Knowledge Fight #987 (Dec 4, 2024) dissects Alex Jones’ erratic show, where he ignores callers like "Andy in Kansas," repurposes AI-generated hate content (e.g., a transphobic Harry Potter parody), and peddles debunked COVID vaccine claims tied to Peter McCullough’s discredited front. His "total war" against globalists—framed as a never-ending struggle despite dismissing Marxist conflict theory—reveals a pattern of fear-mongering over substance, prioritizing traffic and profit over accountability, even as real-world violence (like the UHC CEO’s killing) goes unaddressed. [Automatically generated summary]
And I said they'll also try to pull the rug out from the economy, which they're doing, and I've got that today.
But I also said the pre-programming is not clear.
It's 100% crystal.
So it's not my opinion that they are everywhere and they're intensifying it out of the blue with no evidence saying white supremacist armies are going to blow up the power grid working with Trump and the Russians.
And the FBI leads mentally ill people and then busts them in the process to create the illusion that's real.
Literally synthetic.
Completely manufactured.
And they're gonna kill migrants en masse once Tom Homan goes out and starts arresting the illegal alien smugglers and the rest of them.
And I told you you'd see the mayors and people say we're gonna physically resist them and they're gonna try to get civil unrest going.
So, if you're a regular listener, you're like, we already know this.
We've heard this a hundred times.
Well, we're not just here to know interesting information.
We're here as Paul Revere's.
That means you, the resistance, the populace, the American people, and others around the world.
Everybody's affected by this.
As goes America, so goes the world.
That they are 100%.
Planning mass attacks, mass shootings, bombings of illegal aliens as soon as Trump gets in.
They are 100% going to hit the power grid and blame Trump supporters.
They're already doing it.
They are 100% going to blow up a black, big black church or a black college.
And then they're going to have unrest burning down half the country.
And then when Trump tries to stop it, that's when they're going to kill him.
And then they're going to just trigger an ongoing civil war as the smokescreen for the political persecution and the shift of America to total totalitarianism.
So we talk about this a bit, but the dynamic here is that Alex knows that people on his side of the fence are not going to be satisfied with whatever Tom Homan does in terms of deportations, and there's a pretty decent chance they'll feel entitled to take matters into their own hands a little bit.
Vigilantism makes sense when you're fighting against human traffickers trying to invade the country, and these people would have good reason to believe that Trump would pardon them for any crimes they might commit in the process of protecting the United States.
That's all fine, and Alex's entire goal here is just to protect his business from the possible association he could end up having with someone who kills a bunch of Hispanic people.
What I'm confused about, though, is how this doesn't connect with the shooting of Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare CEO.
At about 6.45 the morning of this episode, a guy who was dressed in what Alex would describe as an Antifa uniform shot and killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare and then just disappeared.
The shooter had written a message on the bullet casings that made it very clear that this was a targeted killing inspired by UHC's practice of avoiding paying out claims for insurance.
In the aftermath of the shooting, which was caught on surveillance video, people on social media from all sides of the political spectrum clowned on the CEO who had just been killed.
I'm sure that reaction wasn't universal, but it was far more broad than I've seen in the past.
There was very little concern for this crime having been committed because on some visceral level, a ton of people felt like this was basically a justified act.
This insurance company made a practice of trying as hard as they could to not pay for people's treatments in the pursuit of maximizing profits.
In effect, they valued money over the preservation of human life, which has real-life consequences.
Everyone knows the experience of being denied by their insurance company or has a loved one who has, and a lot of folks aren't too distantly connected to people who may have died or had their lives ruined by debt because of the decisions made by disconnected, profit-driven CEOs.
And thus, a lot of otherwise empathetic and decent people were entirely willing to shrug when one of these CEOs was killed on the street.
It wasn't that they condoned murder.
It was that they couldn't be bothered to care.
I have a pretty standard policy of not celebrating death, even with bad people.
I think it's bad for you as a practice, and it grows out of a place that isn't super productive.
