Knowledge Fight #993 dissects Alex Jones’ December 27, 2024 rant—where he falsely claims Democrats will block Trump’s certification via the 14th Amendment, despite no conviction, and pivots from H-1B visas to RFK Jr.’s HHS bid before selling Ultimate CMOS, a sea moss product. Jones’ desperate shift from election conspiracies to anti-"globalist" health rhetoric exposes his base’s fractures: libertarian racists and white nationalists now clash over Musk’s tech-friendly immigration stance, leaving Jones scrambling for new grievances while peddling fringe products. [Automatically generated summary]
I have been warning and warning and warning and warning, shooting up the red flags, lighting the watchtowers, and so is my great crew of researchers and journalists and pundits, that the globalists have announced how they will try to either kill Trump, stop him from getting into office, or hand him such disasters.
That he's unable to reverse their planned collapse of civilization for the post-industrial world great reset that we're fighting with the Great Awakening.
And we've talked a lot about the way they're trying to do that.
Escalation of war with Russia and others.
That's the big one, obviously, trying to launch new hysterical psychological warfare pandemics.
Civil unrest.
Billed as a race war to lead into a national emergency.
And more.
And all of those tactics are on the fast track right now.
But yesterday at 8 a.m., The Hill, the main publication in D.C., there in Mordor on the Potomac, Democrat Party lawyers, backed by Jamie Raskin and others, came out and said, well, here's the headline.
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now.
And I shot a report on this yesterday afternoon, and when I went back and I was sending the article to the crew to print it up for today, I noticed that last night it changed to this headline.
And they even edited the article some.
Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral votes.
So they're introducing the idea of this, but this caused such a giant backlash and trended number one across the internet that Congress has the power, what, to override the votes of the people?
So to be clear, the headline of this article didn't change.
It's still, quote, Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now.
Alex is confused because the headline that generates for the article when you post it on social media is, quote, Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral votes.
So he's pretending that they've gone and changed the article over some kind of a MAGA backlash.
That's what generates for that format, whereas the headline is still exactly the same on the actual article.
In the real world, this is an op-ed that was written by Evan Davis and David Schult on the Hill's Congress blog, which clearly states in bold letters at the top, quote, the views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of the Hill.
The two writers make the argument that Trump has very clearly committed acts that constitute in against the United States and is therefore disqualified from holding office by the 14th amendment.
That still leaves the constitutional question, though.
They think that it really needs to be answered, this question.
And if you read the op-ed, it becomes clear what they think the plan could be.
Quote, Democrats need to take a stand against electoral college votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed.
No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
The key here is, quote, unless and until this disability is removed.
They believe that Trump is ineligible to be elected based on being an insurrectionist, but that according to the technicalities of the Constitution, if two-thirds of each House of Congress votes for it, this ineligibility, it just disappears.
So this becomes a moot question.
That's something they say in their op-ed, more or less.
Okay, so if I understand correctly, what they're saying is...
The Constitution says this, but since we can't do it, we should probably amend the Constitution so it doesn't say that, otherwise it looks like we're insane.
More than advocating for Trump's votes to be ignored and Harris be made president, these op-ed writers are saying that the case that Trump is ineligible is not without some merit.
And if we want to just skirt any possible constitutional problems, the House and Senate can just vote to say that Trump is not ineligible.
But unless they do, that's going to remain an open question to some people's minds.
This is a provocatively titled headline for an opinion piece in one of the Hill's blogs, but it's not that big of a deal, and Alex is going to turn it into the biggest fucking deal in the world.
So Alex is lying about Jamie Raskin, who was demanding that the Supreme Court weigh in on the case that was in front of them about whether or not Colorado could disqualify Trump from the ballot.
Raskin wanted the court to make a ruling on it because if they didn't, then the question would end up falling to Congress during the certification process, and no one wanted that.
The court did make their ruling, so Raskin's hypothetical about Congress having to make decisions about eligibility during certification was resolved.
It's a null...
Right.
