✪✪✪ Thursday War Room: Louisiana Mall Shooting Leaves 2 Critical, Perps At Large, Trump Directs US Navy to ‘Shoot and Kill’ Mine-Laying Boats in Hormuz Strait…PLUS, Onion Wants To Wear Alex Jones As Skin Suit! FULL SHOW!
Harrison Smith and Michael Savage dissect the Louisiana mall shooting, Trump's controversial "shoot to kill" orders for Iranian mine-layers in the Strait of Hormuz, and the potential for a historic global energy crisis. They condemn the SPLC for allegedly burying data on racist slurs against white students and accuse liberal groups of manipulating hate speech definitions to protect minority narratives while ignoring threats against whites. The discussion further critiques EU emoji regulations as Orwellian censorship, exposes alleged Davos influence over New Hampshire education curriculum, and questions the fairness of current hate crime prosecutions. Ultimately, the episode argues that modern ideological frameworks distort historical facts and legal standards to enforce a specific demographic and political agenda. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm your host, Harrison Smith, coming to you live from our satellite studios here in Austin, Texas.
Infowars.com, banned.video.
That's where you find us.
Please do share those links.
We are doing a little, I guess we're still in the testing phase, a little bit of our new satellite studio here, but we will be broadcasting out of this studio.
For the foreseeable future, beginning at the end of next week, if we make it that long.
Of course, you're watching the Alex Jones show today.
He gave you the update, but we're getting everything squared away here, getting everything tuned in on the escape pod before having to launch.
So, very exciting stuff.
We'll, of course, spend all of next week in the studio as long as we possibly can in order to get the most out of it before we're unfairly kicked out.
Because of the results of our totally fraudulent bankruptcy proceedings.
But we got a lot of news to cover today.
We got a lot of videos to show you, a lot of stuff to get into, including a post from Donald Trump that I really didn't think it was real for a long time, even though people were responding to it as if it was real.
He published it this morning.
The response from the Hindu American Society to Donald Trump's Truth Social post says this.
We are deeply disturbed by the President of the United States sharing this hateful racist screed targeting Indian and Chinese Americans.
Endorsing such rants as the President of the United States will further stoke hatred and endanger our communities at a time when xenophobia and racism are already at an all time high.
My God, still?
They're still at an all time high?
That's crazy.
We ask Donald Trump to reconsider, delete this post, and recognize the indelible contributions of Asian Americans to our great country.
No, and he didn't.
He didn't delete it.
Apparently, this is a transcription of a Michael Savage rant that he posted.
And it's pretty interesting.
I mean, it's something to behold.
It is very interesting that Donald Trump would post something like this.
It says, Welcome to the Savage Nation.
Today's brief, abbreviated discussion will be all about the arguments that I just listened to before the Supreme Court about birthright citizenship.
I was somewhat incensed by listening to the arguments because all I heard was legalese being bandied back and forth.
And quite noticeable to me was that the person bringing the arguments in favor of flooding America with illegal aliens to change demographics forever was a Chinese American who looks to me like the classic ACLU attorney.
Very smart, very evil, and very devious.
The ACLU is the head of the snake.
They have been forever, and they were again trying to turn America into a cesspool.
Now, on that note, just stopping right there.
The ACLU is absolutely a major figure in all of this, like a major organization pushing all of this, just like the SBLC.
And I imagine if you crack the books at the ACLU, you'd find similar operations being run that you do at the SBLC.
So whether it's the ADL, the SBLC, the ACLU, at this point, I'd say like the NAACP, any of these acronyms, we're besieged by acronyms at this point.
Why do we allow them to exist?
Why should they exist?
They are no longer serving the roles that they initially began to serve.
Like the ACLU, and I believe the SPLC also, like, used to go out of their way to protect and, you know, give legal counsel and support to the most objectionable, least popular people in the world.
Like, they used to actually defend Nazis, saying, Look, we don't like what he says, but he absolutely has a right to say it, and we care about the First Amendment.
And if we want to preserve the First Amendment, we have to be steadfast and principled in that.
That's what they used to be like.
Now they are.
Strictly engaged in the wholesale destruction of our country.
And this is the case with like any number of these NGOs.
And the question is just like, why would we allow them to exist?
Why do we allow them to exist?
What benefit do they serve?
Why should we be obligated to put up with this?
Because there's a lot of fatal flaws when it comes to democracy.
But probably the premier one is this fact the fact that we're in a system where the bad guys, the tyrants, the people who want to change the way we do things and have no legitimate reason for making that argument, right?
You can't actually make an argument about why the lives of Americans would be improved by allowing anybody in the world to come plop a baby out and become a citizen.
It's obviously detrimental to democracy.
Citizenship as a concept.
So it's not helping Americans.
There's no argument there.
It's just to hurt us.
It's just bad.
It's just deconstructionism.
And they get to try over and over and over again.
They get to come up with different ways of doing it.
They can say that, you know, first they want to get people in through legal immigration, and then they can say illegal immigration, and they can say, well, they're asylum seekers.
They can manipulate the asylum law.
They can just get them in and then, you know, go for amnesty later.
They have like a million billion ways of.
Pushing tyranny, pushing lawlessness, pushing whatever they want to push.
And so we have to live in this constant state of having to defend ourselves forever, having to defend our rights forever.
It's interminable.
It's ridiculous.
I mean, I know the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but why are we letting them attack us?
Why do we just have to put up with this over and over and over again?
Because there's no corresponding.
Like what it should be is you should have to like bet something.
You should have to like gamble something.
It should be like, I'm going to try to bring this case, I'm going to try to change this law, whatever it is.
But if I lose, I have to go to jail.
Or, like, but if it doesn't work out, if it turns out I am trying to just violate the Constitution and it gets slammed down by the court, then, like, you can't bring any other charges for 10 years.
Like, there's got to be some price to pay.
Because right now it's free, it's totally free, and there's no burden whatsoever for them just to bring a case, it fails, bring another case, it fails again, tweak it a little bit, collaborate with the people.
What do we need to do to get this across the bench?
Okay, present it again.
Like, they can just keep doing it over and over and over and over, keep trying over and over.
And every time we have to mount the defense, This is exhausting.
Why do we have to do this?
And then, on top of that, what actually happens with democracy, and this is such a crazy thing that just sort of happens and we don't even really notice it.
But in a lot of ways, democracy is absolutely less preferable to outright abject tyranny.
And I'm completely serious in this because at least a tyrant is incentivized to not destroy his own people, right?
Because it doesn't really matter if you oppose the tyrant, you can't do anything about it.
He's a tyrant.
You can be mad.
You can complain.
You know, it probably wouldn't be a good idea for him to make everybody miserable or, you know, but he certainly doesn't want to destroy them because they're the power base.
At the end of the day, a tyrant needs the people under him to be working and creating things so he has power in general, right?
But in democracy, the leadership, the authorities are actually incentivized to like materially destroy their own people if they have the wrong ideas.
Because, you know, under tyranny, it's kind of like public dissatisfaction doesn't really matter until it hits a certain threshold and then it matters a lot.
And then like they have to crush the rebellion and, you know, Put the boot down.
But until that point, it's like, oh, everybody's mad.
Who cares?
Let them be mad.
They're going to do what I say.
But in democracy, it's like, oh, these people are, they don't like me and they're, you know, advocating against me.
I guess I'll try to destroy them because they're now a threat to my power.
Now, they might, if they, you know, get popularity, they can deprive me of power.
So now the leadership is incentivized to actually attack their own people, at least half of them, the half that doesn't agree or whatever percentage it is.
Like democracy really sucks and it puts people at each other's throats.
Like, so now instead of just, Being able to trust our government is people like us who have our same interests and are looking out for us and are just basically managing things.
Somebody's got to manage it.
They're the ones who are doing it and they'll do their best and follow the law and just like that's fine.
Now it's like the people have to be in a constant state of war with everybody else who is constantly incentivized to try to seize the levers of power to get what they want or materially benefit themselves or just create a slush fund for themselves to further their political goals elsewhere.
It just turns all of society into a constant gladiator match that is deeply unhealthy for all of us.
And at the end of the day, it's not possible to simply resist this.
You have to be moving forward.
They are the ones who are attacking, they are on the offense constantly, they are constantly trying to change the law.
And it's just an impossible task to resist it perfectly, constantly, and never let them get anything through.
Eventually, they're going to get something through.
And if your only reaction at that point is to say, okay, they've made it past that barrier.
Now, this barrier is our final stopping point until it gets past, then you move back again.
That's what conservatism has been doing for the last 100 years.
And it is time for a new strategy.
The new strategy should be if these people try to change our laws to open up the borders or whatever it is, we have to punish them somehow.
We should punish them legally or whatever it is, or just take whatever they're doing, defeat it, and then promote the opposite.
So if they have some law about You know, giving citizenship, the only thing to do would be to turn around and go, now we're writing a law that guarantees you can never have citizenship, that precludes this group of people from ever getting citizenship.
And, you know, it's going to be very onerous and difficult to overturn what we've passed.
Like, we have to be aggressive, we have to be on the forefront.
Now, all this is to the side.
We'll continue with the rant from Trump, but or that Trump posted from Michael Savage.
But I think it's important to just understand what's actually happening here.
What's actually happening is that the United States of America and the government that's supposed to be composed of, by, and for the people is just under constant, well funded, like highly connected attack from all of these various billion dollar groups that we're paying for, by the way.
So they're going to take our taxpayer money, they're going to give it to these groups who can just continually and relentlessly try to make our lives worse.
And if we're lucky, we'll slow it down, is basically the construct that exists as it is now.
This needs to change.
I don't know why we allow these groups to exist if they're just a constant source of perpetual annoyance, especially.
