Knowledge Fight - #559: Noam Man's Land

Episode Date: May 21, 2021

Today, Dan and Jordan dig deep into the past to cover something they forgot to cover long ago.  In this installment, Alex Jones has one of the most confusing interviews of his career with Noam Chomsky.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys, saying we are the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the bad guys.

I mean, I feel like somehow we're thinking of this as a negative thing, but being a guest and being by far more prepared than anything that your host has ever done seems like a positive to me. I don't disagree and I support preparation. I just think that the way that Steve uses specifics and things like that is to create the impression of familiarity. He creates the impression of familiarity with the staff of various administrations in a way that it would be kind of not as impressive that he knows people's names if it's on a sheet of paper in front of him. So that kind of preparation kind of cuts through what he's trying to use his appearance and the way he's trying to present himself. And rattling off details gives him the appearance of having a recall that is astonishing. Yes. How can one man possibly pull all of these things out? How could he be making up all of this?

Exactly. And I don't know. There was an interesting thing too that like for years Steve wouldn't appear on video. He would only be on the phone and there would be like a picture of him from when he was much younger. Sure. With the weird mustache. Yeah, he should go back to that. Yeah, but I wonder if that was because back in those times he had like a bunch of files in front of him and he didn't want to be on video. That's possible.

I wonder about that. And I never really thought about that because I never really watched too closely. But his eyes were definitely reading. I would also accept it wasn't until the pandemic that he insisted that some child in his neighborhood go set up Zoom for him so he can accurately. I don't know. I know that his wife is on tech detail. Oh, OK. If you do go to his YouTube channel, you can see her pressing the start and stop buttons. Sometimes that is very pretty. Yeah, and cute.

It is. Unfortunately, unfortunately, humanizing. It's infuriating. Yeah, but it's very cute. So I guess what that leaves us with is possibly. I mean, I don't know. I don't know if Alex will be back in time for us to record anything in the present day before our trip. Right.

So we may be getting back to Alex in the present day when we get back. But it also put me in a bind of not really knowing exactly where to go for this episode. Luckily, I found something and we'll get to it after we say hello. Nice. There's some walks. Nicely done. So first, Sheila B, the Garden Queen. Thank you so much.

You are now Policy Wonk. I'm a Policy Wonk. Thanks, Sheila. Thank you. Next, Kimmy from Seattle. This is a shout out and a Wonk title going to you. I appreciate you getting around the world into the show. I'm a Policy Wonk.

Thank you. Thank you, Kimmy. Next, Uncle Patch's CPA. Thank you so much. You're now a Policy Wonk. I'm A Policy Wonk. Thanks, Uncle Patch's. There you go.

Next, Branigan. Thank you so much. You are now a Policy Wonk. I'm a Policy Wonk. Thank you very much. Next, Down with the Tyrant King Jared. Thank you so much. You are now a Policy Wonk.

I'm a Policy Wonk. Thank you very much. There you go. Next, Sasha. Thank you so much. You're now a Policy Wonk. I'm a Policy Wonk. Thanks, Sasha.

There you go. Thank you so much. You're now a Policy Wonk. I'm a Policy Wonk. Thank you very much. Et cetera. Now, Jordan, we had to do a little bit of business here, and that is, you know, sometimes you got to take it on the chin.

Sometimes, you know, you just got to take that punch as it comes. Naturally. You realize that you have messed up. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. What is a plan but God laughing at you? That's true. Or something? How does that work?

God laughs at man that makes plans. No, man plans while God laughs. That's what it is. You got it. So anyway, what a shitty God who's going to laugh at anybody for planning. No, but it's like that. Oh, I love this guy so much. Isn't it cute that he's planning?

Yeah, maybe give him a better plan. It's paternal. Don't laugh at him. That's laughing at a homeless person. God is laughing at a houseless person, and it's fucking offensive. I'm offended by God. Let's take God's house. I think we should.

Anyway, my point is that we have a couple of April birthdays. I might have missed missed a couple of April birthdays. Don't worry about it. So, Katie, happy birthday back in April birthday is from your husband, not barred wants to wish you a happy birthday. I hope you had a great birthday. I do too. Also, I fucked up on this one, Tonya.

Happy birthday back in April. Happy birthday, Tonya. That's totally on me. I need to do a better job of managing inboxes. Now, you're doing great. Now, not all is trouble because we also have a presentation. Hey, see, there we go. This is coming from Savannah.

Savannah wanted me to give a shout out to their spouse, Shoshana, and wish Shoshana a happy birthday. So, happy birthday. Happy birthday, Shoshana. Hope you're having a great one out there. Perfect. Now, Jordan, we couldn't do the past. No.

We couldn't do the present. We can do the middle past. I felt like that might be too confusing. Okay. We had to do a bottle episode. Okay. We got to do a bottle episode. Jim Baker still bums me out.

