bloomberg article about 15 years ago, there's been some others where the thing had headlines.
You can probably pull this out.
Let's be like the web, not taking your news search.
Davo speaks and says technocrats should run countries, not presence from it, or something like that.
And in the article, they say, We are discrediting nation states with our agenda and our control, and then it's going to demonize the nation, say, well, that all falls, we'll get full control.
So they're literally running our countries and knowing we're going to blame our governments and have basically cultural civil wars.
I walked down the street of the city where I was a really pretty little city, totally defiled and degraded by its leaders, garbage all over the street.
This is all blowhard nonsense from Tucker that sounds good, but doesn't actually translate to any real duties.
If he had a duty to tell the truth, he would have a duty to learn more about the people he's promoting as great leaders and truth tellers.
And he would have an obligation to never speak to Alex again.
If he had a duty to the truth, he would watch a little more of Alex's show to determine whether he's actually a prophet or if his team is just pretty good at selectively editing the thousands of hours he rambles on air.
I have no idea exactly what article Alex is talking about here in Bloomberg, but I'm guessing it's an opinion piece, probably about how technocrat-style leaders were appointed in Italy and Greece in 2011 as the countries tried to deal with the fallout of the financial crisis of 2008, 2009.
I think it's probably this.
There were articles in Time magazine with headlines like, quote, who, what, why?
What can technocrats achieve that politicians can't?
These op-eds were exploring the pros and cons of a more technocratic leadership as compared to politicians.
Most of the articles I can find reach the conclusion that it's a mixed bag.
So Alex says this article from Bloomberg is 15 years ago.
So I don't know exactly what he's talking about.
But in 2017, they published an article titled, Why Some Nations Are Warming to Technocracy, which covered a new survey from the Pew Research Center and discussed its findings.
That headline could lead someone to think that they're somewhat warm or neutral about technocrats.
So you could get the idea that that reflects the editorial tone at Bloomberg.
But then in 2018, they published a piece titled, quote, We Need to Stop Giving Technocrats So Much Power, which is an article about recent comments made by a former Bank of England official named Paul Tucker.
It was critical of technocratic leadership and argued in favor of more regulation.
So maybe these publications are just posting things that if you take the headline out of, you can't characterize correctly.
It's not just like some side benefit of good news.
It's like you're required to wake up every morning and determine to be hopeful and cheerful because you know that it's how it ends, which is in a great way.
So I'm not going to be deterred from hope no matter what they do, no matter how many retards they put in as the politician spokesman, no matter how much garbage they allow to accumulate on the streets.
So Alex is making all this up, but it's based on a real thing where the CIA promoted abstract expressionist painting in the United States as part of the Cold War.
They believed that homegrown artistic movements were a powerful propaganda tool, essentially making the argument that the Soviet Union was stagnant, as uncreative, and the system wasn't artistically alive.
We've talked about this in greater depth in the past, but essentially there was an office called the International Organizations Division that sponsored American art, like some jazz artists and the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
They also promoted abstract expressionism, which Alex has decided to mean that they wanted to force ugly art on the public to make them spiritually weak.
It's all very stupid, but it's based on a twisting of a real, fairly strange thing that actually happened.
So, like, if you just kind of do a surface-level Google on this, you'll probably be like, oh, my God, Alex is right.
I was reading an article about this, and it did make the point that at the time, the people who would have been in these offices in the CIA were largely rich people's kids who went to like Ivy schools.
There's a certain irony that Alex is directing people to Infowars and his Twitter.
Well, there's a decent chance he won't own those things in the near future.
I don't know what's going to happen with the whole liquidation auction that has been going on, but there's a non-zero chance that he loses both of those things that he's plugging.
It's funny that Tucker says that he's not going to let folks from the Washington Post control his emotions because I think that he's super emotionally affected by the fact that the mainstream doesn't respect him and he's had to chase down this new audience of folks like Alex.
There are few media figures that I see that seem more emotionally driven than Tucker himself.
The one with JD Vance, the GOP nominee for vice president, didn't even sell out.
It's easy to get that impression if you go to Tucker's website because once a show is over, the website replaces the buy ticket button with one that says sold out.
But I don't know if any of these actually sold out.
We're recording this on the 26th and tonight was supposed to be a show in Greenville, South Carolina, and it had to be canceled because Hurricane Helen, who's a Marjorie Taylor Greene, was supposed to be on tonight.
The last show of the tour is Saturday in Jacksonville with Donald Trump Jr.
And there's still a ton of tickets available for that.
This whole act that Alex and Tucker are doing doesn't work unless they pretend everything is sold out, which is why it's funny.
If they would just play slightly smaller venues, they could easily sell them out, but their egos don't allow that.
So they swing for the fences and then leave a bunch of seats empty.
Instead of accepting reality, they march forward, pretending they're at capacity and turning away thousands of people at the door because they're just that popular.
You know, like that kind of story that he tells, like, I don't believe in the there's a person who's like insulting him and then starts crying because everyone loves him so much.
