Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ October 25–28, 2024 claims—Trump’s election denialism, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s baseless Dominion conspiracy, and Brigham Buhler’s unchallenged "poison shots" myth—while mocking Jones’ selective logic and fringe alliances like Nick Fuentes. They critique Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally for its Nazi-era parallels and Tony Hinchcliffe’s unfunny, exploitative jokes, framing it as a symptom of deeper movement failures. Tucker Carlson’s "bar analogy" highlights Trump’s perceived entitlement, exposing the movement’s self-serving hypocrisy. [Automatically generated summary]
I think all of these cities that we've been to, and I've been to a lot now around the world, that have this idea of like, our pride in our city is tough.
And then when Trump starts rounding up the MS-13 gangs and others and deporting their criminal asses, the left's going to activate them to rise up.
Everybody knows it.
You've seen it.
And now they pre-programmed for it.
And you talk about thin, no connection to Hitler.
In the 30s, the American Nazi Party, the Bund, had a rally at Madison Square Garden.
There's famous black and white footage of it.
And so now, because Trump is going to have a rally in New York, something the Clintons have done, the Bushes have done, Obama's done at Madison Square Garden.
Well, he's at the same building, so he is Hitler.
Wow, that's really powerful information.
That's like saying, have you ever walked in a county courthouse for a court hearing on taxes or something, and you walk through the same doors that a child molester has or a murderer?
I would argue that perhaps the difference between the rallies previous that were held by the Clintons and Obamas and the Bushes were not Nazi rallies for one reason only.
They did not invite a lot of Nazis to those rallies.
And, you know, you kind of do got to give him a little bit of credit for the basis of the argument, which is that if you host a rally at Madison Square Garden, that doesn't make you a Nazi.
So if you want to make the argument that this event is reminiscent of the 1939 Madison Square Garden meeting of the American Bund, then what you would need to do...
I think this is kind of what you're attempting to do here.
You need to illustrate that this is more deeply entwined with that American Bund history.
It was Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the American Bund, at his Madison Square Garden rally in 1939, but it's essentially the same message that animates the current Trump movement and the rally that he held at the same location.
I mean, there's no way to compare the League of Nations to some sort of united nations that exist currently that would also be able to, like, mad lives its way around.
So one of these platforms is about Gentiles controlling labor unions, which I think gets a little bit murky in terms of present-day conservative politics around labor.
But if you completely ignore that one, there's still seven out of eight that are directly mirrored by Trump.
Sure.
This is the more important reason that people compare Trump's rally to the 1939 Bund rally.
It's not because they took place at the same venue.
It's because they were working toward a common cause.
Trump's people made the decision to hold this rally at Madison Square Garden, at least in part because they were aware of these very obvious optics and were playing into it somewhat.
And on an optics level, it's really easy to hand wave away the similarities the way Alex is doing here.
However, on a more meaningful level.
Trump's rally is the spiritual successor to this Bund rally.
And part of making those optics obvious is that someone trying to play defense like Alex just has to say, Yeah.
because they're at the same place.
And all of a sudden, if you don't think through the argument that you're making, Be like, oh, there's some pushback.
I'm going to abandon this line of thought because Alex has now made me feel stupid.
The Democrats have said in their policy reports and statements that they are going to not certify Trump, hold up the election in the key battleground states and blue cities they control with their election officials, put in by Soros, who get rewarded to be the governors of Arizona after they steal the elections from Carrie Lake and Trump, the American people.
They're just duplicating it everywhere.
Kamala will then sit and decide on the non-certification of Trump as the VP.
They've already announced they're planning to do that.
And you say, well, how will they politically get away with that?
During the contested election, they now say we'll go on for several weeks after November 5th.
In the 76 days of hell, you've heard me harping on.
For years, this was coming.
Now we're here.
And the political experts saw them being, oh, Alex, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Well, if you're not going to expose the enemy's plan, you're going to lose.
That's why we're tomorrow's news today.
You don't think the globalists aren't projecting out the future and planning for the future?
And you go where you want to go and you win in the present by planning and preparing the future.
But we're trained to live in the moment, aren't we?
Well, I certainly enjoy the moment.
But I live by studying the past.
The present and then projecting the future.
That's what I do.
Undoubtedly, hands down, it's just a fact, so people recognize this, we can get out of this.
The best futurist in the world.
That's really what I am.
Not the fake pop future they put out.
The real future they want to build.
And the globalists are almost in total control.
So the dystopia they say they want to build is what we're going to live in if we just sit here and give them all the power and engage in this abdication of our rights.
And so are we just going to sit here and be reactive?
When they pull all this, they're already stealing it.
With the Google manipulation, with the election meddling, with the censorship.
