In this installment, Dan and Jordan check out an "emergency broadcast" Alex released on Saturday about how people are wrong to be mad at him for still liking Elon Musk, who has declared his intention to fight against "negativity" on Twitter.
I went into your office to talk about a fire sprinkler contract and you told me The Onion had bought Infowars.com and that you listened to Knowledge Fight.
This is the best news that I've heard in two weeks.
I am your embattled host, coming to you from deep in the heart of Texas, broadcasting worldwide from the backup studios of the Alex Jones Network, complete with the servers, satellite uplinks, studio, and the great crew, of course.
And we have a larger studio that's pretty much completed right now, so that if they do shut down InfoWars in the next few weeks, there'll be an update on that coming up.
I'm ready to do that today.
We will be able to just seamlessly come right over here and continue the operation.
But that is not what I'm going to cover first today, though it is an important update on the war that's still ongoing against the independent free press, not just here, but across the world.
Yeah, I mean, to mind ears, if you will, I would say that the squirrel defends his nest far less when he's moved most of, not all of his acorns to a different nest.
I am your host, Alex Jones, and obviously this is an emergency broadcast.
And I've noticed that not so much the left, they're more horrified of the transmission, but a lot of the other folks that have talk shows and podcasts and do a lot of great work, but they're jealous because obviously we have one of the largest audiences in the world, not just of patriot media, not just of anti-globalist media, but of any shows on the planet.
We're in the top.
Two or three of any English-speaking transmission because of the great listeners that support the broadcast, the great crew, our great guests, our great reporters, and the work that I obviously do.
But I always say what I really believe about something.
And that doesn't mean sometimes I don't get things a little wrong or sometimes a lot wrong, but I'm in the high 90s accuracy rate, and I think I'm kind of known for being one of the most dead-on, over-the-horizon type individuals.
And then sometimes I think I was wrong about something.
It turns out later, actually, I was right.
But usually, where I am the most wrong, after 30-plus years on air, I can have some major hindsight that's beyond 2020.
It's that I tend to underestimate how bad things are.
We've all heard the saying, we need new conspiracy theories because they all came true.
That doesn't mean that I don't get things wrong sometimes.
My question is, if you are aware that you do get things wrong sometimes, do you change what you believe or do you just continue to believe the thing that's wrong?
Well, and that's something that I think runs through this, that I think is fascinating, is that there's this awareness.
In this next clip, he's almost self-aware of the fact that he calls everything an emergency transmission, and he has called this an emergency transmission.
Russia's leaders saying we're the closest to nuclear war ever and all the other mainline military analysts agreeing with that.
Is that an emergency?
So when you're talking about something that is a serious threat to the existence of all life on the surface of the planet, that the International Atomic Association of Scientists in their whole 60, 70 year, whether it's up in the 50s, history, they say we're the closest to nuclear war we've ever been.
I totally agree with them.
Is that...
An emergency.
Is that a threat?
And of course, the answer is yes, that is an emergency.
So if you're a show, if you're a broadcast, talking about those emergencies, shouldn't it be an emergency broadcast?
See, people trying to not want you to be urgent, people not wanting you to put your house out when it's on fire, well, Who are they working for?
If you're at the point where you're saying, uh-uh-uh-uh-uh, okay, a broadcast about an emergency is by definition an emergency broadcast, you're on the wrong side.
And I get the logic there, but it's bad argumentation.
It's fine to say that the subjects Alex covers constitute emergencies, I guess.
A lot of them are exaggerated or entirely made up, but if they weren't, they would be emergencies.
The issue is what the purpose of an emergency transmission is for the viewer.
An entertainment show about emergencies is not an emergency transmission, because an emergency transmission implies the need for immediate action.
Tornado sirens going off to signal that you should get to shelter is an emergency transmission.
A show discussing this year's hurricane season or tornado season is not.
Alex's marketing relies on heightening everything so far past the point of serious conversation that it sometimes becomes self-parody.
Just about every show he puts out has some kind of flashy headline like, Emergency Transmission or World War III Launched Officially, because he's trying to fuck with the audience's brain so they think that the show is a tornado siren as opposed to a show about tornadoes he needs to do tricks like this to circumvent any potential for critical thinking because his information wouldn't stand up to any critical scrutiny uh clearly yeah alex knows all this and because he's sided with elon in terms of the whole immigration thing i suspect he's been
Bit of bad feedback from areas of his audience that are more overtly into white nationalism.
