In this installment, Dan tells Jordan about a road he went down recently thanks to stumbling onto a weird filing in his bankruptcy case, and what it reveals about bad approaches toward dealing with figures like Alex.
Cleaning the place up so when you come back, you know, you don't want to come back to a mess because then you're just like, ah, now I'm back getting it.
Yeah, it's a bummer.
Right?
And I have this thing that I do and we do now together wherein something gets, things get regularly cleaned for the most part.
Things get regularly cleaned.
But then something will not get cleaned once, and then it'll be that little pebble.
And then the next time it's like, ah, I'll get to that one because it's more.
And then until eventually it reaches a point where you actively don't want to clean it.
So, just to start things off, give a little bit of context for how this ball got rolling.
As Alex's bankruptcy case has gone on, I've tried to limit the amount that we cover that subject just for a number of reasons that I hope people understand.
The first is that it largely surrounds issues that I don't know much about and aren't in the lane that I think you and I are suited to cover.
I don't think either of us are particularly good at business, so I think that we're out of our depth when we're trying to get the weeds about the minutia of business dealings, which is such a huge part of the bankruptcy stuff.
Typically, this just isn't our turf, except the parts when Alex very clearly explains his strategy to defraud the courts on his show.
That's where most of our commentary has come in, because Alex is forcing our hand by laying out his schemes with the subtlety of a Bond villain.
However, a couple months back, there was a filing in the bankruptcy case that I think helps highlight an important theme that I want to discuss.
On March 17th, a lawyer from Ohio named Robert Wynne Young filed a motion in the case to appear pro hoc vice.
This is a request that's made when a person who's licensed to practice law in one place wants to act as a lawyer in another place, and the court allows it for a limited time.
Young isn't allowed to just be a lawyer in Connecticut now, but for the purposes of this case, he's in good standing as a lawyer, so the court has accepted his accreditation to appear as if he were licensed in Connecticut.
His motion for ProHawk Vichy was approved, and the next day he filed a huge motion to intervene actively in the case, and requested that the whole process be put on hold so he could present evidence that the judgment against Alex was fraudulent, and thus the bankruptcy was based on fraudulent debts that Alex could owe.
Initially, your thought might be that this is someone trying to defend Alex, and this was just another stalling tactic from the Infowars side.
But it's actually a little bit crazier.
In his filing, Young lays out a dumb theory that Alex and his lawyers intentionally threw the case as part of an elaborate conspiracy where he was working with the Okay.
They had tried to move the case to federal court, but only through claiming diversity jurisdiction, and that's the big tell, that they were taking a dive.
Diversity jurisdiction is the thing someone can claim when they're being sued in another state's court by a person who lives in that state.
So in this case, Alex is from Texas, and he's being sued in Connecticut state court by Connecticut plaintiffs.
So claiming diversity jurisdiction could be a way for him as a defendant to make sure that he's not going to have a local jury or court be biased against him as an out-of-state person.
Conversely, federal question jurisdiction is something that can be claimed when an action at the root of a case is something that's going to involve the Constitution or federal laws.
Young's claim is that this case involves the First Amendment, but the state court can't handle constitutional questions, so the fact that Alex didn't remove the case to federal court shows that he was throwing the case.
The issue is that the federal question jurisdiction is something that the plaintiffs can assert, not the defendant.
As the defendant, it's not Alex's place to claim federal question jurisdiction.
The only thing that he can do is assert constitutional reasons as a protection from the claims being made by the plaintiffs.
It's considered established law that the likelihood of a defendant using the Constitution or federal law as a defense, that's not enough for a defendant to claim federal question jurisdiction.
So even if the plaintiffs in this case would have wanted to do that, like say, hey, our argument is going to be rebutted by Alex saying this is First Amendment stuff, even that isn't enough to make this – It would have to be the plaintiffs saying the root of what we're saying is that our First Amendment right was violated in this case.
Then it would become something that's relevant for federal question jurisdiction.
Young's argument is that because Alex didn't do this thing that he couldn't have done, he threw the case, and it was all a plot in order to make sure that the claims about Sandy Hook would never have to be decided in court.
From the beginning, Alex was in on this, defaming these families because he knew to do so would eventually lead to a lawsuit which he would throw and would then destroy the First and Second Amendments.