That's where the real still goes on.
Then with all the phantom voters and dead people and illegals that they're ordering to stay on the ballot, the out-of-control feds, and extending it out for weeks and weeks and weeks after the election, and then telling you the script that Trump supporters aren't going to accept this and they're going to get violent, so they will provide the violence to frame us.
It is not a prediction.
It is a fact.
It's like if you're standing by a river, and there's a town a mile away, and the river's flowing at six miles an hour, you can calculate what time that water is going to arrive in the town.
It's not a prediction that that water is going to flow downstream to the town.
It's a fact.
They fired the bullet out of the gun.
It's coming towards us of civil unrest.
They're going to call it a civil war.
They're going to make it race-based.
And to provide the impetus, they will need horrible events killing Hispanics, blacks, all the groups the Democrats say they want to protect from Trump.
So as has happened a bunch of times in his career, Alex is currently really worried about the possibility that the extremists and bigots on his side are about to resort to violence.
It's kind of hard to imagine that there aren't a lot of groups on the far right that feel like they have no possible outlet available to them if Trump loses, so it's very understandable where Alex's concern could be coming from.
Large-scale acts of domestic terrorism are generally unpopular with the voting public, and sometimes atrocities committed against our fellow civilians can have the effect of shaking people out of their complacency and making them realize how bad things have gotten.
Alex came of age in a militia extreme right-wing community that had been decimated by the public waking up to the threat that they had.
So he doesn't want that.
But he actually kind of does, or at least he wants his enemies to remember that if his side doesn't get their way, that domestic terrorism is right around the corner.
That implicit threat to blow up a federal building politically is one of the only reasons his side is taken seriously at all.
You see the shit that's going on at these Trump rallies and the incestations.
saying stuff that he says on a regular basis and then see the way that the media covers him.
And it's not hard to remember how a Trump supporter sent a bomb to CNN headquarters in 2018, around the time that all the folks in Alex's media sphere were trying to make money selling CNN his ISIS shirts.
You know, this implied threat is always important to keep in the background for folks like Alex.
We've talked about this dynamic a lot, where Alex knows that the possibility for violence among his community members is high, so he stresses how likely a false flag that will be blamed on them is right now.
It's a tired rhetorical strategy that's just a preemptive attempt at damage control for any violence that may happen.
But I want to touch on the analogies that he uses to explain how he can tell that false flag racist violence is coming.
Sure.
He uses a river flowing and his mom making pancakes as two comparable situations.
And I think they both don't make his point, but might sound good enough if you're not paying attention.
The issue is that what Alex is doing is being very loose about cause-effect relationships in order to make the fraudulent point that he's trying to push.
In the river example, if you add water to the river upstream, you can make a fairly educated guess, based on the laws of physics, how long it'll take to reach a certain point downstream.
That's fair enough, but it's very difficult to take a cup of water from that point downstream and make the same claim that someone must have added this water to the river at a certain point upstream.
You can calculate how long it would take if someone had done that based on physics, but that's about it.
You're trying to play a game backwards.
The pancakes example is even worse.
If you see someone gathering the ingredients for pancakes, you can assume they're making pancakes, but they might also be making something with similar ingredients, like waffles or muffins.
The gathering of the ingredients is the cause, and the presentation of pancakes is the effect.
So if you see the gathering of the ingredients, you can assume that pancakes will be presented.
It's already clear how this doesn't always hold, but if you invert things, you can kind of see what Alex is doing.
He wants you to see the effect, the presentation of pancakes, and assume that he was right about his claims that the globalists have been gathering the ingredients, and this is the cause for the presentation of these pancakes.
But in reality, tons of people in Alex's community have been talking about pancakes lately.
They really want pancakes, and think that Trump is their last opportunity to legally obtain these pancake ingredients, so if he loses, they might just have to make these pancakes themselves.
Alex knows that pancakes, or in this case, acts of domestic terrorism, likely racial in nature, it's more likely than normal circumstances.
He knows that a pancake is going to show up eventually, and he's going to have to explain it, since his show is mostly about yelling about how great pancakes are, and how sometimes the waffle of liberty has to be watered with the syrup of tyrants.
He's taking an effect and branding it with a plausible cause his audience can run with to feel less guilt about being part of a world that's based on making pancakes.
And the business model involves the creation of pancakes.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I feel like I might have gone a little off track with the metaphor.
I just love a good metaphor that ends with you being very clear that the whole metaphor part was a waste of everybody's time whenever you just explained, like, the pancake batter's tyranny.
That's great.
You could have cut out the whole long meandering part where your mom was talking.