I mean, the ACLU, I mean, these groups, they're all tied in with these other groups, like the Justice Projects groups, which just routinely let criminals out of prison, like the Innocence Project, these things.
Why do we have, and we have so many, there's something like a nonprofit for every three people in the country.
Like it's something crazy.
There's 300 million.
Citizens in America, and there's a hundred million NGOs, nonprofit organizations.
It's all a complete scam, and we should do something about it.
We should stop it somehow.
We have to stop it because it's exhausting and we're just set up to fail.
It's as simple as that.
So he continues We know these arguments should not be conducted in the abstract of a courtroom.
This is not really about law.
This is about public opinion.
Now, I could start arguing about the Constitution itself, and I'll run into a stone wall with you.
We can't modify the Constitution because it's written in stone.
And if we do, they'll take away the First and Second Amendment, which is what they would do.
See, that also, I don't.
Whatever, we'll keep going.
But that, it's like, no, we can change the Constitution.
We can change anything we want.
And we can say, hey, we're changing the Constitution and we're keeping the First and Second Amendment.
Why would we not be able to do that?
That's like weird thinking.
They're not worried about changing the Constitution at all.
Of course, the left wing doesn't actually like the Constitution.
So if anyone's going to be changing the Constitution, it should probably be us.
Because we're the ones that like it.
We're the ones that actually understand it and appreciate it and enjoy it and want it to be upheld.
So, what we're doing here by saying, well, we can't touch it, we can't do anything about it, and we are bound to its strictures, even to our own destruction.
All you're doing is saying, but the left can do whatever they want.
The left can change it however they want.
All we'll do is try to resist that change until it succeeds, and then we'll try to resist the next change.
That's ridiculous.
We can change the law very easily, and we have to.
We have to, because if we don't, Then the only people trying to change the law will be the people that genuinely hate the Constitution.
So it's actually up to people who love the Constitution to remake the Constitution to protect the Constitution from people who hate the Constitution, who just want to destroy it.
Seems simple enough to me.
So he says, so that's the problem.
The Constitution was written before air travel, needless to say, before television, before the internet, before radio.
And you could say how relevant are some of the arguments when people coming here by airplane in the ninth month of pregnancy.
I wasn't expecting to stop after every paragraph of this, and maybe I'll just continue, but I just sort of just like I have these little disagreements with all of this.
It's not the technology necessarily that has caused the change, it's completely absurd to imagine that anybody who wrote the 14th Amendment ever imagined it would be used the way that it is.
Totally crazy.
They didn't have to know about the invention of airplanes to understand that the 14th Amendment was not a free citizenship grab bag card for anybody that could, you know, the only barrier to becoming a citizen or your kid becoming a citizen is first you have to break our law.
First you have to break our laws and only then will you become a citizen.
Like, obviously, that was never intended.
Illegal Immigration and the 14th Amendment00:08:16
The 14th Amendment was written by people who didn't think the Chinese were fully human.
Like, what are you talking about?
It was written at a time when there were like literal Chinese slaves in America.
And it was like, yeah, you'll come here, you'll work on the railroad, and then we'll send your ass back.
So you're not staying.
That's like what the world was like back then.
So, yeah, the 14th Amendment was like this major progressive step.
And it was about freed slaves.
And really, it was, and we've been over this history before.
But the reason the 14th Amendment was even created was like this, was because at the time the law said that only white men of good character could become citizens.
And there was a Chinese guy.
Who was American?
He lived here forever.
He'd fully assimilated.
He'd done everything that was necessary.
And people looked at that and went, well, you know, he's not a white guy, so we can't exactly naturalize him through the normal process.
Let's create like an exceptional, you know, exemption for people like this guy who have fully, you know, matriculated into the society, have fully, you know, embraced and enveloped themselves in American culture.
Yeah, okay, we can make him a citizen.
We'll, you know, we'll do something about that.
To act, Like the intention of the 14th Amendment was somehow to just open up citizenship to absolutely everybody.
We don't need to argue about the invention of airplanes.
We don't need to argue about any of that stuff.
It's just obviously a bad law.
It's not a real law.
It's actually not a law.
It's just an abuse of a different law that's totally defunct and unnecessary and was made for the time that it existed and no longer needs to exist.
We do need to upgrade the Constitution.
We do need new laws, amendments, all this sort of stuff.
We need a new Bill of Rights that includes the Internet, an Internet Bill of Rights.
These things we do need because of the technology that is developed in the meantime.
But that's not the reason we want to get rid of the 14th Amendment.
We could not have any of that stuff.
It's still a stupid and bad law.
It's still wrong.
Most of the people getting here are just walking across the border like they could have done in the 1800s.
There's no difference.
It's just now there's a mass funded operation to bring all these people in to, again, a frankly terrifying degree.
And I'll know, guys, we've been able to pull in the videos because we do have a little animation of that.
Is it a hate crime to save Western civilization from Islamists and communists?
Yes, apparently it is.
But we've got immigration into America.
We can show that animation because just a little, you know, it gives you an idea of just the.
Uncountable hordes that have entered our country in the last couple of years, just like they've entered Europe, just like they've entered Canada, because this is a global attack against white people.
It's a genocide.
So let's not be vague about this.
And yeah, apparently, defending yourself against outright genocide makes you a very bad person.
The Indian, whatever, Hindu American Council wants you to quietly accept your total and utter destruction, or else you're rude or something.
He says, Baby comes here becomes an instant citizen.
Yeah, look at this.
2021, 2022, 2023.
And every one of these dots, I believe, represents 100 people.
And this is illegal immigration.
That's not including the millions upon millions of legal immigrants at that same time.
And it also, of course, doesn't include the tens of millions of illegal immigrants that were already here when the animation started in 2021.
And of course, it's hard to even take seriously.
People still.
Bandy about the number 11 or 12 million.
You'll still see people going, Are we going to really give citizenship to all 12 million illegal immigrants?
Guys, I'm not being facetious.
Literally, they counted, they estimated that there were 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the 1970s.
In 1975, the official count was 11.5 million illegal immigrants.
There have been more illegal immigrants.
Than 11.5 million they came across since probably 2024.
I think there's at least 100 million illegal immigrants in this country.
That's what Greg Bavino says.
He, of course, is the recently retired head of the DHS or very high up in the DHS in charge of deportations.
He says there's 100 million.
I think that's about accurate.
I think that's about accurate, which is absurd and obscene and ridiculous.
I mean, that means like one out of every three people in this country is just a foreigner, it's just somebody from somewhere else taking advantage of us.
That's accurate from my observations.
They say a baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring their entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole of the planet.
You don't have to go too far to see that.
English is not spoken here anymore.
There's almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case.
No, they're not like European Americans of today and their ancestors.
The Irish integrated, the Italians integrated, the Polish integrated, the Lithuanians, the Romanians, the Russians.
They all integrated and became Americans in the melting pot.
The idea of the melting pot is long over, it's now just a cash in pot.
We've gone from a melting pot to the chamber pot.
As I've said many times, you don't have to go further than any city in America to see what this has wrought upon the country.
So, to listen to these very wise, smart lawyers arguing in the abstract as to whether birthright citizenship should apply to anyone born here, no matter who their parents were, where their parents came from, is ludicrous to me, which is why I put a poll on my social media channels where I said birthright citizenship should be subject to a national vote, not put in the hands of lawyers.
Let the citizens decide.
Of course, I knew how it would go because I know what the people think.
It's 80 20.
Yes, of course, there should be a national referendum on this.
In California, we have propositions as rigged as they are that people get a chance to vote on certain propositions.
When we vote against what the governor wants or what the vermin who run the state want, they find a cockamamie ACLU lawyer to overturn our vote anyway, which is where revolutions arise.
Because no longer can we take any more of this crap.
I don't like getting vulgar, but I can't take it anymore.
This country has been stolen from us by these effing lawyers.
Shakespeare had it right.
I didn't like listening to all their fine arguments without talking about the realities in place and how this has become a bankrupt welfare nation.
There's an article after article about the abuse of the welfare system in the state of California.
Great one today in the California Post.
You actually could not believe the extent of the fraud in this state, and a good portion of it is being conducted by the immigration front groups, all protected by the ACLU, which is the most dangerous criminal organization in the history of America.
They've done more damage to this nation than all other mafia families put together, in my unhumble opinion.
Gangsters with laptops, they've robbed us blind, treated us like second class citizens, let the third world triumph, stepped on our flag, et cetera.
So, again, birthright citizenship is the question.
I can't take much more.
I woke up and saw what was going on.
And said, I'm really glad that I could watch this.
First, they made an issue of Trump showing up like it was illegal for the president of the United States to witness this.
When it turns out, they said, oh, he's there to bully them.
He's bullying them.
I wish he would.
I really wish he would.
Actually, they said, we study this.
There's actually a chair put in there by the founding fathers in the Supreme Court for a president to sit in.
Trump is a good activist president.
Earlier, when I saw this going on and listened to Snake from the ACLU, Ms. Wang, Attorney Wang, she speaks so eloquently.
Attorney Court, Supreme Court arguments are just legal tricksters.
I wrote about fighting each other.
Our nation is being overrun with Chinese coming here just.
To drop a baby on our shores and bring in the entire family.
How about some common sense in the bankrupt nation?
So he's exactly right.
And he says, We don't want to turn into a colony of China, but it's not limited to China, it's also India.
So can you point out to me where the racist part of any of that was?
The only thing he even said was that people from India and China come over here.
He called them crap hole nations.
He used a less polite word, which they are, which is why they're all trying to come here.
If they weren't, they would stay there.
This is obvious.
So, I mean, I guess you could call that bigoted, but.
Let's get into what's going on in the Strait of Hormuz and with Iran, Lebanon, all of that good stuff.
Not good stuff, sorry.