The war game that Alex is talking about was done by a group called the Transition Integrity Project, and the title of their document is Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election in Transition, dated August 3, 2020.
You can easily find the 22-page report from their project if you want to read all the details.
They set up four different scenarios and did scenario exercises on each, looking at the likely events that could play out.
The situations were an ambiguous result in the election, a clear Biden victory, a clear Trump victory, and a narrow Biden victory.
Their goal was stated clearly to quote, examine some of the unknowns.
How far might candidates go in contesting negative election outcomes or disrupting the normal transition process?
How well would American institutions hold up if one or both candidates refused to play by the rules?
They were trying to explore challenging questions, but let's not pretend that this was about creating some master plan.
The participants were split into seven different teams.
Sure.
There was the Trump team, the Biden team, Republican officials, Democratic officials, career federal government employees, the media and the public.
Quote, teams presented with the initial scenario could take any action they wanted.
The chances of success of each team action were determined based on robust argumentation among all teams and the adjudication of a white cell, as well as randomizing factor-based dice rolls.
So some of the stuff that ended up happening in their D&D session sounded a lot like things that played out in the real world, but a lot of it also doesn't.
Because it's a role-playing game meant to spark insights, most of which could actually just be boiled down to, let's get ready for a messy couple months.
We also have the controversy of these HB1 skilled visas.
And Trump being critical of them, his constituency being critical of them, myself being critical of them, because the program's been massively abused by the Democrats.
And there still is a place for it for truly highly skilled people, but not for the whole BlackRock globalist movement to replace people in Europe and the United States with foreigners that they can fully control so that you don't get any type of...
Worker power within these companies here in the United States.
You've got people they can send back anytime they want.
It really takes a lot of bargaining away from Americans.
And we know American workers have been targeted for annihilation.
So at the end of last week, an underlying tension in the right-wing alliance between big tech folks like Elon Musk and the grassroots racists like Laura Loomer came to the surface in a spectacular fashion.
It all started when Musk tweeted some dumb shit about his fake Department of Government deficiency hustle, and Trump's new artificial intelligence advisor, this venture capitalist guy, Sri Ram Krishnan, he replied, quote, anything to remove country caps for green cards slash unlock skilled immigration would be huge.
He wasn't calling for more green cards or unlimited green cards, but for a change to how the system works now with caps on how many applicants can be accepted from a particular country each year.
Sure, sure, sure, sure.
However, noted lunatic and former person who handcuffed herself to a door because she got kicked off Twitter, Laura Loomer, misinterpreted Krishnan's tweet and replied, quote, She went on to say, Quote, it was white Europeans who created the American dream.
Don't talk to me as an American citizen about innovation when we actually have running water and indoor plumbing here in America.
So this was obviously a response that was dripping in racism and xenophobia, and it got the desired response.
Tons of racist attacks focused on the fact that Krishnan was an Indian American and how it's a problem that there are too many folks from India here taking up all the jobs.
Very quickly, this turned into a debate about H-1B visas, but it was immediately clear that this had stirred up something that's a real problem with the right wing coalition.
Some of the people in it are zealots.
And some of the people are using those zealots to accrue power and those people have lost That'll happen.
So Musk tried to do some damage control, arguing that we need to import high-talent workers to make the American labor pool better.
Vivek tweeted out an insane theory about how stigmatizing Screech on Saved by the Bell has stopped our country's youth from becoming engineers.
Quote, the reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born and first-generation engineers over, quote, Native Americans isn't because of an innate American IQ deficiency, quote, a lazy and wrong explanation.
We have to confront the truth.
Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long.
At least since the 90s and likely longer.
We've awoken from slumber before and we can do it again.
Trump's election hopefully marks a new golden era in America, but only if our culture fully wakes up.
A culture that once again prioritizes achievement over normalcy, excellence over mediocrity, nerdiness over conformity, hard work over laziness.
I think he thought this was supposed to be inspirational, but unfortunately the message that folks like Loomer took away from this is that American culture sucks and we're fundamentally lazy and mediocre.