We have to talk about the fact that the steal is on, and they don't think that's going to work, so they're just going to hold up the election and gin up civil unrest and say it's Trump's fault, which they've already said is going to happen, and we better start wargaming what we're going to do in 10 days when this goes down.
Or, that's their whole movement, that's their preparation, that's what they're angling for, that's the main attack.
Isn't watching closely enough, and flip the whole country that way.
This was a masterclass by history and humanity's number one futurist.
The way he can so effortlessly rattle off mutually exclusive scary possibilities for things that can happen and totally not come off like someone making it up as he goes along, that's a true talent.
The steal 2024 is not going well, so they delay the results of the election being announced so they can do some false flags to blame Trump supporters and then start a civil war.
I think she's coming to Austin and having Beyonce perform at her big rally.
You know, there's no reason for Kamala Harris to waste time, money, and resources coming to Texas unless they think Texas is in play somehow.
But you and I both know, and you know better than me because you're from Texas, Texas should not be a state that's in play for the Democrats.
It should not be even close in the election for the Democrats because Texas is a red state, but it's been turning blue slowly and steadily because of all the noncitizens that can vote.
And Ken Paxton, they took away Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, ability to prosecute voter fraud.
While we're watching Georgia and Pennsylvania and Arizona and Michigan, they swoop in and steal Texas, which the Democrats have been bragging they plan on doing.
So how do you brag about planning to win an election?
Isn't that called campaigning?
Anyway, let's imagine a scenario where Harrison Walls only went to states that were conceivably up for grabs.
Specifically a scenario where she says, I can't win Texas, so I'm not even going to waste my time, resources, or energy going there to campaign.
It's pretty easy to imagine that in that scenario, folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene would use that refusal to go to Texas as evidence of how much Harris hates the red states.
She doesn't care about flyover country, and she won't even show up there if she can't get something out of it like electoral votes.
We're currently living in a situation where Harris is doing what people like MTG pretend to want politicians to do, which is to not ignore parts of the country that they're unlikely to win.
They brag about Trump doing this all the time, like he's not going to win New York, but they love to talk about how he's doing a rally there anyway.
Because Harris is doing something that they should be praising, which is campaigning in Texas, the narrative has to switch a little bit.
She's not going to Texas because she's campaigning to be the president of all the states.
She's going there because there's a secret plan to steal Texas while everyone's off looking at the battleground states.
This is a good illustration of how folks in Alex-adjacent media, and apparently government, will criticize you for doing something or for not doing it.
Their complaint has no connection to reality, and they're just making these complaints because they're politically useful.
All you did last Friday was report what a constituent was saying to you and had all these headlines about, well, MTG and Alex Jones get sued for saying this company's engaged in this.
They make a claim that we made a claim that we didn't make.
They make the claim and then blame us for the claim they're making.
Like, on Alex's show, Marjorie Taylor Greene said that Dominion voting machines were switching votes from Republican to Democrat, and the basis for that claim was that a friend of hers saw it alleged in a social media post.
If this is all it takes for a sitting member of Congress to defend themselves for making irresponsible and bullshit claims, then there's nothing that anyone can't get away with.
A video compilation of Democrats attacking voting machines, talking about how votes can be stolen, votes can be flipped, and talking about all the problems with voting machines.
And this is all the stuff they used to say before 2020.
And you can play that on your show, break it up however you want, share it on your social media.
But the reality is, it's not just me that's been saying that.
It's not just you and it's not a whole bunch of voters across the country.
It's Democrats as well.
And we should not be sued for simply calling this out.
It's just like this, Alex.
It's like me saying, you know, I don't like this brand of coffee.
I personally would like to choose another brand of coffee.
So for me, I'm going to say I don't like voting on voting machines.
No one cares about you having or voicing a coffee preference in the same way that no one cares if you have or voice a preference about voting methods.
You're free to have whatever preference is about this shit that you want.
These two examples are a little different, though, in that the coffee example is purely a matter of subjective preference, whereas the voting one kind of has implications.
I like coffee X over coffee Y doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with coffee Y, but in the case of voting, this preference always seems to contain the implication that you prefer your voting method because the alternative is easier to cheat.
But that's still, like...
If you're a private person just living their lives, it probably doesn't matter that much, even if there is that slight implication in there.
Voting with machines like those made by Dominion has not been shown that they're super easy to cheat, but if you have preferences that aren't wholly based on truth, who cares?
Everybody does.
When you're a sitting member of Congress, you have a slightly higher responsibility to the public than to just engage with matters of public policy this casually.