Those kinds of people never actually liked Alex to begin with, but they recognized the value of his show as a stepping stone to their ideology, so they humored all the embarrassing Alex aspects and the constant emergency reports.
It's just that sometimes it'll lash out a little bit.
Sometimes it'll get to a point where there's an actual impasse, which is the stuff like supporting Elon, supporting the H-1B visas, that kind of stuff, is like a flare-up of this uneasy truce that they have.
Like, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, they will make fun of Alex privately, I'm sure, but they won't...
Have those same criticisms publicly because he's useful as a marketing tool.
It sucks to get old, if that's who, you know, because it sucks to be the person biting the hand that feeds and then start feeding people and get your hand bit and be like, come on, guys!
When they say man-made climate change is a threat, well, obviously it isn't man-made climate, you know, affects...
And all the real studies are just basically not even in existence.
It's one micron of a percent.
It's not even registering compared to the sun and other big things that have the main effect on the planet.
The sun's like 99.9% of it in the major astrophysics studies.
Look it up.
They just tell you in UN declarations, oh, the sun, that doesn't affect climate.
They actually had a declaration, what, seven years ago.
Type it in if you don't believe me.
UN declares the sun has no effect on climate.
That's what I'm saying.
Oxygen has no effect on your bloodstream.
You don't need oxygen.
But this is a key thing I'm explaining here up front before we go into all this massive breaking news.
And it is that they are creating a crisis and they're telling you that it's because you're bad and you had too many kids and because you have a car or because you have a swimming pool or because you eat red meat.
So the UN never said that the sun has nothing to do with climate.
Scientists have just been super clear that changes in the sun's energy output can't explain the climate change that we've seen since the Industrial Revolution and forward.
One major reason for this is that climate change has accelerated severely since the 1970s, during which time there hasn't been a comparable change in solar activity.
If these two things had a causal relationship, they would run parallel to each other and they do not.
The other observation that puts this solar hypothesis in trouble is that if it were all just the sun, then everything would be heating up.
Every layer of the atmosphere would be seeing the same effect, and that's not the case.
As is pointed out on Climate.gov, quote, Alex's argument is just wrong and dumb.
That's because it's not an argument.
It's a way to dodge the actual argument in favor of having an argument that he would prefer to have, which is not real, which is about...
So he's trying to play the game of like, there is an actual crisis here, but it's not the crisis of climate change, it's the crisis of the globalists using that against you.
I mean, it is an interesting thing on account of like, yeah, there are a lot of current crises currently happening, and even if we were great at dealing with those...
We're still shitty at dealing with climate change.
I was reading a thing about, I don't know how this happens, you know, sometimes you get caught in the algorithm and it'll actually give you something that you're interested in, and so it was going over the history of tall tsunami waves, which, if you're talking waves, you're gonna get me.
And then I started thinking about it and I thought, you know, we're young enough that it is far more likely in our lifetimes to see a wave taller than that.
You know?
And then I was like, I'm never going to go near a coastline.
So, I think that, you know, obviously this is a real subject and shit, and most of the show is Alex whining, but I wanted to bring it in mostly because of this next clip.
And also, I think that there's something really funny about someone going out to a commercial break yelling about how it's an emergency when they're doing a show that doesn't need to have commercial breaks.
So the day before this, on the 3rd, Elon tweeted, quote, algorithm tweak coming soon to promote more informational slash entertaining content.
Our goal is to maximize unregretted user seconds.
Too much negativity is being pushed that technically grows user time, but not unregretted user time.
Naturally, this is a complete betrayal of the very basic premise of the Trump world's support of Elon, who had taken over Twitter and turned it into the only real free speech platform in the world.
The idea that he would game the system to favor things that he finds informational or entertaining and hide things that are pushing, quote, negativity, runs directly counter to everything he's supposed to stand for.
It's super obvious that he was interested in power and Trump was the means to achieve power.
He gave the dude a ton of money and now he gets to run a fake government efficiency office and he owns the largest social media company in the world where he gets to determine what's too negative to be seen by users.
He's already claimed in court an absolute ownership of everyone's accounts and has provided financial incentives for people to follow his rules to farm engagement.
