In #1086: Tucker, The Man And His Texan Part 2, Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dissect Alex Jones’ and Tucker Carlson’s anti-vaccine claims—like Jones’ debunked South Korean study linking COVID shots to cancer—while mocking their conspiracy-driven framing of flu vaccines as ineffective. Jones equates abortion to "human sacrifice," ignoring rape exceptions, and both push a fundamentalist Christianity that rejects tolerance for ideological conquest, with Jones blaming demons for his own failures. Carlson’s paradoxical praise for women like Tulsi Gabbard clashes with his sexist attacks on female leaders, exposing shallow consistency. Their failed interview dynamic reveals Jones exploiting Carlson’s inflammatory rhetoric while Carlson avoids accountability, underscoring how fringe media weaponizes outrage to undermine facts and institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, I would go probably like face, but in front of an organization, you know, like, I'm the evil guy, but actually I work for Blue Gay Boogie Evil Corporation.
They end up finding this guy named Trumbo, who runs a chocolate plantation in the middle of the Amazon because they need a guide to take them into the Amazon.
And the local authorities, no one will allow a guide.
So they got to go talk to Trumbo.
They go to this guy's chocolate place.
He eventually agrees to take them himself.
So they go on a trek into the Amazon to find the big villain of the episode, ants.
Perhaps there should have been a consultation with somebody about whether or not it's more important for the ants to be there than the chocolate plantation.
Now, he's very good at baseball, but he did something that is not possible.
He played in the fourth game of the National League Championship Series.
This is the game that they were up three to nothing.
This is the game that would take them to the World Series.
This would send them to the World Series.
Shoe Otani was pitching in this game, naturally.
He was also hitting because he's the only player in the world who can do that.
So the first thing he did in the first inning was he struck out the side, right?
Three guys.
Gone.
Right?
And then the next thing he did, the very next thing he did, because he's the pitcher and the leadoff hitter, was he struck out the side, and then he went and hit a home run.
No, no, because not only that, not only did he do those things, he didn't just, you know, because there have been pitchers who, through sheer luck or adrenaline or whatever, who have won games single-handedly in the past in the postseason.
There's like, you couldn't imagine if you had written something like if Carl Sandberg or Ring Lardner was writing a like baseball player sells his soul to the devil to become the greatest baseball player of all time.
The devil would make him a really good hitter because to do both of those things would be unrealistic.
It really seems to like he's going to have some real bad medical problems just from a physics standpoint of like how much strain that's putting on your arm to pitch that much and hit.
So thank you so much to this subscription is being paid for by a collective comprised of one hen, two ducks, three squatting geese, four limerick oysters, five corpulent porpoises, six pairs of Don Alzevero's tweezers, 6,000 Macedonians in full battle array, eight brass monkeys from the ancient sacred crypts of Egypt, nine apathetic, sympathetic, diabetic old men on roller skates with a marked propensity towards procrastination and sloth, and ten lyrical, spherical,
diabolical denizens of the deep who all stall through the corner of the quo of the quay of the quivery all at the same time.
That was, that was, you need to hear it to actually understand what, because I read a little bit of that and I was like, well, I don't know what's going on here.
But then the moment you started reading it, I was like, oh, fuck.
Last week, he bragged when he got his medical exam that he got the new experimental flu shot and the Pfizer booster, which his own HHS had basically said don't give to pregnant women and women and adults.
And that they've proven erases your immune system is absolutely horrible.
But after he had Albert Borla a few weeks ago at the White House praising Pfizer, he's now gone on and gotten it as a PR stunt.
So that really pissed off Trump's constituents.
And we hope he didn't really take it because we need the big guy.
And I think there's, unless I'm misreading it, there seems like a legitimate and very large study out of South Korea that shows a connection between the COVID vaccine cancer because of the effects on the human immune system.
So the anti-vax folks have a new fun study to tout that allegedly shows that the COVID vaccine is killing everyone, but it's just another sloppy piece of inconclusive bullshit.
This is a retrospective study that looked at people who got the COVID vaccine a year later and tried to assess relative risks of developing cancer and found that for many cancer types, the risk was significantly increased.
On the surface, this looks like something that works for Alex's argument, but it's a bad paper for a number of reasons.
The first is that the authors didn't consider confounding variables, like people having family histories of cancer, and that would change things a lot.