So we're in there, and one of the things that I noticed was: you know, they talk a lot about how they're independent and like you don't have these corporate sponsors.
They refused to partner with him, so he threw a fit and pretended that they supported the Harris campaign, even though the company that runs Zinn, which is Swedish Match North America, which is a subsidiary of Philip Morris International, gave more to federal GOP candidates at a rate of 70 to 30%.
There's no evidence that the company is a huge Harris donor, but that was something that Tucker smeared them with to his audience in hope of stealing away part of the market for his own brand.
He's a total loser, and this whole thing is embarrassingly transparent, and he's selling nicotine pouches.
So, cool.
And like, he played a commercial for it, and I get that there's supposed to be some kind of humor in being like, this is what men do.
Because it doesn't feel like it would be something that you're like, oh, I'm looking forward to hearing about these people talk about how demons are going to kill me.
So there was an opening act, who was supposed to be a warm-up comic.
Right.
And then there was like half an hour of stump speeches from his sponsors.
So the warm-up act was warming up for the people to do the sponsor speeches.
Right.
And then Tucker came out.
One of his sponsors introduced him.
And so structurally, it was very weird.
And I couldn't figure out how this is supposed to work.
The energy in the crowd was, you know, when you do stand-up and no one's a star, It really is important that the host bring it up, get everyone on the same page, and then bring people around.
I remember back in the day, like, if you're doing stand-up and you visit New York or something, you'll be kind of lucky if you can get up at a club doing a check set where they drop the check and no one's listening to you.
They're all filling out their credit card slips and stuff.
And it's a thankless, awful thing, but you'll get a few bucks.
But what if like three years from now, it's like it comes out, the documentary, Marina Bramovich documentary comes out and it's like, oh, he's been doing this kind of shit at weird right-wing rallies for the past three years.
I can't think of anything more insulting to me personally than the idea of somebody being like, I have to compliment the mechanics of what you are doing.
No, it's like because that's like an echo of the more common story of the standing up to bullies, you fight back, and then they're like, oh, you shouldn't fight back.
And then your dad is like, you stand up to bullies, even if that meant, you know, that's a fairly common story.
This one, it does feel like there should have been some acknowledgement of like, this was the wrong move.
And out of 16, and one of the things that I wanted, well, I love you too.
Thank you.
I wanted, you know, if you spend your life experiencing the United States through your phone, which I think all of us do, you really lose track of what it's actually like.
And you do.
And I do think that part of the lie, part of the plan for the rest of us is to convince us that our country sucks.
And that's not true at all.
And that's why it's been such a blessing to go coast to coast.
8.30 this morning, I was on the Conestoga River in your state.
Beautiful.
You could have been anywhere, Montana, New Zealand.
It was incredible.
And I ran into people in the park where I was looming, not in a threatening way, but wandering around one of your parks.
And they said to me, oh my gosh, we just saw Alex Jones wandering in the park.
I mean, I will say it does get lonely when you're the only person sitting down in a 30,000 arena of people clapping for somebody who's a murderer and a war criminal or whatever.
And that's kind of the point: is that in 12 cities from East Coast to West Coast to the middle to back to the East Coast, I haven't met a single angry person.
I haven't met a single nasty person.
I haven't met anybody mistreating anybody else.
I met exactly the opposite.
I have met the warmest, kindest, most loving, hilarious, eccentric people I've ever met.
So I had a pretty similar experience on my whole trip.
Sure.
I didn't really run into any particularly angry people, but I did meet a bunch of people who were on the precipice of anger.
And I was keenly aware that if I didn't placate their needs to not be offended by wokeness, they would turn angry really fast.
I nodded along with a cab driver heading to my return trip to the airport as he lamented about how children's movies were pushing a gay agenda by including LGBTQ characters.
There were a couple of interactions I ended up in with other people around other culture war topics that felt the same.
It was incumbent upon me to moderate my response to their insane shit or else they would respond poorly.
It was very clear that that dynamic was in action.
Tucker is insulated from a lot of this type of interaction because his insane wealth and celebrity allows that.
Plus, he's on the side that's one step away from screaming at you for being an agent of cancel culture.
Most of the people who hate Tucker are just not going to engage with him or probably will never have an opportunity to.
I watched a little video of their meet and greet and it was just Tucker, Alex, and Jack Pesobic standing in front of a backdrop looking at a camera while a line of people came through and took pictures.
They barely even looked at the people as they were coming through and then they were whisked away really fast and you can hear Rob Dew muttering in the background, this is what America's about.
I'm sure that Tucker's not lying about how nice everyone has been on his tour because honestly, all of the people that I interacted with who had an insane and dangerous idea to share, they were really nice too.
They were nice because I let them be nice and I exercised extreme caution in how I challenge their very fragile ideas.
Tucker doesn't challenge any of those ideas and the most hostile people he could run into.
So I'm sure it's a pretty nice trip that he's had.
But if I had wanted to, I could have immediately just said, no, that's complete nonsense.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And here's where this idea comes from, blah, blah, blah.
It would have been the worst person they could have ended up in a conversation with.
