Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ December 5, 2025, episode—where he declares himself pivotal to history’s "rebirth"—mocking his self-aggrandizing claims while exposing how his conspiracy theories (like RFK Jr.’s vaccine lies or Candace Owens’ defamation lawsuits) get "laundered" through outlets like The Wall Street Journal and billionaire Richard Mellon Scafe’s media empire. They critique Jones’ shifting narratives, such as the 2020 election pipe bomber’s alleged foresight, as strategic evasions, and warn his tactics could normalize legal harassment of non-state figures or even heads of state. The episode ends with a jab at Jones’ MyPillow-funded "fight against globalists," framing it as performative affiliate marketing. [Automatically generated summary]
I think that it's important to go through this time to understand the process that Alex is going through in order to justify the overthrowing of Venezuela that has now happened.
To make sure everyone understands, this is the most important time in human history, and all of the forces that are making it the most important time in human history are in place because of Alex's actions.
There's no way around it.
Alex is the most important human being who has ever lived.
There's a lot of good candidates for the time that Alex should think was the most important time in history, but I'll just say that the whole Jesus thing should eclipse pretty much everything else just by default.
I get that Alex feels like his side is making a lot of progress because shit talkers have never had so much freedom.
You can be a racist shit talker, an anti-Semitic shit talker, a slandering shit talker, a pretend intelligence agency shit talker, or even a president shit talker who's also in some of the other categories, and there's essentially no social consequence for it.
Our system no longer is equipped to handle imposing boundaries on what is acceptable public discourse, so the babies have basically got their run of the daycare.
Alex and his friends have been successful in making our media and social media ecosystems functionally worthless, and that's a big achievement.
I don't want to make that sound minor, but I don't think it's that impressive compared to what Alex believes Jesus did.
Historically, once people have started with putting the words justice and decadence into the same paragraph with each other, that usually means things aren't going to get more fun.
No.
And you know what?
That means that there's also some big events on the horizon.
So maybe he'll reach Jesus very soon.
You know, once you put justice and decadence in there, then people are on the rack, like very quickly.
So in the course of our covering the story and Alex's response, I've tried to avoid talking about the reporting about Hegseth saying kill them all, because ultimately, if those stories were true or not, they kind of missed the point.
The idea that he would say something like that is meant to make him look cold and overly dramatic, like a kid who's playing a general in a movie.
But at the end of the day, it's an indictment of his personality, not of what happened.
I don't think it really matters that much if Hegseth had said kill them all or not, because what happened is the problem, not the theatric someone said he engaged in.
Focusing on the point of whether or not he said this only serves to take attention away from the important issue, which is that the U.S. military was killing people in ways that violate international law.
If Hegseth had said that, then he gets to be painted as a cartoon villain.
But if he didn't, he's still equally responsible for what his department's doing.
So the Washington Post had reported that Hegseth said this based on an unnamed source, and Hegseth denied it.
Later, Admiral Bradley would go on to testify that Hegseth hadn't given this order, which calls into question the veracity of the unnamed source from the post.
It's not impossible for everyone to be correct in this situation, but that seems unlikely.
And the simplest explanation is that the unnamed source misremembered something or got something wrong.
They made the claim, which now has been countered and denied by an admiral who was willing to go on the public record, so the burden of proof is really on that unnamed source now.
And I'm comfortable in assuming that Hegseth didn't say that until some kind of evidence is presented that he did.
But I also don't care.
What happened is still the same, and it's unacceptable.
Whether it went down professionally or like a community theater production is irrelevant, but this story does highlight a trap that a lot of media can find themselves falling into.
I don't think you should not report something like this if you follow the appropriate vetting and fact-checking steps, but it can be counterproductive.
It's an exciting image and allows people who don't like Hegseth to imagine him as this over-acting weirdo giving kill orders.
It matches with the Trump administration figures like Kash Patel, who've been maudlin as hell with their statements, like the whole CUN Valhalla thing after Charlie Kirk died.