Then, when you say something that's probably defamatory based on what your friend said they saw on Twitter, it's kind of embarrassing to pretend that you think that all you did was state a preference, like how someone might prefer coffee X to coffee Y. In reality, what you did was closer to appearing on a broadcast that Alex claims is watched by tens of millions of people and you claimed that Coffee Y was poisoning people based on something that your friend said that they saw on social media.
This is all just super irresponsible on her part and when she tries to explain why what she did is totally cool, it only reveals that she's...
Either incapable or unwilling to even understand what being responsible in her position would mean.
Like, what it would look like to have a public responsibility.
It's a foreign concept to the way that she's approaching this.
Yeah, you know, I think what would be interesting about that, and what is probably the reason behind it, right, is because she makes a very disingenuous point that is very genuine.
Which is that she is a representative of people, right?
That's what she is.
But the people themselves are never held responsible for her representation.
She is supposed to be the representative of the people, and the people themselves don't seem to care what she's representing, so it's on them.
So you never want to be in a position where you're Alex Jones saying, I don't want this to become a Joe Rogan-centric program, as you introduce Rogan's medical advisor as your guest.
Saying that out loud kind of makes it too clear that you know you're a Rogan-centric program and you're really self-conscious about it and how you're kind of ashamed that you don't have an identity for yourself.
According to the New York Post, this was a Class 1 recall, quote, meaning that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
This has been not their only recall, and in June 2023, they got a letter from the FDA compliance director for pharmaceuticals, alerting them of, quote, unsanitary conditions at their facility.
But he's cool, and he's on Rogan, so Alex is desperate to associate himself with this guy however he can.
We always ask guests to send us any clips or documents.
He sent us a ton of amazing stuff here.
And over the next two hours, we're going to go over a lot of this and play these clips.
It's perfect timing with Bill Gates getting indicted in the Netherlands for all the harm that he pushed with the poison shots that he's a big benefactor of.
The claim that Bill Gates was indicted in the Netherlands, it was going around like dumb shit social media circles, but it's not true.
Alex's show is just him skimming Twitter and riffing about it as if he's some kind of a scholar, so that's what he's doing here.
An indictment is what a state power does when they arrest you for a crime.
So to say that Bill Gates had been indicted in the Netherlands is to say that the state charged him with a crime.
In the real world, what happened is that seven people in the Netherlands filed a civil suit against Gates and a group of other people who they claim misled them about COVID vaccines.
Gates' lawyer wanted to have this case thrown out of court because he doesn't live in the Netherlands, so the court shouldn't have any jurisdiction to hear this case.
That was the point, the argument he was trying to make.
The court ruled that they do have jurisdiction because if you're a criminal conspirator who commits a crime against the people of the Netherlands, then the Dutch...
I mean, whatever the subject, we're basically, I totally agree with you, but you say it in ways even better than I do, plus you've been a witness to it.
Yeah, so one of the examples I can give so often, so let's just get into why we believe in proactive predictive medicine.
Everyone can agree that if we could prevent cancer, why would we?
Why would we want to focus on treatments for cancer, right?
If we can prevent diabetes, we don't have to write drugs to treat diabetes.
And these things are possible, but it requires getting proactive and predictive, and the system's not built to do that.
On average, a patient gets six minutes with a provider in this country.
That's for that...
Doctor to be able to troubleshoot family history, go over all the ailments that are bothering you, all the prescription medications you're on, which now the average American's on four or more prescription drugs.
It's virtually impossible to be able to cover that much ground in six minutes.
I mean, it is impossible.
Then if you look and you look through the layers of this...
Or even more directly, Alex absolutely hates the HPV vaccine.
He attacks it constantly, but it's effective at protecting you from HPV, which can cause cervical, anal, penile, vulva, or vaginal cancers.
Getting the HPV vaccine is a part of responsible cancer prevention, but Alex doesn't support that and actually demonizes the shit out of it.
Diabetes prevention is great, but the reality is that some people are going to get diabetes, and some people are going to get cancer.
Focusing on prevention is good, but if you're doing it to the exclusion of paying any attention to treatments, you're doing more harm than you think that you're doing.
You're missing the point.
Encouraging people to have a good diet, to exercise, to wear sunscreen, to check for lumps, these are all good things, but it's a little bit trite.
This guy makes another fair point about doctors not having enough time with their patients, but again, what's the point?
If Alex's political ideology is to be followed, then if you can't afford it, you shouldn't even get six minutes with a doctor.
His agenda is not about providing better care and more universal access to services.
Some of the stuff he's saying would make sense in another context, like this doctor, if he was talking to somebody else, but he's talking to Alex Jones, whose approach to health care is really just hyping up whatever supplement he accidentally ordered too much of this week, like CMOS.
Yeah, so one of the things we talked about in front of the Senate is in the United States in the 80s, there were 700 ingredients approved in our food by the FDA.