Well, I mean, on one level, everyone you meet, if you scratch them long enough and hard enough, will reveal believing something that is absolutely insane.
You know, like, and it doesn't even need to be big, you know, that time that I told you that I thought that you couldn't re-refrigerate beer or something because somebody had told me that was just in my head.
And then it gets whipped up by people like Tucker who can stoke it without ever having to feel that same feeling of hostage taking, you know, that aspect of like, I know going into this interaction, I am not allowed to be me.
And, you know, to the extent that it's acceptable, I'm just going to ignore most of this insane shit you're saying or very softly push back on it in a playful way.
And the parts of those conversations that didn't intersect with culture war bullshit and nonsense ideas that these people have were very pleasant talking about their families and talking about various things that they're interested in.
Sure.
Totally fine.
And I could have exchange with someone who believes the polar opposite of what I believe.
And that's heartening.
Yeah.
But it's disheartening that the only way we were able to achieve that was by me restraining some information that I have that would have been handled poorly.
Well, I mean, if you're saying the same thing as 6,000 other people, even though, you know, what you're saying might in your otherwise daily life sound absolutely crazy to the 6,000 people that you're surrounded with, makes you feel real normal now.
So with that said, and I've been in a good mood, despite being away from my wife and dogs, I've been in a good mood every day for the last 21 days.
Really until today, when I got back from wandering around one of your parks, and I see this picture of your governor.
You know, I actually don't really want to show up in somebody else's state and attack their politicians because that's not my state or Commonwealth.
But I saw a photograph of your governor, Josh Shapiro, standing with a foreign leader signing an artillery shell that is going to kill civilians in a country we're not at war with with a grin on his face.
And I had a couple of thoughts.
I was disgusted by it, actually.
I was enraged by it.
And here's why.
Let me be specific about here's why.
The first reason is, you know, I've been driving around Pennsylvania and actually I've fished here a lot over the course of my life.
And so I know the state pretty well.
And there are some, I mean, this is really one of the prettiest out of 50, maybe the prettiest in spots out of 50.
It's ridiculous how pretty it is.
But there are some hurting places in this state, like hurting, like actually.
So the premise here is that I'm very mad hearing or seeing this picture of Josh Shapiro with Zelensky because I fish in Pennsylvania quite a bit and there's a lot of really nice nature stuff, but also people are hurting.
And that money could be used to improve their lives.
But there are some hurting places in this state, like hurting, like actually, where people don't have jobs, where, you know, beautiful buildings in utter disrepair, walking back from dinner last night, people sleeping on the sidewalk.
You know, things that we should not put up with in a country with self-respect.
And our leaders did that, actually.
And so for anybody in charge of anything in this country, particularly in this state, to be spending time, money, or concern on a foreign country's problems enraged me.
I see a lot of videos now where people are like, if you give them food, whenever they give you like a dollar, they'll just keep bringing you money because they think that's how they're like, that's amazing.
How dare you lecture me about problems in some other place, whether it's in Eastern Europe or the Middle East or I don't know, Central Africa.
I don't care.
I don't wish any of those people harm at all.
I wish everyone well.
But for you to spend your time worrying about that and paying for that when your own state, people in your own state are literally living on the sidewalk, damn you, actually.
So this is all fun and is getting the crowd worked up, but it's kind of dumb.
Tucker's show is largely lecturing people about problems in other countries and supporting foreign strongman leaders like Putin, Javier Millay, Naeb Bukele, Yerbor Sonaro, and Victor Orban.
The criticism he's making would be fine, but he's criticizing himself just as much as he is Josh Shapiro.
I agree that people being unhoused is a serious problem and the government has a responsibility to confront it.
Tucker's ideology doesn't have a solution for the problem.
He's just using it as an excuse to attack supporting Ukraine.
But I have no qualms with taking housing insecurity as a serious issue that public resources should be directed towards solving.
The problem is that there's no connection between Tucker's feelings about people being unhoused and about the war in Ukraine.
Even if literally everyone in the country had access to affordable housing, he would still think we shouldn't give any money or time to Ukraine.
So pretending that his issue is rooted in some righteous indignation about how we should be using the resources for ourselves, that's a charade.
The bigger scam is that even if no money or time was being spent on supporting Ukraine, Tucker wouldn't support public assistance to provide people with housing.
He's just pretending he would support that because he knows that those optics are a weapon that he can use to attack his enemies.
He's scamming the audience by appealing to something that makes them feel like good people.
And by extension, he demonizes the people that he's opposed to.
Cultivating that feeling is really what 90% of the non-advertising part of this show is about.
It's not to defeat Vladimir Putin or anybody else.
It's to protect and watch over the people he leads.
This is true of any organization, starting with the most basic organization in any society, which is the family.
A father's job is to watch over his family.
And if his kids are sick and have drug problems and he takes off to another country to deal with other people's children in a faraway land, he has abandoned his family.
And I don't care what story he tells you about himself and what a great and caring and compassionate person he is.
And I don't care how much he attacks you for noticing.