I can't quite go back to that well. Project Camelot. I think she got kicked off YouTube and now is back to a membership model. And so I don't know about the ethics of using. Once again. Yeah. I'm back to being on shaky ground. Sure.

Sure. And so that leaves us in a bit of a pickle. Okay. We need a bottle episode. Right. Got to do something. I was like, is there anything that I've been meaning to do? Review that bottle episode of Breaking Bad that everybody loves so much about the fly?

Yeah. I have some thoughts. Okay. But no, that's not what we're doing here today. There is something that listeners have constantly been like, did you ever do that? And we hadn't. Oh. Welcome back, my friends, to the second hour of the broadcast.

We're going to be joined by Noam Chomsky coming up here. Just a couple minutes. That's right. Noam Chomsky interview. That's right. What are we doing? Yes. I feel so weird about this.

In 2001, three nine eleven. Noam Chomsky appeared on Info Wars. Sure. The Alex Jones program. Noam Chomsky. The Linguist. Not the very short shows up in your house in the middle of the night. Makes you cookies.

Noam with a G. Yes. No. No. That is not. Okay. Noam Chomsky. All right.

It is the noted intellectual. Okay. This actually is one of the more interesting interviews that I've ever heard on Info Wars. For a couple of reasons. One, this is pretty nine eleven, Alex Jones. Sure. He doesn't have the cachet of predicting nine eleven yet. I also think that he doesn't have nearly as much of the market share.

He doesn't have as much notoriety. I don't think that people who might be invited to be on his show know much about him. True. And so you have, you have that. I take it. Noam does not know that Alex is fighting the literal devil. I don't know if Alex knows that. We haven't established that at what point he became aware that he was up against.

That's feels above. You know, I think early days in his career, a lot of it was based around like, you know, making big publicity stunts about trying to get the church, the branch Davidians rebuilt. Sure. And so he had some notoriety on a sort of regional basis from that. But if you look at the early parts of his career, where he really, you know, sort of got, he hit the gnaws as it were in the furious terms, that's got to be all around nine eleven conspiracy.

Totally. This is before that. Also, another thing that's really weird is that they agree about a lot of stuff. Of course. Now, do they actually know they? Of course they do. Alex and Noam. They agree.

But they agree about a lot of sort of the surface level of things. But when you get down to sort of what their beliefs are based on, there's a little bit of difference and this interview could have been amazing and it could have been great and it is not. It ends very poorly. Oh, no. Not. Does it end in a fight?

I'll let you decide. OK. All right. So Alex reads a little bit of a bio. Sure. You know, we've got, he's a professor of linguists. Noam Choms. Linguistics.

Yeah. And he's written books like Manufacturing Consent, an excellent video, also called Titled Manufacturing Consent. And it goes into how they stage things. How they will have a supposed debate on television. But the people debating are actually on the same side. They're just debating the exact implementation by just a few degrees, giving you the psychological illusion there's really some type of difference so that in your mind you're going to fall

into an supposedly either phony camp being steered in the direction they wish. Now that's how I put it. Chomsky does it in a little bit more sophisticated fashion, but they do this all the time. Manufacturing Consent is about the media, but it's not necessarily about staging events or false flags or that kind of stuff the way Alex is kind of leading it and presenting that. The general thesis of Chomsky's book, largely co-written by Edward Herman, is that the media engages in self-censoring of ideas that are opposed to the interests of the elite

corporations in such a way that encourages acceptance of the policies being put in place by the government which support those interests, often to the detriment of what's in the interest of normal people. It's more complicated than even what I'm presenting, but that's a large part of what Chomsky and Herman call the propaganda model. It doesn't rely on coercion to operate, rather it's a product of just market forces. There's a structural conflict of interest in how the media is organized that creates a disconnect between conveying all of the information that's relevant to the interests

of the upper classes and those of everyone else. This is the general 30,000 foot view of Manufacturing Consent. Yeah, if the media were capable of reporting correctly they would be reporting every single day that we should do everything we can to destroy their billionaire owners. Otherwise their entire journalism is pointless. Interesting. I don't think I would be qualified to give a full breakdown of the ideas in that text, but I can tell you that I'm also certain that Alex has not read it.

The propaganda model includes five filters, which are theorized as being determinative about whether certain news is represented in the larger media. The first four are ownership, funding, sources, and flak. Alex could probably find agreement on those four, but he absolutely could not accept the fifth, which is anti-communism. Oh, boom, we got a strikeout. Somehow it's a one-pitch strikeout. Oh, difficult.

Anti-communism was the preferred media fear outlet in the time that the book was first published. During the Cold War, the mass media... Never went out of style, buddy. Never went out of style. During the Cold War, the mass media wasn't going to give a serious chance to an outlet that went at odds with a prevailing narrative, which was to be afraid of the commies. In more recent times, Chomsky has recontextualized this filter to update it to the times where the war on terror is more relevant as a media filter after 9-11 than anti-communism.