There are now 10,000.
A lot of those ingredients are banned in Europe and Canada.
So Kellogg's makes one brand, Fruit Loops, for instance.
They make one cereal for the American people and in the same factory make a different concoction for other nations.
So they have the ability to sell us less harmful, less addictive, less processed foods, but they choose not to.
And they instead push these highly addictive, highly processed foods that have an array of different...
Food dyes and chemicals in them that are banned in other countries.
And the same FDA runs around trying to stop people getting vitamins.
So looking at that and where that's all going, with Robert F. Kennedy exposing it, Rogan exposing it, you exposing it, this is really getting out there.
Just going back in the food for a moment.
You mentioned Roundup, and they knew what glyphosate did day one and grows cancers and hurts fertility and does all these things.
The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that allows atrazine that 100% bends genders in all major species.
And again, they knew when they rolled it out that was going on, and then we see what's happening here.
Yeah, this is a man pretending to hold on to whatever ability he has to take himself seriously, being confronted by Alex demanding he agree with something insane as a way to be a part of the in-group.
Also, Froot Loops were made available in the UK in 2012, and there was a bit of an issue about their ingredients, mostly dealing with the colors.
The artificial colors weren't allowed in the UK, so they only had three colors, which were achieved by natural extracts.
The UK doesn't ban these artificial food dyes, but the evil globalist EU requires the products containing yellow 6, yellow 5, or red 40 contain a warning that it could have, quote, an adverse effect on the children's activity and ability to concentrate.
There wasn't a law that requires food to not have these ingredients, but it was a general cultural vibe.
Market forces have shown that the European customer isn't that interested in their food being crazy colored and all that shit.
So having that warning label on a product is enough to retain.
So I guess the answer...
Is that the government needs to more closely regulate food color additives like they do in the EU?
Listen, there are no laws regarding PACs, so let's all just pretend that any law that anybody's ever written about PACs or super PACs is just not real.
God made us with free will and knows the outcome, but gives us free will.
We will repulse this attack.
There'll be a big awakening, and then the AI and the globalism and the decadence will be so powerful that within decades, this renaissance gets defeated, and then the big one comes in, and then that's a very short time, the Antichrist is in control.
That's how I see it, how I feel it, what my spirit tells me.
But God's given us free will.
We can repulse that next attack.
And push it off.
See, it's all a game, isn't it?
But for your soul, it's a third-dimensional molecular simulation.
Not a false simulation, not a digital thing in a computer.
It's a total universe, planet, real people, whole 90 yards, your ancestors, all of it, in a real war game.
So it's a real war, but at this level, to God, it's a war game.
We're not going to get the big stuff to you, you know, at least past this level.
By the way, I've been shown a little thing or two, and if you think we're going to be up in heaven floating around on clouds, you can see that, and if you want to punch out, you can always go to that.
You make it past level one, that's level one.
But nobody, almost nobody wants to punch out once you get past level one.
Then it gets even more intense what you face.
And the systems you're going to be dealing with.
So it just gets cooler and more wild, ladies and gentlemen.
And so it's really cool.
God made it.
It's beyond cool.
All right, let me go ahead and shift gears back into what I was talking about here.
I think that there's a big difference between saying, I have faith in something that brings a lot of shit to my life, gives me a sense of meaning, maybe a community.
There's a difference between that and...
I've been to heaven and the harps are just like where people hang out in between missions.
I think that there is a big difference.
One is fully experiential.
Sure.
I have been to this heaven and shown mystical secrets of the universe.
No, I'm just saying every God camp and church I've ever been to has had at least one person say something along the lines of, I've been to heaven, and everybody there goes, yes, you have, you're great.
So apparently Alex hasn't been paying much attention because Nick hasn't been supporting Trump for a while.
Back in July, he said, quote, I don't even really care.
I'm not energetic.
I'm not enthusiastic.
I'm not leaving my house to vote.
Vote for what?
For JD Vance and Usha?
I'm not voting for this.
I'm not lending my credibility to this.
You see, he doesn't like JD Vance for a number of reasons, but one of them is that, this is something he brings to the forefront quite a bit, he's married to a non-white woman and has non-white children.
Previously, Nick has said, quote, who is this guy really?
Do we expect the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?
So that's a big problem for Nick.
Then in August, he declared a griper war against Trump because he was afraid that the campaign was heading in the wrong direction.
Previously, they'd done this against Charlie Kirk and created some real problems for him at live events, gaining a lot of traction in the process.
This second war did not go great, and no one really cared what Nick was up to.
And then in September, Nick turned on Trump again after Trump made a public admission that he lost the 2020 election.