He is a bad father and a bad man because he has violated his sacred duty to his own children.
That's why he's here is to watch over his children.
And the same is true for all organizations.
Whether it's a military unit or the office you work in or the town you live in or the state you reside in or the nation you were born in, the people who run it have one job and that's to watch out for you because they're your leaders.
This clip is really helpful to understand Tucker's rhetorical framework.
He spends a lot of time whining about how the left wants a nanny state and then he rants passionately about how he wants a president who loves him like a parent.
It's incoherent and stupid because on a fundamental level, no one should want the relationship dynamic between an individual and the government to mirror that of a parent and a child.
On its face, it's idiotic.
And Tucker knows that perfectly well.
He absolutely does not want this to be his relationship with the government, but he knows that the audience he's cultivated feels good when they talk about a person in power loving them.
It's emotionally validating to imagine that your president loves you and feels responsibility to protect you like a parent does their child.
The government doesn't love you and you shouldn't want them to.
You should want them to govern effectively.
And sometimes that works in your best interests and sometimes as an individual, it doesn't.
I remember in this moment sitting in the arena just amazed at how petulant and weak it sounded.
Because the side point of what Tucker is saying is that he wants to be treated like a child.
That's the role he's assuming in this metaphor, in this allegory.
And he's encouraging the audience to assume that role as well, which I think sucks.
No organization should run like a family.
No business or government or office should have a paternal structure.
And I think that Tucker understands that.
It's just that his brand has become so entwined with yelling about families and insisting families are under attack.
So, this kind of grows out of that, and it sounds really stupid.
Well, and a huge part of this that is kind of a little too clear if you're paying attention is that like Tucker isn't really saying this about himself.
No, he's not saying that he wants to be the child of the government, he wants you to be.
Yeah, he wants to be exempted from this parent-child relationship, but he wants you in that.
I don't think a lot of cardinals view themselves as equal to a lot of the people in their parishes.
You know what I'm saying?
I don't think they, you know, even though their book might, you know, I think some have strange power dynamics that are played out, might have paternalistic power dynamics, too.
You take a city like the one I woke up in this morning where my wife went to grade school and it's a beautiful city built over centuries by hardworking immigrants, by the way.
German mostly, but probably from lots of other places.
And they spent hundreds of years making this a great city.
And I walked through it this morning on the way to the park, and the streets are covered in garbage and broken needles.
It's like, you don't notice that, really, Josh Shapiro?
You don't notice that?
How can you not notice that?
There's someone sleeping right there.
And you're lecturing me about Ukraine?
Damn you.
There's no concern at all.
And where there's no concern, there's no love, actually.
Also, that just all seems so whiny and disconnected from the real problem he's pretending to be upset about, which is people not having homes.
For what it's worth, I walked around a bit in Reading and I didn't see much trash or humans sleeping on the street.
There were three shops that claimed to sell mystical objects that got me really excited.
Sure.
They were all closed on Monday, which sucked, but that's the extent of the negative things that I saw walking around Reading.
I don't know.
I think that Tucker sounds like a dork.
And I don't think that on a critical examination of the things he's saying, he could even justify whining about how much he wants the government to love you.
One of them, you know, not super well-educated, non-geniuses.
We have a lot of dumb parents who are pretty good parents, not because they learn some theory about parenting from the Harvard School of Parenting, but because they love their children.
And if you love your children, you may make a mistake here and there.
But over time, if your actions are guided by a sincere love for your child, that child's going to be okay.
Because that's all that matters.
And so if over time you totally ignore the material and spiritual condition of your people, if they wind up sleeping on the street and the storefronts are closed and the windows are broken and they can't walk to CBS without getting mugged, and it's physically unclean, that's not an accident.
It feels a little strange to just sort of insist that everyone knows the right thing to do innately.
It's kind of unrelated to the convoluted point Tucker is making, but this mentality that people know how to raise their kids automatically is a pretty toxic viewpoint that feeds into the anxiety and stresses that come with postpartum depression.
Some people who suffer from that feel like they don't know what they're doing as a parent and that's an indication that there's something inherently wrong with them.
And reinforcing that idea is an impediment to getting them the help they need.
...about the way we feel and communicate that to another person to pass on information, to pass on our history.
That's what our culture is.
It's talking.
And that's great.
But words are also, if you think about it, a means of deception.
They are a vector for lying.
How do the lies reach you?
Because they come out of somebody's mouth.
So if you're in my business and you think a lot about language and you're around people who are lying for a living, after a while, you lose faith in it.
You do.
And after a while, at least if you're me, you decide, you know, I'm going to be a lot more like my dog.
My dog is not a fluent English speaker.
Genius, but doesn't speak English.
And yet, my dog and your dog and everyone's dog knows exactly what's up.
They can't hear a word you say.
They only watch you.
And when you move over and pick up the bowl, it's dinner time.
You didn't tell them that.
They're watching what you do.
And I've decided that's a much more accurate way to judge intent.
You can say, well, hey, I have a plan because I'm so compassionate.
If I'm one of those people in the arena, I think of myself as a warrior.