The second is that idiots like Alex and Tucker, who are promoting the study, don't take into account the phenomenon of surveillance bias.
If you're somebody who's getting COVID vaccines and boosters, then it stands to reason that you're somebody who's making contact with medical professionals.
The more interaction you have with doctors, the more likely it is that they'll diagnose something that might have been missed otherwise.
So people who got more medical care often see increased diagnoses for things that other people would have, but not notice until the problems get severe.
Experts who have analyzed this study say that this dynamic explains the increase in cancer diagnoses that the paper shows.
There's no evidence presented that there's a causal connection between vaccination and cancer, and Alex is just making up that the vaccine shuts off your immune system.
If that were the case, we would have seen an almost unimaginable level of death all around the world, which Alex has been promising.
It's just around the corner for like the last four years.
I don't know if Alex is a true believer in this shit, but Tucker absolutely got the COVID vaccine, and it's a pretty damning look for Trump to get his shots at this point.
He made RFK the head of health and human services, and his entire fan base wants him to hang Dr. Fauci.
The anti-vaccine hysteria is such a huge part of Trump's appeal, so it should send a pretty clear message to his fans that he thinks they're stupid when he gets a COVID and flu shot in October 2025.
Stoking the flames of anti-science shit helps Trump because it invalidates and weakens authority figures who aren't him.
So he's happy to do it, even if that means advising people to do things that are detrimental to their own health.
But when it comes to his health, he's going to listen to the experts, not the dip shits that he's elevating and subjecting the public to.
If you say that for serious, in real life, you have to then consider all the possible ways that it could be fake and the reasons for it being fake, and none of those make any sense whatsoever.
I mean, I'm sure you've had times in your life where you've been off on some lunatic tangent and people you love, members of your family, are like, hey, we love you.
It certainly happened to me a million times.
People I love are like, I don't think it's a good idea, whatever you're doing.
These guys are so desperate for any way to pretend Trump didn't get the vaccine because what it implies.
It implies that he knows that the anti-vex people are stupid and he's exploiting them for their support and power that they provide.
This point Alex makes about Pam Bondi is interesting, though, because he says that she came out in favor of hate speech laws, but then got severe pushback from the base.
So she stopped the stuff that same day.
He's talking about her interview after the Charlie Kirk murder, where she talked about Josh Shapiro's house being firebombed and how her Department of Justice was going to go after hate speech, which was not protected speech.
Sure.
That was on September 15th, and she did get a lot of heat for that, which led to a tweet that she posted the next day where she tried to do damage control.
In the tweet, she says, quote, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
It's a crime.
For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence.
That era is over.
She's entirely incorrect about the First Amendment.
And actually, it reflects this her doubling down on the call to punish speech, as opposed to what Alex is pretending she did.
On October 8th, she was sitting right next to Trump at the Antifa propaganda event where he said that he took away the freedom of speech involved in flag burning.
She's illustrated a consistent ignorance and hostility towards free speech.
And Alex would have that position if he was anything other than a spineless hack who's in the pocket of power.
you talk about like hey we're gonna go after hate speech josh shapiro a democrat's house was firebombed yep it makes the nazis worried that you're gonna hold us accountable for this shit Right.
Well, everybody knows Trump's really weird in a good way, in a lovable way, but he does so much good, and then he does so many just really bizarre zigs and zags that sometimes you just have to ask what's happening.
But, you know, that video over a year ago of him and Kennedy, Robert Kennedy endorsed him a year and a half ago, that somebody shot of him on speakerphone kitty with Trump.
And Trump's like, well, maybe it is too big a shot and maybe the kids shouldn't take it.
Maybe you're right, Milbobby.
That's the Trump we need, not the Trump.
Oh, look, I took my shot.
It's so great.
Plus the flu shot, they admit, look this up.
They've never in 50 years of the flu shot predicted the right mutation for that year's flu.
And it lowers your immune system to the next year's flu.
But over the population, there's no evidence that the flu shot, which you could get at your grocery store, the nurse's office or wherever at work, that it has reduced the number overall of dead people in the United States in a given year.
Flu vaccines in the United States are trivalent, which means that it includes protection from the expected predominant strain of two types of influenza A, which is H1N1 and H3N2, and influenza B.