This image of Hegseth saying this, it aligns with the image that a lot of people want to have of him, so it's going to appeal to a lot of people.
They're going to accept it as truth without any instinct needed to question, where's this coming from?
Should I really believe this?
They're going to just automatically be like, this fulfills the image that I want to have.
The problem comes when the unnamed source behind the story can't back up what they told the Washington Post, and an admiral is willing to publicly refute it.
Now you have this exciting and appealing image that a lot of the public has latched onto because it affirms their previous assumptions about Hegseth, and for all intents and purposes, it's not true.
This allows someone like Alex to claim that the media was lying about Hegseth to attack him and make the entire conversation about the kill them all comment.
By putting out this piece of the story, the media has given the right wing a tool they can use to sidestep the meat of the issue and only have to deal with the theatrical part.
This is a good example of what I consider to be the unforced errors that the media has a habit of making.
As long as the mainstream media and actual journalism exists as a profit and clicks chasing business, it'll be incentivized to make mistakes like this that play wholly to the advantage of the dipshit media that's seeking to replace them.
And it's unfortunate, but you can see the strategy on Alex's part really adjust to this, where it's they never said kill them all.
You see how they lied, as opposed to the more pressing issue, which is the shooting down boats.
But I would expect that when we draw out the enemy positions, the air cover comes in, no matter what happens to me, and blows the living hell out of these people.
I'm willing to go to the Alamo, divert the army while folks in North Texas get geared up and ready, Northeast Texas.
Victory or death.
I just expect you guys to deliver after we get wiped out.
In his mind, he accepted a suicide mission from God many years ago where he would make himself the first one against the barbed wire, the tip of the spear.
By being pawn sacrifice, his destruction would reveal the enemy's strategy, which would help his side ultimately win.
But Alex isn't on a suicide mission, and he refuses to let himself be destroyed.
He's an asshole, and he's seen some consequences for being an asshole.
But for the most part, he's gotten away with everything.
If he weren't so scared right now about how much of his audience is likely to leave him if he doesn't stay exciting, he could coast for the rest of his life on the Alex Jones network, staying rich and talking shit.
And as long as Bigley doesn't fire him, there's nothing the globalists could really do.
Clearly, no one wants to kill him, and the political will to put him in jail is non-existent.
So he could do this forever.
And that's the thing.
There is no suicide mission except in Alex's head.
His fantasy is that he's doing something dangerous and going toe-to-toe with the most deadly criminals in the world, but that's not real.
The real world is that he gets to live a very luxurious lifestyle, and all he has to do is yell about stuff he skimmed on Twitter for a few hours a day.
He can drive around without security staff following him everywhere, and he has no sincere fear that anyone is going to hurt him.
This is only one side to the coin, though.
There's no suicide mission that Alex agreed to, but let's imagine that there was.
If you believe that Alex agreed to become the Colonel Travis for this generation's Alamo, then the only conclusion you can come to is that Alex was too scared to face his own destruction.
If Alex was supposed to go down with the Alamo, then he retreated.
The legal maneuvering and the starting of new side businesses to hide assets during the Sandy Hook trial were manifestations of him digging holes under the Alamo to escape while everyone else died.
If he'd been a true martyr, he would have fought the case, but at the end, it would have actually destroyed him, which would have let the other people on his side use his carcass as a symbol.
Alex was a reluctant and unwilling martyr because when it came time to pay up and be what he fantasized about, he couldn't pay the price.
What good is self-sacrifice if you're going to be dead and gone?
You don't get to enjoy everyone loving you and talking about how you're a hero.
You don't get to do live shows with Tucker Carlson.
I mean, of all the things that we have ever considered to be a test of faith in this life and in our, I mean, both of us have an extensive religious history, both in study and practice.
I have yet to see a test of faith so stark and such a failure.
I got a call this morning from some folks up in DC and they're like, you know, we're confused by your show.
What can we do better?
I mean, we see you getting mad at us, mad at the president one day, and then the next day, how we're great.
Well, like, we're confused.