I meant all of that world endingly bad stuff.
That's actually what I meant.
All of the horrible stuff, all of the stuff that I just, I mean, I really cannot get over.
I don't want to say how stupid humanity is, but it's like, did we not go through this?
Are we not living in a groundhog world?
Like, we went through this with COVID.
You understand that, right?
Like, we already have been through this once.
And yet again, we're sitting here looking at the horizon going, they're about to do lockdowns.
They're about to crash the world economy.
They're about to.
Do a major designed orchestrated reorganization of society to remake it away from what it was into what they want it to be.
They're doing it, they're putting all the places, all the pieces in place.
And like Alex was saying today on his show, it's locked in.
It's locked in.
It's going to happen.
It's not speculation.
They're not going to discover a giant, you know, fertilizer mine all of a sudden and, you know, correct the problem that way.
We're just sitting here twiddling our thumbs with an asteroid bearing down on us.
And once again, it feels like InfoWars are the only people taking it seriously and trying to warn you about it because it seems like the deliberate policy of the media is to keep people in a state of normalcy, bias, and unconcern about what's going on because that is the real power of the media.
Yes, they can create and manufacture crises, they can establish with very little evidence.
Trends in the minds of people the world over and make them really think something's going on when it's not.
But they can also do the opposite.
They can also take actual trends and actual important things and they can downplay it and they can cover it casually.
And so the people who are watching the news go, oh, yeah, I heard about that.
Yeah, no, I'm all up to date on that.
When really all they've been told is just a cursory breeze over it in order to satisfy them that you don't need to be curious about this.
Everything's fine.
That's sort of the modus operandi of the mainstream media at this point is to.
Be sitting there while the tidal wave is bearing down, while the emergency is oncoming, and just blocking the view and saying, It's fine.
Don't worry about it.
Don't need to do anything.
You don't need to be angry.
You don't need to be outraged.
No, go be outraged about, I don't know, a black criminal got killed by police.
Go burn a city down about that.
But don't worry about all this other stuff going on.
Don't peek behind the curtain.
It's fine.
We've handled it.
So I'm here to tell you, you need to wake the hell up because things are bad and they're getting worse and they're.
Don't seem to be any off ramp being pursued at this point, which is a little odd.
Now, there is a very distinct time deadline that Trump has to worry about, and that is about six days from now.
About six days from now, Trump will have reached the maximum military operation that he can legally do without approval from Congress.
So, in six days, Trump is either going to need to start wrapping things up legally, and again, this is On the basis of law, so it could very well be completely ignored and overridden and national security, whatever.
It seems like laws and strictures and precedents and this stuff is all kind of wishy washy whenever certain people want something done.
So, you know, theoretically, in six days, Trump will either have to start winding down because he'll still have 30 days after that.
So, in six days is the deadline.
That will be the maximum that he can have a special military operation without approval or a declaration of war from Congress.
At that point, he'll have 30 days to.
Clean things up to exit and safely move out American interests from the war region.
So, those 30 days aren't okay.
You get 30 more days to keep waging war.
It's you get 30 days to specifically withdraw.
Legally, that's the structure that we're running up against.
Whether it will be enforced or not, I don't really know.
And at the end of the day, this is kind of interesting because Congress so far has been happy to pass the buck.
They could at any point intervene and say either this is a real war, we are now going to certify it and declare war as a nation.
And open up extra powers and funds and all sorts of stuff by doing that, or to step in and say, We are not declaring war.
We are actually denouncing this action and demand that it end as soon as possible.
They have chosen not to do either one of those.
They have chosen simply to wash their hands of it and not impose their prerogative by any means.
So, in six days, they are either going to be forced to give legitimacy and go along with Trump's agenda, or he's going to have to back down.
He's going to have to basically call it quits.
And again, this is very interesting, and I can very easily imagine the brilliant legal minds in Washington, D.C., coming up with very tricky ways to basically say, actually, It doesn't matter.
Actually, we're going to give them another 90 days.
And, you know, we think that because this is a national security emergency, that that invokes Article 12 of the blah, blah, blah.
You know, so at the end of the day, I don't know how real this deadline is, but it is an interesting sort of game mechanic added to this ridiculous board game of stupidity we're all sitting by and betting our lives on.
We are facing the biggest security, energy, energy security threat in history.
You don't say.
Birol.
This is the head, Faith Biral, the head of the International Energy Agency, has previously warned the Iran war and ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz would result in the largest energy crisis we've ever faced.
An average of 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products were shipped through the Strait every single day before the war.
The waterway is currently under a double blockade, with neither Iran nor the U.S. allowing vessels to enter or exit the channel.
The waterway is currently under that double blockade.
As of today, we've lost 13 million barrels of oil per day, and there are major disruptions in vital commodities, he told Steve Sedgwick.
Burel has previously warned that the Iran war and the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz would result in the largest energy crisis we've ever faced and urge governments to bolster their resilience with alternative energy sources.
Oh, that'll help.
I bet that'll help.
You could try to stop the war.
That would probably be the easier thing to do, would be to undo the thing that caused the problem rather than create more problems because of the problem that you've already caused.
That's just me.
I don't know.
I'm no EU, you know, European expert class scientist or anything, but it seems to me like if the issue is the Strait of Hormuz being blocked, that should be the primary method by which you correct the problem, not come up with a bunch of nonsense about building windmills that couldn't possibly help alleviate any of the problems that you're currently facing.
But that's just me.
Then again, maybe you want to do the thing that won't possibly help you for another 20 years.
But would give you plenty of resources to make it look like you were doing something in the meantime.
He says, I expect, first of all, nuclear power will get a boost.
Well, I mean, again, it's all of this stuff.
It's like, what are we doing here?
Europe, literally, Germany in particular, literally, has spent the last 10 years systematically destroying all of its nuclear power.
I was talking to the crew in the break about this idea I have.
It's so relevant.
I got to bring it up.
I'll bring it up later.
I'll bring it up later.
But look, dependency is an extremely valuable tool in the tool set of tyrants.
Dependency is like one of the key things that, you know, let's say you're, let's just abstractly here say you're playing a game where you're trying to enslave a population of some sort.
You want to keep that dependency meter as high as humanly possible.
Now, at the same time, you want that productivity meter high.
Because you want to be a wealthy tyrant, obviously, but it's got to be offset by the dependency.
You can't have people out there with their own power, their own authority, their own resources, the ability to feed themselves without your say so or intervention.
You want them having to get everything through you.
And in the case of an international organization, you want the entire nation to get everything through you.
That includes energy and food.
That way, you have them on a leash and by a chain.
That's why the energy has been destroyed.
That's why.
All of the energy infrastructure in Europe that worked fine and would be very useful right now was all systematically destroyed.
The UK is sitting on one of the largest natural gas reserves in the entire world in the North Sea.
They're not accessing it.
The Dutch is not accessing their energy reserves.
They have, I mean, the UK has basically an endless supply of coal if they cared to use it.
Now, China uses coal, uses coal power, is building something, building a coal power plant every two days or something since 2022.
I mean, they are.
Going nutso with it.
And that's how they make their urea, which is the nitrogen rich ingredient of the fertilizer.
So they don't have to rely on imported fertilizer.
They make their own with their immense coal reserves and the coal that they use to power their energy infrastructure.
The UK leaves the coal in the ground, imports fertilizer, and is going to end up starving to death.
So that's the societal construct that they deliberately traded in Europe.
And it's not a coincidence, it's not an accident that it happened all at once, all at the exact same time, and for the exact same reason.
Let's go to clip number.
This is an Irishman named David Roche talking about the fuel situation worldwide.
Therefore, you can think of yourself as flying along in the markets close to their peaks at 30,000 feet.
And unfortunately, the tanks are running dry.
There's no fuel.
So the last tankers of normalized flow from the Gulf and from the Red Sea have now arrived at their destination.
And there are no more on the way.
They're no more exiting the Gulf.
They're no more exiting Babel Mandeb in the Red Sea.
And they're no more exiting Suez.
So essentially, the pipeline is dry.
Now, what that means is that we are going to run out of fuel in the global economy.
And there will be a hard stop.
So you move beyond the initial inflation rate.
effects which you're seeing and have been commenting about.
That's one matter.
That is the price of gas at the pump.
We're now moving to the second stage, which is there is no gas price at the pump.
So within a couple of months, given or take a few releases from strategic reserves, we are going to be in an economy which has to adjust downwards to eliminate the demand for fuel which is not there.
That will cost you 3% of growth.
It's not that your growth rate is 3% less.
It is that your global economy goes down.
Hard stop, 3%.
And the markets are completely divorced from that reality.
The political reality is that the Iranians will never, unless they are really obliterated by huge military action, they will never give up the Gulf of Hormuz, the control of it, the Straits of Hormuz.
And that's the Gulf.
Because together with the Houthis controlling the Red Sea and the IRGC controlling the entrance to the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, that is their new nuclear weapon.
It gives them control over Gulf states.
It gives them control over the global economy.
And why on earth would they give it up?
That's what the war has done.
The IRDC around lost the war and moved as a result into a position of having greater strategic power than they had before the war started.
unidentified
So, David, if you're saying the worst of the economic impact is to come, that is the energy growth and inflation shock that we've been talking about, why is it that markets are defying not just economic but also political gravity right now, as you've explained?
Now, this is explaining something with which I don't agree.
I don't agree with where markets are.
I think they're second diesel, as they say in my country, which is not there.
So let me try and explain something I don't agree with.
I think the markets are making the assumption that Trump will get out of this by hook or by crook and that he will withdraw, declare victory and go home.
And then the tankers will start to move again.
So essentially what you've got in the global supply chain for oil and gas is a hiccup.
It's an airlock.
It'll pass because he will go home.
