#1011: January 28, 2025 dissects Alex Jones’ baseless claims—from Trump’s cartel crackdown (unsupported by evidence) to California’s Prop 47 (misrepresented as theft legalization)—while mocking his hypocrisy on Disney’s Captain America and Bukele’s "prison planet" deal. Jones also parrots discredited conspiracy theorist Anthony Sutton’s NGO claims and amplifies Mike Adams’ "wokeism" smear, ignoring nuance to scapegoat cultural shifts. The episode exposes Jones’ opportunistic, inconsistent rhetoric, revealing how his fear-driven narratives exploit outrage over imagery like Musk’s AFD Hitler-mustache photo while dismissing actual systemic critiques. [Automatically generated summary]
Played Hades and we're like, this would be great if we were making money off of it.
Yeah, no.
But it's almost like an inverse proportion for Hades, where Hades had so much story, but then when you're going through, there was six weapons, you know?
And by the time, because he's furthest to unlock, by the time you get up to him, you probably have unlocked a lot of just general, every character upgrades and stuff.
I was kind of thinking about, like, maybe we speed up a little bit, but there's enough to talk about in here that I'd like to bring a focus to some of this shit.
So first, the prophetic future tense is a literary technique which describes future events that are so certain to happen in the past tense as if they had already happened, commonly used in religious texts and by Alex Jones.
But I am here to tell you that I have been studying constantly every facet of what Trump's doing, and I can't even keep up with it.
This is absolutely plotted out by incredibly smart people.
I know that this broadcast and our suggestions have been absolutely taken up like mother's milk by a baby, and I am so proud of this audience of activists keeping us in attack.
Formation through all these attacks.
And Trump is just devastating the living shit out of the globalists.
I mean, it is unbelievable.
And yeah, we can bitch about this little thing or that thing, but in the whole, this is earth-shaking, globalist-destroying, irrevocable.
absolutely easy Absolutely irrevocable to the globalist.
And he said for the last few months, he said, as soon as we start actually shutting down the human trafficking and the fentanyl and the sex slavery, the cartels are going to try to kill federal agents and others.
And when they do, we're going to come in with the military and we're going to slaughter them.
And so the...
Mexican cartels don't understand there's any sheriff in town.
They walked into their trap.
They just tried to ambush.
Down on the Texas-Mexico border yesterday, really dramatic drone footage of the Mexican cartels trying to kill the Border Patrol and shooting up their vehicles, and then the Border Patrol firing back.
It is dramatic.
And a few days ago, they shot hikers across the border in California, shot a mountain biker.
The days of them just running around murdering everybody and the Border Patrol being shot at and told not to shoot back is over.
And so, if Mexico really wants the Marines to invade again, you're about two inches away from it.
And Trump stopped playing games.
He's looking for somebody to cross the United States so we can get back to where we were.
Yeah, so this is what Alex's vision of peace entails.
Hoping Mexico will give us a reason to go to war with them.
Talking about Orwell is a little bit hacky in Conspiracy World, so I won't call this Orwellian.
But it's something.
A dramatic ambush, the thing that Alex is talking about here, was some people in Mexico's side of the border firing shots at Border Patrol agents, Border Patrol agents shooting one shot back, and no one getting hurt.
The news reports them as, quote, suspected cartel members, but I'm noticing this a lot, that there's no substantiation of the cartel connection whenever this title is used.
It very well may be the case that these people are involved with the cartel.
But it's also quickly becoming a catch-all term that I think could get weaponized pretty easily, and I think we're seeing that.
Yeah.
Also, those other cases, you know, there's that...
Alex is just throwing spaghetti at the wall here and none of this should be taken too seriously.
He just wants to live in a right-wing dictatorship because he's convinced himself that he'll be free of the consequences of living in a right-wing dictatorship because he's a crazy right-wing dude who's white and Christian.
Alex seems to be pretending that countries don't have one-on-one relations in addition to the larger multilateral agreements and those bodies that exist in the world.
That's stupid, and Trump isn't going to bring back having one-on-one agreements with other countries.
He's going to normalize relations between the US and hostile foreign governments like Russia and North Korea against the wishes of the international community and long-standing US policy.
The one-on-one relations are going to be things like him trying to make condos in North Korea, not negotiating a real peace in some country that's in conflict.