You're confused?
When something I think's bad, I'm going to say it.
When something's good, I'm going to promote it.
I mean, it's ain't rocket science.
You think out of a giant federal government, the biggest in history, and four million employees under the president, that everything going on is going to be perfect?
It's ridiculous.
But here's a big issue.
I even see people saying, what has RFK Jr. done?
Is that a joke?
It would take me just to scour my memory to draw it all up of the incredible things he's gotten done in just eight months in after his confirmation or seven months in.
And then I guarantee you, I don't know about half of what he's done because a lot of it's regulatory behind the scenes.
But let me tell you, Big Pharma and the Globalists are running around like chains with their heads cut off.
Just look today.
And I said this like a month ago in a report because I've been told this is coming.
They just banned the hepatitis C shot for children at birth.
What RFK actually did was that his panel of vaccine idiots changed their recommendation about the hepatitis B vaccine, which was formerly recommended for all newborns.
And now they say that parents should talk to your doctors.
This is going to cause a lot of illness and chronic conditions among the youth because that first days of life, that period, it's critical in terms of a baby's exposure to hepatitis B. Vaccinating a baby at the point of birth is 90% effective at protecting them from hepatitis B, and a lot of infections occur in infancy.
Prior to vaccinations becoming available, children would get exposed by their mother during birth and then were vulnerable to exposure in fairly innocuous settings.
A lot of people don't know that they have chronic hepatitis B, and you don't have to have sex or use needles to transmit it.
So it's just an unnecessary risk to not protect children from it.
Studies have also shown that children under five who get hepatitis B are more likely for it to develop into a chronic condition, which is why having that protection in place as early as possible is important.
RFK's department is severely eroding public health, even if he's not doing as severe things as Alex is pretending.
And Alex doesn't care about this even enough to know the basic details of the story.
It's just talking shit, and, you know, people are going to get hurt.
By not having that authoritative voice or refusing to be that or give that, you allow other people to come in on the margins who are maybe trying to sell you methylene blue and shit like that.
She's declassified the total proof of Obama, Brennan lying to Congress, the FBI, running espionage against American people, creating fraudulent dossiers, literally stealing elections, shy comms involved with the mail-in ballots 2020, the FBI covering it up, bombshell, bombshell, bombshell, bombshell, Arctic frost, crossfire hurricane, bombshell, bombshell.
If you understand this correctly, what Alex is saying is that he doesn't like that someone else is getting a lot of attention for pretending to be under threat when everyone should be worshiping Alex for being a big boy who's always getting attacked.
At this point, Candace Owens is pretending that the French are trying to kill her.
Emmanuel Macron's wife has sued Owens for making a documentary series titled Becoming Bridget, which defames her and Macron in various ways, with the one that gets the most attention being Owens' claim that Bridget was born Jean-Michel Trogneau and is secretly a trans woman.
The stuff that's less headline-grabbing, but actually defamatory are things about her and her husband being related, allegations that Bridget committed identity fraud, and a bunch of other crimes that the couple is said to have committed in order to cover up these things.
Sure.
The Macrons made a critical error by suing Owens because they are the people who are in an actual position of power and should recognize that Owens was trying to bait them.
This lawsuit is the best outcome possible for someone with the business model that Owens uses.
So while harassment and defamation, it's unacceptable and no one should have to put up with it.
If you're the president of a country, you should probably just ignore it.
If you choose not to ignore it, you're entering into territory where you've validated the shit talk of an attention economy scammer to the level of being something you can't just ignore.
And that gives Owens all the power in the situation.
Anyway, the Macrons are suing Candace.
So at this point, she's pretending that France is trying to assassinate her.
And Alex doesn't like that her delusions are becoming more popular than his.
Obviously, Nick Fuentes is on the anti-Semitism side, and the other more mainline right-wing figures like Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh, they're more on the Trump side.
These teams are fighting with each other to define what can be considered America first.