Suffice it to say that Young is a mess, but because I was really curious about where he was coming from, I decided to watch his entire almost two-hour PowerPoint presentation that he did with some channel on Rumble hosted by a guy who calls himself Victor Hugo.
It was all pretty dumb, and most of the points that he brought up could be explained pretty easily by him engaging in what seems like very obvious misunderstandings.
But through the watching of this video, I was struck by something I realized that we haven't spent much time covering.
Which is the criticism of Alex that comes from the conspiracy side of the world.
There was something about how they were talking about Alex that interested me, probably because it was dumb, but also because when I started this show, it was partially because of this kind of vapid conspiracy-based conspiracy of Alex and how that was the only thing that seemed to exist.
No one criticized him except for these kinds of conspiracy criticisms of him.
I was reminded of some feeling that I hadn't really engaged with in years, and it led me to exploring this Victor Hugo guy's channel a little bit more.
I'll just peel off the band-aid here and say that he's a huge anti-Semite, and he has an obsession with saying that he's, quote, noticing things.
Noticing is a big anti-Semitic dog whistle and buzzword.
It's meant to say like...
You can kind of say, I'm noticing things.
For instance, let's say there's a big business guy like Larry Fink, and you want to talk about how he's Jewish, but you're not sure if the person you're talking to is on the same bigot wave as you.
So you say, I noticed something about that guy.
And if the person gets what you're saying, then you get to talk freely, you know?
Yeah, but if they don't recognize what you're saying, then you haven't shown too many of your cards, and you can't, like, there's still plausible deniability.
Anyway, Hugo, Victor Hugo, he started a show called The Noticing.
And on the first or second episode of it, depending on if you trust the title or the content of the episode, Victor Hugo had Robert Wynne Young on as a guest to discuss the motion to reopen this Sandy Hook case through the bankruptcy court in order to unveil this great cover-up that had gone on.
Well, first of all, Victor, welcome to the News Network.
I appreciate the backup.
We needed help, and your work and content has been, you know, second to none.
I mean, you're out there noticing, and I appreciate it, and I hope others do as well.
You know, with that said, formalities aside, this particular episode is very important, and what Wen Young is doing is very important because Alex Jones calls himself the most censored man alive, calls himself the tip of the spear, and in fact is just another controlled opposition Jewish asset.
Probably Mossad ran, or CIA ran, and we know he's connected to the CIA, and he's out there giving us 80%, 90% truth, and then making us look crazy, stupid.
Or even criminal now with the other 10%.
And what he's doing by throwing this case and, you know, basically refusing to call it a First Amendment issue, he is essentially setting us all up to be either afraid of speaking the truth or possibly even have a precedent to actually come after us in the courts for speaking the truth.
So Alex Jones is not the tip of the spear.
He's not the most censored man alive.
He's one of the greatest threats to free speech that we have.
So suffice it to say that Dustin is another anti-Semite who actually believes the Jewish people aren't human.
And he frequently advocates for what he calls the Obadiah 18 solution, which is a reference to a Bible verse that reads, quote, and the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph, a flame and the house of Esau for stubble for they shall kindle in them and devour them.
And there shall be not be any remaining of the house of Esau for the Lord hath spoken Basically, he's a proponent of exterminating all Jewish people.
Dustin has some really bad positions, but he doesn't shy away from it at all other than using these phrasing games like noticing and Obadiah, that kind of stuff.
So I saw this guy and I was like, this guy is interesting to me, and I don't know why.
Obviously, they're weirdos talking about Alex Jones, which is, you know, Somewhat similar to what I do.
And I think a lot of the times what people are reacting to in this kind of like, oh, the tone police kind of stuff, is the anxiety you have towards, what if I say something and I discover after the fact that this person is very clearly personally offended by it, and I didn't mean it in a personally offensive way, right?
And so, I understand why people feel that way.
I don't often feel that way because my first thought when that guy started talking was, if this guy was talking to me, I would say, you sound like a psycho.
You gotta deal with whatever that is before we can continue this conversation.
And then people would be anxious Because they'd be like What if he says Oh this is how I was born To talk like that Then I would say That's how we do things here.
Yeah, you know, there's, I think a lot of people took that, you know, right speech leads to right action to mean, like, the meaning of your speech leads to the meaning of your action, right?
You know, others have pointed this out, but Wynn, what you're doing is, you know, it's taking it to the level of legal proofs to show this in a court setting.