Now, I would put it to you that even if that were to happen, the tankers would not flow the same way as they should.
The oil would not flow the same way.
Why?
Because by going home, the U.S. would leave Iran and the IRGC in charge of the Gulf.
And then only the ships that they like.
Or who pay them enough will export oil.
And that would still leave the world short of about 10% of its global oil and gas supply.
So I think the markets are believing in the cloud cuckoo land story that Trump will up stumps and go home, to use a cricket analogy, dear to Australians.
But I think that actually that solution is not a solution at all.
And when he says, you know, or when he's asked about why the market's so high if you're seeing this impending doom, And I'd say it's to maintain the sense of normalcy.
It's because the crash is planned and it's designed to be a surprise.
They don't want people being prepared for this or taking, you know, measures to change the course that we're currently traveling, the trajectory that we're currently on.
So they'll, you know, keep the markets high, keep everything in a falsely inflated, you know, good mood until they can't maintain the illusion anymore.
And then everybody will be shocked and we'll all be surprised.
And everybody will go, oh my gosh, nobody had any idea that we were about to run out of oil and the economy was about to crash and that we didn't plant.
Crops, so we'll starve next year.
Everybody's learning this right now at the same time.
Should be ready for all of that.
Let's go to clip 15 here.
Again, you've got the ECB chief, Christine Lagarde, warning of possible disruptions in things like, I don't know, the food supply.
The third of the fertilizers is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, that is also at risk.
And it matters particularly in the southern hemisphere where the planting and therefore the fertilizers is badly needed now.
I'm not saying that just out of interest for agriculture.
Don't forget, I was Minister of Agriculture in France for a month and a half.
But because it matters to me as a central banker now, because if the price of food increases significantly, it is not going to just be the price of food, it is going to be inflation expectations.
Because we know that people are particularly attentive to two things the price of food, processed and unprocessed, and the price of gas at the petrol station.
So here are three indirect consequences of.
What's happening in the energy world?
So, if the disruption persists long enough, the adjustment shifts from prices, which we are putting up with now, to possibly rationing with very different economic consequences.
Higher prices are primarily inflationary, shortages hit output directly and are worse for growth.
Overall, there have been so far limited signs of supply chain disruption.
Both globally and in the euro area.
But local tensions are visible.
Jet fuel prices have roughly doubled since the outbreak of the conflict, and rationing has been imposed at some individual airports in Europe since early April.
And I'm not talking about what's happening in the rest of the world.
I'm just back from the IMF and the World Bank spring meetings, like many of you, and you might have bumped into colleagues from Asia.
In particular, some of the low income countries or emerging market economies that are taking a much more severe hit than us and are moving into rationing.
So they are moving into rationing, but so is the EU.
And of course, they are just like happy about this.
Like they're thrilled about this.
I mean, it is actually the exact same playbook they ran with COVID.
And it's shocking that more people aren't seeing what's coming down the road here.
So again, Europe gets about 75% of its jet fuel from refineries in the Middle East, and this is basically now down to zero.
They're trying to import it from the US and Nigeria.
If they're not able to get it in Europe, additional imports from the other countries now, we will be in difficulties.
You know, I see people, and I get it because it's funny the whole like, you know, where Americans screw Europe kind of mentality.
But like, I don't want to screw Europe.
I don't want to destroy Europe.
I actually really like Europe, and they have enough problems as it is, folks.
They're barely hanging on as it is.
This is like the death knell.
Of Europe.
So I get that people are like, think it's like this America first, hoorah, America, you know, Team America sort of thing to be like, yeah, now our stupid European allies are, you know, getting screwed over by this.
And it's like, what?
Well, why would you want that?
Why would you possibly want that to be an outcome of the Iran war?
That's crazy.
It's like retarded.
Like, what are you talking about?
This sounds like just another really benefit for the people that hate Europeans and hate white people and are attacking Europe basically with America by shutting down Iran.
And it's hurting Europe first and foremost above everybody else.
Why are we trying to hurt our allies like that when they're already on the cusp of total destruction?
So I'd like to see Europe governed by people that don't despise the natives.
I think that would be a better construct.
Meanwhile, Millions, this is how bad it's getting in Europe.
Millions face mobile data rationing.
Mobile data rationing, folks.
Yeah.
No, mobile data rationing.
Okay.
The energy costs, they're so high, you can't access information anymore.
Sorry.
Energy's too high.
So you can't text people or look at news from overseas.
So, you know, we got to save energy.
Obviously, that's what it's about.
Millions face mobile data rationing and surge pricing as ministers leave phone firms battered by soaring energy costs.
That's right, folks.
Guess what the solution to the energy crisis they created is?
Restriction of your ability to communicate.
Yep, they figured it out.
What a coincidence.
Yeah, it turns out to ration energy, you have to have a digital ID and let 10 million Muslims into your country.
Sorry, it's just, you know, it's called energy rationing.
Trump has eight days to make up his mind.
In fact, the U.S. president is bound by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which limits his ability to wage war without congressional approval to just 60 days.
It will compel him to choose one of four options to seek congressional authorization to continue the war, start winding down U.S. involvement, buy some breathing space, or ignore the law.
I wonder which one he'll go with.
He'll probably ignore the law to serve as masters, wage the Iran war, do irreparable damage to America, cause the Republicans to leave, then he'll be impeached for violating the law and continuing the war when he wasn't supposed to.
That's a good sort of path, I think, for things to take.
Lebanon and Israel to resume talks to extend Israel Hezbollah ceasefire.
Lebanon and Israel are set to begin a second session of direct talks at the White House on Thursday to discuss the possibility of extending a truce between Israel and Hezbollah militant group and plans for future negotiations between the two neighbors and a long history of hostile relations.
Trump issues shoot to kill orders against Iranian small boats in the Strait of Hormuz.
They've ordered to shoot to kill the small boats that deploy mines in the Strait of Hormuz, he said Thursday, a day after Iran again displayed its ability to thwart traffic through the channel.
And of course, even if they stop right now and get all the small boats and stop any of the mine. That have been laid, it will still take six months to clear out the mines that exist where it is now.
So, whenever this ends, we'll be at least six months from normal traffic resuming through the strait.
Trump orders the U.S. to attack Iranian boats mining the Strait of Hormuz.
That's those small speed boats that are used in quick operations.
And the Pentagon abruptly says Secretary of Navy John Fellin is departing.
He apparently was fired by their Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth.
Now, we're going to get into more of this in the next hour.
I do want to remind you to go to thealexjonesstore.com.
It's the only way that we get funding.
It's the only way that we stay on air.
It's the only way that we're here to tell you the truth about what's going on as best we can with the information we have, which is a lot.
Right now, we've got five brand new trench war daggers.
And believe it or not, they didn't even give me one.
Maybe they're all at the old studio, but I'd like to have one.
To thrash around with.
I'd like to have one to menace my enemies.
There's five all new designs.
Each one is cooler than the last.
They're only $79.99, which is insane.
I have to tell you, that is a crazy, crazy good price for a size, a knife of this size and this quality.
Okay?
I mean, you're not talking about junk here.
You're talking about like battle ready, hardened, top of the line, incredible craftsmanship at a ridiculously low price.
And when you see the size of this thing, it's like, The size of your forearm.
There are five new daggers.
It's the You Are the InfoWar dagger, Molan Labe, Liberty or Death, Don't Tread on Me, and Ave Christus Rex.
These are premium trench war daggers with knuckle guard handles and laser etched designs on the blade.
They regularly sell for $200.
You're getting them for $79.99, even more if you're a VIP.
unidentified
In a world where globalist, depopulationist, principalities, and powers of the air have been adding, Spraying and inundating humans with heavy metals, chemicals, and toxins.
TheAlexJonesStore.com would like to introduce a new way to remove them from your body from the inside out.
Introducing Zeolite.
Zeolites are a group of crystal like porous minerals that are found where molten stone.
Meets water.
From the Greek zeo to boil and lithos or light meaning stone, this unique network of tiny little holes and channels found in zeolite absorb and remove harmful substances like heavy metals, chemicals, and other toxins.
Crackdowns on Online Emojis00:07:47
unidentified
So don't delay.
Start the process of removing unwanted toxins from your body and put some skin in the game of the info war today by going to thealexjonesstore.com and picking up a bottle of zeolite.
And in case you were wondering, in case you need a reminder of the importance of the First Amendment, why it might be the type of thing that an American would want to do to support.
Institutions that are being victimized by anti First Amendment lawfare.
I don't think people realize how bad things can get, how quickly they can get that bad when you don't have something like the First Amendment.
Now, Europe is the birthplace of free speech.
It's where the Magna Carta came from, it's where Martin Luther banged his essay to the door of the church.
It's sort of the fertile ground upon which free thought.
Was established as a societal imperative.
In America, it was codified, it was solidified and made legal in the First Amendment.
And that little move, which you might even think would be unnecessary because at the time it was like, of course, we believe that.
We still believe in the old adages and the old ways and the Magna Carta, which have been around since the 1200s.
I mean, it's almost the type of thing that do you really even need to include it?
Yeah, you actually do need to include it.
It actually needs to be explicit.
Unrestricted, you know, the law itself.
It's just you have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and we cannot stop that.
It needs to be in stone and established over and over.
Why?
Because if you don't have something like that, even if you are the birthplace of free speech as a concept, you end up down the road eventually at a place like this.
EU pushes crackdown on emojis that hide illegal speech.
That's right, folks.
You no longer have to actually say the bad thing in Europe.
You can do emojis that hint at the bad thing, and they'll throw you in jail for that.
We can go to Doc Kim here.
The European Union is pushing for a crackdown on emojis online, arguing that their use can cover up speech it considers illegal.