Trump later called that a moment of sarcasm, but Nick was pretty understandably pissed off that Trump was breaking the kayfabe that their whole movement is based on.
Nick really hates Israel, so Trump's overwhelming support of the country and Netanyahu were always going to be an issue.
Beyond that, he's probably just becoming aware that his slot in the Trump world vision of power is pretty similar to what they offer Alex.
We'll pat you on the head because we like how extreme your messaging gets and you give us some cover, but you'll always be at the little kids table when the adults are talking.
That's an OK arrangement for someone like Alex, but Nick has his sights a little higher than that.
And I suspect he can tell that he has much more to gain by being outside of this thing than inside.
If you're not, if you're him and you're looking at the people around you and you're not going like, well, in a couple of years, either they've won and I'm useless, or this whole thing falls apart and I have my chance.
In fact, I got an Eddie Bravo clip from dinner last night.
He was here for Joe's show.
Went out to dinner.
Called me.
And at the end of dinner, I said, you've got to say this on camera.
And he's like, no, no, no, no.
And he was saying something everybody already knows, but he was talking about Joe behind the scenes.
And now, Joe knew all this stuff decades ago, as I've told you, but was trying to, like, play it safe.
And when they came after him publicly and behind the scenes the last few years, he's like fire-breathing now behind the scenes, totally awake, totally pissed, and doing it his way, unpacking him on air.
Oh, I'm nonpartisan while he just devastates them.
Like, Alex has, he's trying to play a video of something he coaxed Eddie Bravo into saying after dinner the night before about gossip about Rogan and how he means what he says.
He's got to put hardcore American patriots in the Justice Department immediately.
And so those are the big things we're looking for.
We're not putting the cart before the horse starting to cover this.
This is important now.
And Nick's right to be raising it.
I disagree with his postulation that the sellout's already happened.
And, you know, things like that.
And they're like, oh, well, JD Vance is backed by Peter Thiel.
And, well, you know, there's a bunch of...
Yeah, who was...
It was for Trump the first time and was not with the main deep state.
I mean, you can say, you know, Teal's involved in the surveillance grid, selling equipment, and you can say he's in all this, but he's certainly not part of the main group.
The Washington Post just did a breakdown of the top 50 megadonors of the 2024 cycle and found that of the $2.5 billion that they represented donations, $1.6 billion went to Republican-leaning candidates and groups.
All of the top seven individuals, everyone who has donated more than $50 million, gave to predominantly Republicans.
It would be silly to say that all big money donors are behind Trump, and I'm not making that claim at all, but the point is that it's a complete fraud for Alex to be pretending that all the big money donors are behind Harris.
He's saying this because he knows that the alternative is very unpalatable to the audience, and that the alternative is reality.
As of Friday, it was 5,500 TV newscasts nationally and newspaper articles saying Trump is Hitler going to Madison Square Garden because the Nazis were there 85 years ago.
That completely blew up in their face.
There's a giant joke everywhere.
They're now saying, well, Trump's dad was part German, so he's bad.
So I don't think anyone's saying that Trump's dad's a Nazi because he's part German.
There's some concerns about him being a noted fan of eugenics, having a history of racist rental practices in the buildings he owned, and being one of seven people arrested at a 1927 Klan rally that turned into a brawl in New York.
It just feels like Alex isn't taking any of this stuff seriously.
His career was created in opposition to those people on TV who would just spin whatever story comes across their desk that day.
And perhaps the ultimate indictment of him and his career is that he's just turned into a more embarrassing version of the same thing.
And he can look at someone like Nick Fuentes, who's young and kind of free and able to make those kinds of moves, and I think he's kind of mad that he can't.
It's a small comfort, but I do think he probably is miserable.
So I was really excited when this all happened because I knew that it meant that we got to talk about it and that you were going to be pretty mad and I was going to be able to make you mad.
I think he's not funny, that roast comedy is a form of humor that's cringe-inducingly bad, except in very rare cases, and that if it weren't for Joe Rogan, no one would have any idea who Tony is.
Further, I think his show Kill Tony is an exercise in exploitation that's structured around bullying that offers people gatekeeping and humiliation disguised as opportunity.
I think the whole thing is shit.
The show has hurt way more people than it's helped, and I've watched a fair amount of it, and I can't tell you a specific.
All that being said...
As a performer, as a former stand-up, I felt for Tony at Madison Square Garden.
All of us who have done stand-up, we know what a bomb feels like, but very few people in the world know what it's like to bomb in front of that audience in Madison Square Garden during a political rally for a former president who seems very much like he wants to be a dictator.
Whatever panic you're feeling when you get off stage at the Laugh Factory or Cigars and Stripes, that's got nothing on what must have been...
