In this installment, Dan and Jordan see Alex wrestle with the news that the Texas courts greenlit Infowars' liquidation by attempting to debate a baby Nazi about whether or not Trump is advancing the police state in DC. Get tickets for our live show in Portland here
I think there's no other conclusion to draw from this article than that you have inspired women to take back the pinky ring from perhaps you specifically.
It's like something having quotation marks unnecessarily.
Yep, yep.
So we're going to start off today's episode and just give you a little bit of introduction.
As time has dragged on, Alex has been successful in kicking the can down the road in terms of facing the consequences for his defamation of the families of Sandy Hook victims.
He's abused every aspect of the bankruptcy system and stalled it as far as possible.
But on August 13th, the news came in that time was running out.
Judge Guerra Gamble of the Texas state courts ruled that free speech systems had five days to turn over their property to a receiver and that this receiver had clearance to change the locks on buildings containing that property.
Obviously, this didn't mean that it was the end of the world for him, but this ruling is a clear sign that these are the stakes that are in play.
Even if this is something that Infowars is able to push back on, they're playing defense against a concrete end of the road, as opposed to much more abstract consequences like we've seen.
It's the difference between having 10 moves left in a chess game and having like two.
There's a lot less road in front of him.
To be totally clear, Alex probably doesn't care about this anymore because he's gotten everything he's wanted out of this situation.
By stalling and delaying any consequences, he's bought himself enough time to create dummy businesses that he can use to exist.
Even if InfoWars is seized from him, he can just keep on going on.
He's created the Alex Jones store to replace the InfoWars store and the Alex Jones Network to replace free speech systems.
And he's not technically the owner of those businesses.
So he believes that they're outside the reach of the courts.
If he's made the most of the time that he's been given, then his customer base should be fully migrated over to the new store by now.
So it's really just kind of a performance thing at this point for him, I think.
Obviously, he can't show weakness or appear to be giving up on the InfoWars brand without threatening the morale of the customers that he wants to buy stuff from the new store.
So he needs to keep on looking like he's putting up a fight.
So on the 13th, he ends up having to not do the show.
But I got news just yesterday evening that the Democrat Party law firms, Paul Weiss, the ones that Trump sanctioned and admitted to their law fair, have been doing bait and switches in the Travis County, Austin, Texas courts with their Soros judge, the same one that ran the show trial three years ago with HBO.
Now, the federal court has blocked them shutting this operation down.
They had their fake auction with the Onion and Bloomberg.
And remember all that last year and tried to close this other topic.
So just because Alex skipped out on his show doesn't mean that he didn't have InfoWarring to do on the 13th.
After he got done with court, he came back to work because duty called.
He had to carry out his sacred obligation to have a debate with Nick Fuentes about whether or not Trump was putting in a police state.
Just the fact that this was happening, how it was happening, tells us a couple of important things.
The first is that Alex doesn't get to make demands on scheduling anymore.
Nick gets to decide when Alex can have some of his time, because his time is more valuable than Alex's at this point.
In the past, Nick needed to chase Alex's clout, but the roles are entirely reversed at this point.
The second thing we can take from this is that Alex has entirely lost the plot on what his career is supposed to be about, and engaging with Nick is a huge mistake optically.
Alex's entire career has been about trying to push white identity politics and semi-feudal economics under the guise of fighting against a worldwide communist conspiracy that was behind basically everything that's ever happened.
Essentially, his take on Trump's actions in DC is a mask-off moment for him, where he's effectively communicating to the audience that he didn't care about the stuff he sold them the image of caring about, and if they care about it still, they're suckers.
It's a near-perfect mirror of what happened a month earlier with Trump, when he told everyone who still cared about Epstein that they were stupid and he didn't want them as his followers anymore.
In that moment, Trump acted in the furtherance of his actual goals, not seeming to realize that the context of what he was doing clashed with what he'd sold his followers as being his actual goals all along.
This moment is the same for Alex, where he's acting exactly how he thinks he should, and he's furthering the interests he actually cares about, but the only way left to do that involves revealing that he's been lying about what he actually cared about this whole time.
Trump thought he had the political capital to demand that his followers ignore what was right in front of their faces, and Alex is making the same wager with this.
Anyone with half a brain can see that Trump doesn't care about pursuing any justice in the Epstein case, and that Alex has no problem with the police state shit, as long as it's directed at populations he's not a part of and that he views as the other.
This may be a gamble that works for Trump in the long run, but it's probably going to be a lot harder for Alex for three big reasons.
The first is that Trump is a confident bully, and Alex is a weak follower.
For all of his alpha bravado, Alex is desperate for approval and acceptance, so whereas Trump can say fuck off to his followers and mean it, Alex could never be that brash.
The second is that Trump has real power, whereas Alex is as weak as a bargaining position as he's ever been in.
I would argue that Alex on public access TV in the 90s was in a more powerful position than he is today because he hadn't worn out his welcome to so many people at that point and he had nothing but potential.
This may just be a way for Alex to theoretically elude the bankruptcy courts, but in order to pull it off, he has to give up core pieces of his autonomy, which is one of the main sources of power that he ever had.
The third reason Alex is going to have a harder time gaslighting his audience than Trump is because he's hanging out with Nick.
Nick doesn't need to defend Trump's actions for his brand to work, so he's able to call out things that the audience sees in front of their face.
Alex may be able to use some kind of technicality argument to pretend that Trump's actions are totally cool, but to pull that off, he needs to exist in a bubble.
The audience is being asked to believe that the emperor has some really sweet clothes, and one of the biggest hurdles to that is having someone on the show who can point out nudity.
When Nick comes on the show as the side saying that Trump's actions are police state shit, it automatically gives him the high ground in the conversation on Infowars.
Either the debate can be them agreeing that Trump is doing police state shit, or Alex is going to be forced to take the position of defending Trump's actions, trying to convince the audience that the Emperor is a great new fit.