This is all pretty much the level of a farce, and someone who was sold on Alex's InfoWars message like 15 years ago should be horrified by this.
The guy who doesn't trust the federal government to regulate highways is secretly in favor of manifest destiny?
These are the kinds of moments that should make it blatantly clear to anyone listening to him that he never believed that shit that he preached to begin with.
It was all just the best way to Trojan horse his real beliefs to a wider audience.
Also, why isn't he mad about Scott Ritter being a sex offender?
Shouldn't he be more concerned about that than the little different I mean...
Now, I'm going to just say, from my American perspective, that means we're either going to make Greenland part of America, thus increasing the number of people who we call Americans, I mean, that's like reverse immigration, is that we immigrated on top of you, which is an interesting problem to have.
And then second, or if we're not going to make the mistake, that it's taxation without representation.
I just think it's important, as we're seeing the laying out of the beginning of Trump's second term...
To see these things that are direct invalidations of, like, you cannot possibly be someone who believes the stuff that Alex's career is built on and act this way.
Those beliefs have to have been fake.
And I think that there's value in pointing this out.
Not in, like, a ha-ha, you're a hypocrite kind of way, but in an illustrative way.
That can be helpful when you run into the next Alex Jones.
Alex says that they've killed Border Patrol officers then mutters in cases because he's trying to combine stories that he can't actually combine.
There was the story about a couple of guys shooting over the border where no one got hurt, and then there was the separate story from a little bit back about the Border Patrol agent who was killed in Vermont.
That has nothing to do with the border of Mexico, but Alex wants to superimpose that death onto this story so he can get the most benefit from it.
It's very clear what Alex is doing here, which is cheering on the killing of immigrants by the U.S. military.
Based on literally everything he's ever pretended to believe, Alex shouldn't be in favor of this.
But again, the principles were a costume.
It's clips like this that highlight why it's very important how loose the term cartel member has gotten with the right-wing media and politicians.
If Alex believes that it's appropriate for soldiers and Marines to kill cartel members, what level of evidence does he require to accept that someone the military kills was actually in the cartel?
He shouldn't believe the military is right to kill them, even if they are in the cartel.
But leaving that aside, if Alex makes that okay, he's essentially saying that the military can kill whoever they want, so long as they tell him that they were in the cartel.
This bloodthirsty right-wing kind of mentality, this was what he was supposed to exist in opposition to in the days of 9-11 with the term terrorist.
Like, this game is something that he...
Presented himself as the opposite of, the other side of.
The deaths of people in other countries and the violation of liberties of people here were hand-waved away by people saying that they were terrorists or suspected terrorists.
Alex knows all of this.
His career has spanned through that time, and he's been critical of how the police state tried to excuse their bad actions by just saying terrorist.
He knows exactly what...
what he's doing.
He just thinks that he's close to power now, whereas he knew that George Bush was too ambivalent about bringing back segregation and they could never really work together.
And Alex's complaint when he was talking about Obama justifying attacks or whatever by saying that they're suspected terrorists or whatever, he wasn't concerned with the actual behavior.
Now, the big cartel that runs Puerto Vallarta is out of there.
That one years ago came out.
It's been killing any of their members that are caught selling fentanyl because they knew Trump was coming back.
And they've been in the news.
What?
They said Trump's going to probably end up back in and he's going to kill us.
We've been told that by him through the, through in many areas, but Trump's been behind the scenes saying, when I get back in anybody caught with fentanyl, you're dead.
This doesn't seem like a tenable position for Alex to have.
Like if all you need for the U.S. president to be justified in sending the military in to kill you and your family is that you're somewhat connected to a drug ring.
Why should Alex have been against the war in Afghanistan?
The low bar for what he'll accept as a good cause for the U.S. to use deadly military force.
It's just unsustainable.
There's no war that he couldn't support given this level like this.
In Dallas, we've seen the worst with the illegal aliens waving their Mexican flags.
Now, tackling and beating up Trump supporters and taking away their American flags and stomping on them.
Boy, these folks really love America, don't they?
Now, obviously the vast majority of Hispanics that come here want to be American and they're great people and there's record numbers of Hispanic Americans that voted for Trump.
They are just as disgusted or probably more so by these people than other Americans are.
But...
Here's the thing.