But I also want to stress that I'm not going to judge people for engaging in it.
There's a catharsis you get, and mocking something like this is meant to be an act of defiance against a culture that you might feel is asking you to revere this CEO.
I don't want to go too far into the weeds with this, but it's important context that this was all over social media in the hours before Alex got on air this day.
If he's trying to spin some yarn about manufactured events meant to kick off social unrest, he's just had a meatball thrown right over home plate to him.
This could hardly be more primed for him to call it a PSYOP.
I mean, think about it.
There's a Robin Hood-type mystery assassin killing a healthcare CEO, an act that many people experienced as a who-cares level event.
The public support for the killer is surprisingly high, in a way that Alex should think is going to cause him to become a symbol like the Joker.
This is exactly the sort of thing that he should think the globalists would do in order to foment civil war.
And yet he's not bringing this up when he's talking about civil unrest.
It's all these fantasies about race war and all this stuff.
So there's a reason that Alex is engaging with this in this way and not getting into this.
It's an uncomfortable area of his ideology that he probably knows he can't square.
His fake appeal to populism demands that he support the shooter, but his true beliefs demand that he support the CEO.
If he supports the shooter, or even just doesn't freak out about the killing, he loses a lot of credibility on the subject of law and order, and how much he's so concerned about migrant crime and all this.
This was a CEO being murdered on the street.
He's lost his mind when non-white people have done far less.
The Pentagon, two days after Trump won the election, put out publicly that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the other military leadership...
The civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon were meeting on how to stop Trump giving illegal orders and martial law.
See, they're going to provide the crises, and then when Trump gives the orders, then they have the military coup.
And you've seen the movie Civil War, where the military comes and the Secret Service doesn't desert the president, well, the military just kills them too.
Yeah, it seems to be we're in a state of that constantly happening.
Yeah.
I don't know, but in terms of political intrigue, I think that this is a little bit better scripted for Alex than Obama is going to turn the U.S. into a caliphate and all of the senators will become dukes.
Oh, I'm sorry, we're just making a phone call, but I'm out in the woods, I'm on a retreat, so we'll try and kill him when I make a phone call when I get back next week, you know?
You guys are planning a coup, and when Trump responds to your blue state uprising coup and civil war and secession, which John Podesta's called for, is an official plan.
You're going to call the response to your illegal operation a coup.
You guys are planning an uprising like the mayor of Denver.
So this was at the end of a very long rant where Alex was arguing that the media is talking about the danger of Trump using the military as a domestic police force because they had a script that the globalists had given them, which was meant to create false uproats.
memorizing that Trump would need to use the military to suppress, thereby trapping him into using the military as a domestic police force.
Ultimately, it seems like Alex's thinking is that it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will be using the military as a domestic police force.
He's just deeply invested in justifying it.
It's like he's totally fine with everything he's supposed to be against, so long as it's being done in response to something he can say is fake.
I was thinking about what he's doing and what the end goal of it could be, and I can only really come up with one thing that he might be working toward.
The whole conception he has is that the globalists are going to false flag kill a bunch of immigrants or pro-immigration protesters, which is going to be the pretense that Trump will be pressured into using to bring the military out domestically.
So what does Alex want?
In his scenario, one way or another, there's going to be this horrific event, whether it's a false flag or not.
So his purposes aren't really served by encouraging more people to carry out attacks.
But his goal also can't be to stop this attack, because that's not even something he has the power to do.
He thinks that the globalist team is the one planning that, so even if 100% of Alex's audience doesn't get violent, it's still gonna happen.
He can't be preaching restraint because that has no bearing on whether or not this happens.
What Alex is trying to achieve is making the average person not care about atrocities that are carried out against marginalized groups.
The aim is to override the natural human instinct to care when you see people being hurt.
If the problem is that Trump will overreact when the globalists'false flag kill a bunch,
The goal is more accurately to shift the direction of blame that could be given in the event of such a tragedy happening to places that are And that is the game that he's playing here with all of
this.
He doesn't give a shit about the notion of Trump using the military as a police force.