You can be edgy and fuck around with race taboos if you want, but it kind of sucks when you do it for no reason.
The whole structure of the garbage island thing is kind of like a playground level insult, and I'm not certain what type of pride you get as a comic out of making that joke.
That's like...
Hey, they found the Loch Ness Monster at your house and it's your mom.
I guess if the whole practice of comedy is about accruing negative attention, you can turn into fame while cloistering yourself in a bubble maintained by Joe Rogan's celebrity where you get to do a show where you insult open micers.
If that's all comedy is, then I guess maybe this is exactly what you would want to do.
But I don't know what it does in terms of any kind of art form.
Anyway, this joke in particular has backfired spectacularly.
It seems like the Trump campaign forgot that there is a large Puerto Rican population in some important states and that there are a number of really famous people who are proud of their roots, like Bad Bunny, who has a large audience.
I suspect that the Trump folks thought that they could ride things out by being like, the left is too uptight, they can't take a joke.
But instead, they were distancing themselves from Tony pretty quick and releasing statements throwing him under the bus.
Trump was asked in an interview and he said, quote, I don't know him.
The audience seemed to love responding to him I mean, hey, listen, I get everybody's points of view, but if you are a person who was going to vote one way and then heard that and have decided, no, I will vote the other way, then you are a bad person.
So the opening premise here is that free speech is under attack, and the payoff of that is supposed to be that he gets a new list of words that he can't use every week.
But he's not delivering that like a punchline.
That feels like just more set up.
Like the real punchline was supposed to be something like, this week I found out that I'm not allowed to say restricted or vocabulary anymore.
But there's no joke, and there's no laugh for the idea that he gets a list of words he can't say on his self-produced podcast where he insults open mic comics.
This isn't treated like a joke, because the audience sincerely believes that people like him do get these lists of words that they can't say, so it just sounds like someone saying a thing to them that is true.
I think it's supposed to be a heightening of the premise that free speech is under attack, but he got so little reaction that he bailed on what was almost certainly supposed to come after that, namely, you know, saying stuff that he's not allowed to say.
You don't introduce this idea of a list of things you can't say without saying them?
Can you imagine George Carlin getting up there and being like, there's seven things you can't say on TV?
So instead of getting into the words that he's been told you can't say, Tony changes thoughts entirely and talks about how you can't Google things anymore.
Unfortunately, people like the only reason he's relevant, Joe Rogan, are essential pieces of the media system that's elevated shitty information to the point where it's gotten as hard as it is to assess things online.
It's unfortunate because this is a situation where a comedian could tell truth to power and make a joke about how people like Rogan have a responsibility to handle information better so bullshit isn't so easily cultivated.
He doesn't want to piss off Rogan, though, so this joke kind of falls apart at the seams.
It's now about how his mom is a boomer and can't Google things anymore, presumably because of the list of words he's not allowed to say because free speech is under attack.
The connective tissue here is tough.
This naturally raises a question, which is...
Was his mom ever good at Googling?
Him calling her a boomer is supposed to make me think that she's not good with technology, so maybe this isn't an issue with Google or free speech.
Maybe it's just him complaining about his mom.
So Tony's mom can't Google things, and the punchline of this is that she's in Ohio and she's eating her pets.
I know that he's just trying to get a pop from the crowd by reminding them of the racist panic they used to attack Haitians, but what's the actual thought behind putting this on paper?
Is the idea supposed to be that Tony's mom Googled the story about the Haitian immigrants, but somehow came away with the impression that what she should be doing is eating her pets?
I will say that one thing that got me, one thing got me, I read an article that was like, that had in the second paragraph, superstar comedian Tony Hinchel.
So he makes an interesting point, because Elon Musk is another speaker at this rally, and Diddy pretty famously helped Musk buy Twitter.
Seems like an elephant in the room that maybe a truth-teller type of comedian might point out, but nah, not the hinge.
But as soon as he gets things back into a place where he feels like he's a performer again with his Diddy joke, Tony can't resist the urge to have a, oh, that's what you want, kind of condescending moment towards the audience.
And you're saying they're a bad audience, and I'm not disagreeing with you.
And so he goes and does some crowd work, which consists of him saying that a black guy carves watermelons for Halloween, and that there's some people who look like Commissioner Gordon.
I remember this was a conversation that some people had back in the days of the Iraq War, was this idea that Ann Coulter was a performance artist.
And it can't possibly be that she believes this shit.
She's just a horrible person as a character.
This is a parody of the bloodthirsty, horrible person.
And I think a lot of people probably...
I don't know how many people took that seriously, but there's people who could probably cope with seeing this as like, oh, man, maybe there's a chance she doesn't mean this and this is some kind of...