I think of myself as a person who has recognized that there's something wrong with this world and is doing something to change it, to fix it, to whatever.
And if that means giving Tucker money, then at the very least, I'll have fixed it or changed it or whatever, you know?
But at the heart of it is the warrior.
I am a person, you know, strong.
And then I just think of like Conan the barbarian listening to Tucker.
You know, like Conan the Barbarian being like, I get.
I mean, I bet, God, it makes you want to be at one of those early, those old revivals, before they had TV, before they had any of that, like Marjo shit, where it's like, all we have are practical effects, some people who dance, and a child that is really charismatic.
Trust me, Josh Shapiro has no freaking idea what that word means.
But more to the point, Josh Shapiro's only job is to protect and enhance the lives of people in Reading and Potsdown and every other town in this state.
Including, and I'm just gonna say it, and you're gonna jeer me, including Philadelphia.
So this is the kind of thought that sounds insightful, but is actually really fucking stupid.
The way a parent might respond to their child doing drugs is different than how a government might respond to a resident doing drugs because the relationships and responsibilities are super different.
If you just take this line of thinking a couple steps further, I don't know if I can do that.
You could pretty easily see how it falls apart immediately.
Governments shouldn't do clean needle programs and harm reduction programs because what they should do is metaphorically chain you to a radiator so you get off drugs since that's what a good parent would do.
A good parent is also required to house and feed their child until they're 18.
So if the government should treat us like their beloved children, even though you're adults, shouldn't housing and food be free then?
A parent might say that their kid is grounded unless they clean their room, and that's an expression of love, teaching the kid about responsibility, taking care of chores.
Does Tucker think that the government should be able to confine you to your house if you don't do the dishes?
Like, there's a thousand examples of this to the point where it's hard to believe that Tucker wouldn't put in a little more effort to make his point sound less clearly stupid.
As it stands, Tucker seems to want the government to exert parental control over him because it loves him, and he wants harsh sentences for victimless drug crimes.
I mean, you know, I think what I find fascinating about it is that of all the things that he is talking about with parental bullshit and the comparison, the one thing that he is not talking about is the one that I believe is the underpinning of all of it, which is the concept of my house, my rules.
This is my house.
So long as you live here, I get to tell you what to do.
If you don't want me to tell you what to do, then go somewhere else.
Those are pomegranates, I know, because there's the fruit.
You can tell me you care about the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but they're dying of drug abuse, and you're doing nothing other than sending more weapons of mass destruction to some creepy guy in a tracksuit.
So this is really interesting how Tucker uses the expression, you know a tree by its fruit.
He seems to think that it means that you can tell a lemon tree is a lemon tree if it produces a lemon, and likewise for a pomegranate bush.
But that's not what the verse in the Bible means.
And anybody who's read Matthew 7 would know that.
It literally goes on to say, quote, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Therefore, by their fruits, you will know them.
In Jesus' words, this means that the healthiness of a particular tree is assessed by the fruit that it bears.
Not that you can identify a tree based on what sort of fruit it makes.
It's very obvious from the verse.
And anyone who's taken the Bible seriously at any point in their life would not make that kind of conceptual mistake.
In order to have the interpretation Tucker has, you would have to have seen this verse in a meme, but never actually read the first books of the New Testament.
I've said this before, but I think the only thing that really would get in the way of Christianity spreading and taking over is the whole Christ thing.
They won't be held accountable to actual political ideology or religious ideology.
It is just, I am going to say what I need to say to get rich, to get power, to, and frankly, just because I'm bored and I hate you.
Like, it's if that makes that's the only thing that makes sense now for me listening to this is like, does he just want to go places where he hates people and then say it to their faces?
But like, there was a part of me that if I take seriously what he's saying, if I believe that what he's expressing is actually what he believes, and like I come away with the feeling that what he's motivated by is he wants power to love him.
And so he's supporting Trump because he wants the figurehead of power, the manifestation of power to personally love him in the way that he feels that like Putin does or Orban or Bolsonaro.
I do agree that delighting in killing civilians is bad, but it's probably a little meaningless to insist people are evil if they do it.
Plus, then we need to litigate what counts as delighting in killing civilians because a lot of Tucker's early 2000s career would definitely be characterized by including that.
This all just sounds like an uncentered, pandering, and confused demagogue trying to work a crowd and getting like 75% of the response they're going for.
But in that clip, he says that there's something wrong with killing civilians, and there's something forbidden about saying that on the right.
And so when Dick Cheney and his creepy, freaky little daughter join the Carmella Harris for president campaign, everyone's like, oh, that's so shocking.
I can't quite believe that.
No, no, no.
All the people who worship violence are now on the same side.
I mean, I guess it really never occurred to me what it would be like to just be somebody who goes up on a stage in front of thousands of people and talks, you know, without chops, without having spent a long time figuring out, you know, like, oh, I've got this bit.
I've got this.
I've got this whole thing.
I've done this a million times.
Whenever I go out here, I am prepared for all of this stuff.
Right.
And I've got bits and I've got material.