In a rambling, mostly unproductive hour or more of back and forth, Loomer and her cohorts vented their frustrations at a guy who sounds like Elon Musk, who argued with them pretty aggressively and clearly thought it was hilarious that they all believe him to be Musk.
There was a clear division that this issue had opened up, and the back and forth continued on Twitter.
In response to Musk getting some criticism about his support for H-1B visas, Musk said, quote, The reason I'm in America, along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that make America strong is because of H-1B.
Take a big step back and fuck yourself in the face.
I will go to war on this issue, the likes of which you cannot possibly...
This is naturally a Tropic Thunder reference, because Elon's super cool, and it's important to be reminded of that from time to time.
In due time, Trump chimed in that he supports H-1B visas and uses them at his companies, which probably came as a surprise to his fanbase since he ran in 2016 on opposition to them and how he was going to shut it all down.
And it became clear that he sides with his rich friends.
So this was a bit of a moot point to argue after this point.
Loomer's Twitter account was unlocked and she accepted that she had doxed Krishnan and she apologized.
Most of the internet's burned out on Elon drama so the whole is he Adrian Dittman thing only moved the needle so much.
And MAGA influencers realized that their god king wasn't as into creating a white ethnostate as they might have hoped.
He also really just likes money.
It's unclear how this will all shake out in the big picture, but this episode definitely highlights a tension that's gonna pop up again and again.
With the appeals to fake populism, Trump has created alliances and expectations with some really fucked up people who expect him to follow through on the really fucked up stuff they support.
Meanwhile, Trump has created actual alliances with super rich creeps who have their own agenda, and he's given them power and proximity to power in ways that will run contrary to what these fake populists want.
It has the potential to be lock her up all over again, except that because it served his self-interest at the time, Trump has spent the last eight years building up the people who would be mad at him for not locking her up.
He can't satisfy both the Musk side that wants skilled labor to immigrate to the United States and the Loomer side that wants all non-white people thrown out of the country.
But pandering so much to Laura's side of things, he's really made disappointing racists a problem for the coalition.
It's going to fracture.
And here's the thing where it gets a little tough.
Laura Loomer has the position that Trump had in 2016.
And he's expressing what he has led his followers to believe his position should be.
She's wrong and awful, but it's very difficult to imagine being part of this extremely xenophobic, anti-immigration media space, and then siding with Elon Musk and not recognizing that you're way out of step with who you've pretended to be.
He's trying to side with Elon and say that there are just some problems with the H-1B visa system that have to be, you know, these problems are exploited.
Alex and Infowars have been clear for the last, like, 30 years on air that they don't believe in H-1B visas, and they think they're an attack on the white middle class.
A reflection of the idealist who rails against the centrist government and then, once getting a small modicum of power, realizes that perhaps by cooperation they can have more tangible change as opposed to just talking about it all the time.
Benny Thompson was the head of the J6 committee, not Jamie Raskin.
However, Alex has this prop to wave around about Raskin, and that prop is far more fun to play with when Alex pretends that Raskin was in charge of that committee.
That's way more fun, and it also jangles keys away from the people who can actually make decisions about anything and how they've betrayed you completely.
This headline goes up 8 a.m. yesterday on the Hill.
It was also pushed by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post.
Had similar articles, but not with a headline this strong.
So they're making their moves, so they start their propaganda offensive first, 24 days out from the inauguration.
25 yesterday.
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now.
Now, last night, this went up at 8 a.m.
Last night, they changed the headline to Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral vote.
And they actually edited the article, too, so they spun it.
So that shows there's major opposition to, yeah, openly stealing an election after someone's won it.
But that's what NATO just did a month ago in Romania.
They elected a popular anti-globalist that doesn't want war with Russia.
So NATO just said, through your intelligence agency, we null and void your election.
And there's basically a dictatorship now, just like Zelensky canceled elections a year ago and is a dictator.
And has outlawed his political opposition and the Orthodox Church and everything else.
This is a big deal, and I'm going to break this down in detail.