He doesn't give a shit about the notion of...
You know, potential white supremacist Nordic cults killing migrants?
But at the same time, it's strange because, you know, it's like, you know, not that long ago we had the Muslim ban and the Supreme Court upheld most of that.
So Trump, if he wants to do the, you know, no immigrants thing, I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court hasn't become more interested in the Constitution since that time period.
So it feels like he's got a playbook that doesn't actually apply to the circumstances.
So, Musk is introduced as Dumbledore there, and then the video becomes his picture on the front page of a newspaper with the headline, questioning if he's evil.
Then it zooms in on an article with the headline, quote, is your owl gay?
Which reads, quote, potentially, it's complicated.
Here are ten surefire ways to create a safe environment for you and your gay owl.
This was written by someone with a really subtle pen name of Lezzy Lessington.
Here, there's another headline titled, quote, Why Having a Family Isn't Okay.
The body of that article says, quote, In a world where we can barely keep our Wi-Fi connection stable, it's shocking that some people still think having a family is a good idea.
I mean, in the grand scheme of things, is there anything more outdated, inconvenient, and downright unproductive than the concept of a family?
That was written by reporter Randy McChucklefuck.
And the main article, that is about whether or not Elon Muskledore is evil, was written by someone with the byline, quote, a concerned fat chick.
So it's interesting, not because this really means anything, but because this is what passes for good satire in folks who are in Alex's audience.
They really feel like this is lampooning the news, because they think that outlets like the New York Times are just reporting on how the family is bad and how your owl might be gay.
This feels real to them, so these jokes don't seem sad and insane.
But even beyond that, I could see this video as being a satire itself attacking the Trump world.
The level of sycophantic adoration they have for people like Trump and Musk is a parody of itself.
And this video is made to revel in that adoration.
It's deeply pathetic.
And I would say the same thing about an identical video that was made about AOC or Harris.
It reveals an infantile way of thinking about the world and makes me very sad.
So RFK is Snape, and then that next voice that you hear is Liz Churchill, who's just a deranged Twitter user and not really relevant outside of that space at all.
And then that last exchange is Trump and Alexander Soros, who I guess is the Slytherin kid?
So this has gotten super meta because now J.K. Rowling is in a parody of her own work as the transphobia professor at Hogwarts, which if you missed it is called Tism Heart because they like to play around with autism.
This is childish nonsense, and the fact that Alex takes the time to play this on his show tells you all you need to know about how serious he is.
Essentially, this is supposed to be bait.
The best way that these shitheads can get traffic and attention is by fighting with people online.
The easiest way to do that is to say and do provocative shit that you know is going to incite a reaction, like calling the school Tism Heart and throwing in that chunk with Rowling and the transphobic.
This is meant to make people mad as a marketing strategy, which is a real bummer, but it also, in the process, reveals some pretty...
So in the video, there's a chalkboard with a stick figure with the name Soros above it, and then it cuts to Alex as Beast with his shirt off pointing to it saying, that's a globalist.
So this is the redheaded libertarian again, whose name is apparently Josie Glabach.
I don't think that she's a constitutional scholar, though.
That educational background seems absent from her bio wherever it's been posted, although when she wrote one article that was defending Robert Kraft, she said, "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm On The Federalist.
She was credited as a, quote, neuromuscular therapist.
I'm going to guess that means that she did massage therapy, which is fine, but it's quite a leap from whatever her actual credentials are to constitutional scholar.
I'm just getting warmed up, Tonya J. So, Joshua is a guy named Joshua Lysick, who's a prominent ghostwriter.
He writes books that other right-wing dipshits like Jack Posobiec, or Poso, put their name on.
It's a perfect arrangement because no one's buying a book by random guy Josh, and someone like Posobiec is too famous and busy to write a fucking book, so they come together and they make magic.
Also, I have no idea who the two are supposed to be in terms of the X-Men.
If Josh was a future senator, then he should be Beast, since Beast was the politician of the crew, but they already wasted that on Alex...