And not just that, I've got the confidence in knowing that if my bits don't work, I'm in.
It's so weird because you expect like, oh, the people at that spot doing those things have to have worked their way up there.
And then it's like, man, I can go to a thousand two-year-in stand-up comics who have put more thought into the three minutes they're going to do to nobody than Tucker has.
The one thing they're good at, the only thing, their unique talent, it's not building anything.
It's not creating anything.
When's the last time someone built something beautiful and useful in Redding?
When's the last time one of your leaders was like, you know, we're going to make it better in Redding?
No, it's been a long time.
Josh Shapiro hasn't done it.
But the one thing they are good at is seizing the moral high ground.
Immediately.
No matter what they're doing, whether it's giving drugs to junkies, crackpipes to crackheads, abetting the largest example of human trafficking in the history of the West, which is what they're doing right now, is they move 15 million people illegally into our country from around the world.
Stude sounds like an angsty teen yelling about his parents, which makes sense considering all the other shit he said in the speech.
Immigration isn't human trafficking, and I don't particularly care about whining about who has a moral high ground.
That's abstract and kind of subjective, so it's not really a productive conversation.
However, the Northeast Fire Station in Reading had their grand opening on September 21st, just a few days before Tucker's show.
This is a very modern fire station that was in the works for almost a decade, and they literally had their ribbon-cutting ceremony a few days before this.
They used $5 million from the federal government under the American Rescue Plan, and it'll be able to serve the community much better than their previous outdated firehouse, not to mention the amenities it'll provide for the firefighters when they're not responding to calls.
About a month before this, the Reading Skate Park Association finally opened a public outdoor skate park after years of trying to get this done.
They had a dedication ceremony in late August, and it was made possible by a $200,000 grant from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, as well as $200,000 from the America Rescue Plan and $855,000 from the Capital Improvement Program.
It really feels like Tucker just doesn't care at all to know about any of the stuff he says because the thing he plans on saying feels good, and the audience doesn't care if he's being accurate or not.
It's all just, it comes off as very dumb, but also cynical and malicious towards the crowd.
When's the last time that they did anything here in Reading?
A couple days ago, they opened this fucking firehouse.
He's misinterpreting data that showed the counties that voted for Biden represented about 70% of the aggregate gross domestic product.
That's not the same thing as Biden voters holding 70% of the wealth.
Bobby Kennedy is a fucking mess, so who knows what he actually understands.
But I don't believe that Tucker doesn't know that he's misrepresenting this stat for malicious purposes.
Also, he makes an interesting argument that Biden voters are unessential.
Alex has spent years talking about how calling some workers unessential during the pandemic was the first step in a plan to killing off most of the population.
So shouldn't that same logic apply to Tucker?
No, probably not.
If you listen to that clip, though, you can see a very fascinating glimpse into what this is versus what Tucker probably thinks this is.
He's doing his little riff about how Biden voters aren't important, and he asks, how long can we live without private equity?
The room is silent.
No one responds to that.
No one thinks it's funny, and no one cares.
Then he shits on the idea of a DEI consultant, and the place pops off.
This gets a good response because that's what the show is about.
The audience just wants to yell about the things they're supposed to be mad about, like wokeness.
It's a dumb show, but on some level, I think Tucker wants to be doing something that is a more potent critique of things like private equity.
But if you listen to this, it couldn't be more clear that these people just want to hear him say shitty stuff about the groups they don't like so they can register their approval with cheers.
That's what Tucker's work is.
He tries to make a dig at something that's a real problem in the country, and maybe we should address it.
And he gets crickets.
He jangles some keys in front of the audience by making a reference to a social media-driven culture war panic, and he gets cheers and laughter.
So what we've decided to do with this, it started as a book.
We're launching our own investigation into what went on, and we've hired a private investigative firm, and some of whom are actually in the crowd today.
It's just FYI.
And we are going to be expanding that investigation from Bethel Park to Butler, down to West Palm Beach, all the way out to Hawaii.
Tucker, we're going to go to Ukraine if we have to.
We are going to get to the bottom of what happened.
We're calling it the Bulletproof Project because I just don't trust any of these people.
I may not go personally again over there, but the one thing that we have learned, Tucker, is this bounty, the $150,000, and I promised people that I would drop some news.
So I had the information about the bounty on Friday.
We found that out today.
I didn't know the Department of Justice would be publicizing the bounty like it's a John Wick movie, right?
And they put it out there.
Matt Gates comes on my show a couple of days ago, and he says there's five assassination teams targeting Trump.
Five assassination teams, three of which have foreign ties.
I think we know one of them already.
And then two of which are domestic.
What people need to understand is the bounty and the five assassination teams are tied.
It's like they're actually competing for this bounty.
Donald Trump's very life on the line.
And every time he goes up to speak now, he has to stand behind what I call leftist glass because they keep trying to kill him.
Yeah, pretending to be investigating a rash of assassination attempts in an effort to create an over-dramatized story you sell as a book or maybe a series of books.