Yeah, of course. Alex could probably agree that large portions of the media have the same opinion on big issues like the war on terror, and that possibly it was meant to scare people into accepting policies they wouldn't maybe otherwise, but he absolutely could never accept that anti-communist fervor during the Cold War was in any way part of that. His entire personality and worldview is based on that. Everything that is built is crumbled if you accept that. Yes, I think that's kind of interesting because I think what happens is that Alex has a predetermined set of beliefs

and he's just decided that Chomsky backs those up. Yeah. Or at least enough of them that he can make it look like he supports all of them. Yes. Yes. So Alex talks before getting into the actual interview more about his... This is 2001. Yeah.

This is where he's at in terms of the similarities between the left and the right. They're the same. Sure. Democrats, Republicans. Sure, sure, sure. And I would argue that this is an indication to me that it's always been very surface level. It's like Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. If you look at what they do at the top, they're all the same people.

The political left has secret police that wear black uniforms and ski masks. The political right has police that wear black uniforms and ski masks around the world. They just have the police. Centralized government. And they tell you to be in the middle of that system. More semantical deceptions. I think what's strange here is that like, I could hear somebody saying like the left and the right to say and they all wear black ski masks.

Sure. And it being a metaphor. Yeah. And from Alex, I don't think it is. No, it's absolutely direct. Yeah. Yeah. If he does not believe that they actually have secret police, then I don't know what

anything is real anymore. I don't know what's true or what's false. That man believes everyone has secret police and ski masks. But he believes that like... That's my foundational belief system. He believes that small corporations even have SWAT teams and stuff at this point. Yeah, absolutely. It's very strange.

I don't even want to know what army he thinks AT&T has. Huge. Yeah. So, yeah, I just... I come away from clips like that with a feeling that like I don't know how in depth any of this assessment of like the similarities between left and right. Because I do think you can make a decent argument that there are similarities. Obviously, there are entwined interests.

There are similar priorities in some ways, but there are also huge fucking differences. Maybe. And I don't understand how Alex never really gives voice to those differences. Because... Or ignores them. Because the differences make it look like the people that he actually supports are bad. Oh, yeah, that's right. It is hard to be like, well, okay, there's one difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats do want people to eat food. I was kind of maybe being facetious when I said I don't know why. I realized that I didn't even know that I was being facetious. I kind of get it. Anyway, here comes Chomsky into the debate. It's not a debate. It's just a conversation. And they do have some agreement.

And this is a little bit longer clip, but that's because Chomsky speaks in full sentences. Ooh, no. Dangerous. Dangerous. Alex lets him speak in full sentences. Oh, yeah. So this is where he learned his lesson right here. Two and a half minute clip here.

Okay. I would call it almost a matrix-like system where 98% of people don't even know the real parameters of power that surround them, phony paradigms and systems of phony left, right, with all the roads leading towards a centralized, highly controlled corporate bureaucracy. I agree with that. But I think the only thing I would add as a kind of a footnote is that the marginalization of the public that you're describing is quite purposeful and self-conscious. So especially through the 20th, actually it goes back to the founding of the country,

but it's particularly in the 20th century, there has been a very self-conscious, explicit effort. I mean, you don't have to make it a nothing speculative. As opposed to the leaders, SESA, business leaders, intellectuals, academic, social scientists and others say that it is important to keep the public out of things. It's important to ensure that the public remain what are called spectators, not participants. They are supposed to be directed to other concerns and not to interfere with policy formation. That is a major phenomenon developed in the more democratic countries in the United States

and England particularly through the 20th century. And the reason was very clear. By the early 20th century, it was becoming very difficult to control people by other means. The voting franchise was extending, labor unions were developing, women were demanding the vote. The countries, especially England and the United States, were simply becoming more democratic. It was recognized early on that if you can't control people by worse or poverty or some other means, you are going to have to control them by what was quite openly called propaganda at the time. People don't like the term propaganda anymore, but that was used.

That's where the U.S. public relations is. It grows out of these experiences and this understanding and it is very explicit. So Professor Choms, they developed, put out their papers that I've read from the Carnegie Endowment and others that mind control, behavioral modification is much cheaper and much more effective than tanks and guns. And it's the only thing you can do because in the more democratic countries, you can't control people with tanks and guns. I mean, maybe to some limited extent, but not very much. There's too much freedom. So one thing that I think is really key here is to notice where there is a salient agreement between the two and also the way that those two things are fully differently understood by the two parties.

Oh, absolutely. They are not talking about the same thing whatsoever. I think that there is what Chomsky is bringing to the table is ideas about wanting to keep people disengaged from some public discourse and some decisions that could be detrimental to elite corporations' interests. Right. And in so much as that is in their interest, then not having all information fully disseminated works to those goals. Right. No, Bannon didn't invent muddying the waters. Propaganda, especially the United States propaganda, has been rocking that boat for a long time.