So when Elon says that the enemy is these NPCs, the video shows a bunch of faceless people marching, and then it cuts to two leprechauns holding hands.
I like that.
And the Twitter handles of the Krasenstein brothers over their heads.
Well, it's meant to insult them a little bit, but it's a fun game because the Krasensteins will only respond in ways that are productive and feed into the right-wing shitheads at the X-Men school's revenue streams.
It does feel like if you are going to describe something, you know, like if you want...
If your job description is just your job result, as opposed to what might be on your resume or on the Help Wanted ad, Alex's job is killing time, and he's amazing at it.
Tucker's the most important person in the world, and he's literally stopping World War III, and you don't want to be an active part of it when you're invited?
This is the crossroads of human destiny right now.
Right now.
I love getting home as early as I can with my seven-year-old daughter and playing board games with her and building a fire outside and putting up Christmas lights.
And I do spend a couple hours with her every day.
And I saw my other children, they're adult, moved out now yesterday, spent some time with them.
I spent three hours with my children yesterday.
One with my older children, two with my sweet little daughter.
But I have to not be with them because I've got to protect them.
Just like if I was a soldier away for a year in a war, you think those soldiers want to leave?
Now, I know I see this all the time because I care about what you say, so I read when I'm on a jag, thousands of your comments on X every day on InfoWars.
But usually...
It's not exaggerated.
I probably read 500 comments today because I really care about what you're saying.
It helps me think.
And I see it everywhere.
I see it everywhere.
You know, his show is important and I know he knows what he's talking about, but God, it's depressing.
But the only way to get them off our backs and our children's backs is to face it and to get in there with the flies and the crap and to shovel it out.
And then so they're starting World War III and Civil War.
So, yeah, it's great we stood up and are fighting them.
Now they're throwing everything else they got back at us.
That's what a war is like, see?
That's what a struggle is.
Somebody comes at you with a dagger trying to stab you to death, and you get out of the way and then kick them in the back, and then they roll over on the ground, maybe skin their face.
I find it interesting the way he was describing this fight against the globalists as a struggle, where he's winning and then they fight back and it goes back and forth.
Because I thought that one of his main problems with Marxist analysis was the way that they conceived of society as a constant struggle.
Many times I've heard him complain about that, and it's something that comes up in a lot of the JBS material that he was raised on.
The commies from that conflict constantly because their ideology is based on an ongoing struggle.
But how's that any different than what Alex is describing his fight as the globalist as being?
Well, I mean, you figure, alright, say they get what they want, and all struggle ceases, type one civilization, but we're still in the battle between good and evil, so even if you have an entire united planet, by nature God has to then create a new enemy for you to fight.
Otherwise, there is no longer any good versus evil conflict, right?
Did Top Globalist say that, or did you say that six, eight months ago, or whatever, when you were trying to pretend Denver was going to have an outbreak of Ebola?
Given, as you heard from the introduction, that I have been around for a while and have had the opportunity and the privilege and the pleasure of serving in five administrations, I thought I would bring that perspective to the topic today, is the issue of pandemic preparedness.
And if there's one message...
That I want to leave with you today based on my experience, and you'll see that in a moment, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease,
and we have certainly a large burden of that, but also there will be a surprise outbreak, and I hope by the end of my relatively short presentation you will understand why history The history of the last 32 years that I've been the director of NIAID will tell the next administration that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with.
Like, Alex has to expect that his listeners don't get any of the context or understand at all that he's saying every single presidency has faced challenges.
Yours is not going to be unique in that there isn't any kind of challenge.
Yeah, also, man, bummer of a thing to play about the guy.
Do you know what I mean?
He's his own predecessor.
If you're like, hey, everybody's going to face a challenge based on their predecessor, it was him, and he's publicly said he's going to do a worse job.
Breaking new study urges immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA injections over alarming levels of DNA in the Journal of Science and Public Health Policy and Law with a whole list of top scientists.
It links to an article that's not published in some academic journal, but on a blog for a journal-sounding name, Science, Public Health Policy and Law.