They all have racist and fundamentally elitist political views, but they can't see eye to eye on the issue of U.S. and our support for Israel, and that branches into all kinds of other disagreements, some of which are based in real-world politics, and others are based in neo-Nazi bullshit.
At this point in early December, a major crack is developing between Candace Owens and Laura Loomer, and the two of them are taking on avatar status for their respective groups.
Owens is someone who's been pretty explicitly anti-Semitic in the past and has been somewhat marginalized by the mainstream of the right-wing media because of that.
She formerly worked with Turning Point USA, and many have credited Charlie Kirk with building up her career, so she's played a lead role in the conspiracies around his death.
She's been pretty all over the map, with her main theory seeming to be that Israel was involved and that some Turning Point leadership, possibly even Charlie Kirk's wife, were in on the murder plot.
Candace has seriously underestimated how important Turning Point is to Trump and the GOP, as it serves as the main bridge that they have to the youth, and how aligned the Turning Point leadership and Erica Kirk are to the top people in the administration.
Because of that, this has turned into a giant mess, with Owens attacking Turning Point and then Loomer attacking her back and it becoming this ugly, ugly mess.
Loomer has come to represent the philosophy of the administration being in power and the idea that other powerful organizations like Turning Point should be in alignment with them.
Owens, on the other hand, has become a symbol of an unrepentant type of shit talking, unafraid to talk shit in ways that threaten the mutual power of Turning Point and the Trump administration when they work together.
She's serving a higher calling than mere political machination, and if the leadership of Turning Point are evil and they killed Charlie Kirk because he was getting suspicious of Israel, then the organization itself is bad and should be opposed.
They represent two models of the right-wing media optimization, where Loomer is the establishment access-based person and Owens is the free-wheeling I have no boss type.
These archetypes don't work together and they have to attack one another.
As we saw, dynamics exist between like Alex and Glenn Beck earlier in their careers.
Loomer is the Glenn Beck and Owens is the Alex.
But something interesting that you begin to see in this period in December is that Alex sides with Loomer.
There are a lot of figures who are choosing their sides on this based on the fact that Owens represents a fully anti-Semitic future for the conservative movement and Loomer does not.
But for Alex, I think that's not what's going on.
I don't think that that's the primary axis he's on.
I think that Alex has been so beaten down by the world and his own choices to grovel to power and he knows that he's not the man that he used to be.
He has to be on Loomer's side now and he resents the part of himself that he sees in Candace.
She's living like he did back when he was free and he knows he's supposed to be that character, but he can't anymore.
She's having a blast getting sued by Macron and yelling about how the French are trying to kill her and Alex is stuck doing whatever this shit is, where he has to spend all his days trying to justify war with Venezuela because that's what Trump demands of him.
This brewing war with Venezuela is shaping up to be a really good dividing point in the right-wing media in the same way that the Iraq war was 20 or so years ago.
And Alex being on the side that's trying to manufacture consent for a war is an ultimate betrayal of what his brand is supposed to be about.
And, you know, you're seeing these little things that are a piece of that struggle that aren't even just about like Venezuela straight on or the boats or Heg Seth.
Sure.
You have Alex teaming or siding more with Loomer.
You have him resenting Candace Owens.
And I think that I think this is, I think this could be where you see a lot of a break.
But it was pretty clear from the lead up of, hey, we're bombing these boats.
We're shooting these boats out of the water.
Well, these are belligerent acts that are meant as a pretext in order to go in, topple this government, probably involved with the oil that they have and other resources.
I think what will be exciting about this next stretch of time is we've never truly, okay, like, so we went to space, you know, or we climbed Everest, you know?
Why?
Because it's there.
And I ask myself, how much money can one man steal?
And this is when we're going to find out.
I don't know how much money one man can steal, but Trump is going to steal an entire country.
That's why I think that this is really interesting and why I think that I think that Loomer and Owens are like definitely not the captains of the team.
At some point, he might have said the word autistic in the middle of a rant trying to attack the bombing suspect, but his main plot was that the bomber was going to be someone with a criminal record who the globalists put up to this under the agreement that the charges would be dropped once the heat died down as long as he blamed Alex and the InfoWar for the bombing.