Does he actually think that there are multiple professional assassin teams that would accept an open competitive contract to kill the former president for $150,000?
So one thing you could feel in the room was the intensity of the response that Alex got was way higher than for Jack and probably on par with or higher than the response for Tucker.
This was a crowd that was excited about the idea of seeing Alex.
I'm a hater.
I love shit on Alex for his embarrassments, but in this case, it would be super unfair to do that.
The crowd was into him being introduced, and there were a bunch of Infowars shirts in the crowd.
So Alex Jones was one of those people you're supposed to be very shocked by.
Here's the one fact about Alex Jones that I can't get over.
Alex Jones predicted 9-11.
And he did know to think about this for a sec.
And he did so on tape.
Now, I worked in television my whole life.
When you're on TV, there's a timestamp.
We don't need to guess.
I'm on TV for decades saying super dumb things, which live forever on YouTube.
Alex Jones, in the summer of 2001, said, you need to call the White House right now because planes are going to hit the World Trade Center and they're going to blame it on Osama bin Laden.
He said that.
I've seen the tape.
You can look it up.
So, no, check us out.
So, I lived in D.C. at the time.
Trust me, I was in, I had a daily news show on another channel.
Not one person was saying anything like that.
So, Alex Jones says that it's on tape.
We can prove he said that.
It happens.
Why didn't the U.S. government call Alex Jones and say, how could you have not clearly, clearly you're a prophet of some kind?
We need you in this global war on terror because clearly you can see things that nobody else can see.
That's incredible.
Have you even met anybody who's predicted something like that?
No, you haven't.
Like, I've never met anyone.
I met everybody.
I've never met anybody who did anything like that.
But instead of celebrating Alex Jones for making the most unbelievable call in the history of the news business, they said about the FBI sets about trying to destroy him.
And so begins this incredible saga of lies about Alex Jones, which you probably all heard about.
I'm not going to relitigate it, but that was the FBI that did that.
So we've been over this a bunch of times, but Tucker is talking about an edited clip of Alex that he's seen and he's never thought to look more into.
Alex said multiple different things, but not together.
He said that people should call the White House and tell them not to blame a false flag on Bin Laden.
That is true.
He also speculated that the World Trade Center was a potential target because Bin Laden had already attacked the World Trade Center, and this was not an uncommon prediction, particularly in conspiracy media at the time, like with Bill Cooper.
So we, you know, I think it's sensible to think like, eh, Tucker's putting up with Alex, but he wants to make it clear in this beginning that, no, I love this man.
And it goes back to what I was saying earlier: that the only thing they're good at is seizing the moral high ground, and they try to make you ashamed of the best things about your life, like being married or having normal kids or not castrating your children or whatever, or knowing Alex Jones.
They're like, oh, how can you know Alex Jones?
And I'm sick of it.
And I'm just going to say that Alex Jones is my friend.
There's nothing to be ashamed of there.
I'm not ashamed, and you shouldn't be either.
They should be ashamed.
He called 9-11 and they tried to put him in jail for it.
This is a beautiful state full of beautiful people.
And when we get President Trump elected, all of us together are going to lift the curse off of this country and we're going to send the globalists to prison.
It's amazing to meet all these great people, whether they're black, white, old, young, to see the electricity in people's eyes that are populists and that are Americans and that love God and that love children and love freedom and hate tyranny.
I can feel the strength in this auditorium and capacity in Renning, Pennsylvania.
And like I told the Globalist a long time ago, I don't know how all this is going to end, but if they want to fight, they better believe they've got one.
The one thing I always give Alex props for that no one ever gives him credit for, Alex Jones has stood against war for 30 years every single day of his career.
I was making predictions with the proviso that if you call the White House and tell them don't fly planes to the World Trade Center and then bring in the police state and then invade the Muslim countries to bring them in here, you know, not even go after radical Islam.
If you do all, I was thinking if you call the White House and tell them don't do it, they may not do it.
But of course, I'd have a big enough audience.
People didn't believe me, so we couldn't stop them.
So I make these predictions about probable futures because I can see all the evidence pointing towards it so that we can stop it.
But now the good news with Elon and you and so many others that are fully awake and reaching a lot more people than I ever did, folks are really waking up and their knowledge curve is going parabolic right now.
So we're in the driver's seat, but that makes the globalists very dangerous and the empire is going to strike back.
He said, listen, people don't want your world government.
It centralizes things.
It's tyranny.
People are rejecting you.
We need diversity of countries and sovereignty and peoples, like firewalls in a building or bulkheads in a ship.
But in some of the other meetings, they had these globalists that are going, we're just doing something so beautiful, what we're bringing them.
I don't know why they're opposing us and don't trust us.
Well, because you just want to depopulate us because you're selfish, demonic pigs who love the raw power of destroying people because America, for all its faults, was the best house in a bad neighborhood.
And the whole world, the whole world for 200 plus years, but really the last 100, aspired to come here, aspired to have our freedom.
And the globalists can't have this country exist and have their horrible global technocracy, slave plantation, AI system in charge if there's a place that's still free and open compared to everywhere else.