But no vaccine is 100% effective.
Given the variety of influenza viruses that are out there in the world and how they mutate, the vaccines are usually about 40 to 60% effective at stopping transmission.
And studies have shown a decrease in mortality from the flu of between one-third and one-half in the time since their introduction widespread in 1945.
One of the reasons that Alex can get away with this sort of lazy propaganda that he puts out is that he can point to the 2014-2015 flu season, where the vaccine was only about 19% effective.
It's believed there should be a situation where the vaccine was poorly matched to the circulating strains, but it's important to understand the context behind that.
Our flu vaccines don't provide as good of protection against H3N2 because that strain has a higher likelihood of undergoing rapid antigenic changes.
The versions of H1N1 and Influenza B that researchers are using to plan the vaccine in advance, they're likely to be structurally similar to what they'll look like when the actual flu season arrives, but H3N2 mutates in more ways that interfere with vaccine effectiveness.
So when an H3N2 strain of the flu is the most prominent strain in a particular flu season, doctors are already playing at a disadvantage.
And it happened that in the 2014-2015 season, H3N2 was the largest flu strain, and it mutated in the time between the vaccine's creation and the flu season.
It was the worst combination of possible circumstances.
So it becomes the archetype that Alex pretends reflects every flu season, and it's total bullshit.
Yeah.
It's just nonsense.
And him talking like this to somebody who knew what he was talking about, they would be like, you're an idiot.
But second, it is, it is, I understand why it's so hard to communicate to a big structure of the population what they do because what that is sounds so much like magic.
You know, it is, it is very much like, how can I trust you to know so many fucking things?
I don't think so because I think that that, you know, you don't want to, I think in healthcare, generally, you don't want to validate people's delusions because generally that ends up spiraling into further trouble.
So given how obviously discredited science has been in the last five years, where normal people are like, I don't know what this is, but I'm against it.
Wouldn't now be the time to mandate a total halt to any franken science underway where we're trying to create life or clone people or change the human genome.
It just looks that way when you listen to lying idiots like Alex who don't know or care about science at all.
These dipshits think they see demons.
So just on a real ground level, it seems unwise to rely on them for critiques of any scientific thing.
They want to create a world where it's not seen as insane to rant about demons.
So they engage in fraudulent attacks on the foundations of science, which would tell them there aren't demons there.
Gain of function research is less common than these guys want to make it seem.
And I would guess that neither of them could give a coherent or consistent definition of what it actually is.
That being said, having some skepticism about the risk-benefit calculation with gain of function research isn't the most unreasonable position for someone to have.
The way these guys express that skepticism and all their beliefs around the issue are deeply insane.
But a rational person could reasonably have some doubts about whether it was worth it to share this stuff.
Why not just strip immunity from the vaccine makers?
Wouldn't that we have a system in place that's been in place for my whole life where if you're making a consumer product that hurts people, you can be sued.
And so people who make consumer products try to make them safe because there are consequences to selling poison.
So now anything they want to inject into you that claims a vaccine with liability protection.
Well, that's why Kennedy removing the recommended status by HHS and FDA, when you do that, it technically removes the protection of the liability protection.
All drugs have potential side effects, and you can't sue the drug manufacturer for experiencing one of these side effects if they were properly disclosed and you were aware of them when you agreed to take the medication.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If the drug company is lying about possible side effects and hiding the real safety issues with their product, then you can sue them.
It's just kind of difficult because of the burden of proof that comes along with like showing that this caused the harm.
It's a hard lawsuit to make, but you can still sue people.
Yeah, big pharma totally sucks and needs to be regulated much more heavily, but removing liability protections isn't the way to go about that.
If we want a medical research industry that can attract the kind of investment it requires to make new innovative medicines, then they can't be in a position where they could be sued by anyone at any time about anything.
If you don't want that, though, like you don't want medical breakthroughs, then you really would want these companies to be bogged down in a ton of legal bullshit.
And that's a position you would expect to hear from people who make millions from supplement sales, pushing fake pills on their audience, insisting these are the real cures that the man doesn't want you to know about.
Medical innovation is a direct threat to their business model.
And forcing these pharmaceutical companies to address mountains of frivolous lawsuits is one of the best ways to remove their competition, selling colloidal silver and the milk, the fresh, the milk, the colostrum.