There's been more detail since I shot this report yesterday afternoon, but we did a good job laying it out.
When I say we, I shot a lot of it, but then Rob Du and I worked on the documents, the research, the background, and this is the best analysis of what's currently going on and why this is so serious.
It's about 11 minutes long.
Then I'm going to come back.
And give some more details of this and how we stop this next desperate move by the globalists.
Here it is.
Well, the Democrats were unable to steal the 2024 election, and now, just as Jamie Raskin promised, they are moving to block Congress from certifying the election, claiming Trump was convicted of insurrection, something that never happened.
As we take a look at this, it's important to understand that the only actual thing that's happened here is that there was an op-ed published on the Hill that argues that Trump isn't eligible to be president because he participated in an insurrection and that the Constitution provides a solution to that whereby Congress can vote him eligible.
It's a pointless argument since it's just the op-ed writer's opinion that Trump is ineligible.
Whatever those op-ed writers, whatever they think.
If you look at that clip, I want to look at the ways that Alex has turned this op-ed into a really big deal.
The first thing he does is he implies that there's a ton of other articles in other unnamed, unspecified outlets that are pushing the same thing with just less blunt headlines.
These articles aren't cited, but it's important to pretend they exist and that they're all written by the same people with the same talking points because that means there's a conspiracy.
In the real world, you have an op-ed that was written in The Hill, but if you pretend there are a ton of identical and parallel articles, now you have a constellation of imaginary data points.
The second thing he does is inform us that the article's been edited due to backlash of how brazen the plot is that they were laying out.
Alex's evidence for this claim is the two different headlines for the article, but that doesn't reflect an edit that The Hill made.
It's just one headline for the article and another that populates in search engines and social media.
Alex works in media.
He doesn't not understand how that works.
He's feigning ignorance because otherwise there wouldn't even be the appearance of evidence for his claim that this article was edited.
And the idea that the article is edited and watered down is important, because if we have that in place, then Alex can claim whatever he wants about the article, and if we say it doesn't match up with the posted version of it, he can just pretend that he's talking about the original, unedited version.
That's a rhetorical sleight of hand trick that he uses a lot, because it frees his imagination to just make up whatever he wants, and then apply the authority of a primary source to it.
The earliest archived version of this article is the same as it appears online now, and there's no revisions noted in the post, so it's up to Alex to point out what's been...
Right.
So now, as a reminder...
In the real world, you just have an op-ed in The Hill.
But through two strategic lies and how Alex is covering the story, you have an unspecified number of media outlets rolling out and pushing the same story, which they went too hard with, so they had to try to cover things up by editing the original article.
Weirdly, they didn't edit all of the other thousands of articles that are out there that Alex is claiming exists, but whatever.
There's a shocking level of coordination and behind-the-scenes plotting that's being imagined into existence by Alex when all there seems to be is kind of a mild op-ed with an attention-grabbing headline.
Alex also has zero idea what happened in the Romanian elections or what the developments have been on that front but I don't want to get lost in those weeds.
I think what's interesting here is the way that Alex is using Yeah, I mean, I guess...
It's, uh, look, this is a problem, and they could change it, or we could do something about it, but we're not going to, and they're not going to change, so you can't write those headlines anymore.
Well, the Democrats were unable to steal the 2024 election, and now, just as Jamie Raskin promised, they are moving to block Congress from certifying the election, claiming Trump was convicted of insurrection, something that never happened.
In that 17 seconds, Alex says three majorly false things that are structurally essential to his argument.
The first is that the Democrats tried and failed to steal the 2024 election.
That's not something that he's proven.
It's just taken as a tenant of the Trump faith because their media has repeated it enough times and pretended that they've proven it over and over again when they have not.
The second is that Jamie Raskin promised to block the certification of Trump's election victory.
Raskin didn't say that.
It's something that Alex and his media sphere has intentionally taken out of context and just repeated over and over and over.
The third is that this op-ed claims that Trump was convicted of insurrection.