America's not living on its knees anymore, and we're not taking it anymore.
And you got all the leftist scum and antifa out there with him as well.
And then this thing about, oh, we're Native Americans, so we can be wherever we want.
That's all taught by the big foundations, by the UN, by the globalists who want to break this country up.
By the way, I'll get to this coming up.
Disney's new Captain American, the new black Captain American, just decided to set his box office prospects on fire.
You know, America would love a black Captain America.
And he was the former, you know, buddy of the white Captain America.
So Kerry didn't say that we need to reduce farming or starve, and Bill Gates didn't say trees are bad.
Sure.
He invested in a company that works to thin out densely forested areas in California, something that Alex is supposed to be in favor of in terms of fighting forest fires.
So Anthony Mackie was speaking at a promotional event in Rome and explained that, quote, to me, Captain America represents a lot of different things, and I don't think the term America should be one of those representations.
It's about a man who keeps his word, who has honor, dignity, and integrity, someone who's trustworthy and dependable.
points here.
The first is the very obvious fact that he was in Rome and was trying to sell the movie to a crowd in Italy.
If all you see when you look at Captain America is America, then the international audience is never really going to take an interest in that character.
And if you're trying to sell a movie, obviously you would want to make it more relatable.
The second thing is that Mackie, what he's getting at is what makes Captain America Captain America.
When he thinks of the character, he thinks of the traits that the character embodies, as opposed to the flag he's decked out in.
The reason Steve Rogers was chosen to be Captain America and the reason Sam Wilson is chosen to be his successor is because they embody those characteristics which the powers that be want to make synonymous with America.
A ton of the media surrounding Captain America has to do with the idea that the shield doesn't make him a superhero.
It's those honorable qualities.
It's really basic in the text, and Alex won't engage with media that challenges his very dumb and rigid worldview at all, and I find it super funny.
Literally every Captain America movie, one of the biggest things that Captain America does is disregard everything that the American government says because the American government does not represent America.
Because the government is fucking Hydra in the other one, so you can't trust the government, but America is its people as embodied by the person of Captain America.
To not understand that Captain America is not a jingoistic character by definition because it is more interesting for it not to be a jingoistic character.
And then they come in some, you know, family-owned little convenience store and they go behind and get the lottery tickets, the cigarettes, and the families will start begging.
You've seen the videos, Indians and others, and they'll come arrest them when they buy back.
Ooh, white store owners do it.
They really get in trouble, but...
And they go, please, I don't have money.
I don't have insurance.
You can't.
And the person just shoveling cigarettes and lottery tickets and, you know, into the bag.
And then finally, the stop owners just start beating them up.
In 2014, the citizens of California voted in favor of Prop 47, which made crimes like shoplifting or receiving stolen property a misdemeanor instead of a felony when the crime was nonviolent and the amount stolen was under $950.
Gavin Newsom didn't do some kind of silly, crime-loving dictator move here.
it was a ballot measure.
Then in 2024, there was another ballot measure, Prop 36, which changed some of this, making repeat shoplifters face felony charges, even if their theft was stuff less than $950 in value.
So in the real world, California made things tougher on shoplifters in 2024, but Alex is reporting the opposite because he's a liar.
This dude has to be so embarrassed to say shit like this.
The only way you could think that it's legal to steal whatever you want up to a certain value is if you literally have never been in public before, or you think the people you're talking to are complete idiots who maybe have never been in public themselves.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think people in this situation, like this imagined Yeah, that would be insane.
A lot of stuff like, you know, the Powerball.
That's printed off by the cashiers, so it's difficult to steal.
But if you're just talking about scratch-off tickets, all of those are serial numbered, so they're super easy to report as stolen.
I've worked in gas stations before and they keep pretty close logs on those things because if you didn't, anyone who worked at a gas station or sold scratch-off tickets would have a free pass to print money.
So, I worked at a gas station when I was, like, 18. And, of course, because I was stupid, smoked a lot of weed, didn't have a lot of experience in life, I thought, legit, okay, I have a shift.
Can you imagine owning a store in California or other states where they let people rob and someone comes in...
When you're living on tiny margins in your little gas station, you deal with armed robberies, homeless, everything.
And I know a lot of these store owners, and maybe the whole family that works there is altogether dividing up $300,000 a year between eight, nine people that work there.