Now, I don't know that they're ever going to, like, get in with the courts.
They're probably going to cover this up at some point.
But by then, it's too late.
We'll have gotten the information out.
And Alex Jones is, he's falling.
He's almost done.
He's no longer trusted his credibility of shots since October 7th.
He couldn't figure out bombing babies was bad or that it was even happening for a long, long time.
I definitely, you know, I am curious as to how this is going to go in the courts and what his response is going to be.
But I am going to share my website here if I can pull it back up.
I have too many options to share, so that's kind of confusing.
So I have a post on Alex Jones.
I mentioned it earlier.
It's called Alex Neverjew Jones.
Limited Hangout Mossad Gatekeeper.
Can you guys see this screen?
Yes.
Just checking.
I'm not going to make everybody go through all this, but I was working on it earlier to make it a little bit neater.
I have a documentary where I basically show that he will never, ever expose Jews for anything.
He always, you know, Nazis, Chaikoms, globalists, whatever, anything but the Jews.
That's why I called him Never Jew Jones.
And, you know, obviously that's a side topic.
But in the case of modern politics, people in my audience know, at least in my opinion, it's them behind everything every single time.
So I stumbled upon this because I was looking into this weirdo who had inserted himself into Alex's bankruptcy case in a weird way that kind of works to Alex's advantage because It's never going to work.
And it's just going to stall things.
And that's all Alex wants.
He wants to just stall things.
And so there was a part of me that's like, who is this?
What's going on?
And him being on this show with these anti-Semites, I was like, huh, that's interesting.
And as I was watching it, I was like, Dustin is almost a perfect embodiment.
Of the thing that was unsatisfying eight years ago when I started asking a lot of these questions and exploring Alex in a more serious way.
And that felt weird.
And then I was like, I'm continuing to watch this.
There's a bunch of things that just didn't seem right.
with the case.
Um, and people are noticing, so to speak.
Um, and then of course the other things that he's done as well down here with his associations, his connections to the CIA, his, uh, refusal to call out atrocities, um, like, you know, war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Gaza and such.
Basically this post has everything you need.
If you want to talk about Alex Jones, um, I don't want to like, I've been dealing with him for many years.
He hates me.
I'm Voldemort at InfoWars, the guy who must not be named.
He's threatened to kill me on air before.
All of it's on video.
Alex Jones does not like me very much.
But that's because I've been exposing him for about eight years now.
And before that, I watched him growing up.
I mean, I know this guy as well as he knows himself.
I've watched him since he was a young person, and I was a child.
You know, 16 years basically watching Infowars, growing up on Infowars, seeing how Alex Jones operates, and seeing when he let us down.
We both entered into examining Alex Jones with a similar question.
Namely, there's something wrong here, but what is it?
What's going on?
If you watch Alex's show with anything more than a passive eye, you can't help but notice that his actions do not match the character he's presenting himself as.
And even more troublingly, his positions on stuff seems to shift more than it should.
He presents his beliefs as black and white, where he's working with God to fight the devil, but then, on a day-to-day basis, he often engages with news like someone who believes in gray areas and lesser of two evils ideas.
It doesn't make sense as a show, which is fine if people are just listening to it for an emotional fix.
Alex performs the outbursts that are cathartic for the audience and he insists that his outbursts are rooted in academic research and divinely granted wisdom so it's unquestionably correct based on earthly and heavenly standards.
If that's all you want then his contradictions don't really matter and you might not even see them.
But if you pay closer attention, his show will bother you.
It'll start to come to your attention that things that you were being sold last year aren't so important anymore.
You'll begin to see that this disaster that the globalists are about to trigger is the same thing Alex was telling you they were going to trigger two years ago, which never happened.
To steal Dustin's favorite word, you'll start noticing things.
And that's a split in the road for that person.
That's what you come upon.
There's just, you have to make a choice.
Because they're able to put their finger on this nebulous thing that makes Alex's show confusing, this person who confronts that fork in the road, they can't enjoy it in the same passive way that the bulk of the audience probably does.
The itch of, what's going on here?
What the fuck is wrong?
That doesn't go away.
So if they really are asking questions, then this fork in the road appears, and they have to choose a path.
As I see it, there are three paths that split from this road.