The article makes no such claim.
This is just Alex creating a fake point to try to argue with.
The op-ed argues that, quote, The article argues that the second impeachment of Trump was based on an article of incitement of insurrection, though the vote wasn't there in the Senate to remove Trump from office over it.
The other contested forum that the op-ed cites is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that, quote, The U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn this ruling when they made their decision.
They just, quote, So they didn't overturn the Colorado Supreme Court's Ruling that Trump had clearly participated in insurrection.
You can not be convicted of stealing a car, but...
If you have broken into that car, hotwired it, and then taken it to another location, it could be said that you have stolen that car, regardless of your conviction status.
Look, Alex has created a foundation of these three fake points in order to introduce this video that he claims is the best analysis out there, and it all really just boils down to he saw an op-ed in The Hill.
Well, so much for a peaceful transfer of power that the Democrats were making such a big deal about because they thought they'd be able to steal the 2024 election like they were able to do the 2021.
No, Jamie Raskin, who helped head up the fraudulent January 6th committee and a bunch of Democrat Party lawyers have been writing pieces in places like The Hill today and other publications saying Congress Quote, unquote, other publications.
Coming up in the next few weeks for his certification on January 6th to be the 47th president of the United States.
They want to block the popular vote that Trump won and, of course, the Electoral College that he won in a landslide despite the entire establishment coming after him and the American people.
And why this is such a huge concern is They don't have a leg to stand on, but they don't care.
So you can see again there, as you even pointed out, that Alex is continuing to report that there are a ton of articles about this in a bunch of outlets, but there's only this one that he points out.
And he does that because he's a liar.
He does this all the time.
It's how you create this appearance of this broad thing when it's just, I'm mad about this headline and I'm fucking lazy and I'm gonna stick on this.
They cite in the Hill article, basically exact stuff that Jamie Raskin, that fraud's been pushing, that three times he was found to have committed an insurrection in the first impeachment.
Well, actually, their, or their first source is one of his impeachments, for insurrection, but he was found not guilty by the Senate.
They didn't have the votes.
Then they mention a judiciary hearing of judges in Colorado when they tried to take Trump off the ballot that was overridden by higher courts, as well as completely unconstitutional.
Trump was not convicted of that.
And then again, they cite the fraudulent January 6th committee that was not voted for by Republicans and was not even legal, and where Jamie Raskin and others produced fake documents, and now they're under criminal investigation for that.
So you can tell here that Alex is just cold reading that article, and he kind of panicked, so he had to find a dismount edit point, which is what you just heard at the end there.
So here was the first one that three times he was found to committed an insurrection in the first impeachment actually there Or their first source is one of his impeachments for insurrection, but he was found not guilty by the Senate The sentence Alex is skimming is the, quote, the first fully contested proceeding was Trump's second impeachment trial.
So Alex calls the Colorado situation a, quote, a judiciary hearing of judges, which makes no sense.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot, which happened because the judges were all globalists.
The reason Alex phrases this the way he does is because in the Hill article it says, quote, the second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing, where the court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection, as those terms are used.
in section three.
Alex is skimming this and he gets confused by the quote five day judicial due process hearing thing because he never really cared to understand what that.
case was about, and these details aren't really gelling with what he remembers.
I feel very strongly that these two missteps are fingerprints of Alex's cold reading of an article in order to respond to it, because he does no preparation whatsoever for anything, and he doesn't give a shit.
Yeah, it's weird to have these in context with this op-ed.
It's very funny whenever you just kind of step back and you're like, right, the impeachment, I mean, he was never going to be convicted, quote unquote.
The Denver Supreme Court, it was cute of them to have all of their laws, but it didn't mean anything because the Supreme Court laws don't have any meaning.
It's silly.
It's very silly that everybody's...
I mean, let's have a two-thirds vote where we're like, fine, we'll move on.
What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly.
And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which they're just disappearing with a magic wand as if it doesn't exist, even though it could not be clearer.
What it's stating.