Sure. What is early roots of advertising other than that? Yeah, absolutely. What is social media influencers in our day? What are any kind of publicists? A lot of that stuff is just perception management. Your job is propaganda. And I think that there is a real conversation that can be had and I think that, you know, I obviously wouldn't necessarily take this tack, but someone could say that if literally everybody was engaged in decision making about every issue, it would be impossible for a society to function.

Sure. And maybe to a limit, there is an argument that can be made for, you know, people being disengaged is more productive. It is actually a better organizational model. I'm not advocating that, but I could see someone making that point and I could see Chomsky having an interesting conversation with them. Alex, on the other hand, his beliefs veer so much into the vaccines are meant to make us dumb. They poison us in our food and all this. Even this point of agreement is a point of departure for the two of them. And I find that very weird to look at.

Yeah. I mean, it does sound like Noam Chomsky is describing the phenomena of the government destroying the ability of the electorate to honestly engage with their actions. And Alex responded. So obviously you're talking about mind control. And I think I think that, you know, I don't have a good enough glimpse of Alex at 2001, although based on, you know, the present day, I would guess that he means like someone putting a pendulum. No, he means my control. He means legitimate mind control. You look into my spinning thing.

Yeah, I think so. But I think that the way, you know, someone like his guest would interact with that is taking that as metaphor. Yeah. If Alex was like, Hey, so you're so you're in agreement with me. They're putting computer chips inside everybody's brain to make them do what they tell them to and Noam would have gone. That is not what I'm saying at all. But I don't know if that's what Alex is saying back at this point. That's one of the parts that is kind of challenging about this is you can hear that from Alex even as metaphor as as flourish of speaking as opposed to it being like I have you under my control.

Right. Lift your right arm. Right. I think that that does kind of point out one big issue, though, is that all too often we just assume people are capable of metaphor. Well, it's interesting that he's talking to a linguist. Yeah. This is borderline deterring test. What's going on?

It's borderline. Alex tried to fool a computer into thinking he's human. Chomsky is is shockingly charitable with Alex. Of course. And I think it's to his credit in hindsight. He's a good interview. Yeah. So the Alex talks about how Bush and Clinton this is going to have to be.

Yeah, I guess it would be George W. Bush because he just got elected. Yeah. At this point. He's been given the boot. Yeah. And Alex talks about how they're the same based on a very specific set of axes. Well, take Bush and Clinton. They have the exact same policies on land grabbing, selling out sovereignty, the industrialization,

and drugging the children. But you ask the average person, they have this, this, this cult like following of their parties and can't admit it's really the same. When I call the same, it's really two corporate management teams bidding for control of the CEO job of the New World Order. Well, I, maybe I'm naive, but I have more faith in the public than that. My feeling is that the general public is rather well aware of this. And I think it shows up in there. There are very, you know, there's a lot of public opinion study in the United States, mainly because business wants to keep its finger on the public polls. They want to know what people are thinking.

So we have a pretty trustworthy and very extensive polling industry. And what comes out of public attitudes, I think, is kind of revealing. So for the last 20 years or so, about 80% of the population, when they're asked, what do you think the country, you know, who runs the government or what does it do? The answer that they pick out of a set of choices is the government works for the few in the special interest, not the people. So Chomsky is coming at this with the perspective of like, alright, a lot of people are aware of this. There's a different problem that needs to be addressed. And that'll come up a little bit later in the interview. But Alex, his selected criteria upon which Clinton and Bush are the same is weird to me.

It's very suspiciously specific and unfairly articulated. No, no, no. They're both land grabbers. They both eat children and then they move on in the way. Hold on. Did you say land grabbing? I assume is code for conservation. Either that or eminent domain.

Yeah, that could be at this point too. At that point, I bet eminent domain was huge on Alex's mind. Yeah, that could be. That could be. And also, I don't know if Bush's early record with EPA stuff was necessarily all that good. Oh, not good. Not good. Drugging the children is the one that's like, okay, you're just talking about like psychiatric meds or something?

Absolutely. You're talking about Ritalin? I heard him talking about Ritalin because that was a huge. But it's not like Bush is putting people on. No, Bush was cramming Ritalin down everybody's throat. You forgot the no child left behind was the parentheses was with Ritalin. I mean, obviously, I think that there's over prescription of meds. We've talked about that in the past.

Sure. I just don't know exactly what he expects Clinton or Bush to do about it. Does he want to make it illegal to take the like, I thought he's for drug legalization. Do you want more regulation on pharmaceutical industries? I think he wants you to go the exact opposite direction. If you're going to get your ADHD meds, you should go to the corner like everybody else does with their drugs. I think that's what he's trying to say. If it's not on the corner, it's not drugs, buddy.