An emoji isn't always just an emoji, the body wrote on social media, claiming that some uses of the pictograms represent attempts to sell drugs online.
Oh, we got to stop the drug trade, obviously.
And the only way to do that is make it illegal to use certain emojis without permission from the government.
You know what I have to say to that?
I have to say, water gun crown, water gun crown, fire European flag.
That's what I have to say to that.
I have to say, fire emoji, European flag emoji, fire emoji.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the war room in Forward.com, banned.video.
Support us at dalexjonesstore.com.
You know, speaking of like Orwellian stuff, I just have like a collection of very Orwellian topics that we can go over.
And it's, I guess these can all kind of be put under the Orwellian, you know, label.
Of course, first we have the thing we just covered, which, yes, it's real.
This is actual, it's actually happening, folks.
This is from an Irish newspaper, gripped.ie.
The European Union pushing for a crackdown on emojis because.
Face crime.
Like, this is the equivalent of face crime in Orwell.
Of course, they also already have that.
They also have a patent for the ability to monitor your facial expression because, yes, that really is how granular they're getting with their surveillance.
Beyond this case, you're not allowed to use certain emojis because they're linked to hate speech.
Hate speech.
Threat actors continue to explore ways to avoid detection and enforcement by using coded language with emojis and slurs.
Avoiding certain phrases or other strategies which make it challenging for technology to detect potential violations, the cited risk assessment, which is required under EU law claims.
See, you know, you're running into the problem of you're trying to control people's thoughts, and that is impossible.
That's actually impossible.
And the beautiful thing about human language is we're very adaptable.
And I mean, you can see it now to actually an annoying degree, the way that like young kids.
Just genuinely say the term unalived because you can't say killed on YouTube or TikTok or whatever.
And so that's just become the word that they use for kill, which will mean eventually, like, what's the difference?
Now, kill and unalived are the same word.
They're synonyms.
They mean the same thing.
So now, are you going to ban the word unalived?
And if you do, what do you think they're going to do?
They're going to come up with a different word because that's what humans do.
This is the folly.
This is the stupidity of trying to.
Restrict language like this, censorship can work if it's sort of broad and vague, and you're not allowed to talk about this subject or these people or whatever it is.
But when you get down to trying to actually control people's emotions and feelings and reactions to things, you're going to fail.
You're absolutely going to fail.
And it'll eventually devolve to a point where, I mean, humans are really good at this.
If you want to express something, you can.
And you can do it in any sort of ways.
You can do it.
As if you're speaking in a game.
Obviously, that would be a very successful way to talk about stuff explicitly.
It's just be on a game chat and pretend you're talking to people online.
This is something that you just can't.
This is impossible.
This is just trying to dam a river with a tissue.
It's not going to work.
It's not going to work.
It's only going to make people angrier.
And you may be able to minimize the recruitment and organization for a little bit, but all that's going to happen is people are going to go.
On the platforms that aren't controlled, they're going to use methods that aren't surveillable, which you should probably be getting used to.
You should probably be getting used to doing stuff like that.
As types of content and terms used for hate speech are frequently changing, consistently detecting and enforcing against hate speech remains challenging.
The crackdown comes amid calls for the EU to restrict online access even further through the use of social media bans and digital ID.
Ireland is expected to spearhead these censorship efforts, with the government repeatedly emphasizing.
That tightening various EU digital regulations will be high on the agenda once its European Council presidency begins in July.
And guys, I actually just put a video in here because I just learned about this and didn't know this happened.
And apparently it is on video.
I haven't actually watched this video yet, so hopefully it says what it purports to say.
But the original post.
Is from an account called Ian Hewitt.
And he says, interesting moment in the New Hampshire Senate Education Commission yesterday on HB 1448.
This bill would ban public school curriculum provided or created by the World Economic Forum, which is kind of interesting.
And what people expected was for this to be denied or for them to kind of play dumb about this.
But actually, what happened is the people that are pushing for the new You know, the education system admit, yeah, we're trying to implement a program by the World Economic Forum, which again, this is the thing about InfoWars.
We've had our eyes on the target the entire time.
People will claim that by talking about things like the World Economic Forum, we're somehow covering up for something else or that they don't have much power, is like people say.
It is the managerial organization of the rest of their operations.
Has been for a while and is becoming less so because they're sort of moving operations over to things like the Board of Peace and other kind of more opaque and less outwardly philanthropic organizations.
But for now, in continuing, I mean, Larry Fink is the head, the head of BlackRock, the head of the World Economic Forum.
And this is, I would love to talk to a leftist about this because you really got to wonder like, okay, they hate rich people, right?
All right, well, we're talking about the richest people, okay?
Wealth is commiserate or corresponds to how much you hate them, they should be the people you hate the most.
This is Larry Fink of BlackRock, for the love of God.
This is like the chief capitalist pig In the world, does it concern you at all that he is the head of an organization that forcefully pushes all of your beliefs down the throat of everybody else?
Does that connect to your brain?
Does that matter to you?
I wonder.
I really wonder.
Because I'm also against Larry Fink.
I'm also against exploitative capitalism, just getting as much money as you possibly can by hurting other people.
That's never what this society was supposed to be built on.
And it's just obviously just the social poison, the.
They're evil.
In a word, BlackRock and all private equity, but BlackRock in particular, Vanguard in particular, are very negative influences on the world at large and they should be forcefully broken up, eradicated, their assets seized and managed by responsible Americans, not Larry Fink.
That's my belief and it's consistent because I also oppose and despise all of the things that Larry Fink believes and all the things that he does and all the things that he's trying to put in textbooks for children.
Here's a bunch of socialists like Hassan Piker that we'll cover later that are just the most quintessential useful idiots you've ever seen.
That are right now in the New York Times advocating petty theft as protest against the capitalist system, as if the capitalist system won't just use your petty theft to literally imprison the entire society by encouraging you to steal things and making it impossible to run brick and mortar shops.
Then you're just forcing everything to go to e commerce and forcing what would have otherwise been maybe a thriving Main Street.
For people to shop at small businesses, giant conglomerates that operate out of robotic warehouses.
Like, how do you not understand the consequences of your own action, you absolute moron?
So, InfoWars has always been right about this that the things to focus on, the real dangerous centers of power, are places like the World Economic Forum that may present themselves as just a bunch of, you know, good, but good hearted, God fearing, you know, philanthropic billionaires just coming together to find out how to help the rest of the world, right?
That's how they present themselves.
And at best, a lot of people think they're just whatever, that they talk about nonsense and it doesn't really matter and let them feel like they're important.
But at the end of the day, you know, I'm focused on my life.
Like you have to understand what they decide at the world government, which is what the World Economic Forum is it is a Congress, it is a gathering of leaders who set policy and then enact that policy in the following year.
So it's a world government.
And they go to the world government.
And they take orders and they bring them back to the national, you know, to their national power bases and implement them here.
They are, if they get what they want, not only will they be in charge of educating your children and dictating reality to your children, they're also, you know, systematically basically buying your children out and they'll own them forever.
Why would we be okay with this?
Why would we allow this?
Why are we allowing it?
And Godspeed to Melissa Blasek.
At Melissa Blasek, that's B L A S E K N H, Melissa Blasek N H on X, who says, I wrote this bill.
Yes, private citizens can write legislation.
I saw a problem and wrote a solution.
So, Melissa Blasek, we really got to get her on the show.
Scott's here.
Tom, we should reach out to Melissa because she wrote this bill.
She wrote a bill to say, we are forbidding the World Economic Forum from writing our school curriculum.
And the people who are trying to implement it, We're asked, is this even a thing that's happening?
And they had to kind of admit, yeah, that's actually what's happening.
So let's go to the video now.
Again, I haven't seen this video, but I think this is what we're watching.
Basically, this person, Ian Hewitt, says, interesting moment in the NH, New Hampshire's Senate education yesterday on HB 1448.
The bill would ban public school curriculum provided or created by the World Economic Forum.
And then they actually, and then what it says is basically when they're asked about it, they had to admit, yeah, we are actually trying to do this.
So let's go to the video of this happening.
unidentified
You want to speak on this one?
Okay.
You've got two minutes this time.
I don't think you're running very, very short here.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Senate Education Committee.
I was not intending to speak to this, but after the last comment, I think I want to expand a little bit.
My name is Deborah Howes, the President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire.
And having heard American Federation of Teachers brought up a couple of times, I just want to clarify that the American Federation of Teachers did announce that it is working with industry leaders from around the world to develop career and technical education curriculum.
To share with any school in the United States that wants such curriculum to use to help its students learn and thrive and gain employment after school.
If our schools in New Hampshire think that would be a bad thing to have from industry leaders around the world, we could make that illegal for them to use.
But that is the partnership that was announced at Davos, they're working with industry leaders from around the world.
Including European leaders, including American leaders who were at Davos.
It's just, you know, don't you want your kids to have jobs?
So shouldn't they be instructed in their worldview by the job creators?
Shouldn't the future bosses get to dictate to your children how they feel about themselves and the world around them and the relationship they're in?
I mean, shouldn't they be allowed?
To crush your children's spirits so that your children slot in easily to the robotic, inhuman world that the World Economic Forum is creating for them?
I mean, they're creating the world.
Wouldn't you like them to educate your children on how to navigate through it?
Look, I can't say what I think should be done to these people.
I'll just say they shouldn't be in charge of our children.
Okay, I'll say that because it's legal to say.
But I'm thinking a lot of different things.
Ian Hewitt said to this I admit I was skeptical that the WEF is controlling the curriculum in New Hampshire, but the teachers' union lobbyists got up and said, Yeah, we are.
We're developing a curriculum with the World Economic Forum as part of a partnership announced at Davos.
Okay, so that's what we in the business call pernicious influence.
That's pernicious influence dictating the foundational education of your children.