So they're all making like 30, 40, 50, 60 grand a year apiece.
They're working long hours, and then people come in and just rob you of your stuff, and then you go bankrupt and close.
Also, once again, I'm not understanding the very concept of an individual in response to a government's action saying you shouldn't trust the government.
They do not have your best interests in mind.
I feel like that should be a message that Alex is pro.
Radio listeners, it's illegal aliens webbing Mexican flags, attacking people and beating them up with American flags, and stealing the American flag and stomping on it and throwing it.
Just really friendly stuff.
I mean, if you went to Mexico and grabbed somebody at a Mexican parade and grabbed their flag, you'd get beat to death.
And you pretty much should.
I mean, you know, because they got a little pride in themselves.
So, I guess he's not so cool with free speech and seems very protective of flags.
If Alex thinks that the police should be protesters to death for desecrating the flag, then he doesn't care at all about the Constitution or his audience should eat him.
He can sidestep that a little bit by saying that the police shouldn't do the beating, but another citizen should be entitled to beat these protesters to death for desecrating the flag and waving another flag.
You get the sense that Alex wouldn't defend that position, though, across the board.
Like, let's say if...
I don't know, someone were to get beat up for waving a Confederate flag.
Trump is sending Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, down to...
El Salvador and Bukale, Kelly has said that he's looking to make a deal with the United States to let them bring non-El Salvadorans there.
And that totally freaks out all the international drug gangs and the rest of them because, okay, you make a deal with us and pay us, we'll just keep them in our giant prisons.
And that, of course, will shut him off.
He's totally shut the crime off there.
So they're going to turn that nice little prison planet for him.
Alex knows he's endorsing and pushing for everything he's pretended to stand against his entire career.
He's celebrating Trump negotiating with the president of El Salvador to ship people to that country so El Salvador can lock them up there for a price, and Alex literally calls it a prison planet.
That's the name of his website.
That's his branding that he's now applying to this thing that he supports.
And that's because he always supported it.
After World War II, people who supported the Nazi party really wanted to downplay how much they knew that what they were doing was wrong.
Things like this, where Alex supports creating a prison planet in El Salvador for people that Trump deports, that should make clear to anyone looking back on this time that Alex Jones 100% knows that what he's supporting is wrong.
He conceptually understands that treating people like this is wrong, but he also knows that all of the cultural groups that he's a member of won't be subjected to this treatment, so he doesn't care.
I mean, and that's even if you wanted to be like, no, this is a smart thing to do.
I mean, based on his own arguments about the cartels and shit like that.
I would probably say that if you were going to take a bunch of people who have no connection to a place, no contacts at that place, and no amount of money to take care of themselves at that place, you have essentially given me a draft list of people who are going to join the cartels because they need so much fucking money.
And it makes it a lot easier to really not like America when something that Captain America, Alex Jones, is cheering on is a for-profit incarceration and extraordinary rendition type program.
Like, Alex lived through this.
After the Iraq War and during the Iraq War, after 9-11, There were detention centers in third-party countries.
That's a huge shame on the United States record.
And one of the reasons that Alex was able to gain as much traction with his, oh, fuck the government kind of stuff, is because the government did do things like that.
On this episode, Alex is trying to cover the story of Trump firing inspector generals or inspectors general.
Alex is attempting to rationalize that this is a good and just thing for Trump to do.
And the way he's arguing that is by saying that past presidents have fired U.S. attorneys and Trump was right to fire Jack Smith, who was a special prosecutor.
That's all good and well, but Alex is comparing apples and oranges here.
Inspectors general are not the same thing as US attorneys or a special prosecutor.
They exist specifically to be independent oversight entities within government agencies.
They're appointed by the president, but their role is meant to be strictly nonpolitical.
In essence, they serve as a safeguard to make sure the president can't just exploit government departments for their own purposes.
This is not like Trump replacing U.S. attorneys, which is a fairly common thing the presidents can do in a new administration.
This should be seen as a serious threat that Trump is making to the foundation of oversight within government agencies by attempting to place loyalists in positions that are meant to be watchdogs.
The move is very clearly illegal, and even Lindsey Graham acknowledges I mean, it's just blatantly illegal and horrific.
So this is what Alex seems to think is the slam dunk for defending Trump, that Obama fired an inspector general in 2009.