Every every other night I go down and get a fifth the whiskey on the corner. I know a guy got a well stocked coat. Where else do you think I get my lmictal Dan? I go down the street guy opens his trench coat. Yeah, it's it's bizarre. And again, that's I think that really illustrates the sort of surface level and cherry picked way in which Alex describes the similarity between the two. Absolutely. And I think I largely agree with Chomsky's analysis that more people.

This isn't like groundbreaking stuff. Yeah, the idea that people have an alienation from power. Sure, sure. Absolutely. Hey, a random person on the street. You think it's the government or our corporate overlords and they'll be like, I'm going to go with corporate overlords. Not surprising to anyone. So there's a shift in propaganda that Alex has been feeling over the last few years.

And this is weird to hear in 2001 because he says this in much later years to that there's been a shift recently in the last few years. And that has been from keeping things secret about the globalists to throwing it in your face. And Chomsky has brought up the idea of hopelessness and that hopelessness is a response that people can have to the idea that the government isn't necessarily serving their interests. Sure. And that is a larger problem than actually some of the other things that Alex might bring up. Helplessness leads to hopelessness. Not hard. And so Alex is suggesting that this shift in propaganda from hiding the globalists to throwing it in your face is a way of facilitating this hopelessness.

There we go. And Chomsky does not go in for that. I've seen a shift in the propaganda in the last three years from denying all of this to throwing it in our face. Could be, but I think my own feeling is the roots go back farther. If you go back again to the best they would like 1920s approximately. That's when this really takes off. Madison Avenue. Yeah.

That's when the public relations industry really exploded. And it grew on the basis of the very sensible assumption. It was pretty clearly articulated that we have to somehow make sure that the general public does not make use of the Democratic opportunities that are available to them. And leaves us to run the place as we've been doing. And the way to do it was a business leaders are saying, look, we have to induce what's called a philosophy of utility. I actually use the phrase, we have to kind of direct people to superficial things like fashionable consumption. Football. We have to regiment.

Yeah, something. Anything that doesn't bother us. Red and circus. Yeah. Just anything like that. And that's true of leading intellectuals. I mean, take say Walter Lippmann, who is the leading figure in the U.S. elite media in the 20th century, major public intellectual. He's the one who invented the phrase, manufacturer of consent.

We borrowed it from him. And he thought it was necessary. It's necessary to manufacture consent in order to make sure that we, what he called the responsible men, can run the affairs of the world without being bothered. And what he didn't say, but what is crucial is your point, the people, you become a responsible man if you're serving the interests of concentrated private power. Otherwise, you're not. So when Chomsky is talking about a position and an idea, he's able to bring up the people who are the proponents of the opposite of his idea. Sure. He's able to engage with this in a much more thorough way, even in a matter of a minute.

Then Alex is ever, ever able to deal with any issue. Yeah. It's very strange to hear somebody talk on this show and then be like, wow, really smart, really smart stuff. That's a full thought. Good work, man. Good work. Yeah. Somebody should make you famous.

I don't even know what to, like, what to respond with. It's just like, yeah, there's an interesting conversation that you could have with Chomsky about these issues. Yeah, I would like to talk to Noam Chomsky. I feel like that's what I'm learning from all of this is that somehow. We'll see if people can harass him on Twitter. Alex fucking Jones gets to talk to Noam Chomsky and he doesn't get to listen to me shit talk him while he's explaining the world to me. Well, and that is a life is unfair. It is unfair.

It is. So I, this is, this is one of the things that makes this kind of difficult to really even engage with too deeply as content from my end is that. Yeah, I think I can see what Chomsky saying he's articulating positions. Yeah. Clearly, I think rebutting things would, you know, there's some stuff that I maybe don't entirely agree with. But, you know, it would be, it would be a matter of teasing out points to really get to the bottom of like, OK, well, you know, yes, there is an interest in media in having people. Consumed with superficial things. Sure.

Of course. How much of that is intentional strategy driven by people who want people to be distracted. Sure. From larger issues. And how much of that is actively that is what people want. Right. And there is a market for that. Right.

And, you know, people are filling that market. Sure. What is the balance between the two? Yeah. I mean, it would be hard to argue that the best example of that very thing would be Trump's tweets. Like, by constantly covering Trump's tweets, they almost insured he would at least have a run, have a shot at becoming president. At the same time, if the public weren't so consumed and so interested with discovering more and more about his dumb fuck tweets, then they wouldn't be covering it, you know. And to this question, particularly about what he's bringing up about the media and, you know, what Alex yells bread and circuses with is there is a supply component and there's a demand component.

And to ignore either, I think is is not the full picture. Yeah. And I don't think that Jomsky is ignoring the demand picture. No, it's just not part of this conversation. Right. And that would be the kind of way I would approach this and I just would just he makes points and hear the points. See, now the problem Alex is, is he had a perfect opportunity to cut into Noam Chomsky and be like, actually, I think it goes further back than that to Rome or bread and circuses. Mr. Chomsky or you're not smart enough to figure out the echo on your phone.