The first is the path of just accepting what the mainstream media would tell you about Alex.
You can find plenty of clips about him on sites like Media Matters or the SPLC that are fairly accurate most of the time, but they lose a lot of context and they present him a bit two-dimensionally and a little cartoony.
It's a generally correct picture of Alex that gets painted, like he's an angry idiot, he's dangerous, etc., but it also fails to paint the whole picture.
This is what I would describe as the pacifying off-ramp for conspiracy theories.
You can go that path.
It's possible.
The second path is what I've attempted to do with this show.
I took Alex at his word and then assessed the claims he was making.
If he was correct, I would be an info warrior.
If he was wrong, I would seek to understand what he was wrong about and the context that the errors were made in.
Why do you reach the conclusion that you reach based on this misuse of information or this fake thing?
When primary source documents are provided, I would go find them, read them, and then read up on what was going on around the time of that document's creation.
Who was creating this document?
And most importantly, is this a fake document?
I would call this path a risky, open-hearted path.
You might end up learning that Alex Jones is right.
Sure.
He was able to correctly assess that Alex was lying, but it was too threatening to the worldview that he'd created to ask if Alex had been lying about the fundamental conspiracy shit that Dustin had used to understand the world over that time.
The conspiracy worldview must remain intact, but the goal is to now find a way to incorporate an evil version of Alex into that world.
He's a limited hangout.
He works for the Jews.
It's a perfectly simple solution to a problem that If not resolved simply, could lead to an identity crisis.
This third path is the radicalization path, and it's why a lot of folks who are more extreme than Alex, they still consider his existence a net positive.
Over time, overt neo-Nazis and the like, they knew that a lot of their ranks came from people who were, quote, woken up by Alex, and eventually they grew past him.
They recognized Alex as a first step in the initiation process that some people might never get past, but it also provided a much larger potential recruitment pool than they would have had access to otherwise.
A regular, everyday person is not going to gravitate towards media that just screams that Jews are inhuman monsters, but...
If they get into Infowars, it becomes possible for the neo-Nazis to then start asking them if they notice anything about Alex and plant seeds that draw them closer to the Jews are inhuman monsters type of shows.
Frankly, Dustin's existence is kind of evidence of this.
Without Alex's influence, it's likely that he wouldn't have been in a place where his disillusion with Alex as a white supremacist figure would have led him to create the kind of media that he does.
His explicit bigotry grew out of becoming tired with Alex's cagey bigotry.
So what's the point I'm driving at here?
Essentially, the thing that I want to stress is that And I believe we, you know, covered that in terms of the LA protests recently.
But it also has a tendency toward funneling people down these sorts of paths and creating people like this.
that's full of shit.
His lies, you know, his misinterpretations of data points, he does it in a way to serve furthering whatever storyline he's using to keep the audience interested and buying pills.
That's a large part of his business operation.
He's also speaking to something very real, which is an underlying feeling that people have that something about society isn't right.
Load-bearing pieces of how our country operates are designed in systemic ways to hurt certain people and benefit others.
Most people feel this way on some level or another.
Some are able to suppress it and say it's the cost of living in the modern world, but others try to seek out explanations for why things are the way they are.
Some of that exploration, it leads people to advocacy and political organizing, but a lot of it also goes to more entertainment-based shit.
For decades, Alex was the leading figure of the media space that catered to the people who wanted to find an answer for why the world wasn't how they felt it should be, and he provided easy answers.
It's a perfect and undefinable explanation for why things feel wrong, and it's one you can superimpose onto pretty much any story you want.
If there's a new villain that pops up in the world, it's easy to just say they're a globalist.
If someone who was previously a hero betrays the Patriots, then it's easy to just say that they were a secret globalist all along, or that the globalists got to them.
Alex creates this ecosystem because it's where he can keep people as customers, so long as they don't get too inquisitive.
If they start noticing how his narratives are inconsistent and his actions over time are pretty suspicious, it has a tendency to lead them right to that fork in the road, and one of the paths is way more likely to be chosen than the others.
That third path, the radicalization path, is far more likely to be taken because it's easy.
Taking the first path requires that you blindly accept the information being given to you by sources that you previously considered evil, like Media Matters.
You're not going to just immediately adopt, oh, they're actually great, love them now.
Taking the second path requires you to assess information from a dispassionate position and risk reaching conclusions that the worldview that you adopted is a fraud.