When you hear an example like this, your mind should ask for details.
What about these situations might be similar and what might be different?
By figuring out those elements, you can parse out whether or not Alex's argument holds any water.
The thing that Alex is trying to justify is that within his first week in office, Trump has fired like 17 inspector generals, including those in the EPA, Health and Human Services, the Veterans Affairs, State Department, and the Department of Defense.
No concrete reason was given for the firings, and eight of these people have filed a lawsuit against the government because their firings were clearly illegal.
According to the Inspector General Act of 1978 and updates in the Securing Inspector General's Act of 2022, there are steps that you have to take in order to remove an IG, because if there weren't, then the president or government official would have a really easy time covering up corruption.
You'd just get rid of people who were looking into you.
The law says that the president has to tell Congress 30 days prior to the date of an intended termination of an inspector general, and they need to provide a thorough explanation with, quote, detailed and case specific reasons for the firing.
Unsurprisingly, Trump decided.
What?
In 2009, President Obama specifically decided to remove one inspector general that he'd lost confidence in.
This was the IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin.
He was put on notice 30 days in advance, as was Congress.
Congress received letters from the board of directors of the CNCS, who were supportive of Obama's decision, and said, quote, Even though this followed the rules of how a president can excuse an IG, Wolpin still sued the government, and it was fully litigated, and he lost.
Looking at the basic situations here, you can easily see that these are not comparable.
But Alex needs to make them seem the same because he'll do whatever he has to do to run defense for Trump's actions.
There's an extra layer of manipulation that's going on here, which goes like this.
Alex would call Obama removing this inspector general an act of a tyrant.
He definitely would.
But he's using it as an argument for why Trump removing IGs isn't the act of a tyrant.
Right.
At least that's what the argument is supposed to look like.
In reality, the argument Alex is making is that removing inspector generals is the act of a tyrant, but that Obama did it, so Trump should be able to, too.
It's meant to look like an argument appealing to the Constitution or principle, but that's really just a mask on, I have made this look like tyranny so I can do it.
The painting Obama is a tyrant that I don't think they knew was going to happen insofar as it made it so, oh, well, now our tyrant can do whatever he wants because it's not Obama.
Right, but I don't, I mean, I don't know if they meant to, to like...
I don't know if they knew that people would catch on quite so quickly with being like, yeah, tyrants are cool as long as they're not Obama kind of thing.
Because it's not enough to fire the operatives in the government.
You've got to cut their money off, which he's doing.
But you also...
We have to expose these people.
So this next thing that ties into this, I'm an expert on.
And Anthony Sutton was the head U.S. archivist for more than 30 years at the U.S. Senate.
He ran the intel for Senator Frank Church's committee hearings that were the biggest exposure of the deep state in history.
It's about to get bigger with Kosh Patel.
But he wrote at least five books that I read off of those documents.
And I was able to talk to him quite a bit, but he was too old.
He said he was too old to come on, but he listened to the show.
The point was, is that he's where we learned all this.
And there was other knowledge as well, but around 1900, the big banks and the Robert Barron's and J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller were public about it then.
They were in the news saying, Americans are too informed, they're too educated.
We've got to find out a way to take over society.
So they created tax-free foundations to get around the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Bill Gates just follows suit with his so-called non-profit that makes even more money and lets him buy off government's regulatory systems.
And they get hundreds of billions, conservatively, a year of tax money.
And then whether it's brainwashing kids or transgenderism or open borders or chipping in migrants, that's where the money comes from.
The government to the tax-free foundations, to the non-profits, to the NGOs.
And they buy off the universities and the churches and the 2.6 billion of the Catholic Church in four years to smuggle kids in.
In the way that our economy and system are set up, the super-rich are able to use foundations and charities to mask and redirect massive amounts of their wealth.
The system is very exploitable, and we've seen how it functions in terms of aiding the already very rich in hoarding resources.
It's an untenable system, and it needs to be changed, ideally in a way that doesn't hurt legitimate philanthropy, but stops massive corporations and billionaires from exploiting loopholes.
And that is where our agreement ends.
The rest of this should...
It's just John Birch Society nonsense.
Anthony Sutton wasn't the congressional archivist.
He just wrote conspiracy books about Bolsheviks and skull and bones.