It is interesting that there is a competing set of industries in the healthcare industry, one of which is interested in healing people, but maybe not necessarily curing people.
And another which is like, people better stay sick forever because then they will keep buying my shit.
I want to say in specific, people who are trying to dismantle the public education system do is they put poor administrators into the public schools so people are like, well, public schools suck.
I saw you with a guest a few weeks ago talk about it.
This is well known.
I've talked to everybody that's done it.
I haven't done it.
Almost everyone that takes DMT, Either from the toad or the ayahuasca plant, these creatures show up that look like court gestures or space aliens who do different things and say, sure, there are too many humans.
You need to wipe out the population, then you'll become gods.
It's the same message.
And they've had groups of people, they've done studies.
So there's a rise in talking about God in these people because the right-wing political movement in this country has decided to become theocratic.
There's no sincere interest in God or Jesus or engaging in a real spiritual practice.
Media figures who are promoting right-wing politics have just realized that attaching their connection to power to divine right is an effective marketing tool.
When Tucker says that more people are talking about God, what he means is that he recognizes that God is a brand, and that brand is pretty hot right now.
There's a God trend among far-right idiots, and they've found that it's easy to sell the idea of religion without having to be constrained by the morality or the teachings of said religion.
That's where we are.
That said, I will say, and I'll make this statement publicly.
DMT demons who tell you to kill everyone are probably bad influences.
I will side with, I'll give Tucker his props there.
So many people purposely get turned off of the system by going to a church, whether it's Catholic, Protestant, any of it.
And I'm a very empathic person.
So growing up, I would feel at churches and you get invited here or there, really creeped out, not by the parishioners, but by the people in the system that are trained because that is for sure.
Where I feel the strongest demonic energy is in a lot of these big churches and a lot of these big things because that's where the devil's sitting his forces and it's energetic.
And so the Christ criticized the Pharisees, Sadducees, constantly saying, you go pray up on the hill in Fairbody.
You talk about how perfect you are all day.
But really, you're with your father, the devil, and the synagogue of Satan.
Tucker has to be so embarrassed to just have to nod along with this.
Alex is sitting there explaining that there's a recruitment process into God's special forces and there might be a waiting period where you aren't getting the secret intel and missions from God.
This is the kind of stuff that you should understand is only said by children and scammers.
Alex also seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Jesus reaching out to the outcasts of society.
It seems like today, what Alex's entire political ideology revolves around is punishing the types of people Jesus would have hung out with while reaching out to and trying to win over the sanctimonious elites.
Alex spends so much time covering for people like Tucker or Elon who are insanely rich, stuck in their ways and beyond reach.
At the same time, he advocates for using the power of the state against the most vulnerable groups of people who are the most in need of grace and generosity.
They've got to somehow open up the channel to God and then they'll see everything that's happening and then God will give them a message and a mission of what they should do.
And I don't want to say all churches are bad because there's a lot of good people in the churches regardless.
It's just that the last 120 years, the Rockefeller Foundation, the ecumenical movement and all of that has really moved into the churches.
We see that with all the rainbow flags and all, you know, the famous cathedrals in England now festooned with all the leftist, you know, graffiti and garbage.
I mean, it's been captured is my point.
But people can't get turned off by that and say, well, God's dead.
No, no.
Satan has occupied the so-called temples, but God isn't in the temple.
I mean, I think that's up to how God influences everybody.
I think we could, over time, retake those things, but the Satanist and the leftist, the power-hungry, they think if they can take over the skin of something and occupy it, that they can fool people that are looking for God, but that's actually triggering the Great Awakening.
So I think some of the buildings get torn down, some of the buildings get retaken.
But at the end of the day, God's temple is with us.
Really all that they're talking about here is Alex wants and Tucker.
They want a more fundamentalist version of Christianity to be more prominent.
Right.
They do not like the idea that a more tolerant and accepting version of Christianity has become more mainstream over the last decades, and they want to revert back to conquest.
Alex can't handle the idea that he might be wrong sometimes and that he may do things that hurt other people.
That reality is so painful to him that he has to give up his own ability to control his actions.
Everything good he does is because of himself, and he deserves credit for doing those things.
But when he does something bad, it's because a devil jumped into him.