Essentially, each of these options demand that you disrupt the way that you've engaged with the world up to that point, whereas the third option...
So I was watching another Victor Hugo interview with Justin Nemos, and I found one moment that I thought really illustrated this point incredibly well.
So Dustin says there's a funny picture there, and that, of course, is a racist cartoon of a Jewish man that you see on all the cool racist sites like Twitter.
And formerly it was mostly in places like Message Boards and Stormfront, but now Twitter, because the world's cool.
So this cartoon is next to a screenshot of a document, which is said to be from the National Archives and Records Administration.
It provides a link to a website called israelobby.org, which takes you to the document.
This is a website run by a group called the Institute for Research Middle East Policy, which houses a large collection of documents that have been released due to declassification or FOIA requests about groups like the ADL.
The link that Dustin's meme goes to is a 126-page PDF of documents from the FBI.
Most of this PDF is a list of contacts inside the ADL that were provided by the group's secretary to the FBI, with the assurance that these contacts would cooperate with the FBI in investigations that they might be doing.
This was a letter from September 1940, so the mind reels about what the context of their cooperation might have been during World War II.
After a long list of contacts is some stray pages, one of which serves as the basis for the meme that Dustin is discussing.
This is headlined, quote, Special Notice to All Jews!
It starts, quote, The Central Conference of American Rabbis at the 47th Annual Conference held in New York on June 26, 1937, declared for exemption of Jews from military service in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism.
The document goes on, This was the Conference of American Rabbis,
but if they were going to be able to pull this off, they need a little bit of extra push, which is convenient, because in the document it says, quote, Powerful Jews will be in all draft boards, and Jewish physicians will protect you from military service.
Arrangements are already made to exempt you in case religious exemptions cannot be prepared in time.
You are warned to renounce, abjure, repudiate, and deny any of this information if questioned by Gentiles, even under oath, as outlined in the Talmud and justified for the preservation of our race.
The most, if anything like this were real, the most evidence you could have would be something so oblique as to be like, hey, do you have the name of the guy that got onto that voting board?
Like, that would be it.
Like, that would be the only evidence that there is any kind of thing.
Because you do this shit face-to-face, you don't write it down!
So, further supporting evidence that this is a fake document is that the 47th Conference of American Rabbis was held in 1936, not 1937, and it took place in Cape May, New Jersey, not in New York.
These are basic details that an authentic document, they would not get that wrong.
And these are often the fingerprints of propaganda around this time that's designed to demonize Jewish people.
This is an obviously fake document, and as it turns out, the reason that it was in the FBI's files that got released is because someone in Cleveland had found this flyer at their workplace and reported it to the FBI in 1943.
Good stuff.
You might notice that that date, also in the middle of World War II, when Nazi propaganda was popular even in the United States.
By taking the metaphorical third path, a person like Dustin is able to incorporate the new information that Alex is a lying piece of shit, but still maintain the freedom to play the same games with information that he enjoyed doing while he was an InfoWars fan.
All of the taking shortcuts and ignoring the fact that your sources are transparently fake because they make the point you want to arrive at, you can still do all of that stuff.
Because fundamentally...
Alex would tell you that it's all the globalists, but now you just get to say it's all the Jews.
Going down this third path is a way to challenge your conclusion.
I.e., Alex Jones is a good guy truth teller, while never needing to challenge the way you arrived at your conclusions to begin with.
I.e., Alex Jones coached me to mishandle information in strategic ways that benefited him, and now I'm starting to see through.
People like this aren't threatening to Alex.
They're just kind of annoying.
They make him feel like people think he's a poser and they have a tendency to chip away a little bit at Alex's audience, but these folks don't fundamentally represent any risk to the conspiratorial worldview that Alex exploits and profits from.
I think the reason that I was able to approach the fork in the road differently and go down this second path, it's not because I have some intellectual or moral character that's better than anyone, or even Dustin.
It's because I didn't inherently believe Alex's shit to begin with.
So whatever conclusion I arrived at, it wasn't personally threatening.
I liked conspiracy theories, and I fucked around with acting like they could be real when I was out drinking with friends, but I didn't really believe that 9-11 was an inside job.
For someone in the position of an InfoWars fan, that calculus is totally different.