Having this conversation with Nick only makes it more jarring to the audience that Alex's take is what it is.
Alex defending Trump's actions is a fundamentally bad call, and continuing to buddy up with Nick in hope of attracting his audience is the worst thing he could do in addition to that.
It just shines a spotlight on how hollow everything is.
Because it seems so bald-faced stupid, like you would have to be deliberately avoiding looking in the mirror in order to, which he's done his entire life.
But to continue doing it while doing all the rest of this, while your business is being liquided, liquidated, while, you know, like what you're doing is strange.
It would be less strange for him to just go, fuck everybody.
You know, like, I hate all of you.
And fuck you, Nick Fuentes.
You're a Nazi.
Like, it would make more sense for him to just have a meltdown than it does for him to be like, well, a police state's okay.
not instead it's just kind of him going uh like invalidating himself yeah and promoting nick yeah it's it's wild yeah well i don't know what are you thinking man so the way that alex is promoting this it really does feel like it's supposed to be a debate between nick who's critical of trump right and thinks that this is a police state right and alex who's like it's fine how else would you how could you see it as anything else that's
basically the sales pitch right i will tell you that it does not end up being that well that sounds about right that is what you were expecting sure now the last time that alex and nick talked uh you you were thinking maybe alex was drunk i was hoping uh maybe alex was drunk because he was slurring his words a lot and if he's not drunk while he was slurring his words a lot that would suggest something else was going on yeah i had the feeling that maybe he was just tired yeah and uh as he introduces this conversation that he's going to have with nick uh-huh he
explains that he was just tired he was just very tired so i was right okay it's wednesday august 13th 2025 502 central standard time i'm in austin texas and nicholas j pointez in is in chicago in his studios and we are going to him live for a discussion debate uh but when he was on a few weeks ago a.m but up since 5 a.m and i was extremely tired i was not drunk as some people thought though i wish i was uh and
he did a great job and people enjoyed it but but i you know didn't bring much much debate to it because i do disagree with some things that always makes it more interesting to have a spirit of discussion that brings out the best thoughts in people but since then i do have some disagreements um on things like trump wants you know a police state martial law i mean i think that goes too far though the direction it's going at some point could become dangerous but right now it's a response to all the tyranny what yeah so uh he was just tired uh case closed well i buy
it yeah as long as he says he's tired but he wishes he were drunk well i mean i know that he would wish but he wouldn't do i do like the fact that he can look at himself and be like i kind of sucked that last interview i kind of didn't have nothing yeah yeah yeah i was uh it's true yep yep yep yep so alex just lost the debate and hasn't even started he's staking out his position as being that trump's actions could lead to a police state and martial law but it's justified because of some vague notion of tyranny this is alex's whole shtick like
everything is supposed to be a crazy slippery slope public assistance programs aren't bad because they help people it's because they have the potential to create a state where everyone just relies on the government to provide their basic needs and then the government can take that all away right alex's argument is that the government helping people isn't bad it's the possible consequences of how that dependency could be exploited by an evil government that's the real problem in fact a lot of things that socialists and communists generally advocate for aren't bad
things just because they help the poor single-payer health care wouldn't be bad just because it's bad it's bad because it would create a situation where the government could create death panels and ration out medical care based on their social preferences it's all the next stages down the road that are possible yeah so many of alex's positions are based on some variation of we can't allow x to exist because it could possibly give the government too much power and once they have that power it's too late to take it back we can never trust
them to use it responsibly, not because they themselves are not trustworthy, but because because over time it is simply not possible for Everyone to be trustworthy.
Given that this is the basis of so many of his ideas, it's unconvincing for him to say that Trump's actions could lead to a police state, but look pretty good for now.
If this is an acceptable way to engage with this kind of stuff, then what's the point of opposing the Patriot Act?
Like, what's the point of any of his conspiracies?
It's like, because, because in short, in short, the calculus is: well, we're never going to have to deal with anybody in power who's not us ever again.
So why bother?
You know, like, oh, no, what could bad people do with this against us?
I mean, you got to figure reactions being equal, this next one to this, the reaction to a guy being the Willy Wonka of evil is probably going to be pretty.
Infighting or whatever you want to call it with Nick Fuentez and Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and now everybody piling on against Nick has to be addressed.
And I was thinking about it literally five minutes ago.
And, you know, Nick's a smart guy, so he doesn't mind something being sprung on him.
And I'm like, let's go there first because I like all these people.
And I need them all to succeed, especially people like Elon Musk.
And behind the scenes, you see Roger, the artist, were publishing about trying to get him back in the White House.
And then he did an interview with Candace Owens, and there was some kind of argument about that, maybe having to do with her putting it behind a paywall or editing it in some way.
And he is going to know that he is at fourth behind maybe a B. I think that I just, not too long ago, watched that Naked and Afraid where they tear down a beehive.
As I just said in the intro, I don't think I've ever seen buzz this big on a topic.
I mean, every time I go out in public and walk around at least 10, 15 people, you know, I mean, if I see like, you know, the guy comes to clean the pool or something, he doesn't bring it up.
But I mean, if I get around a gas station, a grocery store, anywhere, multiple people bring up Nick Fuentez in this big battle, and everybody thinks he's being ganged up on, and he's a really smart guy.
And, you know, well, they heard he was a bad guy, but now they love his show.
And the show's been big forever.
He's been around eight years or so, nine years, but it's exploded.
And I know when something explodes like that, I called him a week and a half ago and I said, you better get ready for the big attacks.
And look, I'm not fighting with Tucker or Candace or Elon Musk.
I like all those people.
And I think they have their own perspectives and their own issues.
And I defended Tucker because he confided me too, except for his dad died when I was up there with him for a few days.
I was dinner and lunch.
That, wow, I knew he worked with the CIA because USA did and voice from America and all that, but I didn't know he was high-level and he was high-level.