He's considered a bad historian, a shitty source, and a bad writer.
This is all a fun story, but it doesn't also make sense.
The globalists apparently set up this system because they needed to get around the Sherman Antitrust Act.
But why would they allow the Sherman Antitrust Act to be passed to begin with?
It's not like the globalist plot just started 50 years ago and they're adjusting to new realities.
Their boss is the fucking literal devil.
If the whole system that we live in now was created just to get around the Sherman Antitrust Act, it seems like it would be easier for the globalists if they just overturned that or didn't let it pass.
They have magic powers and kill people all the time, and it seems like they have free run of all the government's power for over 100 years, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they could just undo this law.
And interestingly, pretty much the only people who want to overthrow the Sherman Antitrust Act are folks on Alex's right-wing libertarian side.
But I do like to point out those little moments where there is the agreement, which is, like, this is an exploitable system that the super rich can use.
And the reason that I like to point out those moments of agreement is because those are the places where Alex lies to you.
Those are the places, like, 15 years ago, you could have heard him say something like that and been like, this guy's saying some shit.
People do want to hear you say, this is fucked up, and not immediately followed up with, but here's why the system says we can't do anything about it now, or we have to wait until the next four years.
So Alex is totally right in as much as there's a still frame on this story that was chosen because someone's flag is covering Elon's face in such a way that it creates a Hitler mustache.
It's an unflattering and maybe a little winking choice for an image, but Alex has never had a problem with inopportune timing and photos with people he hates, so I don't know why he cares so much here.
More importantly, Alex is claiming that the headline is asserting this thing with no evidence.
The headline itself is, quote, fears for security of Jews worldwide in wake of Elon Musk AFD speech.
The article is in The Guardian, and it references the position of Holly Seufer, the chief executive of the Jewish Democratic Council of America.
In the article she says, quote, It's been a steady stream of signaling to right-wing extremists that they have an ally now in the White House.
Some of the other stuff in the article that it brings up are that Trump didn't release a statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day, but he did pardon the guy who stormed the Capitol on January 6th wearing a Camp Auschwitz shirt, which was timed tragically.
That pardon timed right around the 80th anniversary of the liberation.
Of Auschwitz.
So when Alex says that these claims are being made with no evidence or backing, it's because he just skimmed the headline and he got mad about this picture.
If he'd read the article, he would know that this is reporting on the views of a prominent Jewish American activist who's reporting her sense of how people are feeling about Musk's super obvious actions.
It's very overt, and honestly, kind of the best picture you could run with a story like this.
When Trump got shot, obviously the picture of him with blood on his face in front of the flag was going to be the image that went with that story.
And even though it had a strong potential to create a deceptive hero narrative about Trump...
The picture was too good.
There's no way you're going to fault some outlet for running that picture.
Similarly, in this case, noted bigot and eugenics fan Elon Musk was giving a speech at the AFD rally telling the audience to stop worrying about the guilt of the past, and at an inopportune moment, the shadow of a flag covered his face in a way that really looked like a Hitler mustache.
We have the media that we have, and we have their traffic incentives that they exist within, so you're never not going to use that image if you have it.
They've already been caught with the fake bids, caught with the fake auction.
Caught kicking us out of the building or trying to twice, charting off the internet, saying we were shut down, saying Bloomberg, through the onion, owned it, his everytown group.
And they're really embarrassed here.
Well, they're going to be really embarrassed soon.
We got some real nice stuff in Discovery.
And that makes what you've heard about sound like...
And they just think, well, we can do this to Alex Jones.
We can do all these illegal things, like we did Trump.
We can have a conspiracy against his rights.
It's open season because we're the good people and he's the bad guy because CNN said so.
He peed on that grave.
Never been to Connecticut.
Nobody ever peed on it.
Made up.
But people back then still believe that son of a bitch is pissing on graves and going to people's houses.
And Elon Musk has got a Hitler mustache too.
See all those damn white people?
New Yorker magazine?
So, it's a new game, folks, because people are on to them, and now the public is into researching and finding their lives, and it's exciting to discover it and break with all the mind control.
But there's a problem.
You've got to sell a lot of CMOS, which is excellent, and a lot of Timber, which is amazing, and a lot of T-shirts to fight.
The Democrat Party deep state that's still coming after me.