Basically, Alex and every one of these right wing dipshits who signed up with Elon and supported him got played by an obvious con.
He should have listened to David Icke when he had a chance, but now Alex is in way too deep.
It probably won't matter because there's no such thing as continuity in his audience, but this should be a severely discrediting kind of moment for Alex with the audience.
Well, yeah, but it's unquantifiable in a way to run cover for you to make the decisions that you want to make as a social media site owner that you understand run counter to the promises that you made a bunch of shitheads.
Because this whole thing, this whole Trump movement and all this shit was supposed to be about The undue power of corporations and the unelected bureaucrats and the elites and all this stuff and how they're trying to keep the common man down and all this stuff.
And if the con that you fall for is Elon Musk, then I don't feel all that bad.
Big problems with the ADL and AIPAC and, you know, the stuff they do.
And I've been critical of them thousands and thousands and thousands of times, but not because the people that just hate Jews in general, you know, have attacked me.
I've done it from a position of, hey, there's some big problems with what's going on and how people can run that have committed crimes to Israel and all the rest of it.
But I'm also critical of Communist China and its leadership, not of the Chinese people.
And so I would probably be more critical of Israel.
Except I don't want to be aligned with the cult of Jew haters that just hate Jews in general and just come off nasty and evil and maniacal and lie.
Because I know they're lying about a lot because they lie about me for 30 years.
I went on air 30 years ago, 31 years in April.
And I just wanted a big tent for everybody to promote freedom.
I'm not a closet white supremacist.
I am.
I'm pro-human, and I'm also proud to be Anglo, and I think whites have been targeted, and that's wrong, and whites shouldn't be apologetic, and we should stand up for ourselves, and our culture's great, and I think the West has been amazing.
I mean, you could argue by many perspectives, superior.
I mean, I will say that the Caucasians are amazing.
unidentified
I think all humans are amazing, but I'm really proud to be white.
I've been involved fighting the globalists for 30 years, and back when people, 30 years ago, this was like 1 or 2% of the population knew about this, and I'd say about a third of them back then were pretty much Hitler lovers.
You'd go over to their house for dinner, some prominent person that wrote books, whatever, you read their books, and they were like, hey, Hitler's really good, isn't he?
Have you ever actually read his speeches?
And I'm just like, yeah, I mean, I don't think Hitler's good.
You know, I...
I understand what we're told about World War II wasn't true, and that Germany had problems, and the Versailles Treaty, oh, you know about that?
I would say that if I were involved in a movement where like one-third of the people involved were Nazis, I would start to ask some hard questions about that movement.
That's way too high of a percentage to be a coincidence.
You should be really worried that maybe your ideology is just a respectable public mask for Nazis to wear, and maybe you're being duped.
But beyond that, a couple of important points here.
First, there isn't really a problem with being proud of being a white person necessarily.
He's welcome to have that relationship with his heritage, putting it as a white person as opposed to something more specific about where your family's from.
That's a little bit messy, but the issue really is when pride in your heritage becomes a need to exclude people who you perceive to not be members of your heritage.
For instance, Alex recognizing the contributions of Anglo peoples through history is fine, but when it's expressed constantly by him complaining about how there's too many black characters in movies, you get the sense that...
Second, Alex has a whole world of complaints at his disposal about Israel there at the beginning, and he chooses to complain about the ADL and AIPAC, and then says he doesn't like that people can commit crimes and then run to Israel.
Instead of his concern with the Israeli government being based in some kind of opposition to the treatment of Palestinians or any other grievance he could raise, he brings up a specifically neo-Nazi coded complaint.
This is a dual loyalty trope that Alex is employing.
It's the neo-Nazi position that since any Jewish person can become a citizen of Israel, they can never really be loyal to any other country.
There's nothing stopping them from committing whatever crimes they want, and then at the first sign of trouble, they can just run off to Israel to avoid any consequences.
This is what neo-Nazis constantly attacked Alex about because his first wife was Jewish, and thus their children were Jewish, and made it so Alex could expatriate whenever he wanted to.
That was their argument.
It's worth noting that this is the first thing that comes to his mind when he's thinking of complaints about Israel.
It's almost like the world he's been involved in since he was a kid was at least one-third neo-Nazis and he never cared to even consider what that influence might have had on the information that he took in and how he processed it.