Because it would make more sense if he was looking at himself as a younger man being like, I'm going to try and help you as opposed to being like, I'm weirdly desperate for your attention.
And then just like Fuentez at Turning Point and, you know, all these other groups.
Eight, nine years ago, they saw he was a smart guy, charismatic, you know, even when he was 18 years old, bring him in, hire him, and then try to send him to Israel and brainwash him and make him do that.
That made him go the other direction.
They kind of, I would say, accelerated him becoming what he is today.
And it's the same thing when now Charlie Kirk is like, I have the Jewish lobby, the Israel lobby, calling up and threatening me, and I've been your greatest ally.
How dare you?
And that's how this process begins.
And then you've got, you know, Flynn, who's like, hey, I'm a big fan of Israel, helped them, worked with them, on and on.
But they stood down on October 7th.
They're trying to drag us into war.
They are manipulating the White House and they're a danger.
So I've got to come out against what's happening in Israel.
You have to.
Okay.
There's no other way.
But then I don't want to be associated, not because I get attacked or because the ADL will be mean to me and they already are with the people that take it to the total cuckoo land and say evil only exists because of these interests when there's other fish to fry and other issues as well.
Though Israel, Sunetan Yahoo and others is trying a full takeover in this power vacuum of the White House.
So now I've gone great guns and said, now this is the big central attack because it is true what people were saying in the past was partially true before.
Now it really is.
So we have to just be honest about that.
But that's not because I didn't hold back because I didn't want to be attacked.
And beyond the kind of coke party vibe about how he's talking, if you pay attention to what he's saying, he's essentially telling the audience that he's been lying to them this whole time.
This actually seems a little bit more self-aware than I generally imagine that he is about this stuff.
It's time for the mask off battle.
Alex's career has been about creating a big tent.
And the way that he did that was appealing to people who weren't primarily motivated by bigotry with conspiracies and pretending to fight for some ideal of the Constitution.
Dumb Nazis would love to revel in yelling about how Alex works for the Jews or something like that.
But the more strategic ones always viewed Alex as a net positive because of exactly what he's saying here.
He created the big tent.
He was the funnel that moved normal people far enough to the extreme right that they could be swayed even further once they became disillusioned with him and what the info war has to offer.
Alex was helping create the army and mainstreaming the pathways that led people to being Nazis.
And one of the essential aspects of doing that was to differentiate himself from them.
He couldn't be the bridge between normal people and Nazis if he was a Nazi himself.
So he had to be different.
In service of making this appearance, he created the image that the Nazi folks were caught up in saying that the only evil that existed in the world was because of the Jews.
Whereas he thought that there was a bigger picture.
There were many evils and sources of evil in the world.
So, so yeah, you gotta, you have to take him down.
Even if I like him, that's also my weakness.
My weakness is saying, like, in part of the intro, you know, I think he's probably bullshit, but two weeks after his dad died, he brought me out there and we talked.
It has been certainly a strange couple of weeks with everything that's gone on.
And, you know, I've seen people characterize it on Twitter, the sort of feud that's been going on with Candace, with Tucker, with Elon, with all these different figures.
And I don't know that you would characterize it this way, but I've seen other people say this.
They say it's infighting.
And I don't really like that term because I don't think it does justice to what actually took place, which is that you and I were both really on top of this back in June.
There was a war in Iran.
It really all goes back to this, at least for me.
And I think, you know, you asked me to kind of take the 20,000-foot view, the 30,000-foot view.
To me, the 30,000-foot view has so much to do with the populist movement, with Trump, and with the situation in Iran as it has unfolded over the past few years.
So going back to June, you and I were on this.
I was doing these big streams covering the war.
I did your show.
You were doing huge streams covering the war in Iran.
It was blowing up.
I do this show with Candace Owens, who I've had a little drama with her in the past.
You don't have the baggage of like how you got there.
Right.
So if I was going to start in media res, the moment that fucking Tucker, Candace, and Elon all three started saying my name, I'd be like, fuck you, idiots.
So Nick has explained the reason that Candace Owens and Tucker are attacking him in very simple terms and made it a situation where it all goes back to Nick's position on Trump attacking Iran.
Nick knows that he and Alex were on the same side of that conversation.
So this is a really good way for him to frame it.
Alex is going to have a difficult time not siding with Nick because weirdly, that was one of the few times that he has gone against what Trump had decided to do.
I appreciated that you defend me from the accusation that I'm a fed.
But what I would say is this.
This is sort of where I'm at psychologically.
I don't know Tucker.
I don't know Candace.
I don't know her well.
I've obviously met her and had my interactions with her recently.
But I would say this.
If they are good faith actors, if they're honest journalists, if they mean what they say and say what they mean, if they are who they say they are, maybe this is all just a big colossal misunderstanding.
Maybe they legitimately have real concerns about me.
Maybe it's not coordinated.
And to that, I would say, why doesn't Tucker Carlson have me on his show?
Better yet, why doesn't he talk to me on the phone privately?
This is a situation where, like, Drake was convinced that this would not be that hard because Drake was laboring under the misapprehension that he was good at what he did, right?
He sucked, but he didn't know that he sucked.
And that's why he got his ass beat.
Right?
These people just need to all recognize that they suck, and then they won't get into a rat beef with Nick Fuentes, where they try and, like, oh, we can step to you.
And you could call it a debate, a discussion, whatever you want to do.
I would do a debate, absolutely, because, you know, he made specific claims pertaining to Joe Kent.
He said the reason that he's suspicious of me is because of my attacks on Joe Kent.
And I've said this to you, and I've said it to Candace, and I've been saying it to anyone who will listen in fairness, almost to the point of being a nuisance.
I've told that story about Joe Kent for many years.
So Joe Kent ran for Congress in 2022, and he received some backing from Peter Thiel.
And he had a mutual friend, Matt Brainerd.