And so, you know, they want to kick it to Congress.
So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified.
And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because the nine justices, not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not...
Now, we've seen a lot of fraud and a lot of hoaxes and lies with Democrats, but the idea that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from the Civil War, that Civil War generals and Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, couldn't be in government.
It has nothing to do with President Trump, who wasn't ever convicted of insurrection.
And I've already made that point.
But notice what Raskin said.
He said, we implement this amendment and then we go to civil war conditions.
And they had a plan, and we'll show you the articles, back in 2000 that if Trump won, they were going to have Western blue states secede.
And they would have their own inauguration for Joe Biden.
I mean, this is real insurrection.
This is real civil war.
So as usual, what they're blaming Trump and Trump supporters and Republicans for is what they themselves are doing.
That Jamie Raskin clip can only be understood in the context that he was responding to a question.
He was saying that the Supreme Court could not wait to make a decision about the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying Trump from the ballot.
If they stalled and waited until after the election to hear the case, they were putting Congress in the position on January 6th of having to decide whether or not it was constitutional to allow Trump on the ballot.
The duty of the Supreme Court was to give an answer to that, and if the highest court in Colorado had said that Trump was ineligible to be on the ballot, other states might too, and that could create an environment of complete chaos in terms of trying to certify the election.
If the Supreme Court didn't make a ruling, it could lead to members of Congress having to decide which would spark outrage from the public and possibly civil war conditions.
It's totally clear.
Right.
But...
The Supreme Court did rule in the case.
So Raskin's concerns that he was talking about, it doesn't exist anymore.
He wasn't saying that he wanted to invalidate Trump's electoral votes because it would be fun for him or because that was his plan.
He was saying, hey assholes, make a ruling on this because I think it would be bad if you don't.
In that report that Alex is talking about, they don't plan to have the Western states secede if Trump wins, but in the scenario where Trump won the Electoral College but not the popular vote, Biden kind of ends up doing what Trump tried to do in 2020.
He ends up sending alternate slates of electors to the House of Representatives, who side with him and award him the presidency.
Mike Pence and the GOP members of the House recognize Trump as the rightful winner of the election, so there are two presidents as Inauguration Day comes, and it ends by saying, quote, it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.
Which, again, you have to remember, they're role-playing.
And honestly, who knows how much of it ended up playing out the way it did because the person who's playing Biden failed a charisma role.
The report itself says, quote, it is not clear whether the failure to compromise during these scenario exercises should be viewed as predictive of likely future behavior by Trump and his representatives.
Or whether the game structure of the scenario exercises rewarded partisan actions.
But it's also, it becomes really funny when you realize that this passage is in there and Alex just seems to be ignoring it.
In the scenario that most closely mirrored the 2016 election results, e.g.
the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, Team Biden pushed to overturn certified results in states with Democratic governors and negotiated hard for permanent structural reforms in exchange for recognition of a Trump victory.
To take this more robust action, Team Biden had to deliver a united democratic front, which meant coordinating effectively with state party officials as well as grassroots and activist organizations.
While most participants believed that the Trump campaign has the real-life capacity to mobilize and to a significant extent steer and control the actions of Trump supporters, several participants expressed serious doubt about the ability of the Biden campaign to either mobilize or control left-wing activists.
Even in the grand evil plotting document where the evil globalists lay out all their plans for bringing about a civil war, they're like, Biden doesn't have it.
And that's what's so dangerous here, is that they are trying to have the electors not vote for Trump without a conviction, but pretending like in the news, and Raskin's been all over TV for months, as you know, saying this, that he is precluded by law from being the president.
But notice they didn't make a big issue about that actually during the campaign.
They just said they had it ready because they knew the public would get educated once that debate happened.
So they want to sneak attack in and try to confuse people.
But here's the key.
They've been pre-programming that Trump supporters are going to kill minorities.
They need a false flag to legitimize all of this and get this done.
So if you pay attention, you'll notice Alex pulling a familiar trick with saying that Raskin's been all over TV saying their plan is to not certify Trump's election win.