Now are you? Or hey, no, could I tell you about Adam Vice hop in the Bavarian Illuminati? I'd like to tell you some fucked up ideas I have about about the Illuminati. I don't know. Anyway, I think I think that, you know, no, Jomsky is able to make points. And so it's it's a foreign concept. No, it's confusing. But he brings up the difference of opinion between the sort of elite corporations and the normal person who has a job.

Sure. Perhaps in terms of free trade agreements. Okay. One of the major issues for the public look at polls and understandable are these international economic agreements, the things that are called free trade agreements. So that's not what they are. Those are very big issues for the public. And people are very much worried about, you know, the trade deficit, because they know that's impacts their job. It's kind of a 40% tariff on us.

We have a 2% on them. They call that free trade. You're not an isolationist, are you? No, I'm not. But this is stuff that's not even free trade. No, but that's what they say. I mean, that's what they say. Right.

Of course. Now these are very big issues for the population. There are also big issues for the business world. But the population in the business world happens to be on opposite sides. Therefore, the issues do not arise in political campaigns. So like, for example, the free trade area of the Americas, which is an enormous agreement, very little. A lot of consequences. That has yet to be discussed in the media.

It's been negotiated for three years. It finally broke through at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec. There was such a purer over it. It had to be mentioned. But it's been under negotiation for a couple of years by corporate managers, by trade ministers of governments who are basically corporate representatives. The media didn't know all about it. But they don't want the public to know.

It did not come up in the political campaign. The nature of these arrangements has yet to be made public. I mean, you can sort of figure it out by doing a research project. But these things are not made available to the public. That's for a very clear reason. Our final segment with the professor with solutions coming up. So things still seem to be going fairly well between them. This is stuff that Alex can get on board with.

Totally. Now maybe Alex would view this as the consequence of an elaborate shady conspiracy to put this trade deal in in order to enslave white men or something. Sure. Whereas Chomsky would look at it more as the result of business interests, those filters that are brought up in the propaganda model, things like ownership of conglomerates, the sources of news, the advertising revenues. Things like that create a market environment where it's not in the best interest of people

who may profit from one of these arrangements to cover it too much. If it's something that could be something that would be very unpopular with the normal voting public. Sure. One thing I am absolutely seeing that is mitigating what I would think is so much disagreement is that Chomsky is elucidating the conspiracies that are real that we all know about. We all know that billionaires in the government work together to fuck us over. That's a normal conspiracy. That's what they do and it's not even like their fault.

They're just creations of the system that is propping them up and then they continue to, they do that whole thing. Since he's framing it in that conspiratorial, these business interests and the government are all working together to fuck us over. That can be viewed by Alex in the same way that the metaphor could be viewed by Noam Chomsky. It's like, oh, you're absolutely right. There is a conspiracy of the Rothschilds and the government to fuck us over with the NAFTA. Yeah.

There's enough leeway to this that Alex can still find it useful and the audience can still read into it what they want to read into it. Exactly. That fits the sort of Infowars narrative structure. Right. Whereas it does not necessarily and it's a lot more boring than the way that Alex would put it. Yeah, but man, you can absolutely see it. In 2001, that level of because the government is so fucking corrupt

and because Alex is an outright saying he's fighting the devil, you can go on an Infowars show and say the government's fucking corrupt. Yeah. And Alex says to me like, yeah, the government's fucking corrupt. And everybody goes, yeah, the government's fucking corrupt. And then 20 years later, you're like, let's overthrow the government. And it's like, oh, no, wrong. Because they're working for the devil.

Exactly. No, you messed up guys. Shit. Yeah. And I think that this is in that real sweet spot of pre-911, post 2000 election. Totally. Where there is so much chaos and alienation in people.

The result of the 2000 election was such a awful. I mean, it was literally stolen. It was a moment where scales fell from people's eyes. Yeah. In a lot of ways. Yeah. Across the aisle, perhaps even. Yeah.

This is the way that our process is going through. This is this doesn't feel right. Are you telling me that our process has been derailed by fake Republic or by Republican aides fake dressing up as business people? Are you talking about Roger Stone? What are we doing? Is this our government? Is this how it works?

Yeah. And I, you know, you had you had that period before 911 where people were all on the map in terms of their beliefs about the administration. Totally. And I think that people galvanized a lot after 911. Yeah. Coming together after a national tragedy. But this exists in that space before that where there's, you know, there's a

lot of fertile ground for Alex to take advantage of. Totally. In political disillusionment. Yeah. So I think that I think that no, you know, unfortunately, but I don't know, I don't think he knows too much about Alex and just thinks that he is a kind of like an alternative news guy. Yeah.