And God bless Melissa Blasek for, as a regular citizen, writing the bill to prevent this and forcing them to not only admit it, but if the bill passes, they'll be forced to abandon the education system written by the monopoly man, the education system written by Scrooge McDuck.
Larry Fink, the cartoonish supervillain, should not have the right to dictate the knowledge that's passed on to your children.
My God.
It's like, why do I have to say this?
She says, My favorite part of this is that while the ATF had made it clear this was going to happen nationally, I never expected a lobbyist to openly confirm it in the hearing.
So, again, this is how they work, right?
I think they know if they were to come out and make a big deal and go, guys, we're getting a new curriculum designed by the World Economic Forum.
People would go, well, what the hell is that?
And why are they designing our curriculum?
And then they'll look into it and they'll realize, oh, these people are literal scum.
These people are literal reptilian monsters that suck the blood of the innocent to survive.
Let's not let them teach our children.
Let's reject it outright.
So they're just doing it quietly and they're doing it state by state.
But at the same time, they're making inroads and they will be implementing this nationally.
Now, who is behind the World Economic Forum's new curriculum that they're designing?
American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten has written Why Fascists Fear Teachers Public Education and the Future of Democracy, a book she claims will empower us and give us hope.
The problem is that every word coming from the union boss's mouth is nonfactual lefty claptrap.
That's putting it nicely.
You don't need to buy the book to understand what I mean.
In an interview with a sycophant at The Progressive, the far left magazine that covers politics and culture, Weingarten claims that, quote, undermining the public education is an intentional strategy of the right.
The reason most conservatives and, yes, increasing number of Democrats favor parental choice is because the government school union industrial complex is failing at its mission.
In the most recent NAEP, a record high percentage of high school seniors scored at below basic levels in math and reading compared to all previous assessments.
So, no, it's not surprising that in a recent poll, 63% of Hispanics and 68% of blacks, typically Democrats, voiced support for a private option.
Weingarten nonsensically avers the people on the right, whom she pointedly refers to as fascists, support book bans and don't want young people to think for themselves, and she maintains that unions are at the forefront of expanding economic prosperity and strengthening democracy.
You know, these are the code words that you need to look out for and supplement, you know, replace them with the reality, right?
When they say strengthening democracy, what they mean is enforcing submission.
That's what they actually mean.
When they say economic prosperity, what they mean is income inequality, essentially.
And we can go to a video of big fat Randy Weingarten.
This was posted by Liz Churchill, psychopath Marxist.
Randy Weingarten is the.
Childless freak that they have now hired the World Economic Forum to dictate elementary curriculum for all of the United States.
Here's what she had to say at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
What we're trying to do here is say, how do we create this partnership between education, labor, government, and industry with the goal of creating these pathways so that kids, when they come out of high school or they come out of college, Don't have to start saying, what am I going to do next?
The pathways become important, and to create those pathways, you also have to create a curriculum, and you have to create this engagement with each other.
And the last thing I'll say is this.
When you do it, in the United States of America, we have 16,000 school districts.
We have over 100,000 schools.
There are industry partners all over.
And you, Kiva, were the one who said, you can't keep on doing this industry by industry.
You're the one who said, you can't keep on doing this governor by governor.
How do we use the WEF to create this kind of integrated network so that we're all working together so that kids.
Can have from high school on opportunities to have jobs that pay a living wage so that they can feed their family and nurture their family, and that is what happens in advanced manufacturing.
I love, I love, and even there, even in their like you know, rabble rousing uh dream speech about what's possible, she's like, they can earn a living wage that means minimum wage.
She's like, they have to be prepared to go out there and work for just.
They can survive.
They'll be able to survive with the wages we're paying with them.
And we're doing this in collaboration with our industrial partners.
Like, this is what I really want to ask the dumbass socialists out there that think you're on the side of the anti capitalist.
You are literally on the side of people who are cooperating with the capitalist, with the industrial billionaire class, to not just capture you as a working adult, but to indoctrinate you into the capture, to make you a ready and willing slave.
So, that by the time you're ready to work, you slot right into one of their industrial manufacturing bases.
You are actively working for the capitalists, the worst people in the world.
Again, I am a capitalist.
I believe in capitalism.
I like capitalism.
I think capitalism is a function of liberty, but it has to be constrained.
It has to be, you know, not controlled and manipulated, but not allowed to run absolute roughshod over all of our rights and the future of the world.
Obviously, we have to put a stop to this.
The only problem is the only people trying to stop it.
Are the absolute moron socialists themselves who are actually feeding everything directly into their pipeline?
It's infuriating.
But here we are.
But here we are.
On the right, we've got people who think that the stock market represents reality.
And as long as BlackRock is consolidating small businesses into their own portfolio, everything's going great.
On the other side, you have people that think that theft is an appropriate protest against the capitalist overlords while simultaneously guaranteeing their complete control over the minds of our children forever.
Now, how have we done under the tutelage of the childless lesbian?
How has she helped us to embrace our educational potential?
Because she's been the head of the teachers' union for a while.
And it turns out the more you listen to people like her, the worse everything gets across the board with no exceptions.
This is a modern, real question on the SAT, folks.
Test that's supposed to determine your placement in college and your achievement overall, your logic and ability to understand the world around you.
This is a real SAT question.
Are you ready for it?
The following text is from David Barclay Moore's 2022 novel, Hauler of the Fireflies.
The narrator has just arrived at summer camp, which is far away from his home.
This place was different than I thought it would be.
I'd never seen somewhere like this before.
I did feel scared, but also excited.
According to the text, how does the narrator feel about being at summer camp?
A, he feels overjoyed.
B, he feels peaceful.
C, he feels scared and excited.
D, he feels both angry and jealous.
Do, Folks, this is a question that a first grader should be able to solve.
It is now a question on the SAT, which means enough people who are taking the SAT get it wrong for it to be considered a valid metric of understanding, which is terrifying because.
This question literally says, Jimmy feels sad.
What does Jimmy feel?
A, happy, B, sad.
And apparently, a lot of people are getting that answer wrong, believe it or not, because high IQ people are hard to control.
Do you understand?
High IQ, intelligent, thoughtful people, especially with a history and a family heritage of education and creativity and curiosity, they're harder to control than brain dead idiots.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the world Orwell warned us about.
I should probably do a list.
We need like a list of Orwell concepts, but you know, just off the top of your head, you got double think, the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time.
We see that on display constantly.
It's shocking how prevalent that particular phenomenon is.
And then you've got things like the memory hole, right?
Things just disappear.
You forget about it entirely, which again, we see.
Really, to a ridiculous level.
I just saw a post.
I mean, everything, everything, right?
The left goes insane, just like browbeat you with a topic for five years straight.
And then when it's proven wrong, they just act like it never happened.
I mean, there are people now that are like, there was no lockdown.
You were never forced to stay in your home.
Nobody got fired because of COVID.
So, again, you know, I always say when I talk about 1984, when I first read it, I really did think it was ridiculous.
I thought 1984 was too far fetched.
I thought, okay, people are gullible, but at a certain point, this is getting a little silly.
No, no, no, he wasn't silly.
I apologize to George Orwell forever, thinking he was even the slightest bit silly.
The man was a prophet, and it's shocking to see this stuff happen in real life.
And we'll get back to that in just a second.
This did just get delivered to me an update, a breaking news story that's good to see, very good to see from Donald Trump.
The president of the United States.
Donald J. Trump, Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, and Ambassador to Lebanon, Michael Issa, met today with high ranking representatives of Israel and Lebanon in the Oval Office.
The meeting went very well.
The United States is going to work with Lebanon in order to help it protect itself from Hezbollah.
The United States is going to work with Lebanon in order to help protect itself from Hezbollah.
The ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by three weeks.
Which is kind of confusing.
Personally, I find that a little bit confusing because for the last week, Israel has been bombing the hell out of Lebanon.
What ceasefire exactly are we talking about?
Am I missing something?
I've got stacks of stories today about how, in one case, Israel hunted down a journalist to kill her and then started bombing and shooting at the ambulance she was in when she was injured from the first bombing.
It's like they're bombing.
Like it's going out of style.
What ceasefire are we even talking about?
And I mean, what?
You're going to protect Lebanon against Hezbollah.
Because there are a lot of videos going around right now with Beit Jabil being looking a lot like Gaza, being utterly destroyed and reduced to absolute rubble, a parking lot, just like they did to Gaza.
That wasn't Hezbollah that did that, you understand.
I mean, I was already talking about Orwell, but, you know, it's just one of these things, I guess.
I look forward to the near future hosting Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, and a President of Lebanon, Joseph Ayoun.
It was a great honor to be a participant at this very historic meeting, President Donald J. Trump.
So, yeah, I mean, it's just crazy.
We're going to protect Lebanon from Hezbollah, and the current ceasefire will be extended.
As Israel literally bombs Lebanese journalists and children indiscriminately for the entire time that there's supposedly a ceasefire and are only ever stopped when Hezbollah stops them.
That's just totally, totally insane.
I don't know if I have any videos today since we're in this satellite studio.
It's hard for us to pull in videos from the last few days, but I wish we could because over the last few days, I've had so much footage, so many examples of Lebanon still being bombed.
To a crazy degree.
I wasn't even going to talk about this right now, but I guess we should kind of get into it.
We'll get back to the Orwellian stuff.
But, you know, since we're talking about the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, I think maybe I need to.
I don't even have it here because I wasn't even really planning on getting into this right now, but I'm here.
This is what we're doing now.
Israel killed journalist Amal Khalil and blocked rescue teams from reaching her for hours.
She received direct threats from an Israeli soldier explicitly saying they would target her, a journalist.
Her body has now been recovered.