Matt Brainerd was his first hire on his campaign.
He was a consultant.
Brainerd was at AFPAC.
He was at my convention.
And long story short, Joe Kent attacked me in 2022.
I initially supported him.
I talked to him on the phone.
We were going to send the Groipers out to Washington to help him.
And out of a clear blue sky in 2022, he launches this attack on me and says that he condemns me because of my opposition to Israel and because I talk about race and religion.
He said that my message does not fit with inclusive populism, which is his vision.
Now, in response to his attack, I mobilized the Groipers to Washington and the Groipers that were going to help him then were hurting him.
And I said, we will not reward betrayal.
We will not reward people that claim to be America first, but are really Israel first.
We're going to make an example out of him.
Now, Joe Kent lost.
It was a major upset that was rated as a safe Republican district, and he lost by like a thousand votes.
And so, credibly, you could say that I caused him to lose, but I caused him to lose to make an example out of someone that says they're America first.
But when the chips are down, they're really Israel first.
Now, Tucker was good friends with Joe Kent, and they had this relationship.
Tucker promoted Joe Kent on his show.
And I think that Tucker blamed me for the loss.
This is his friend.
And he said, oh, you made my friend lose.
What motivation would you have to see this guy who purports to be America first?
Why would you want to take him out?
And so Tucker then worked with Max Blumenthal on a hit piece in the gray zone.
And that's where all this you're a federal agent accusation originated was from a hit piece in the gray zone in February 2023, just a couple of months after Joe Kent lost.
And, you know, so maybe that's just a misunderstanding, but I have said repeatedly, I did not come at Joe Kent randomly.
This story so eloquently illustrates why someone like Tucker doesn't want anything to do with Nick and why associating with Nick is a terrible idea.
Nick is an anti-Semite.
He's not just someone who opposes Israel.
He's someone who's invested in a political project meant to build toward a Catholic authoritarian theocracy and a white nationalist society.
He's very easy to attack, even for conservatives, because for the most part, he's not very subtle about what he believes, and it's pretty extreme stuff.
The problem comes when you get involved with him or you try to use his influence to support your own causes.
Someone like Joe Kent is a pretty Trump Republican kind of politician.
And, you know, they've created a party where the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are acceptable people to associate with.
It's easy to forget now, but in the wake of the 2020 election, Nick was a big figure in the Stop the Steel protests.
So you can easily see how someone like Kent could think that this was a guy that I could use.
But as Kent learned the hard way, if you make friends with Nick, he will use that against you.
If you give him a reason to believe that you're a supporter of the cause that he pushes, then you will either need to continue to do that or you're going to face an embarrassing public fight with a Nazi and all of his followers.
This is what happened to Joe Kent.
And now Tucker, he has to know this is exactly what would happen to him if he gives Nick half a chance to get his foot in the door.
So, I mean, if somebody else were willing to step into Nick's space with more talent, more charisma, more any number of things, they could probably take that space.
So they end up talking a bit about January 6th because one of the reasons that Tucker thinks that Nick is a fed is a little piece of video from January 6th.
Well, you know, whatever disillusionment people have surrounding that and certainly Alex's willingness to stay on board after all that, you've got to be thinking, like, I don't know if this is real.
You predicted Trump would really have big trouble with Israel, trying to control his administration.
I don't think they're totally controlled.
They're certainly trying, so we've got to deal with it.
I want to get into Iran, how they're trying to get back in there.
You know, you're from what I've seen, you know, saying Trump does want a police state.
I disagree, at least so far.
I want to get into all that with you.
But what is it?
People want to know personally what it's like for you to have everybody pile on to you, which I would have told these people.
I actually did, some of them.
I said, you know, if you think somebody's bad, you understand doing this is making bigger.
And so, I mean, this has exploded and it's only getting bigger now.
And I'm one of the few people that's experienced what you've gone through multiple times, like many times, but I wouldn't even say, well, I've had deplatforming and big blowups that have been as big as this.
The people that have attacked you, they've been hurt by it.
You've been helped by it.
And they're doing good work.
I would like them, like when Trump 40 days ago came out and said there's no Epstein, shut up.
I said, I've never seen any evidence he really involved anything bad.
Why are you doing this?
You need to stop.
And it really hurt him in the polls.
So that's my philosophy: targeting the globalists and focusing on them.
If Republicans or Pablo do something bad, I will report it.
But the Democrats are so much worse.
I spend 90% of my time on them.
Trump does this stuff.
Shut about Epstein.
He killed himself.
He didn't do anything wrong.
He wasn't human driving.
He had no accomplices.
There was no blackmail.
I'm like, do you understand this is the biggest drives in effect ever?
Day one.
I got huge backlash from the kind of Israel lobby that says we're MAGA, you're a panniker.
The same groups that attacked me when I was against going to full war with Iran.
So I could see it was synthetic coordinated attack.
And then I pull back from that.
And day one, I said, Trump's behind this ordered cover-up.
And then two days later, it's like, yeah, I'm the one.
Shut up.
It doesn't exist.
Well, I mean, of course I knew that.
Then I made calls and confirmed it.
Then I made calls to talk to folks that were in long meetings with him.
Then I learned a lot of stuff I'm not even allowed to say.
I halfway leaked it.
They stuck his wife in there and other lies, pissed him off.
They knew what they were doing.
And you can give your own opinion of where you think this is going.
It subsided some.
If he'll just stop saying, don't talk about it, you know, it'll probably go away.
But I'd like to get to the bottom of it.
So that's kind of a, again, stream of consciousness on that.
So, so take some time here.
I'm not going to, I'm trying to interrupt.
And what is it like personally for you?
And then where do you see this going?
And then you agree with me that the fact that so many people across the world of the world are really galvanized around you and supporting you.
That is not just because you're smart and well-spoken, all the rest of it, because people piled on you, which is so obvious.
And people want the underdog.
They can see it.