And in order to reach the very simple conclusion that Alex Jones is just a dumb liar, you have to give up a much larger framework of things that you believe and have believed for a long time.
It's so much easier to just create a new conspiracy on top of the old one, and it pretty much always goes in the direction of discovering that Alex works for the Jews.
So for Dustin, I fucking hate him.
And I think he represents a disgusting ideology.
So fuck him.
It probably felt like I was going to get to the end of this and express some kind of empathy for this guy and encourage understanding, and maybe in another time I might have done that.
But I'm not really interested in that anymore.
I get why he's gone down the roads that he's gone down, and I do think the deck was stacked against him, but that doesn't excuse becoming a Nazi.
Understanding how Alex's media strategy leads people to this kind of place is important, and placing an amount of blame on Alex is correct.
The thing about that, though, is that you then, having noticed that, you haven't dealt with what that would mean to then apply to you.
You've noticed that you did not enter with the same framework, which is why you are not ending in the same place, because he's unable to let go of his framework.
You haven't analyzed whether or not you've been able to let go of your own framework or if you had maintained it.
I have let go of a lot of pieces of things that were fairly important to me prior to examining a lot of these prior assumptions that I had about the world.
You know, it reminds me, I think this is a, I brought it up too many times, but it's becoming more relevant because it's so wrong about everything.
But that book about brainwashing, right?
In another way of looking at it, you could describe any act of learning information that is not the same information that you currently hold, but would occupy the same space in your brain as being a painful process of removing the old information and then putting the new information in its place.
Right?
That could be what we describe as brainwashing or just regular learning.
It is a process of risk, as you put it, to go, well, if this is wrong, I have to remove it entirely.
I can no longer have this piece of information, and it must be replaced by information that could then alter everything else that I know.
But also, doing that about one question doesn't mean that you've done that process for everything.
There are blind spots and shit that you don't even know you need to re-examine.
You don't become aware of it until it gets brought up.
It's a constant process of re-examining.
And taking the risk of opening up that part of your brain to, like, hey, I might learn something new that's a little bit threatening to where I was comfortable.
You know, you're just like, oh no, I'm a cool guy.
I'm a cool different kind of guy now, as opposed to really fundamentally examining if Alex is full of shit, what does that mean for the past 16 years that you've been watching this show?
Dustin is still doing the exact same thing using this source to prop up the storyline that he wants to tell, which is Jews are behind everything that's evil and wrong.
So, the digging would probably be indicated by him not using a shortcut like this.
No, but I mean, it is interesting to go back and, like, to listen to something that he said in the context that he said it, which is like, oh, he hates me.
He's threatened by me.
And then, like, because I stop and think about it.
And, of course, he's not.
But also, he's not threatened by the SPLC or anything.
And then it's exactly like power.
The people that have it, you don't need to mention them.
The people he's threatened by, he will never speak our name.
He was hoping to kick the can down the road to make it too expensive for these people to continue suing him.
It's not like Sandy Hook didn't happen and he's part of an elaborate conspiracy in order to make sure that he loses this case in order to make sure that no one ever has to know that Sandy Hook was fake.
Like, this is...
There's a very simple explanation for it.
And instead of challenging what led you to the stupid conspiracy to begin with, you've added a new layer on top of it.
You know, like, either he reaches the point where he's like, wait, genetically we're all Jewish, and then it dies, or he goes, Jews aren't even real, and then it dies.
I mean it more that, like, his co-host on this show has got to turn out to be part of the conspiracy eventually.
Oh yeah.
You know, like it's, you'll never reach the end in any kind of
And I think, yeah, I think that what I was feeling about watching these things is a reminder and a hearkening back to the disappointment that I had when I first asked some of these questions about, like, the fuck's going on with this Alex Jones guy?
This is kind of the stuff that was available then, and was around then.
And I honestly feel like I don't know if it's much better now.
I think it is, a little bit.
There's a more robust conversation in non-insane circles, and I think that's good.
That's a positive.
But I also think that there is a danger, and that is that...
Twitter and the social media space, a lot of these video sharing sites, have become such easy radicalization pipelines that, like, Alex isn't necessary.
That time when people would need to dip their toe into Alex in order to get them acclimated to the point where they would accept deeply anti-Semitic shows and explanations of the world, I don't think that exists anymore.
You can just go cut the middleman out.
And I think that that portends a fairly scary thing.