Yeah. And he says things like, you know, outlets like yours are important to and right, but I think that that is a perception that even, you know, I certainly had more of a feeling of four years ago. Totally. You know, there is, there is, there's a reality that people who are outside of the structures of advertising, those voices are important. And sometimes there is value in somebody who's, you know, maybe wrong

sometimes, but willing to take a chance. Totally. I think those voices are valuable in the broad spectrum of media. Totally. I mean, Chomsky's earlier point, like if you recall the media immediately following that stolen election, like they quickly were like, Hey, you know what we need to unite around our president and we need the country to come together at no point in time where they like, Hey, we can't have a stolen

election. Like that just can't be a thing. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess that opens up another conversation of like, what would it have looked like if the media had called out the election? I don't know. I don't know.

But, but leaving that aside, I think that Chomsky has a sense of Chomsky has a similar tack to, you know, what I had perhaps before I knew as much about Alex as I do. And I think a lot of people, if they don't know all that much about him, which is just like, you're a guy who's, who, who's on the outside or your fringe guy. Sure. You broke into Bohemian Grove or whatever.

Maybe I don't agree with you, but there's value in you existing in the media landscape. And I don't agree with that now. Disagree. But you can, you can kind of see that in the way that he's engaging with him. Radio is, can be a very important, I mean, it's an extremely important instrument. There can be real involvement and interchange, and that can be an

highly important educational instrument. And there are others. I mean, So it's not just soundbites. People have to act as spouse ideas. You know, these are not trivial issues. You have to really think them through. The thing that I mentioned for example, the international economic

agreements, you know, you have to think about them. You have to learn about them. You can't just listen to a slogan and say, okay, that's what I think. Well, these are unelected, unaccountable international boards controlled by the top 20 corporations and banks telling us they're going to run our lives. I mean, that's a horrible idea, but most Americans don't know that. That's essentially Alex responding to Noam Chomsky saying you can't use

soundbites and catchphrases with the sound bite more or less. And a catchphrase. Yeah. Ah, man. So you're telling me that Noam Chomsky told Alex Jones that he's important and Noam Chomsky won't even talk to me. That's just bullshit. It's unfair.

Noam Chomsky, I'm calling you out. But again, again, if you don't know that much about Alex, you don't actually listen to his show. And I, like I said, I don't know too much about like exactly what he was like in 2001, but you see this in other areas of his career too. If you don't know all that much about him, you could get the sense that like, yeah, you're not just doing soundbites. You are getting into the issues.

And that is, that is a value of radio. I do agree with Chomsky on that. Absolutely. But not Alex so much. No, absolutely not. The two of them get along pretty well. They both seem to hate consumerism. Well, that's like these hundred and fifty dollar Nike tennis shoes that

are so ugly, I wouldn't touch them if they were free. But the young people are just begging and have to have them or they're not human. I watch, I mean, I sometimes watch television with my grandchildren. What they are subjected to is criminal. I mean, they're barraged by propaganda, teaching them from infancy that the only thing in life is getting those tennis shoes or those Pokemon cards or whatever it may be.

And that's, that is really a way to control people in a very ugly fashion. People have to learn how to escape from that. It's a hard struggle. Yeah. Yeah. Consumerism is a toxic influence. And I don't know what's the answer to it.

It's an individual process. Sure. Right. I mean, it can't be like outlawing advertising. No, that probably won't work. I would say one solution would obviously be to scorch the skies and have an AI keep us inside of egg sacks. That would be one solution.

Certainly. Yeah. Although even then the AI has propaganda inside of it. Man, you're never going to escape. No. The only, the only way that this is productive as a conversation is addressing it as an individualistic pursuit of recognizing when those kind of advertising tricks are being used.

Right. And being like, yeah, I don't actually want that as much as I, as they are saying I want it. Or maybe I do. Sure. You know, like advertising, I think that sometimes is dumb. But I actually do want what's being sold. Sure.

I don't like Taco Bell commercials, but I do want Taco Bell. All I want is like, I'm so stoked when I find out something exists that I didn't know exists. Like if all commercials were just like, Hey, you need to wash your clothes tied. I'd be like, Holy shit. I didn't know tied was out there. Yes, you did.

That's not the point. That's not the point. Sure. I mean, that experience was exactly what I had at the beginning of April when I saw the commercial for Mortal Kombat. Exactly. It's like, okay, then we'll watch Mortal Kombat. I don't give a shit about your commercial.

The commercial is not going to convince me one way or another. You're informing me this exists. Tell me. Yes. That's all I needed to know. Yeah. Um, but I think, I think that people can do that. They're very capable of doing that.

Of course. And, and I think that that is what the message that Chomsky's bringing in many ways is. Sure. Thinking is, is recognizing and being able to work around these things because you can't really stop them. Yeah. And the fact that you can't stop them is what feeds into

helplessness. Yeah. You can't get rid of advertising. You're not going to get rid of public relations firms. Sure. That isn't going to happen because I mean, even think about it just from a structural actual perspective. How would that happen?

How could you do that? You couldn't legislate away those kinds of, I just don't know. It would be impossible. Oh, oh. Turn all the electricity off. Sure. Then people would just make pamphlets again. Ah, they couldn't do it without electricity to run their printers.