I've experienced it myself.
But this is also a bigger symbol of the total collapse of faith in the system.
But people that still try to blame both sides and act like they're anti-establishment, but then still kind of go after whoever they see on the leading edge of intellectual resistance.
That's just not smart to turn the country and the world around.
And we want to overcome all this bullying culture and intimidation and just break it.
And you're doing that.
And I'm trying to do that.
And so it just doesn't seem wise, but it is a big, complex amalgamation.
So I can see how people see you as an easy target, but not in this climate.
I mean, obviously, I agree with a lot of what you're smart.
And what I think really resonated with people when I clapped back on Tucker, it wasn't even so much, I spent three hours talking about the CIA and all this stuff.
The part that resonated was the very end of the show where I addressed the personal attacks because in addition to him insinuating that I work for intelligence or something like that, he said I'm a weird gay kid in a basement from Chicago.
I'm a child.
And in the clip that went viral on TikTok and Twitter, I said, did you forget when you did that part of your show that you're always pandering to the young white men?
Isn't that kind of like the lead?
Isn't that like the story of the past 10 years?
Is the young white men who have no meaning in their lives, who are struggling to get married, who can't afford a home, who don't feel any allegiance to the country.
They don't feel like they're a part of the country.
There's no society.
There's no social fabric.
It's like, did you forget that, you know, those are the people that you purport to care about that you're trying to win over?
Obviously, Tucker was mostly just calling him gay.
But instead of even responding to that part, Nick has made this an insult that he's wearing as a badge of honor.
If you ignore the gay part, you can really grandstand about the male loneliness epidemic and how Tucker's whole thing has been about white identity for the past number of years.
If Tucker really cared about all that stuff, like, you know, the stuff he said that mattered to the audience that he tried to cultivate, then how could he weaponize Nick's male loneliness against him like that?
I think what we're responding to, because I think it's easy for people to pull from our reactions to this some sort of like positive view towards Nick Fuentes.
And I want to take a break and come back and get into the meat potatoes now and where we agree, where we disagree.
But they're mad.
I'm not talking about Candace and Tucker and all of them because they're trying to stop the war too and in Ukraine.
But the system is definitely mad.
And we did get hit by the Israeli bots, you and I and everybody else, who were just covering it and saying this is crazy.
And then that is what's weird then after all of that, which boosted what you're doing, boosted what I'm doing.
But I just like you just cover whatever's interesting.
And I think the truth that you are just a bellwether of the overall mind of the public.
And that's where I'm always at is where is the public?
And I don't then go where the public is unless what the public is is where I'm already going, which I pretty much got them there in many cases.
And so I see someone avant-garde who is having success.
And I see all the anti-white, anti-Christian racism that's so intense and who's running at the ADL.
I'm not a guy that just hates Jews in general and the person that is a victim and blames them for everything because there's different groups, different things going on, different power blocks.
But when you have the ADL trying to pass federal laws to arrest people that criticize even Zionists, I mean, I played the clips last week.
I mean, this is tyranny.
When you've got their counterparts passing those laws, B'nee Britt and all them in Europe, this is the model.
And so the left, with all its tyranny and its love of Islam and all its censorship, is bad and has been terrible and done more censorship.
But now Trump claims he's against censorship, but more and more is bringing in the ADL.
And that clips it saying they're basically running this angle of censorship.
It's totally unconstitutional here in the United States.
So, I think this clip helps illustrate a thesis that I've been working off of a bit, which is that the circumstances surrounding Trump attacking Iran have had a ripple effect on Alex and the media space that he occupies, leading him to make explicit some of the baseline under-the-surface anti-Semitic ideas that he's always preached.
In that clip, you hear him say that after the Iran attack, he and Nick were both hit with the Israeli bots.
They were targeted because they were critical of attacking Iran, and that was followed up by attacks from Jewish media figures that Alex has decided work from Mossad, like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin.
One of the primary beliefs of the InfoWar is that consequences are a sign of virtue, or you always get more flack when you're above the target.
If people are responding negatively to you, it must be because you're doing something right.
Alex is following this thinking and allowing a complete breakdown of his fantasy world to lead him to just being an advocate for anti-Semitism.
The Epstein cover-up really took all the attention away from it, but that and the bombing of Iran are big breaks in the Trump world.
After Alex took the positions that he took on these scandals, he obviously got some heat from areas that he wasn't used to getting heat from.
A lot of the Trump base was disillusioned by these things, and Alex's inability to cover them accurately probably turned some people off.
On the flip side, some hardline Trump fans probably felt like he wasn't being sycophantic enough to the leader.
He's fighting the devil.
Get in line.
At the same time, Alex's actions really went against what he's supposed to stand for.
So I can imagine him also getting a lot of heat from his longtime fans.
He said on our last episode that talk show hosts had accused him of abandoning his principles to support Trump taking over DC.
So there's obviously some criticism that is in this lane.
Alex is incapable of taking feedback appropriately.
So he experiences all of this negative stimulus as being the ADL and Israeli attacks on him, which must mean that he's over some kind of a target.
But what has he been doing more lately than before?
And the day before, here's something that Nick posted on Twitter: quote: At the peak of my popularity, all of a sudden there's a coordinated smear campaign by the biggest conservatives who wouldn't give me the time of day a few months ago.
This is what happens when you start naming names and talking about the Jews, not the neocons, the Jews.
That's who he's buddying up with and promoting as an avant-garde thought leader.
Alex is addicted to Twitter and he spends hours a day on it.
So I find it impossible to believe that he wouldn't have seen that tweet.
He knows exactly who he's talking to.
And Nick talking about this coordinated smear campaign is what Alex is talking to him about with like Tucker and Candace and Elon.
This is what Nick put out as a statement about the thing Alex is interviewing him about.
So, like, I just think, I think that we have a situation where, you know, I think the Iran bombing and the Epstein stuff obviously like two giant blows.