Almost like the air he's breathed in his whole life is racist shit to the point where he doesn't even know that not everyone does that.
Yeah, I think it was Lincoln who put it best when he said, I'd rather everybody thought I was a white nationalist than open my mouth and remove all doubt.
It's part of our biology and part of our instincts to do it, and I understand exactly how you all feel.
But you have to understand that I've studied the sociology, the psychology, the anthropology, but also have the overlay of my spiritual connection to the infinite and God, and I follow what the directive of the Holy Spirit tells me, and it's that I'm trying to unify people.
Around a pro-human vision.
Doesn't mean we don't stand up for our cultures or our sovereignty or our territorial issues.
No, no, we do that.
But from a position of strength and to lift others up, not have our instinct to lift others up used against us to bring in others.
Who are then turned against us, which is absolutely being done.
The idea that white people are the only ones that are tribal or racist, and the idea that white people are a bad thing and if they're just gotten rid of, the world's going to be a perfect, wonderful place, is being pushed by BlackRock and Larry Fink and some of those lobbies that are in competition with the superiority of Western culture and do not want the world to adopt Western culture that comes from the Nordic and Caucasian peoples.
And they don't want that idea to be supreme because in that system, there isn't room for tyrannical, centralized, anti-human groups.
So I'm trying to sell the spirit of the West and the ideas of the West, 1776 worldwide, the flower of the West and the Renaissance, and the current great counter-revolution to the depopulationist.
And I understand the different schools of thoughts.
Could you, I mean, it is hard to imagine him not using more, like...
Idioms and ideas all taken from every culture other than the one that he is crowing about and then ending it with, essentially, walk two moons in my shoes, would you?
I just want to get out here and make sure everybody knows that I'm a white nationalist in order to protect against how people might feel about me kowtowing to a weird billionaire who I've ostensibly supposed to have been fighting against my entire career.
There's so many ways to go at this, but I think the best way is to just start on Elon Musk and his announcement about this new anti-negativity algorithm.
And he is a maverick, and he always basically does things different than the other systems.
But I don't see how you have a statement like that of its very nature where it's one word, negativity, and then someone defines what that is, and then they decide what they're going to basically algorithmize.
So, that said, there's clearly things that I wouldn't even call censorship.
I mean, negativity would be child porn, producing it or posting it.
Negativity would be telling people to go out and poison the water supply.
Negativity would be...
Doing everything Democrats do, saying let's take people's kids away from them and sterilize them.
But if I'm opposing that, it sounds negative.
You'll tell people, hey, you know what, there's a bad thing happening.
Oh, I don't want to be negative.
Well, no, no, it's positive to admit it's happening and expose it.
But you can see how, yeah, let's block child porn and things like that because that's not just negative, it's destructive and it's death and it's illegal.
But then if I'm exposing it's going on, Well, then you can say, well, it's negative to talk about negative things, but it's not negative.
If I've got a broken tooth and, oh, my tooth's broken, oh, just say your tooth's not broken, don't be negative.
No, I'm going to call it into something and go get it fixed.
Okay, so negativity is a super vague standard, which is why the owner of a social media company shouldn't make declarations like Musk did.
It's great to encourage more productive, positive interactions and to model that through your actions, but Musk is one of the biggest shitheads on social media.
He owns the site, and he was announcing a change.
to its algorithm.
There's no way to make this statement in a way that would go over well with anyone except the existing power structure that would welcome the opportunity to suppress viewpoints they don't like.
This is an insane conflict of interest because Elon has tons of government funding for various businesses and is the head of a fake efficiency office in the new Trump administration.
He's not some random individual who owns a social media site.
He's, in effect, a government official.
And that dynamic cannot be disentangled from his ownership of Twitter.
This should be illegal.
So when he says like this kind of, we're gonna get less negativity going, he exists as a government figure and as the owner of this site.
But beyond that, child exploitation material is a crime.
It's not negativity.
Musk doesn't have to adjust the algorithm to reduce the spread of that because the mechanisms to address it are already in place.
Alex is trying to fudge the definition of what Musk meant by negativity because if he were to approach this issue honestly, Alex would have to accept that Musk meant things I don't like and that Alex has given Musk what amounts to full control over the level, uh, levers of currency, which is speech and reach.
Musk making this announcement can't be understood outside of the context of his recent fight with Laura Loomer and various large Nazi accounts on Twitter who were super mad about his take on H1B visas.