Israeli forces sent death threats via WhatsApp to Lebanese journalist Emil Al Khalil while she was reporting in southern Lebanon, warning, We know where you are.
Leave if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.
So, here, my name is Jeremy Lafredo.
I'm a journalist for the American publication Dropside News, and I'm wondering if you have any comment on the threat you sent to Lebanese journalist Emil Khalil.
So, she obviously published the threat.
This guy, Jeremy Lafredo from Dropside News, reached out and said, Hey, you threatened her.
And now she's dead.
Any comment?
And the person responds These are not innocent people.
The journalists affiliated with Hezbollah that Israel eliminated were also spies for Hezbollah, approaching our soldiers and then informing the terrorist organization where our soldiers were in real time.
Similarly, on October 7th, journalists affiliated with Hamas were eliminated because they were intelligence officers.
Send greetings to all journalists affiliated with Hezbollah for anyone who works with the organization should know they are destined for death.
That's just, I don't know if I need to tell you this.
Pretty much any time Israel accuses anybody of being associated with Hezbollah or Hamas, it's just a lie.
It's just a lie.
It's literally just what they say to justify murder.
Oh, the people from World Kitchen delivering food to Gaza, they were actually Hamas in the hospital.
There was Hamas under that.
In the school, that was Hezbollah.
That was a Hezbollah school.
The journalist that live streams everything she does and is no way affiliated with Hezbollah, but is in the south of Lebanon because that's where the action is.
Yeah, we're going to hunt her down, specifically kill her.
Attacker over and over, even after medics arrive, committing war crime upon war crime, all in an effort to commit the ultimate war crime, killing the journalist who's exposing our war crimes.
They've killed every journalist in Gaza.
I'm going to say that again.
They've killed every journalist in Gaza, as far as I can tell, on purpose, targeting them.
Because to these people, you know, it's like when they destroy a house, bomb a neighborhood to rubble, and then they're standing in the rubble.
They're standing amongst the blood and shattered bones of the innocent people that were sleeping that they bombed to death.
And they'll hold up a copy of a Hitler book and they'll go, see, do you see why we did this?
Do you see why this was a good thing to do and why this was right?
They're reading Mein Kampf, after all.
So clearly, murder is a kindness.
It's actually how they feel.
And if they think that merely owning a book that disparages them is worthy of a death sentence, what do you think they feel about journalists reporting on their actions?
They consider it an existential threat.
They consider the act of journalism as an attack against them.
So you have to understand this is a misalignment of worldviews between people that are human beings with souls and.
People who are power hungry monsters.
In their worldview, the journalism is the crime.
It's enough to kill them.
It's not unreasonable.
It's not a war crime.
It's not murdering an innocent person, strategically invaluable for the war, brutal and unnecessary.
They consider it a righteous act.
It's not that they're trying to get away with anything.
They think what they're doing is good.
They think they're obliged to do this because they can lie about them being a part of Hezbollah.
Sent similar threats to American journalists that are in South Lebanon.
Again, no association with Hezbollah, but it doesn't matter.
Their reporting makes them associated with Hezbollah, even if they've never talked to a Hezbollah person, even if they've never because this is the way it works.
Because if you're reporting the truth about Israel, it makes Israel look bad.
If you're making Israel look bad, you're harming their eighth front PR war.
If you're harming them in their eighth front PR war, it's the equivalent of attacking them with bullets.
So therefore, they're Obliged and obligated and justified in returning fire.
That's actually what their mindset is.
I want you to understand that.
That, like, you're not going to go to them and say, you killed a journalist.
They're going to say, ah, gee, we did.
Sorry.
Like, no, they're like, yeah, we did.
And we'll do it again.
And we'll do it to you if you talk about it.
So, I don't know.
They're evil.
We should destroy them.
Like, I don't know what else to say about this, but like, I don't know.
I feel like I've been reporting every day for the last two years about similar levels of just blatant, abject, Terrorization of innocent people, murder on an industrial scale.
And it just, it's not stopping.
It's only expanding, really.
It didn't used to be this way in Lebanon.
They sort of committed all of the possible atrocities where they were.
And now they've moved on to a fresh new field of, you know, totally virgin, untouched atrocities to enjoy.
So that's just where we're at.
That's just like what's happening.
That's just like who we're allies with in the Middle East, who we are sacrificing our entire country for because.
Apparently, the Republican Party is needed to protect the Israelis from the consequences of their personal actions.
Israeli forces sent direct death threats via WhatsApp to Lebanese journalist Amal al Khalil while she was reporting in southern Lebanon, warning, We know where you are.
Leave if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.
The threats were repeated and justified in a reply to a journalist inquiry, saying, These are not innocent people.
Journalists affiliated with Hezbollah are destined for death.
At the same time, Israeli strikes and ground actions besieged al Khalil.
And journalist Zanaib Faraj in Al Tahrir in Bint Jabil, cutting off access for the Lebanese Red Cross and Army.
A strike hit a vehicle behind them, killing two.
The journalist fled to a nearby house, which was then struck.
Faraj was evacuated injured while Al Khalil remains trapped under the rubble with rescue efforts ongoing after her location was identified.
Red Cross crews attempting evacuation came under gunfire and a stun grenade attack, forcing withdrawal.
Lebanon's health ministry condemned the incident as a double violation one, targeting a civilian journalist, and two, obstructing a clearly marked medical rescue.
So, I'm sure Israel feels very sorry about that.
It was all probably a big mistake, right?
You know, again, I don't know how else to express it.
You just heard it right there.
They hunted this woman down.
They hunted the journalists down.
They found out where they were.
They threatened them.
They bombed them.
They bombed the house that they fled to.
They bombed.
The workers, the emergency workers that came to try to render them medical aid.
And would it really be outside of possibility they'd kill me for talking about it?
I mean, where does this chain end exactly?
They hunted her down.
Imagine being a journalist and having the entire might of a first world war machine hunting you from car to car.
Bombing the building that you're in and then bombing the ambulance that shows up after.
Not even bombing, shooting at the ambulance.
Why?
Why did they do this to her?
Why did they hunt her down like this during a quote unquote ceasefire, by the way?
The ceasefire that's now been extended three weeks.
She talked about them because she disagrees with them because she opposes their insane land grab genocide going on.
So, again, I mean, you know, if you think that appealing to these people's humanity is going to work, you're delusional.
If you think international law is any barrier, you're an idiot.
The only thing these people understand is force.
That's why Hezbollah. Has succeeded this entire time because they understood.
They figured it out in the early 80s.
Okay, we get it.
If you want to deal with Israel, you have to kill them.
You have to shoot them.
You have to bomb them.
You have to just impose your will upon them because any appeal to generosity, humanity, mutual consideration, like it can be beneficial for both of you.
It doesn't matter.
Total subjugation, total, abject, complete subjugation is the only thing they're willing to accept.
And the only thing that can stop them is if you physically stop them.
So, forgive me if I get a little bit triggered when I hear Trump say the ceasefire has been extended for three weeks when you have Israel bombing the hell out of Lebanon, killing literally thousands of civilians during the so called ceasefire.
I mean, you know.
How much longer?
How much longer are we going to put up with this?
I think we should have stopped a long, long time ago.
And again, I'm not in charge, I guess.
I guess I'm not in charge after all.
But if I was, things would be running a hell of a lot smoother, I can tell you that.
So getting back to Orwell, the dystopian smorgasbord that we live in, where they take a little bit of all of the worst parts.
While we're on the topic, like, whatever, we'll move on.
But there's some crazy stuff going on when it comes to Israel.
We'll get back to that.
But here, let's do this one.
We still have a couple more sort of mind control, Orwell, memory hole kind of stuff.
This one is truly egregious.
This one is like wild.
This one really is beyond Orwell, okay?
So if you remember, AOC made a very stupid statement where she was trying to criticize Marco Rubio.
So Marco Rubio gave a speech and he talked about how the cowboy style, the cowboy style, Idea came from Spain.
And she laughed at that and said it was ridiculous.
Her quote was My favorite part was when he said cowboys are rooted in Spain.
Talk to some Mexican and African slaves, okay?
Fine, okay.
Why don't you talk to some slaves next time?
Okay, I'll do that.
Well, we'll hit them up right now.
And of course, she was wrong.
She was just obviously wrong.
It did come from Spain, Vaquero, the style.
The lasso, why it's called a lasso.
It's a Spanish word.
All these things come from Spain, obviously.
Now, this was embarrassing for AOC.
She tries to make fun of Rubio, but she's the one that's ignorant.
This was embarrassing.
And it was really embarrassing because of how prevalent and obvious the real history was.
Like all you had to do was search on Wikipedia and you found the actual tradition of the vaquero.
This is history.
It's the history subsection of the main article called Ranch and Origins of Ranching.
It's about cowboys.
And it says, the origins of the vaquero tradition come from Spain.
Beginning in the hacienda system of medieval Spain, the style of cattle ranching spread throughout much of the Iberian Peninsula, and it was later brought to the Americas.
Both regions possessed a dry climate with sparse grass, and thus large herds of cattle required vast amounts of land in order to obtain sufficient forage.
The needs to cover greater distances than a person on foot could manage gave rise to the development of horseback mounted vaquero.
Now, if you go and look at it, it says something.
A little bit different.
The origins of hijinte horsemanship come from Spain, beginning with the hacienda system and medieval Spain.
No, it's not the vaqueros anymore.
It's not that they were the proto cowboys.
They gave rise to the same tradition here in America.
It's something that no one's ever heard of the hinete horsemanship.
Do you understand that because she was wrong, they changed the Wikipedia article to match what she said instead of reality?
That weeks after she made this stupid gaffe where she exposed her ignorance, they actually went in to the vault of truth that is Wikipedia and changed it so it comported with what she said, not with reality?