So we've got to be brought down and used to bring tyranny to the world while we're being destroyed and while we're paying for it.
So the whole world turns against us and we collapse.
And so the idea of America is discredited so that other people around the world don't ever try to go the path of our republic, which is diametrically opposed to their globalist satanic death cult.
The thing that I can't get past is to put the destruction of other human beings as a goal is not a that's not a human desire.
Like animals don't commit genocide, actually.
That's not natural.
That's not natural at all.
Like there may be people in your way and you're a bad person and you kill them, but the idea of desiring to kill huge numbers of people, like that can only be supernatural, it feels like.
Okay, so there's a bunch of wasps that lay that while you're still alive, they lay their eggs inside of you, and then you live, and then the eggs hatch and then eat you alive from the inside out.
So you're awake and conscious as your insides are being eaten by another animal's offspring.
I was talking to someone the other day who's not conservative who said to me off camera, you know, the chemicals in our water, for example, are changing the sex of frogs.
And I didn't want to be mean.
I didn't want to be mean.
But I did say, are you telling me they're turning the frogs gay?
And this person didn't get the reference at all and goes, yeah, that's basically right.
Everything you've said about the chemical poisoning of the human body is now just kind of accepted.
Well, I mean, look, what happened, and I knew what they were doing.
This is like 15 years ago.
I did like an hour-long analysis from South African University and a University of Japan, a university of, I think, Rice and the University of Berkeley in California, that just a little bit of atrazine would bend the gender of almost all the frogs, sterilize a lot of them, and turn a large portion of them where they would try to have sex with males.
It confused them so much in their development as embryos floating around in the creek or pond.
This is about chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay.
And I went on to say, and then their populations collapse and they die.
And the frogs are a microcosm of us.
Well, then every, within two weeks, every late-night comedy show, every one of them came out and did a monologue and attacked me.
And then it turned out later that they were being directed by major foundations and the CIA.
They even later bragged, oh, yeah, Chuck D. Schumer, we worked with a body with him and a foundation.
They actually came to them with a script that said, attack Alex Jones, because they went, ignore the hour of serious stuff he talked about, make it a joke.
So their joke about frogs made it blow up even bigger in their face.
So there really never was that much controversy on the basis of the claim that Alex was making.
Those studies about atrazine were real.
He's just exaggerating them and applying them to things that didn't relate, like saying that because it could make frogs change sex, that the chemical could maybe do that to people.
Alex screamed about how the water was a gay bomb and all kinds of shit, desperately courting attention.
And then some people gave it to him, generally by mocking him.
He's also fucking up his story here.
This was long ago.
And the whole thing about scripts and Chuck Schumer, that's a narrative he has about COVID and Jimmy Kimmel monologues.
He's just combining it all together because he knows that none of it's real.
He has zero respect for the audience that he's speaking to.
It's been known forever, and that's Bertrand Russell.
He wrote back in the said, we ought to have a world government that just drops hydrogen bombs on most of the populations because the too big a population will have wars.
We have to have a controlled nuclear war and that'll fix it.
And so, I mean, they used to have all these top globalists were very honest about it in the 70s.
They used to have, like Paul Ehrlich, you can pull this up on Twitter or anywhere X. Paul Ehrlich goes on a TV show in 79, one of the big Hollywood shows.
He goes, listen, we're working with the foundations, and we're going to have every father figure be lazy and stupid and dumb, and that'll break up the family.
And then the kids that do live, we'll control them by the state, but everybody else will abort the kids because there's too many people and we'll all be dead by 1987 at current rates.
It's a Malthusian.
None of it was true.
Like Al Gore saying about 2017, all the ice caps would melt.
They're bigger than ever.
It's all lies.
They know it is.
But back then, they were very honest about, he was all over, you know, 60 minutes, you name it.
Oh, yeah, we're going to destroy the family because the family creates people and too many people's bad.
They're public, so almost everything I say is from these dirtbag scumbags.
I mean, you go watch, you go read the World Economic Forum.
Tucker talks about aliens and absolutely stuff going on.
The globalists are making aliens by mixing humans and other animals and insects and plants.
And then they put them, they chestate them and use cow uteruses to grow them.
This is going on everywhere.
So there's like a breakaway whole civilization that's separate from us that the globalists have with life extension technologies and cures to cancer and Parkinson's.
But instead of giving us all the cures, they're keeping that for themselves and they're just getting ready to wipe all us out so we don't even have access to that, whether you think of it as moral or not.
So this is one of the more uncomfortable points of the night.
Sure.
Because people in the audience are yelling Frazzle Drip, which is a reference to a fake snuff film that allegedly exists where Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedeen are killing a child and drinking its blood and all this shit.
And I mean, if you reassess his entire career in the point of view of somebody who is always angling towards some adult male figure's love, I bet that probably checks out.
I kind of feel like that's actually, you know, but what matters is you're there with all these other people, and all of them, despite them also not reading the fucking book, can all look at each other and go like, we all read the book, right?
And they'll all be like, yeah, of course we all read the book.