The more racist wing of the extreme right turned on Elon pretty hard, and you can see that on Twitter.
If Alex were to address this issue accurately, he'd have to accept that Elon didn't care about free speech or any of these pretend ideals.
Buying Twitter was a play for power, and it worked.
Trump got into office, probably aided by Musk's actions as the head of Twitter and his large donations, and now Musk doesn't really have so much use for the free speech stuff as an organizing principle.
Alex played his role perfectly as a means of laundering Elon's actions, which has led to Elon getting the power that he sought.
Unfortunately for Alex, that's not going to trickle down.
And Elon isn't going to stay very interested in free speech once he's in a position where violating that principle serves his interests.
I am very concerned about that, but I also am going to wait and see.
But see, I'm kind of already getting into this.
But you see, here's the problem.
There's thousands of points that go into this.
If you've got bots and organizations and groups going on X, trying to sow dissent, trying to divide and conquer, deliberately lying, and deliberately trying to hurt people, because you notice the left's been pretty quiet since Trump won, and their plans have come out before us, and we can see it, sow division in MAGA, get us all to fight with each other.
That's the tactic going on.
But you still have to criticize things that Trump does you disagree with or Congress.
That's all important.
So at the end of the day, I think the knowledge of the crowd and people's intelligence, that just what people share and look at and watch, over time, people are going to figure it out.
But, yeah, I think that this is a sad rationalization.
Like, Elon and a lot of parts of the heroes that they've created, a lot of those people have fundamental disagreements with a large part of the MAGA base and what has energized a lot of the MAGA movement.
And it was a matter of time until the two would come head-to-head.
They would become...
I did probably think it would be after Trump got into office.
I didn't think it was going to be before even inauguration.
The ultimate problem with the addiction to the immediate social media kind of thing is that you can't ever get to the point where you realize, if I just lay low for a week, no one will care.
No one will care or notice.
Because if you do find out that no one will care or notice, then you'll start to think, what if nobody cares or notices forever?
Well, I think that once you have convinced your brain that reach and engagement is the only currency that matters, I think there is no positive move that you can make forward.
So why would you then say, well, I'm going to put an algorithm in soon, and it's going to go after negativity, which is this completely nebulous term that can be twisted or applied however you want.
Now, that said, Musk has done so many maverick things that...
I would just say, you've done so much good in your big turn the last three and a half years that I will put my concerns out there like I just did, and I'm going to do more in a moment.
But at the same time, would you please start telling us how it works?
Would you please?
Unlike the other big tech companies, will you tell us the algorithm?
Well, you say, well, people can beat the algorithm then.
So what that boils down to is Alex saying, I don't really care about free speech or any of this shit I yell about all the time, but I need Elon to explain if and how I'm going to retain my access to people's attention, which is my primary currency.
How am I going to be able to use this, Elon?
This is the only real issue here.
Alex's severe Twitter addiction, how it's going to be affected by the new algorithmic changes.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that any elected official that engages in insurrection or rebellion against the state may be denied their position.
According to Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, this plan will be activated on January 6th, 2025.
I saw a bunch of squawking and complaining in the last...
Weak about people being censored on X by people that the few times I've watched them just lie about me incessantly.
But I still said, okay, I'm going to look into that.
And then I learned Owen had his blue checkmark taken away, but he was on vacation last week, so was I. And I called him, and he said, I'm not sure exactly what's going on yet.
Let me wait.
And he knows more about how X works than I do.
I'm interested in the big general political stuff, but not the little nuts and bolts.
And I never pretended to be a super technician on that or even good at it.
And anybody that sees my post can see that.
But I talked to him again today.
He got back to town, visiting family.
And he'll be popping in with us in a little while, about 30 minutes or 20 minutes to give his take on it.
On accounts having their blue check marks taken away.
And then people will send me on X like, look, account's suspended.
And it's just a black screen.
With their name, most of the time I've never heard of them, and then I'll ask, like, what happened?
What are you being told?
I mean, it's not like I'm a wizard here, and if you get censored or you think you got censored, then I'm somehow Elon Musk brain or all of his employees, and I know what's going on.
Yeah, it's a new Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
So he's giving you an idea.
Negative hate tweets will...
Be maxed, de-boosted, and de-monetized so no ads or other revenue on Twitter.