This is a good representation of how the InfoWar has to be constantly fluid in order for it to work.
You have to make predictions you put out today sound definite, but not so definite that you can't undo them tomorrow.
In order for Alex's scam to work, he has to be constantly moving and constantly right.
So that's what he demands the audience accept is the truth.
The guy who was arrested for the pipe bombs has been described by people who know him as being autistic, but Alex is just making things up about him not being able to talk and all this stuff.
He's playing at negative and dangerous stereotypes about people who have autism, and his reason for doing so is pretty clear.
The suspect has apparently confessed to planting the bombs.
And according to lawyers, he said that the reason he did it was because the 2020 election was stolen and someone needed to do something about it.
Alex doesn't want to deal with his reality because it's too inconvenient for him.
So he just ends up with this trash that he's doing.
An interesting wrinkle to this story is that if the guy just pleads guilty, would Trump's blanket pardon of anyone involved in January 6th apply to him?
Trump released people like Stuart Rhodes and Joe Biggs, who were at the Capitol specifically to incite chaos that would stop the certification of the election.
So what's the difference for an unsuccessful bomber?
Trump's guys got out because they committed their crimes in service of him holding on to power.
And if the news about the bomber is accurate, then he was doing the same thing.
I don't know what stories Alex is referring to where the media said the pipe bomber was a white dude, but I think it's a funny complaint for him to have.
His whole storyline is that the guy who's been arrested is a Patsy and that the real bomber was the woman who the Blaze accused a couple weeks prior.
She is a white woman.
So, Alex believes that a white person did the crime and that a black person is being unjustly blamed for it, and yet he's still trying to act like all of this is an attack on white people.
So, it didn't come out in his trial that Marinus van der Lube was mentally challenged, and I would assume that Alex shouldn't take anything that happened at that trial too seriously.
Historians generally have a position that it's probable that he was responsible for the fire, possibly alone or possibly with conspirators, but also that he didn't get a fair trial.
He was posthumously pardoned in 2008 because all Nazi verdicts are tainted.
And so not only is Mike Mendel an incredible American success story and a patriot and an entrepreneur and a trailblazer exposing election fraud and everything else, he has been through living hell.
I don't have many, let's just say, people that have been in the position I've been in to be my peer.
And I don't say that, you know, like, oh, I'm a great, I'm a wonderful person.
But you got Trump up there, the most battles card.
Well, then, in amongst all the other shot-up individuals who didn't bow, got stronger under it because you backed him.
This is all about you, folks.
We can be as strong as we want and have hearts like lions.
If you don't buy us, we can't do it.
We'll never give up.
We'll never sell out.
We'll never back down.
We could give out.
Mike Lindell, the ultimate story of perseverance, just like myself.
Judges, Democrat judges finding him guilty and now having show trials.
They're queuing him up just like me.
But as long as you back him, he will continue on.
People say, well, this goes on forever.
That's the whole point of the fight between good versus evil.
Everybody, if you don't back fighters, and there's nobody in the media like Mike Lindell or Alex Shokes, we both are at the tip of the spear, having the greatest effect, massively targeted more than anybody else other than Trump in total lawsuits, attacks, you name it.
And I mentioned before the break.
I remember the Western Journalism Center about 15 years ago sued and got the Clinton records from their foundation, not the Global Foundation, the one in Little Rock, their presidential foundation.
And they got the first days of their White House.
They got it all.
And they were obsessed then with shutting down newsletters and self-published books of the Clinton Chronicles people that made films on VHS because of grassroots.
And they said, if they ever entrepreneurally fire up the conservative base with businesses, it's more popular than us.
It will build an ecosystem.
The CIA was advising them because people could then vote with their choices of who to buy with and we would take over society peacefully through the free market.
That's why they target Mike Lindell.
That's why they target me because we're smart enough to sell good products to you that employ Americans to then fund our operation a symbiotic operation.