He's very able to say, I'm not a perfect person, but the imperfection that he has is the result of the demon swaying him, not because he's a bad person who's motivated by greed and functions by lying.
He's willing and excited to confess to abstract, meaningless sins because they allow him to look contrite and like a pious person.
But in reality, those confessions are just meant to mask the real ways that he's imperfect.
And that is that he's a bad person, doesn't care, and operates in an intentionally harmful way.
Also, Tucker just did that interview with Lee Strobel, where he was pretty clear that demons can't enter people who are sincerely Christian because the Holy Spirit is taking up the space where they would go.
Tucker sure sounds diplomatic about Peter Thiel's lecture on the Antichrist.
Seems like he kind of recognizes how much of a softball that is for him to scream about, but he knows he can't because it's Thiel.
One wonders how much restraint these guys would have if Yuval Noah Harari did a lecture about the Antichrist and how much they would support these kinds of ideas being discussed.
Thiel gave a series of four lectures on the Antichrist last month and he had very strict rules that it was all off the record and people couldn't tell anyone what he said.
I don't, I don't, you know, we shouldn't be ignoring him, you know, and so it's good that he's out there, but I just don't think I have any personal opinions on him.
Well, because I think the temptation is to just ignore the whole topic.
I mean, that's the world that I grew up in where it was just never discussed.
100%.
People's sex lives were a frequent topic of conversation.
Everyone was super liberal about that.
Like, no one was embarrassed of anything except any question that transcended the material was just considered like death was considered totally off limits because it pointed to these obvious questions.
Well, one obvious hallmark from my frequent but very untutored reading of those books in the New Testament is that the Antichrist reserves the powers of God for himself.
And if Peter Thiel weren't someone that Alex and Tucker knew they're supposed to support, then doing a lecture series on the Antichrist would be evidence of a person working with the Antichrist.
It would be predictive programming, trying to sneakily confess to the public that they're the Antichrist so the public could agree in advance to worship him.
I think there's nothing that could be more destructive right now to public safety than for the president to start speculating about who may or may not be the Antichrist.
This isn't a productive or safe conversation to be had by politicians.
And the idea that Alex and Tucker could possibly want that speaks to how far they've gone from the days of pretending to live in a shared reality.
I also wanted to point out how you're not hearing any weird, abrupt commercial breaks in this episode.
And that's because I've noticed that Tucker seriously front loads his ads.
Most of them are awkwardly jammed into the beginning of the episode.
And there's two reasons that podcasts employ this kind of ad strategy.
The first is that early ads command a higher rate than mid-roll or end-roll ads.
You can charge more for early ads because you have a higher expectation that more people will be seeing them or hearing them.
The second reason you would do this touches on that fact.
And Tucker putting so much ad density at the start of the episodes, it makes me think that he has some metrics that suggest that most people don't make it very far into the show.
I have gotten people in the door successfully with clickbait and like kind of exciting sounding interviews, but they lose interest fairly quickly because this shit's fucking dumb and they have other things they need to do.
The one thing I don't like about the Antichrist conversation is it makes it sound like, you know, Anton LeVay is going to show up and like start murdering people.
And I think it's much more present than that.
I mean, I think literally antichrist means against Christ.
Well, who would that include?
Most leaders in the world?
They hate Jesus.
You want to make people upset?
Start talking about Jesus.
I just did like some six-minute talk about Jesus, only Jesus.
That's it.
I was like, I said to my wife in the shower the morning, that morning, I was like, I'm not getting political at all.
I'm not going to attack anybody.
I just want to be as like unifying as I can and consistent with what Charlie really cared about as I can and what he really cared about.
That was insane.
Which was, of course, absurd, but leaving aside the absurdity, like the emotion was real.
It was totally real.
Like, oh my gosh, that's outrageous that you said that.
It's a problem for people who don't share your faith when you use Jesus to justify laws or social guidelines that restrict the freedoms of other people because you need everyone else to adhere to your religious rules.
It's great for you to love Jesus, but the fact that you've made yourself subject to the rules that are laid out in the New Testament, that's your business.
The feeling that I get from people like Tucker is almost an anger at the idea that they have to follow religious rules that they've decided to accept.
It's almost as if they feel trapped by the religion that they're in.
And because of that, they have to insist everyone else trap themselves in the same box.