They even say, well, Trump's in, but...
Jones, if we shut him down, will be a consolation prize.
And, Alex, explain, as you're an engineer, but I've read the studies, why does manipulating it to make it deceptive On not just wokeism, but on everything.
What I want people who hate DEI, what I want is for my family, just write down 10 things that will improve or just 10 things that will happen once wokeism is gone over the next four years and see if any of them happen.
If none of those things happen, then maybe it wasn't wokeism that you're unhappy with.
The reasoning and the level of complaints, the level of expertise in every fucking field, even though his career is littered with the corpses of humiliation, it's just...
Here's what I find so fascinating about AI and the way these people interact with it, is that there's only...
Two ways that I've seen anybody interact with it through the books that I've read about it and then through people who talk about it and do their stuff and keep people up to date is that there's incredibly smart people who can code the fuck out of shit who are playing with their fun toy.
And then there are incredibly stupid people who think that it's more than a toy.
Trump needs to decentralize an open-source AI right now.
Trump needs to, on an emergency basis, reform the entire university system, fire every woke teacher, every woke professor, every woke administrator across the entire education system, and we've got to end all censorship across the board.
Including the censorship that's still on X. Are you Chairman Mao?
We've been sabotaged by wokeness, the dumbing down of our school system, the dumbing down of our corporations.
We now have a culture in America, which of course Trump is beginning to reverse, thank But we have a culture, especially in Silicon Valley and in the tech areas, where the most woke person is given the advancement to be in charge of projects instead of the most qualified person.
Our universities have been turned into woke indoctrination centers instead of education centers.
Now, there are exceptions to this.
There are still some good universities, but, you know, across the board, they're just woke factories.
They're indoctrination centers.
I mean, look at what happened in L.A. recently with the fires.
Did we have competent fire chiefs?
No.
We had lesbian fire chiefs that were really happy to be, you know, lesbians, but can you put out fires?
Not really.
Can you put water in the fire hydrants?
Turns out that's not the case.
That's not part of being lesbian for whatever reason.
I don't know why.
But I don't care if somebody's a lesbian or gay or trans.
Because if you stop and you really think about what it is you're actually saying, you are either saying you hate lesbians or people who fuck women can't fight fires.
It's the mentality that someone like Mike brings into this conversation, which is if the person who is in a position of authority is, anything other than a straight white man, then the reason that something went wrong is because it wasn't a straight white man.
And conveniently, he's able to play this game, but he doesn't hate LGBTQ people.
...become competitive and become dominant in the realm of AI.
What we have to do on an emergency basis right now is we have to denounce wokeism and all of the irrational lunacy that it involves.
And the climate lunacy, this idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that it's bad for plants somehow, when it's critical for photosynthesis, for God's sake, right?
And this idea that men can have babies, this idea that there are an unlimited number of genders, this idea infected our culture, it infected our government offices, it infected our corporate America, our universities, pop culture, Hollywood, all of it.
It's got to go.
And it's got to go on an emergency basis.
I mean, this is a national security issue at this point.
The issue is a lot of people who are maybe passive observers or just in the public, maybe they get swayed by an argument like carbon dioxide is required to make plants grow.
Because it is true.
Maybe you can be like, it doesn't make sense to me.
I wonder if this doesn't also have something to do with, like, as a culture, It is not okay, or at least we don't make you feel like it's okay to say something like, I don't understand this, and I'm going to be honest with you, I probably never will.
I don't have the interest in learning about it, I don't care personally, and it's not affecting me.
So instead, you have to be like, oh, I totally understand that, and then there you go.
You just are going to believe what you want to believe regardless, so why are we bothering with you telling me that carbon dioxide is important for fucking photosynthesis?
You know, I think, here's what I think is interesting, right?
So I'm living where I'm living, and I'm seeing, like, If we are in a space where the president could just do some illegal shit and then everybody's like, I guess you can do some illegal shit then.
Then we gotta keep your ears out for when somebody's like, you can't do that anymore and here's how we're going to stop you.
I mean, what he's doing is aggregating bullshit that people have sent him on Twitter, and then giving it to us in a slightly more entertaining format, I guess.
And it's the smart thing for you as some right-wing dipshit commentator type because you get to enjoy all of the damage and shit you want to happen and still get to pretend like, I'm actually against this.