You won't find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different than the rest of the Internet.
So, yeah, yeah, I remember the original policy when we took over.
I remember that well.
So, really, he's just restating, I guess, the answer here.
I'm glad the crew reminded me of that.
Owen said that over the phone today, and I was talking to him and didn't really catch what he said.
He said, this is just freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.
And of course, Owen has been critical.
He's not defending it.
He's saying, no, that's just Elon's original deal is what he thought.
So this is kind of a fine position to have, that a social media company isn't obligated to give you free reign to post whatever you want.
I have no problem with that stance, but it's hilarious coming from Alex.
Before Elon bought Twitter, any time someone was suspended, it was some elaborate conspiracy to shadow ban the truth tellers.
The issue here is what the default assumption Alex works from has changed.
Previously, when something happened, it was an attack on all the patriots until someone could prove that it wasn't.
Jack banning people who post racist spam?
That was about creating the standard that censoring some people was okay, so later it could be used to censor people like Alex.
Now, Alex's assumption is that there's an explanation for what Musk is doing that isn't a grand attack on the Patriots until someone proves to him that it is.
He's even got this fun rhyme, freedom of speech, not freedom of reach, that he's repeating to try to justify.
Yep.
Also, I thought that maybe he was talking about us when he said that people were always squawking about him.
But then I realized that it was impossible since I've never for a second cared about Twitter Reach.
No one gave me, like, a ten-minute breakdown of it and still said he wasn't entirely sure.
That's my answer to these people, because I'll just see something come up in my feed with 200,000 views, and it's a video.
Like yesterday I saw, and I click it.
Alex Jones, you know, won't stand up for our speech.
And then I see in the video, I've made a deal with Elon.
He's paying me, and what else was it?
And my bankruptcy's fake, and none of this is real, and they're not trying to shut down InfoWars, and I won't stand up for these people.
And one of them I know, there was two guys on the show, and the other one I've seen and know he's a fighter, MMA and stuff.
I mean, I've seen a lot of his stuff but don't really know much about him because usually, you know, what he's saying, it just gets old.
It's about Jews all day.
And I'm just like, oh, more Jewish stuff.
Let me move on to the next thing.
And it's just, but I'm supposed to know everything about these people.
And again, it's not about them.
I'm not bringing these people up to get to fight with them or anything.
I'm bringing it up about how crazy this is.
And I do get Elon's point about...
Snoopy's itching.
Is that that is, from my perspective, I'm not saying censorship for it, it is negative when you read something and it's some weird infighting thing and you don't even really know what it is.
And so I think that some of this, almost all of this, probably is...
Some kind of defense against something Greg Reese said, or some stream that he could have been on, or even some kind of preemptive damage control about the kind of shit that Greg Reese is going to be able to talk about what kind of fraud Alex is.
So I think that's really what's going on here.
There's the general betrayal of Alex siding with Elon Musk over what should be...
I'm looking through life through Greg Reese's eyes.
And I think that over the course of the time that he's been at Infowars, there's probably a decent way to rationalize all kinds of bullshit about Alex.
Sure.
unidentified
But the idea that they're coming to a fork in the road and he's choosing...
Like, I think that that would be a step too far if you're someone like Greg Reese.
Because this can't be rationalized in terms of, like, Alex is a true believer and all of the stuff that people say about him is just, you know, they just don't understand the concerns that he has.
But then I kind of then think about the dog shit sometimes.
And I think, you know, could I help that dog shit?
But see, I know I can't help you.
Because you're into your superiority, into your weird mind box.
I'm talking to people who are confused by all this and wonder what it is.
And I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this.
I make decisions like this.
It's healthy to talk about this stuff occasionally.
And then it'll also stimulate my haters to attack me even more from all sides.
And that'll give the broadcast a boost, which can always get bigger.
Not that it needs a boost, but it needs one to beat the globalist.
And so when I look at something and it's overall positive in my algorithm, in my mind, that iterates so much knowledge.
Then I decide to go with it.
Because I want to have a real discussion here and spark a real debate across the political spectrum and throughout the knowledge base.
And I also want to...
I'm kind of wargaming here on air today.
I don't know if Elon's watching or will see any of this.
I would imagine he would.
He's very prolific when it comes to that, my information.
Kind of honing what I think.