It all just feels like a really unhealthy and unhappy connection to the divine.
And as far as my understanding of God and Jesus goes, I don't think they'd love it.
When Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, he wasn't doing it to force them to stop doing sex work or collecting taxes.
Forcing them to do those things would invalidate the critical step where they chose to live a different life, which is the key to spirituality.
It can't be imposed upon you, but by seeing examples of it lived and proximity to spiritual people, the hope is that you can show other people a different path and then they'll choose to take it because it's better.
I mean, you know, one of the problems with this, right, is one of the problems with these people is that ultimately, if you want to be a dick about it, lying to religious people is starting with a little bit of a leg up.
You know, like if you're not the best liar, then maybe you equalize by getting a little bit of a juice from people who are already predisposed to go along to get along kind of thing.
So, so like religion, at least in the United States and Christianity, is fundamentally based on an element of faith.
Yeah.
And because people who are going to be self-described as Christians have a large piece of their life that is anti-critical thinking, anti-like deliberately.
Anyway, Tucker's speech at Charlie Kirk's Memorial was called anti-Semitic because he made a joke that strongly implied that the Jews conspired to kill Jesus.
He said, quote, I can sort of picture the scene in a lamp-lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus, thinking about what we can do about this guy telling the truth about us.
We must make him stop talking.
Tucker can feign ignorance all he wants and pretend to be so surprised by the reactions that he keeps getting for the clear references that he makes to classic anti-Semitic tropes.
But I'm not interested in acting like he doesn't know exactly what he's doing.
It's really up to us to lose this, but we are starting to see some indictments of Comey and Lee Championshold.
A lot more coming.
The Democrats are now pledging, you know, resistance and violence.
And what's the quote?
Energetic uprisings or forceful uprisings.
Sorry, forceful uprisings.
Chuck Schumer, how do you see this unfolding?
And what can the general public do to try to save the country in a nonviolent way?
Because, I mean, I just think Trump rhetorically needs to be out front explaining to people how dangerous things are and the crossroads instead of just saying, oh, liberals are dumb.
They don't know what they're doing.
No, the leftist globalists have a plan all over the world.
So let's diagram this interaction that just happened.
Tucker says that people that are making AI are bad and think they're gods.
And he tees Alex up to talk about how if you think you're God, you're going to kill a bunch of people.
Instead of responding to that, Alex changes the subject and launches into his own question for Tucker about how the Dems are going to start a forceful uprising and what does Trump need to do?
Then instead of answering that question, Tucker starts talking about how it's important to have your heart and soul in order.
This is an interesting situation because this isn't a conversation or an interview.
It's just dudes saying things to each other.
More interestingly, it's clearly supposed to be Tucker interviewing Alex, but Alex wants to interview Tucker.
If Tucker's guiding the conversation, there's way less chance of something newsworthy happening on this show.
He asks Alex questions and Alex says some inflammatory dumb shit, but who cares?
Maybe someone's going to write an article about that, but Alex can't really sensationalize things he said himself on someone else's show.
So back on InfoWars, there's no headline of, I said dumb shit on Tucker's show.
If Alex can guide the conversation, there's a chance he can get Tucker to say something that then becomes the big story, which is strategically a part of the reason that Alex is trying to take control of this conversation.
But from a governance perspective, the government, the people who were elected to run the government, need to make sure that the instruments of government are loyal to the Constitution and under control.
And that's the concern that I have is that especially older conservatives, whatever that is, Republicans, whatever that is, but, you know, non-leftists are living without dated understandings of like the military and the police.
And, you know, there are a lot of great people in the military.
I know a lot of them, and there are a lot of great cops.
We were just with one of them a second ago.
But there are also a lot of people with guns in official capacities who are really, really dangerous.
And you need to make sure those people are under control.
What happens if supporting Trump and defending the Constitution become at odds?
What does Tucker believe law enforcement have a responsibility to do at that point?
If what he's saying is true, he should believe that they have a responsibility to arrest or kill Trump.
If he's the president of the country and he's flagrantly ignoring and violating the Constitution, he represents an existential danger to the Constitution, far greater than any terrorist we've seen in our lifetime.
There are plenty of instances where you can argue that Trump has violated the Constitution about things like the emoluments clause and shit like that, which are correct, but also they're so disconnected from our day-to-day lives that people can easily be convinced to ignore them or not take them seriously.