It's, it's, it's also interesting from the point of view of people who are not involved in a, in a, in an even larger sense, you know, like the joke of the Democrats not existing.
Not so much that, but just in terms of like, if you are in these Twitter fights, who the fuck cares if you have some sort of leftist idea?
You are not going to have an effect on anybody.
You know, if you're in these places, this is only their space.
Well, I think that that's not wholly true, but I do think that like the idea of moderating an environment where the deck isn't stacked entirely in their favor.
So what Nick had actually tweeted was, quote, I used to think that Trump taking over cities with federal police was based, but now it feels like he's creating a secret police for Israel.
That has the vibe of someone who wants to kind of sound like they're joking, but aren't.
Nick is a Catholic fascist.
He doesn't have a problem with the dictator.
He has a problem with Trump.
If Trump met his ideological guidelines, what he's doing in D.C. wouldn't be a problem at all.
Well, tell us your view on Trump federalizing DC, talking about Chicago, talking about New York, talking about LA, National Guard, rapid reaction force.
And I said this on my show last night because Chicago is a dump.
New York is a dump.
And it's worse.
It's violent.
It's filthy.
It's chaotic and all the rest.
And under normal circumstances, I would have loved this announcement from Trump that he's moving the police in to take over.
But the announcement about D.C. and federalizing law enforcement there, it was accompanied by another announcement about a DOD memo where they say they're going to form this new, it's like a quick response task force made up of 600 National Guardsmen on a rotating basis that'll be stationed in Arizona and Alabama.
Now, to be fair, this is something that they talked about doing five years ago.
They talked about doing this in 2020.
You got 300 National Guard in Arizona, 300 in Alabama, and that way they could rapidly deploy a federalized military force into a city in the event of civil unrest.
I don't think it's a terrible idea by itself, honestly.
Alex kind of thought that they were going to have a debate on the margins of supporting or denouncing Trump's actions in D.C. Alex was going to take the position that what Trump was doing is okay technically, and Nick was going to be against it.
But now here we are, and Nick's position is, I love the police state.
The feds should be sent in to crush dissent.
I just think the Jews run our government, so I don't want a police state right now.
This is different than how I think Alex expected this to go.
And actually, it's much worse for him.
Now he's in a position where he needs to agree with Nick, which would mean flipping his stance on Trump's actions in D.C. or disagree with Nick.
If he disagrees, on what basis can he disagree?
Nick's position is basically the police state is good when I control it.
So the opposite of that would be the police state is never good.
If Alex wants to disagree with Nick on that point, then it cuts against his ability to pretend that what Trump is doing right now is okay.
Right.
Nick doesn't give a fuck about the silly shit that Alex has been doing for the last 30 years.
He thinks cowering in fear about communists is stupid boomer stuff and that dictatorships are based.
They don't agree on whether a police state is good or bad.
So it seems impossible for them to have a coherent conversation about this.
It is just like there is a language that they are used to communicating wherein there is a like kind of mutual assured destruction while at the same time a mutually assured benefits.
You know, like as long as we don't fucking go to reality, we can all have our fun.
We can all make a shit ton of money and all of that stuff.
But once you add somebody who is actually at the decision point, like when Alex says something like, you know, I think it's it's maybe bad, but it's not at a police state yet, right?
Now, the follow-up question to that is, okay, then give me what it would take for you to declare it a police state.
Where the answer is, it is a police state.
Of course, he knows it's a police state.
He's never going to declare it a police state.
He can say, though, maybe not yet, as a way of being like, well, maybe someday, you know, we can coexist here.
But if you are somebody who's just observing this conversation from the outside, you can't help but recognize that the things that Nick's saying are counter to things that are central for Alex.
Alex cannot think like, oh, yeah, police state would be good if my guy was running it.
Do I think that means that necessarily they're going to come to New York and arrest everybody that criticized Israel?
Not necessarily.
At the same time, I can't cheerlead an expansion of the security state when as such, that state is being used to support the interest of a foreign power.
So when I look at it on an axis of like more government and less government, ideologically, I'm a statist.
Like in a vacuum, I'm in favor of a bigger government.
But when the government is occupied, I have to lean more towards the libertarian, the libertarian side of that axis, the libertarian bulge.
And so that's where I have these mixed feelings about it.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's the worst idea, but you do get a little nervous when you see the palantir being deployed, when you see the National Guard coming out, all this stuff.
And at the same time, you see every department is putting out a statement about anti-Semitism.
It's like, okay, how long before this is going to be used against Nick Fuentes and Dan Bilzerian and Jake Shields and these types of people?
That's always my concern.
So I'm wondering, I mean, do you have concerns about that?
Or do you kind of get where I'm coming from?
Because on some level, I think we're on the same page that in principle, this is a good thing.
But maybe in practice, it might leave something to be desired.
Microsoft, Google, and of course, Amazon, when you look at government funding, have thousands of percent more money from the government currently than Palantir to surveil, to spy.
15 years ago, Alexa listed in your house.
Bezos running the CIA servers along with Microsoft.
Now, Palantir's coming in, as they said they would, to offer Trump a system to try to watch all of that and give him control, like one ring to rule them all.
So I'm not defending Alex Carp.
Very troubling at EU summits.
I helped target and surveil everybody across Europe and Germany and the UK and put them in jail for their right-wing speech.
My biggest fear is a Christian nationalist throwing me out of a window.
So he's definitely got his heart on for Christians.
He's definitely got that classic ADL bent to him.
But you see Teal over there backing Trump and other things.
And I know his background, obviously, Incutel and Poindexter and all that you've covered lately.
Everybody's, well, I'm not taking your thunder away.
You've done a great job presenting it, but that's old news.
I'm glad people are discovering it now.
But that's all true.
My issue is I just see them as a rival group trying to come in and get control.
And the idea that they're going to put us under a police state, they're going to put us under a surveillance state.