And again, I don't go off what I think off of what you think.
Though I do get good ideas from people that I see debating and talking about things.
But what I'm saying is at the end I make my decision.
I don't come up with my political, cultural, spiritual views off of what I think will be most popular with people.
I absorb it and think about it and mull it.
And then kind of just stream of consciousness on air, talk about it for a few days, and then I decide to start boiling down what I think the essence of it is for a boil down.
And most people know 95% of the time I don't even get into attacks or infighting or any of that stuff.
Occasionally I do because there's times for it at key points.
when I think people are really needing the information.
So this fully describes why Alex doesn't ever talk about us, but will take the time to whine about this shit on his day off.
Engaging with Nazis about their complaint that Alex isn't Nazi enough is a big win for Alex's attention farming operation.
The two of them will bounce back and forth and feed off each other's algorithms, and at the end of the day, there really isn't that much of a meaningful disagreement, there's no real risk for Alex's business.
Everyone who is going to think Alex isn't enough of a Nazi is going to get there eventually.
Built into the business model.
He suffers a high turnover rate because people, weirdly, about one-third of the people who gravitate towards his kind of content are Nazi types.
They will hear the kind of dog whistles they're attracted to in Alex's content and recognize that he's a dude yelling about how proud he is to be white, and they'll like that for a while.
But eventually, a crisis point will hit, and they'll be forced to recognize that Alex isn't hardcore enough.
Oftentimes, this will happen because Alex has a guest on his show like David Duke or Nick Fuentes.
In the contrast between Alex and this more extreme figure the audience will realize that Alex seems to be holding back whereas this staunch racist is speaking freely.
This is the result of them seeking out that harder stuff and leaving Alex behind.
But they tend not to turn on Alex and hate him because they understand that they could have never been introduced to David Duke out of the gate and accepted what he's selling.
They needed the incubation period that Alex provides, and they recognize that Alex serves that purpose for other budding white supremacists.
It's a tense and uneasy arrangement, but it's one that both sides recognize works to their advantage.
The white supremacists recruit and illustrate their principles by demanding Alex dropped the act, and Alex gets to have someone to point to and say, they're the real racist, I'm cool, I'm good.
When they fight, the feedback loop of this interaction plays out.
Alex will lose some section of the audience to the hardcore shit, but he was going to lose them eventually anyway.
Plus, he's losing them to a side that plays into his interests.
Fighting with them allows Alex to sanitize himself to new observers who just see him as the guy who's being attacked by Nazis and assume that he must be okay.
He ignores us aggressively because engaging with us doesn't serve this same bottom line.
He and the Nazis are engaged in a mutual dance with each other, whereas we're not playing.
I think it might be the blue butterfly of somewhere.
But it's caterpillars, right?
They go into an ant's farm, like they call them farms on their own.
They go into an ant's colony, and they give off queen pheromones, and all the ants feed them, and then they cocoon, and then they leave the ants, and then all the ants die because they don't have a queen, etc.
It feels a lot like that.
You have to get into your cocoon.
All of the racists have to bring you fake lies and then eventually you become your own racist butterfly.
Yeah, I mean, it's a dangerous game to whip up the mob to try and exploit for your own advantage, and then you have to tamp down the mob again once it's gone, and mobs are notoriously fickle.
Yeah, like so how he was describing how Greg Reese was into his own superiority shortly after describing about how great Western culture is and how superior being white is.
I think, and I think I truly believe this, you could play that clip throughout any time period in humanity's history to any human being at any point in time and they would say to you, I don't understand those words, but that guy's a loser.
That is just the loser thing to do.
I think even before, cavemen were scrawling on walls being like, that guy's a loser.
And so I think Alex was hoping that he would just come on and explain things and be like, well, you know, you've got to consider all the sides of this.
Probably around 2017 or 18. Tim Cook, when he met with all the leaders of tech and said the same day they banned me, they made the decision to curate Alex Jones.
Well, I think you're absolutely right, and I think that the reason people are concerned is were they using the H-1B visa debate as kind of a test system to say, okay, can we snuff out people on a certain side of this debate or a certain side of this story?
Can we use certain keywords that flag accounts that we can basically do what is, I mean, it's virtually censorship.
Owen is the voice of someone who is not close enough to power to be fully intoxicated by it yet.