But this month, Trump said directly and confidently that he took the freedom of speech away from burning flags, which he understood was something the Supreme Court had held as free speech.
Free speech issues are central to people like Tucker and Alex's content, and they impact everyone in this country in a way that we can all feel.
The president of the country openly said that he is the arbiter of what is and isn't free speech, regardless of what the Constitution and the courts say.
And Alex and Tucker just ignore it.
Trump and the Constitution are directly in opposition in this instance.
And Tucker's position that law enforcement should be loyal to Trump the person stands because Trump the person is a proxy for the white identity movement that Tucker wants the state and the military and law enforcement to uphold.
Don't think for a second that Tucker wanting a purge of law enforcement because they aren't loyal to the Constitution is a sincere position.
I think that there's an interesting thing here, too, where Tucker is like, he's willing to say this shit, but he's like, oh, no, talking about the Antichrist and Peter Thiel is out of my depth.
Listen, just because I understand global political affairs through a military point of view doesn't mean that I'm also prepared to talk about the Antichrist.
This is stupid, and it's intentionally stupid because it's cynical content directed at an audience that Tucker hates and thinks are stupid.
If he wants to make an argument that women being in power leads to violence and the only thing he can seem to come up with are the wives of male leaders, he understands that he's making a dumb point that isn't supported by the premises of his argument.
I'm not saying that having women in power would end war or anything like that.
It's just that the construction of the point Tucker is making is motivated by defending his sexist conclusion rather than by taking real information and arriving at the conclusion that that information would support.
Some people are better at masking this than others.
And I would say that Alex is actually better than Tucker because he just rambles and confuses the audience with emotions so effectively that it's hard to track what he's saying if you're not paying close attention.
So interestingly, there was a study that was published earlier this year that shows that English queens between 1480 and 1913 were 27% more likely to go to war than kings.
One of the reasons that was suggested for why this difference existed was that often queens were married to men from other countries as a mean of creating alliances.
There's a lot of interesting historical sexist dynamics that this data points to, but none of it suggests that women are more likely to go to war than men.
But there's also the layer of the additional layer of disdain on top of it that includes a like, not only do I not actually believe any of this bullshit, but I am showing you a version of what you believe that's even more disgusting.
And I know you're going to eat it up because you're fucking stupid.
Like, that's how awful it would be to listen to Tucker is to be beaten.
So Tucker thinks that female leadership leads to war, but then he brings up Ukraine where a man is president.
If the ability of women to serve in the military is what he means by female leadership, that seems strange because that's definitely not the point he was making earlier when he was complaining about this.
All of this is just rooted in profound sexism and a belief in the natural hierarchical order that puts men over women.
Tucker doesn't think that women are equal humans, and he believes that he has an ownership stake on the women in his life, and that's it.
It's fascinating how Alex keeps trying to butt in to bring up Ursula Vanderleyden because that's an actual example of a woman in a position of power.
All of the other examples Tucker has come up with don't apply, and he won't even let Alex shift the subject into like, let's actually complain about this woman in power.
What a just, I mean, that idea, that like fucking bullshit concept of chivalry being the reason that like that's how are you still trying to sell that in 2025?
Do we now have to admit that all the women who've ever been in the Republican Party here are stupid or nakedly craven and have stolen money from everybody?
So what you're saying within an argument that is women can't be leaders, but also this woman is good is because men are leaders, most women are incapable of reaching a point where I allow them to be leaders.
And the most powerful people in the world, of which I am one, having interviewed Putin, having a massive amount of sway with an electorate, controlling so much wealth are all the victims.
So we have one last clip here, and it's reflective of a large chunk of the end of this episode, which is, you know, Alex telling people to go to his new websites, which is obviously a huge reason they did this interview to begin with.
And then complaining about Todd Blanch, who's the deputy head of the DOJ, and he's the reason that Ed Martin stopped Alex's whole thing.
Right, right, right.
For just briefly, Alex went to Ed Martin and was trying to get the Department of Justice to go after the Sandy Hook people who were suing him.
Well, because Alex and Tucker have such a disrespect for continuity and the fact that things exist in the past, I feel like we have to impose new layers of continuity on ourselves.