The article that they posted involves three researchers who claim that their analysis found residual DNA and mRNA shots.
The lead researcher wrote a book about how keto diets fight cancer, so take this however you will.
They published their own journal, but they seem to publish a lot of stuff by Peter McCullough, head of the McCullough Foundation, which makes sense because he's the clinical section editor on their editorial board.
Other members of their board include Anti-Vex Ding Dong Pierre Corey and the CEO of RFK's Anti-Vex outlet Children's Health Defense Mary Holland.
This is an Anti-Vex front dressed up to look like a scholarly journal, so it's difficult to take anything they publish too seriously, but Alex isn't even covering the journal's article itself.
Yeah, those things tend to have, like, an unfair advantage on account of, like, if you just sound good enough, you can usually scam some billionaire out of some amount of money because it's not real for them.
And it just, you know, they support the thing.
So you got a nice little cushy sinecure kind of job where you just lie.
This is why Alex kills time forever before getting into stories.
Because when he finally does, he trips over words he doesn't know and he has to riff explanations for all this stuff on the fly.
He has zero idea what any of this is about, but he's built it up to be super important, so you would expect that he would have read any of this in advance.
But he hasn't, and it's super clear once he finally gets around to looking at the prop paper on his desk.
He has no idea what these words mean, he has no idea who Philip...
Buck Holtz is, and he has no idea what he's reading.
This isn't a study that he's reading, that he's referencing.
It's a PowerPoint presentation that Buck Holtz delivered to the South Carolina State House.
It's full of grammatical errors, like lowercase letters starting sentences, and the first sentence of his conclusion is, quote, we should check a bunch of vaccinated people to see if plasmid DNA is integrated into their genomic DNA.
Essentially, his conclusion is, let's go fishing, and he uses the very scientific term of a bunch of people.
The last line of his conclusion is, quote, 20 Greek soldiers wandering around outside the walls of Troy are not a big deal.
20 Greek soldiers packed inside a large wooden horse are a different matter.
That last line has a couple asterisks after it, and if you follow them, they go to a...
Very small font footnote that says, quote, I believe this was a scientific and regulatory oversight, not a nefarious intent to transfect people and alter their DNA, but it needs to be fixed nonetheless.
It was from a September 12, 2023 listening session that was held by the South Carolina legislature.
I'm guessing that one of the dipshits that Alex follows on Twitter recently discovered this PowerPoint presentation and, you know, started posting about it.
So Alex saw that and now he has to make up a story about how this is some deeply prestigious study and how all the prestigious scientists are dropping these bombshells.
The full video of this listening session is available online.
And if you actually go to South Carolina Legislature's page, they include in their materials for this a letter challenging the statements made by this guy.
A representative from Pfizer wrote to the committee saying, quote, We write to you today regarding the pandemic preparedness listening session hosted by the Senate Medical Affairs Committee on September 12th.
During the session, the committee heard remarks pertaining to the Pfizer BioNTech messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, incorrectly stating that the vaccine contains plasmid DNA that could potentially impact a person's DNA and be a theoretical cancer risk.
There's no evidence to support these claims, and they provide the risk of being misconstrued by either None of this context is provided by Alex's coverage because he doesn't know shit about the stuff that he's covering.
He knows that he doesn't know shit about this stuff, which is why he dances around and rants about the devil and how he's a big boy instead of covering any of it.
He knows that as soon as he gets into anything specific, he's fucking weak and it just looks like shit.
Oh, this study done by the University of South Carolina, it's a...
Presentation that was in a listening session that is clearly not correct.
But the fact that it goes so shallow is such an indication that he doesn't really care at all about the idea of the audience not taking his word for it.
If he wasn't maniacally driven to make tons and tons of money and all that shit, then, yeah, he could easily go underground the way that other folks in his legacy have.
And why he does all this filler and killing time and all this stuff is because once he has to read these articles for the first time, he's forced to make stuff up and it's just, that's not fun for him.