Yeah.
unidentified
Like Owen has the position that you kind of should have if you're like realizing you've We have put too much of our eggs into this Elon Musk basket, and he's doing the same shit that we complained about big tech doing.
I've got major concerns, and I think Elon needs to explain to people exactly what he means, because, again, for most people who are ignorant, you'd look at Elon Musk's feed and say, that is extremely negative, all the bad stuff he's posing.
No, that's extremely positive.
You know, it's like if you've got cockroaches, you learn about it, you get rid of them.
Well, unfortunately, I think even if Elon Musk came out and made a statement or something was made transparent in the algorithms, Nobody's really gonna trust it anymore.
And I think that that's the cat that's now been let out of the bag.
That's the genie that's now been let out of the bottle in the last week.
It's now just nobody is gonna trust it.
And people are looking at it as censorship.
Now, I think curation is probably the more fair word to use.
And they're going to make this argument like they do with other big accounts that aren't verified, like Nick Fuentes.
And they say, oh, look, he can still get millions of views, even though he's not verified and doesn't have premium.
So censorship doesn't exist.
Well, that's a little disingenuous.
But here, Alex, let me give you an example specifically about the new policy when it comes to negativity.
And this is according to X's own AI system.
It says things like being critical of FBI statements, challenging official statements from authorities, skepticism about official narratives.
This is from X's own AI saying this.
They've also said being affiliated or talking to other accounts, like maybe Alex Jones, could also de-boost you.
So these are the kinds of things that have people extremely skeptical of what the future of X looks like.
I think the statement Musk needs to make now is what is the real goal here with X?
What are you really trying to do with this app?
Because...
Clearly, this idea that it was going to be the free speech app and it was where anybody could go and report, I mean, those dreams are dead to most people that are following this story.
Listen, I like that we moved on from that 80s jock culture in a dominant fashion, people being bullied all the time, whatever Back to the Future was about.
I think that there's something very funny about being like, I said I didn't get any money from Elon Musk, but here's a bunch of money, and then I'm going to make more subscriber content.
There's a bit going on that is leading to this petty emergency broadcast.
There's obviously the tension that Alex has with part of his base that comes from him siding with Elon as opposed to siding with the people who want to throw all non-white people out of the country.
So there's that, and then also there's the specificness of the Greg Reese problem.
There's some other people who Alex probably thought liked him more than they do who talk shit.
Some of the Nick Fuentes fans.
Some of those folks.
And apparently, one of the criticisms that is stuck in Alex's craw that someone has made is that he didn't think those terrorist attacks on New Year's Day were fake enough.
Or like, you know, I can't stop thinking about My Favorite Murderer.
Just the way that they had this whole, like, we're here for women thing going, and now they have this whole, like, we get paid by Amazon to trick you into buying trash.
This is troubling, what I'm seeing from X. And it's been hard to believe it's been this good for two and a half years.
And who knows what pressure is going on behind the scenes.
I don't know.
I'm not defending any of it because I don't know exactly what's happening yet.
But you better believe that as things get worse, if they do, I will get more intense about covering it as I know more.
But people lying about me.
And saying that I'm doing all these things and that I'm this thing, it's not helping your cause of just being drama queens and you're the only good people out there and everybody else is a fraud.
So it's key to understand that Alex talking like this is him supporting Musk.
If Jack had posted that he was going to algorithmically downrate negativity, Alex's response wouldn't be, hey, I don't know all the details, but I'm going to err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt and you all are sowing division by being mean to me.
The giving the benefit of the doubt is the act of support.
And it's really pathetic how personally Alex is taking all of this.
Like, back to back, he's saying, like, oh, you know, you can trust that once I have all the information, I'll be talking more about this.
Just before this, he was yelling about how people said that he didn't call something a false flag quick enough.
I think that it's very obvious to anyone who takes in a fair amount of his content.
To see clearly that even though he's trying to play half-measure games, he's trying to equivocate, this is him very deeply supporting Elon Musk and being very unwilling to join in even with Owen's pretty non-impactful criticism.
Well, what's really funny is he spent like the last...
Years with these fake attacks that he's defending himself from of the left, like all the COVID vaccine stuff and Trump's gonna get killed and all of these fake things that he insisted this other force was doing.
And now you have sort of a chicken's roosting situation.
You have the inevitable consequence of this alliance between racists and...