But mysteriously, the only clip he plays is that out-of-context one from a while back, which doesn't say what Alex claims it does.
He's doing the same thing he did with the Hill op-ed, where there's one data point that he shows to the audience while insisting that it's a representative of hundreds of others.
But it's not.
It's just a single stray data point deprived of its proper context that Alex is then using to build a lie.
Raskin actually just did an interview on the long-form show The Takeout on CBS News, and he said, quote, We lost an election in 2024 not by 7 million votes but by 3 million votes, and we accept that.
We've not tried to overthrow the election or the constitutional order.
In fact, on Election Day 2024, Jamie Raskin tweeted, quote, America is having a free and fair election, and Congress will certify the winner.
But Alex apparently has seen him all over TV for months saying the opposite.
I feel like if they were going to do it, they would just do one of the cases that was technically supposed to be on Trump, and they would just keep doing it, even though he was president, right?
They would be like...
I guess we're going to still do these cases, and then if you fail, you go to jail, and you can still be president, but you're now in jail.
And then there would be the whole attack or whatever.
And I think if there was actually a real big organization that really wanted Trump dead, I don't think that there would be failed assassination attempts.
Probably not.
I just don't think it's possible that the Secret Service could have been hit on a plot.
And it really illustrates how the Democratic Party is not going to accept this election.
And that even once Trump gets in, they've got a plan for civil uprisings that they claim are coming because Trump's going to kill migrants, he's going to kill black people, Raskin, Carville, all of them have said that Trump supporters are going to massacre minorities.
Now, that's coming out of a clear blue sky unless they are planning to stage it or wind up a bunch of crazies to do it, and then that will be the excuse if he actually gets into office to drive him from office using civil war conditions that they've also...
So this is all just laying out the groundwork to call any potential bigot violence a false flag in the future, and I think that Alex is reading the room decently here.
This whole Elon H-1B visa stuff is really gonna piss off the accelerationist racist wing of Trump's base, because Trump is going to side with Elon and money over the racist principles that they hoped that he would...
care more about.
Yeah.
It doesn't mean that one of them is going to go out and kill people, but the temperature rises in a situation like this, and I think that Alex knows that there's a lot of utility And trying to make some false flag predictions.
I think objectively, if I'm looking at just take all preconceived notions of countries, all that aside, and you just described to me a leader whose God is on my side, I'm waging a war offensively in another territory, and I'm also saying that maybe I'll use a nuke at some point.
Because for 85 years, Russia was under globalist leftist control and was a testing ground for their evil and a launch base to take over the world for communism.
Now it's orthodox czarist.
It's not communist.
You hear a lot of right-wingers go, you know, they're still communist.
No, no, we're the communist here.
And we're going through the same process Russia's gone through trying to get back control of our country.
Doesn't mean Russia's perfect, doesn't mean we'll be perfect once we get back control either, but the new world order has got to go.
He believed firmly in the existence of a racial hierarchy which shaped his attitudes on race relations, land rights, American imperialism, and the emerging and disturbing science of eugenics.
Roosevelt believed fundamentally that American greatness came from its rule by racially superior white men of European descent.
In 1906, he wrote to a friend on the subject of black people, quote, As a race and in the mass, they are altogether inferior to whites.
Of Native people, he said in 1886, quote, I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.
One of these articles that I was reading about Teddy Roosevelt, I can't remember what it was in, maybe The Guardian or something, but he was talking to a historian, and they were like, the bad thing about history is that there's no good people in history.
I mean, it is one of those things where you're like, there have been plenty of times people have gone to schools and stuff named after Woodrow Wilson, and then they've looked into him and been like, he did, and said, what?
Can we not have this called?
Nah, we're just going to keep calling it Woodrow Wilson.
So, one of the problems that Alex has, like I said, is, you know, the way that he has, like, he has a delusion, and also is lying to the audience about this information, like, that there's hundreds of articles, and, you know, he is both.