That goes against the globalists move everything to China and India.
What we're doing is pure Americana.
And I know you know this.
I'm not lecturing you.
I'm just saying, when you don't buy from mypillow.com forward slash Alex, when you don't support what we're doing, you're literally funding your enemies.
The memo that Alex is talking about is one from the Clinton White House that's often called the conspiracy commerce memo.
And it's actually incredibly prescient.
It's an analysis of how the right-wing media works, and it's right on.
From the memo, quote, the media food chain is the system by which right-wing activists feed conspiracy theories and innuendo from the fringes into mainstream media.
The food chain starts with activists such as Willie Horton creator Floyd Brown, Sheffield Nielsen, and Larry Nichols.
These activists feed the partisan conservative press publications such as the American Spectator, The Washington Times, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
The mainstream press then picks up on those reports.
The memo lays out timelines and a number of stories that have a pattern of being pushed by the same people like Brown or Larry Nichols and are reported initially by things like British tabloids.
Once the stories are published there, right-leaning U.S. media that have an appearance of more credibility, they're more comfortable running stories about how the British tabloid articles are coming out.
And they discuss these articles in other places.
And through that process, these stories are easily laundered into the mainstream American media.
The memo also explains how many of the publications that serve as the middle step in this process are owned by billionaire Richard Mellon Scafe, like the Tribune Review or the American Spectator, and how critical these outlets are to the laundering process of innuendo, conspiracy theory, gossip, bullshit into respectable journalistic outlets.
Even going back to this document, though, the pattern's the same.
It starts with some asshole ranting about nonsense, which then gets covered somewhere else that's kind of disreputable.
The internet will pick up the story and it'll be rewritten and covered by an outlet that's slightly less embarrassing to sight, which lends the original allegations a little more credibility.
People seeing this story will respond by taking it more seriously.
And if the effort is really successful, then it's possible that investigators or Congress will look into the underlying claims, which makes them look more real, even if they're total bullshit.
Through this model, conspiracy can become an economy, and it has.
The idiotic ravings of some dipshit can be treated like a serious story that demands everyone's attention if the right pieces are there to launder the underlying claims before an audience has a chance to realize that they're coming from a dipshit.
Anyway, the point is that our parents failed us.
People weren't oblivious to the idea that money and ill intent could create a media landscape that was fully exploitable and incapable of discerning reality.
They just didn't have the will to stop that from happening, and we're living in the consequences of it.
This clip and the last clip both reminded me of like, this is when somebody, this would be a character in a tech savery cartoon, and they would have all these words, and then our main character, a smallish but taciturn individual, will hit them with a gigantic hammer.
Do Alex and Ivan expect us to accept the idea that the conspiracies about the 2020 election being stolen only started after the election?
Are they really that brazen that they're trying to demand the audience forget that they were yelling about how the election was going to be stolen for months in advance of any voting even happening?
Do they expect us just to magically forget that Trump and his surrogates, like Alex, were constantly talking about the globalists trying to steal the 2016 election, but Trump overrode the fraud because he was too popular.
I'm not saying that what the prosecution or the courts are saying is definitely accurate, but I do think that somebody could have bought bomb-making supplies in March of 2020 with their motivation being that the 2020 election was going to be stolen.
Alex wants everyone to ignore this aspect of the story because it more directly implicates him and the people who do the kind of media that he does.
If all the crazy shit that happened with the 2020 election just happened after the election was decided, then maybe you could see it as a grassroots response to an election that people believe to be stolen.
But the reality is that there was a concerted media effort to declare the election stolen long before it ever happened, which is why someone could easily have been motivated by that supposed theft before the election even happened.
But yeah, I mean, I just talk about the bomber being a Patsy and all this shit.
Who cares?
Sure.
We are marching towards that inevitable ousting of Medoro.
And I think that it happening kind of makes my let's dwell in how this all this all leads up to, it feels like, well, we should probably not take our time.
I honestly thought it would be a little bit longer before shit popped off.