Talk about Memory Hole and talk about Orwell, man.
It's, yeah, it's real.
It's real.
It's really happening.
And people are participating in it because two plus two equals five, you understand.
After folks laughed at AOC not knowing vaquero history, I took, I knew Wikipedia would alter their meaning to fit hers.
So I took a screenshot and they finally did rewrite it.
Wiki removed vaquero from the origins of vaquero tradition come from Spain and replaced it with some different word.
So that now people say, hey, oh, she said that thing, then go, actually, check Wikipedia.
She was right.
Actually, we changed the definition of racism.
So now you are racist.
Okay.
It's actually what they're doing.
And again, it's like, why would she even care?
Why would she even care?
She is supposedly of Spanish descent.
Like, what is she talking about?
What is wrong with understanding the truth that the Vaquero tradition came from Spain?
Like, what?
I mean, I'm.
American, dumb Texan.
I guess it would behoove me to also try to downplay Spain's involvement in the early American West.
But why would I do that exactly?
What?
No, it's the truth.
It's just what actually happened.
I guess what would motivate me to do that would be if I just hated the Spanish people and wanted to undercut their historical achievements and historical associations with my nation out of some sort of petulant and hateful bigotry.
I guess that's the answer because I can't come up with a different one.
And moving on, we have more examples of the manipulation of information to warp your worldview so that you make bad decisions because you don't have the correct information.
Report buried Trump related hate crimes against white kids.
This is from the New York Post.
This is like the most common thing that you run into when you look into hate speech researchers.
There's a really famous study that they did on Facebook because they're really concerned about all that.
That white supremacy and hate speech coming out of Facebook.
And so they did a study where they looked at all the so called hate speech on Facebook and they found that something like 90% of it was directed at white people and males, which is a little strange because all of the laws and rules and strictures and deletions over hate speech consider hating white people and males not to be hate speech.
It's impossible for that to be hate speech because remember, they redefined racism to be.
Power plus prejudice, which is nonsense.
And so this is not exactly a news story.
This is like the most common thing you run into because, and you don't need a study to tell you this, look around.
Obviously, the only allowed form of bigotry is really vicious, hateful, murderous energy against white people.
Whereas telling the truth about minority groups is considered hate speech.
Remember, really, at the end of the day, hate speech is when reality matches the Stereotype, right?
You aren't going to be called hateful for saying something about all black people that isn't true.
Do you understand?
It's only telling the truth that's considered hate speech.
So, again, like you can say, all white people deserve to die, kill all men, and it's not hate speech.
But if you say, on average, you know, as a cohort, black IQ is lower than white IQ, that's hate speech.
Really think about that.
I didn't say, you know, kill all white people is not hate speech and kill all black people is.
That would just be unequal.
That would just be unfair and an unequal or, you know, inconsistent application of the law.
No, I'm saying that you can call to kill all white people and it's not hate speech.
And if you state facts about non white people, it is hate speech.
Really wrap your mind around that one.
And so here's another great example from domestic terrorist scumbag scam artist, the SBLC.
At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after President Donald Trump was elected president.
But the group that surveyed the teachers did not publish the results in its report on Trump related hate crimes.
The SBLC partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formerly endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 mostly Democratic members.
The survey was sent out to K 12 teachers and administrators who subscribe to its Teaching Tolerance newsletter.
The SBLC's widely cited report.
The Trump effect, the impact of the 2016 presidential election on our nation's schools, reported that 40% of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants, and people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
The takeaway was that Trump supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation's schools.
And the SBLC's school report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump inspired hate crimes, Quote, 10 days after harassment and intimidation in the aftermath of the election sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other major media.
The report also triggered a statement Friday from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed deep concern that prejudice has reared its ugly head in public, elementary, and secondary schools.
The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute hate crimes.
But the SPLC did not present the whole story.
The Montgomery, Alabama based nonprofit self censored results from a key question it asked educators whether they agree or disagree with the following statement.
I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.
Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information from the researchers.
Now they're trying so hard, they just can't get it.
But it revealed about 20% answered affirmatively to that question.
They did not provide an explanation for the absence of such a substantial metric, at least 2,000 bias related incidents against white students from the report, which focuses instead on anti immigration sentiment.
Anti Muslim sentiment and slurs about students of color related to the election.
They left the result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative.
Again, I would consider that a crime.
When you're writing a report that becomes the basis of law and you're manipulating the data to provide a false vision, you should be charged with a crime.
unidentified
From the front lines of the information war, this is the War Room with Harrison Smith.
Yeah, so this is another aspect of our escape pod, of our off site studio that we'll be moving to very shortly, but getting the systems worked out here.
Yesterday, obviously, the SBLC was charged with some very interesting crimes.
Up in the air about it.
I think it's being used in some sort of negative ways.
It's being used to discredit people that aren't even associated with it.
I got to wonder what's your take on just the SPLC charges overall?
Because my take is they should be charged for a lot of different stuff.
I don't really care about them committing fraud against their donators and sending their money to the KKK.
I think they can kind of weasel their way out of that through legal trickery, saying, well.
And hell, Charlottesville in particular ended with a death.
Like, how are they not being charged for murder, accessory to murder if they're doing this?
And I just read a story in the last segment.
Where the SPLC did this big story about the rise in racism after Trump was elected, but they deliberately left out all of the accounts of racism against white people.
And so this is a report that they give to the government to make laws about, and yet they're deliberately misrepresenting the information.
Like that, to me, is a bigger crime than defrauding their donors or whatever they're accused of.
And then there's also people going, well, he must be getting paid by the SPLC.
That's not how it works.
He's calling them out.
And I have some clips from around that time, right around the Charlottesville incident, and then a little bit afterwards, where the stuff he's saying during Charlottesville, talking about how it's a Democrat Party operation.
And then you look at that now under this lens, under these indictments.
And then they filed some lawsuits against him that they ended up dropping at some point.
But he's going over that.
And he literally is prescient when he says, eventually they'll be able to find a jury to believe this type of garbage.
Looking at everything he's been proved right on, and then you know, the Megan Kelly clip that came out where she, you know, she's like, you know, we fact checked him on everything he said, and it was all true.
And she never says, you know, that never came out when she was doing her hit piece, her little bounty hunter hit piece.
You know, I liken her to a bounty hunter.
She does good work, but it depends on who she's being paid to do it, you know, which side is she on because she's on all sides, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Man, it's like a trip down memory lane, like you forget about all the chaos we've been through.
So far.
So, yeah, so he basically nailed Charlottesville.
I mean, I was, you know, when the news about SPLC paying some of the Charlottesville people came out, I was like, oh, I bet Alex said something about this.
I didn't expect to see him just straight up be like, the SPLC is paying Democrats to pretend to be white supremacists.
And then the other thing on top of that, and this sort of goes to the point I was making about like people sort of misconstruing this, they take legitimate concerns, legitimate peaceful protests, and they send in provocateurs.
Like that's, it's as basic as you can get, but like they want.
To portray, oh, anybody that's saying that we need to stop the destruction of the Confederate statues, they're actually Nazis.
They're actually white supremacists.
Like, no, that is a legitimate concern.
It is an attack on us.
We are allowed to defend ourselves.
So it's about taking legitimate concerns and then injecting it with the most objectionable, the far out beyond the overton window stuff.
They had known CIA and State Department officials in Charlottesville, first tweeting, first being on MSNBC, CNN, NBC.
And the mayor is involved.
Everybody's a cutout of the major players, some of the useless, I guess they're useful idiots, use Lennon's term, but I see them as useless idiots.
The white supremacists coming out.
Some of those are real.
I'm not saying white supremacists don't exist.
I'm not saying, but it turns out the guy that ran the girl over is a hardcore, long term Obama supporter, obviously drugged up.
I mean, you can't make it up.
He's a hardcore Obama supporter.
The guy leading it was the leader of the Black Lives Matter and the leader of the Occupy Wall Street and the leader of the Obama and Hillary campaigns.
And then you've got the governor, I mean, the mayor tied into all this.
And you've got the other white supremacist leader going to the same special elite school.
For international political programming.
It's just, oh my God, unbelievable.
They got State Department and high level CIA.
One guy is paid $320,000 a year on the payroll of Soros.
He doesn't just get money from Soros, he personally has played $320,000 a year.
And then he's there, CIA State Department, and he's on the news.
And then when people pointed out who he was, they took his name off the State Department website and stuff.
Google has all the shots of it.
I mean, it's like, whoa, whoa.
CIA and they use senior guys.
And then all the leaders of the white supremacists formerly work for Obama, Podesta, Hillary, the CIA, or the Key Virginia school there that's run by the CIA.
And when we have Pachinic on and he says they're CIA, he has all the connections.
He's going to say he thinks they are.
And here's the evidence of why he thinks so.
He can't.
Legally tell you.
But there's a civil war going on in the government, so they're going to tell you.
I said last Saturday, covering it live, live streams.
We had reporters there on the ground.
Gavin Wentz and Millie Weaver did a great job.
That this was probably a real riot going on, but the Democrats and other groups, liberal groups, Southern Poverty Law Center, liberal Jewish groups, and others, had been caught even this year staging attacks on synagogues, cemeteries, and things to blame it on Trump.
I mean, that's been in the news.
We'll show you articles if you want to see it.
They then misrepresented that and said that I said actors were there and it was all fake.
Never said that.
It was just fake quotes they put together.
Notice you didn't see any video of that.
It was in every newspaper in the country.
This is what they do they deceive, they divide the country.
They can't fight real liberals like me, real constitutional, classical liberals, so they just deceive.
I didn't know what this kicked off, though, because it caused people to investigate, because folks know I'm credible.
So people thought, well, it must be true if the media is attacking Alex for it, because he always ends up being right.