All that shit is just Alex's white victimhood obsession, but I want to touch on the case that he randomly mentions there, about Apple paying out $25 million because it was found to have favored immigrant workers over the U.S. citizens in terms of certain jobs.
First thing about this...
Alex shouldn't believe that this case should have been able to be brought against Apple, since it was based on federal regulation that bans hiring discrimination based on protected classes, including citizenship status.
If he had his way, these non-citizen workers would essentially be unprotected from any exploitation, not entitled to a settlement from Apple, and also probably violently deported.
Second, this settlement was reached in 2023 under Biden's Department of Justice.
If the whole globalist plan is to bring in masses of immigrants to take away jobs from Americans, then why would the globalist-controlled Democrats DOJ do this?
Why would they do it?
These villains, they really seem to be working against their own plans a whole lot.
Yeah.
Alex wants to have his racist cake and eat it too, and I feel like he's probably about to learn that some of the people he's associated himself with...
I think he might be in for a rude awakening when he sees a bunch of the people that he likes to buddy up with turn on Elon Musk for wanting to bring in foreigners to fill jobs that they think white people should be doing.
I don't think this is a big turning point or anything, but what happened around this issue should be seen by everyone in the larger right-wing media of what's to come.
Their fanbase is made up of two segments.
Soft bigot libertarian types and legit white nationalist types.
And their interests have aligned, for the most part, in ways that they can overlook the things that they actually hate about each other in order to reach their shared goal of getting Trump back into power and trying to overthrow the liberal order of society.
Now that they're back in office and that hurdle has been cleared...
These cracks are going to start to show unless they find a new version of the deep state to unite against and quick.
They need to find some new QAnon thing or whatever.
Or else these kinds of issues where Elon's like, I think we should bring in highly skilled labor.
If you just joined us, the Democrats, the party, Jamie Raskin, all of them are officially moving in Congress to block the certification of President Trump as the 47th president on January 6th.
They're writing op-eds everywhere, lying and saying he's convicted of insurrection when he never was.
They are treating you like you have a 70 IQ room temperature.
The only thing this reporting is based on is the Hill op-ed, and now the story has expanded to being that Democrats in Congress are moving to block the certification of the election.
This is just a lie.
It's absolutely a lie that's grown off this kernel that he started with.
Beyond that, there aren't op-eds everywhere.
There's one.
And it doesn't say that Trump was convicted of insurrection.
If anyone's treating the audience like they're idiots, it's definitely Alex.
And you don't do this kind of thing by accident.
This is conscious fraud or instinctual manipulation and abuse of the audience that he's carrying out.
We're about to hit some really positive news on this front with RFK Jr. set to get confirmed as the head of HHS and really taking action.
And he said Trump has taken the gloves off.
This is a big...
Part of stopping the globalists is making America and the world healthy again.
Make America healthy again.
But remember, the way we continue to make America and the world healthy is first mentally and spiritually with the truth so people know what's really going on and so they know that they're not alone in the fight against tyranny as we completely turn the tide.
So, be healthy.
Get Ultimate CMOS, the ultimate superfood.
All the iodine and other super-violent minerals only produce in special ways where they're all together in the sea moss.
And I think, I'm really interested to see how it plays out.
Because there is a real potential for a pretty messy break here of two groups.
What do you value more?
This Elon Musk and the sort of bizarre ideas of space fascism and all of the billions of dollars.
And the idea that someone that weird can have power.
Do you value that?
Or your principles of white ethnostates and a lot of those bigotries that really underlie the positions that led you to MAGA and Trump in the first place.
I mean, I suppose the question is whether or not they even think it matters to...
Just cut them loose, if you will.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, do you think Musk and Trump and, I mean, all of these people who are now ready to run roughshod over everything with the Supreme Court behind them, you know, like, cheering them on, like, will it even mean anything for them to continue to, like, giving them the dog whistles or where they just go, like, ah, we really don't care.
Well, I guess, you know, we have to consider that how much of those dog whistles is based on pandering to the bigots and how much is from their own bigotry.