It's already there.
I'm going to dismantle the whole thing.
And then my focus is, let's focus on Karp part of the time.
Let's also focus on Eric Schmidt of Alphabet.
Let's focus on those guys too so people get the wide-ranging view.
But it is true that all of these systems they're bringing in can be turned on the people.
And it is true that Palantir has this big enemy list.
I guess I would just say, in general, when you say the globalists are coming after Trump, I almost don't know who you're talking about anymore because who attended Trump's inauguration?
It was Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk.
It was all the big tech and little tech people.
I saw a clip from CNN the other day, and a presenter on CNN said Trump is brilliant.
He's a mastermind.
And what were they talking about?
His cover-up of the Epstein files.
So it's like CNN and the New York Times.
It's like room service journalism for Trump.
You know, in the middle of this giant scandal, he's walking on the roof and they're saying, Mr. President, why are you on the roof today?
So Alex and Nick, they brought up that there's a CNN clip.
Sure.
That Nick had tweeted about.
It's a data analyst named Harry Enton, and he's reporting on how interest in the Epstein case and Trump's cover up of it has gone down and how unbelievable that is.
It's not so much that he's like, Trump is a master strategist.
So here's the caption that Nick added when he posted this video on Twitter, which Alex seems to have missed somehow or isn't reading.
Quote: Jewish CNN presenter is praising Donald Trump's political instincts and his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, saying the whole thing is a nothing burger.
Trump is another Matrix-approved president.
Couldn't be more obvious.
Seems like Nick is really interested in this guy being Jewish.
And when he's talking about his accent, he's saying he sounds like a character.
Alex is claiming that he's been read in on the cover-up of the Epstein files by people high up in the administration, which arguably makes him part of that cover-up.
There's information that Alex has or is pretending to have which hasn't been made public about the Epstein case, which is a giant problem.
When Alex says that people are misrepresenting his position and saying that he supports Trump's cover-up, that's kind of true.
But to add more nuance to it, Alex's position is that Trump's cover-up of the Epstein case isn't a problem for him.
He might not love it.
He might not think it's the right thing to do, but it's not enough to sway him.
Also, it's a gigantic problem for Alex to say that he mostly agrees with Nick's position on the police state stuff.
He can't mostly agree with what Nick said unless the things that he's been saying before in all of his documentaries titled Police State were bullshit.
They're not going to do it, but they got to do it.
Because that's the one lesson that we really should have learned from Guantanamo Bay is if you say you got to do it and you don't do it, you got to go.
So for Alex, as is the case so much of the time when he's talking to Nick, the fundamental question that it all comes down to is, please let me keep Trump.
Because I'm not a Lesser Two Evils guy, but also, if I'm in one ship that's only got a small leak and the other ship's sinking, I'm going to stay in the ship that's got a slow leak and isn't sunk yet.
I get to land in.
So I see the Democrats want to put us all in jail.
They're open pedophiles.
They're open devil worshipers.
They're openly trying to bankrupt things.
They're pure evil.
They're part of the globalist operation.
Sure, they see Trump winning.
So some of them are acting nice to his face, but he's fundamentally changing a lot of their systems and Bitcoin and the National Reserve and 401ks.
And he goes on and on and on and on and overriding these federal judges and dominating them and getting a lot better appointments in.
And it would take hours to talk about the good.
I mean, it's 90 plus percent.
And I understand there's been some betrayals and the direction starting to go the wrong way.
So if it keeps going that way, you know, it gets bad.
But how do you separate that?
Because listen, I had people not as coming as me talking about Nick Fuentez and all the stuff's going on.
That happens a lot too.
But the other thing I get is, I get it.
I was at Barton Springs.
I went twice this weekend because my eight-year-old daughter wanted to go twice.
I don't go very often, but we went Saturday, she loved us, we went back Sunday.
And I, you know, was mob shaking hands, young, old, black, white.
But I had like five people come over and go, when are we going to get indiamond?
When are we going to get this up?
And I'm like, hey, whoa, they were like, I'm not in charge.
And I get it, you know, like I said, on the street everywhere.
I even see the news max reporters and stuff saying, hey, we're getting mobbed by people, you know, demanding this stuff.
So, so I want to try to like stop the Democrats, block them 100%, try to get good Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Green and others in, build our beachhead, support Trump where he's doing good, try to put pressure on the administration and expose bad actors where we can, where we've already had a lot of effect, we know it has an effect.
To me, taking the ball and going home, I'm not saying you've done that, but saying, I'm done with Trump two years ago.
You warned of the Israel thing.
You were right about that.
I get that.
Isn't it when it's the only thing we got?
You know, try to then even more jump on it to like try to get it to do what we want.
I mean, it's threading the needle there, but do you get where I'm going?
We really saw this because I've been online a long time.
I can tell the groups.
I can go check it.
We know we had groups check what I already thought was true.
We had big Pentagon bot farms, Israeli bot farms, neocon right-wing bot farms, and then the Ben Shapiros and the Mark Levins and all the usual suspects come out instantly when Israel was cranking up to try to drag us into war with Iran a few months ago and say, you're not real MAGA.
You're imposters and you're pro-Islam and you're really leftist.
And I immediately saw them flag all our accounts.
I saw our traffic get driven down, which bounced back up because people saw through it.
And I saw the attack calling me and you and everybody else these traitors.
And they can say, oh, Foyne says this is really a liberal.
Foyne is really CIA.
I don't believe that.
But I can tell you this: this guy 100% isn't because I know me.
I know my mama and daddy.
Okay.
And so the same people doing that to him were doing it to me.
I'm not talking about Tucker and people now.
That's why it was weird to have them come in later.
This was the bad guys.
And Trump, don't be a panicking and all this stuff.
Hey, buddy, we're holding your feet to the firing.
We are demanding.
We are telling you what to do.
We are in a charging, not a panicking.