There's a strong resistance to there's a like when you need it there is not enough resistance to considering other people uh Monsters who are psychopaths with nothing really redeemable inside of them, right?
But when you should have the belief that there are people, people often find themselves being like, no, deep down, I'm sure there's, you know?
Like, for some reason, people are like, oh, yeah, those guys are monsters.
But then whenever they're faced with monsters, they're like, no, deep down on the inside, there's something more.
And it's so wild to me that we're backwards on that.
Where it's like he's saying this thing, this, we should settle the conflict in the Middle East with rock, paper, scissors, because I have a stereotype about the Palestinian people and Jewish people that I want to use.
So I think that as you're watching it, and you're engaging with it as a performer, as someone who's done stand-up, who understands a little bit of being on stage and all that stuff, you do ask yourself a bit about that possibility, that is there a second conversation that's happening behind this?
So that part about Biden getting COVID is supposed to be a joke, and though I don't think it's funny or well-constructed, I get that it's supposed to be humor.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But that line about God voting when Trump wasn't killed in Butler, is that comedy?
Is it a bold, truth-teller-calling-it-like-it-is kind of position to say that the divine force behind the creation of the universe has decided that the guy you like should be president?
Divine right?
This is not telling truth to power.
This is...
Bullshit.
And what I think, it hit me in that moment, when he's closing up the set, getting towards the end, and he says this, God voted three weeks ago bullshit.
It is a, like, what was the point of having Dennis Miller in that Monday Night Football fucking broadcast room if it wasn't to teach all of us not to become Dennis Miller?
I mean, and even listening to the, like, you're so right, because the rhythm and the lilt of it, too, is just this condescending, prickish, I'm not going to take responsibility for any of the things that I'm absolutely saying with full conviction.
And I am pretending that I'm some kind of a dissenting renegade voice when all I'm doing is kissing up and reinforcing the status quo in the strictest and most pathetic ways possible.
So that's actually a really good analogy because people are almost never thrown out of bars unless they did something to deserve it.
The bar wants people there because they make money off you overpaying for drinks, so it's very much against their interest to throw someone out who's not a problem.
I've been thrown out of bars, and every single time, I deserved it.
I was never fighting or anything, but one time I did, like, I was wasted, and I tried to hug a friend of mine, and he moved, and I accidentally knocked over a table.
I've been a door guy at a bar, and it was not easy to get me to kick you out.
There were some hard lines, like harassing people or fighting, but the bar that I worked at, at least, if the bouncer said you were out, you were not getting back in, and you had it coming.
This is also a great analogy because the audience is like the drunk asshole's friends who are still at the bar.
Trump's been kicked out because of his behavior, and the friends are all too drunk and caught up in their friend's cult of personality to realize that he deserved to be kicked out of the bar.
Maybe the next morning they'll wake up with a hangover and it'll hit them that their friend was a dick, or maybe they'll keep defending him and grow resentful of that bar that was just following the rules and protecting other customers.
But that's a question for the next morning.
As it stands now, everyone's drunk except the bouncer, and they are in on it.
They love it.
And this is a fun fantasy where you just force your way back in and you humiliate the bouncer, but in the real world, you're gonna get your ass kicked.
A lot of bouncers I've known, maybe not everybody, but a lot of them I know are just pretty nice people who are waiting for someone to fuck with them so they could kick their ass.
That's a character type for a reason.
But all this kind of works as a metaphor.
Trump has violated the rules of the country and has been thrown out of the bar by polite society.
He wants to force his way back in and take over the bar, and his friends slash supporters, they're all wasted, and they're enabling him in his effort.
Tucker is stupid and an asshole, but he's stumbled onto something decent here in terms of a metaphor.
Yeah, it's like if he got kicked out of the bar, and all of his friends went with him, and then the next morning they bought the bar and turned it into a place where you could behave like Trump did all the time.
And then it turns out that nobody wants to live in that bar.
Also, I am planning, I'll be announcing it tomorrow, starting later in the week, and then right through next week on election night, we're going to be doing special live nighttime shows.
Here, out of the Infowars studios that can be shut down in just 15 days, and out of the new studios at the Alex Jones Network, and that is at AJNLive on X. Follow us there at AJNLive on X or AlexJones.network for the website with a lot of new stuff being added to that.
And I think that it's, I mean, obviously not a surprise, but Alex is trying to use the excitement around the election or whatever subsidiary attention he can get to drive people to the new...
Honestly, you know, sometimes you think about how do we fix stuff and it's like, well, okay, let's start just pulling at the thread of where one problem began.
And then you're like, ah, shit, we should never have left the goddamn trees.