We brought you in.
Populism is happening all over the world, 1776 worldwide.
And I said many times they would say, you're a panicking.
You're a fake Trump supporter.
I'm like, listen, I'm not make America great again, bitch.
Again, you can see that something changed for him around the time of the Iran attack.
I feel like that's a critical moment for the path that he's on now, veering off into this Nazi hood.
But I don't think that he's fully made peace yet with what he's doing.
This feels like him talking through the beats and seeking the approval of a cool, edgy child, but he doesn't have the courage to walk this path on his own yet.
And he probably never will.
Alex is too old for this shit.
And you can't really just decide that you're a Nazi, but you also still believe all the things that you used to pretend to 30 years into your career.
I don't think that he could have a revelation moment of this because I think he would want to hold on to too much of his larger mythology, even as he moves it over to be like, yeah, globalists does mean Jewish.
So the retelling of the taking over of the Tea Party, I really think that that highlights the emptiness of Alex's ideology.
What did Ron Paul and the Tea Party stand for, if not limited government?
What is it saying about Alex that he could take over a movement like that and somehow steer it into a place where he's agreeing with a pro-police state Nazi statist who wants a larger federal government?
It's not like I'm some guy in junior high that wants to be in the cool kid class and I run for school president and I'm kissing everybody's ass and going to Toastmasters so I know how to properly fold a napkin.
I'm here to deliver war on their ass with the truth.
I am here to overturn them.
I am here to politically, nonviolently burn them down.
And so I get where you're coming from, Nick, to be to be pro-Trump, get in the system, have them persecute you, kick you out because you wouldn't submit to Israel worship.
To me, it's the same thing.
You try to make me engage in Trump worship.
It triggers me.
I just want to be careful that I don't get too emotional over that and then not continue because some Trump supporters are more sophisticated than Democrats, but Trump's not a cult, but they want to be in a cult.
I want to nicely try to explain to them so they don't get mad because they think anything coming out of the administration came out of Trump and 55 trillion D beyond God chess, okay?
I mean, they could, they, you know, get in the toilet when Trump takes a shit and read the entrails, you know, like tea leaves to see the future.
I mean, they would worship Trump shit.
So, so my deal is I know the real world, and I know, here's what I meant to say.
I worship Trump's shit like you do, but here's the key.
They didn't have all those bots ready, day one, to attack us all with talking points and a massive concert, even corporate media attack because we're weak.
It's because we're strong, all of us, the people watching.
And they had to come in there and do that because they're scared of Trump space.
So all I'm saying is don't give up to everybody.
Don't walk away.
Be critical, support what's good, and also be very vocal on what's wrong because that's what the globalists, I mean, the whole BlackRock Pentagon, Israel, the whole blob wants that.
And I'm just saying support the areas of good things we're getting.
I think that the number one driver of this flip is the erosion of any semblance of political correctness.
When political correctness imposed a small amount of social pressure for bigots to speak in code, you had a plausible reason to speak in code, even if you were a true believer.
If you were a Nazi, you could watch Infowars and tell yourself that Alex was, if he was really free to speak his mind, he'd say Jewish instead of globalist, but he has to speak in code or else he'd be dead.
Political correctness may have been annoying, but it was also the shield that protected Alex from having to put his big boy pants on and say what he means.
Those excuses are gone now, and Alex is getting dressed, and you can see the big boy pants that he's putting on.
I think the next three years, to be honest with you, are cooked.
And I know you're in it to win it.
I know you're pushing Trump.
And I know you know people in the administration.
But you know what I think about?
I think about how Mark Levin had lunch with Trump a week before the war in Iran.
I think about how Laurel Loomer enjoys unlimited access to the president.
Darren Beattie has a job at the State Department.
Darren Beattie runs Revolver.
Why does Alex Jones not get invited to have lunch with the president?
I'm sure you probably could if you push for it.
And I know you know people in the White House, but it's like the real Patriots don't have a seat at the table like the neocons do.
Susie Wiles and these other people that are inside the administration, they were loyal to Trump throughout.
You know, Trump's campaign manager on January 6th was saying, you know, this guy needs to be put in jail.
For what it's worth, Tucker had his text messages published and said, I hate Trump.
I can't wait until he's gone.
Why is it that people that are disloyal have access, but the people that were loyal and are loyal to the movement have no access and seem to have very little influence over the president?
So for me, it's like if I don't have a seat at the table, I'm going to flip the table over.
And if you don't want that, then give me a seat at the damn table.
So Tucker is disloyal on the surface, but he's ultimately perfectly loyal.
And this is the trick that Nick either hasn't figured out yet or doesn't know how to call out.
The reason that people can work with Tucker and like all these people despite their past disloyalty is because everyone involved knows they're playing a game and that they're invested in that game continuing.
Tucker will shift his branding over time, but he'll always be the guy who really wants to sell you an anti-woke, smokeless tobacco pouch.
The bottom line is more important than the headline, and you can count on that even if someone has been a dick to you in the past.
These people don't want to deal with Nick because he isn't playing the same game.
Like Alex, he's an unreliable scene partner.
The main things that have given him relevance in the national scene are instances where he fucked someone over and attacked them from the right in order to advance his own personal brand, like the case of his war against Turning Point USA or the abandonment of Trump and his support of Ye running for president.
These were things that were opportunistic and arguably principled on Nick's part, but they came at other people's expense.
This is what Alex was trying to teach Nick in the past, how to play a little bit of ball.
But Alex isn't really that great at playing ball.
So he could only give Nick the advice to be a little less obvious about the Nazi stuff.
And then maybe he could get more big bookings like on Tucker's show.
And I think that's one of the things that Alex didn't realize is that over time, people started to figure out like, oh, this is what we kind of can expect from him.
Anyway, Trump, remember a couple episodes ago, I think, Alex was saying that people from the administration were calling him and being like, what do you want?