No, they just go back to the, the old chuchunk. Get rid of, get rid of presses. Get rid of ink. Get rid of ink. Wow. You're good. So I think that the, the, the path away from helplessness that I'm hearing is self-motivated, self-driven and the ways that

intellectuals and public speakers can be of help is helping people recognize that it is a path out of this conundrum as opposed to, and sure there's institutional things you can do like perhaps break up large media entities. Sure. Certainly there's, there's, there's organization and things you can do on that front, but the idea of, of getting rid of the influence that is this negative consumerism.

Yeah. Yeah. Is not likely. No, that's, that is a, yeah, it's not going back in the box Pandora. No. Yeah. So this next clip was really weird. I don't understand exactly what Alex is saying, but I have some thoughts on it.

Take, say these trade agreements are coming along. One crucial part of them is to take what are called services and hand them over to private power. Well, services are just about anything that people would care about. Health, education, water, uh, um, excuse me. I don't like anything that would be in the, in the public arena where people would not want to make decisions. That has to be taken out of the public arena, put into private hands,

unaccountable private hands, and then, you know, what's left for the public is which kind of shoes I buy. But these private corporations are taking on governmental power and take the lower Colorado River authority here in Texas. They're private, but they have SWAT teams and will arrest you. Right. And it's, it's, it's the ultimate tyranny. And then they say, Hey, we're a corporation.

You can't see our records. That's right. You can ask questions. I think that what Alex is talking about is the, uh, the lower, uh, Colorado River authority is, is like, uh, you know, like, uh, dams. Yeah. And, uh, like, uh, electric power plants. I think he's talking about like guards around the area.

Right. Right. I'm not entirely sure. I think that's what he, cause they have like private security. Right. Right. But what Chomsky's bringing up is privatization essentially. Yeah.

And Alex is opposed to that. Yeah. But he also hates big government. Yeah. Whereas Chomsky's answer to this is public ownership. Right. Um, and Alex would be staunchly opposed to that. He'd rather die.

He doesn't publicly own a business. He doesn't have a coherent answer to this because on the one hand, you have public, uh, businesses or private businesses. Sure. Should you allow private, uh, uh, business for necessities? Should you allow air to be privatized? Should you allow water to be privatized? Um, Alex should be opposed to that, but also opposed to the alternative.

It doesn't seem like Alex has a clear way out of his bullshit, uh, whenever cornered by Noam Chomsky. Someone who does have a position. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So what you do is you wiggle and Alex tries to bring up the difference between a democracy and a republic.

This is a classic right wing. So Alex is bringing up the difference between a democracy and a republic. Uh, to Noam, can I read that? What's the name again? Chomsky. Noam Chomsky. Oh, that's who I would do it. Yeah.

I wouldn't do it against that other guy. It doesn't go well. That's not surprising. And I would say that this is the turning point of the interview. This is where things go like, uh, oh, we're on thin ice. Okay. I hear Republicans, Democrats saying democracy, that's a semantical deception.

The founding fathers of a democracy is horrible. It's two wolves and a sheet voting on what's for dinner. A republic has a rule of law, separation of powers, a bill of rights that you can't violate. And the democracy, 50% say, 51% say all the black people are killed or all the white people are killed. It's done or take that farm. It's done.

Uh, right there. I mean, we hear this word democracy all the time. Well, we're a republic and there's a big difference. Uh, actually, I think the real issues are elsewhere. I mean, the distinction between republic and democracy that you're describing was not really what concerned the founding fathers, what they were concerned about. He reads a James Madison, the main Kramer, what he was concerned

about, but he wanted to have a system in which power would lie in the hands of what he called the wealth of the nation, the more capable class of men. Uh, and the reason was because the goal of government, this phrase, is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. So the system was designed to try to ensure that the wealth of the nation would essentially be in control and that the general public would be fragmented and marginalized and so on.

Now we look over the course of time. A middle class flourish here though, professor. Yeah. Pardon? I'm the middle class flourish here. 4% of the population with half the wealth. Why don't middle class flourish? Well, that's, you know, that's not the middle 4% of the population

isn't the middle class. It'll put it, I think, look. So Alex is having trouble now because Noam has pointed a finger at the founders. Uh-oh. In a way that Alex cannot handle. Um, yeah. So Alex robots that a middle class flourished here.

Yeah. And because of right wing policies, Dan. Well, his evidence of it is that 4% of the population of the world and we had half of the wealth. Yeah. Right. And I think Chomsky doesn't understand what he said because he said 4% isn't the middle class.

Right. Right. Right. And if he heard Alex saying 4% of our population had half of the wealth, then that would be the response that would be given. Yeah. But I still think even if he had accurately heard what Alex

said, I still think that what he's saying is accurate. Yeah. The 4% that had all the wealth wasn't necessarily the middle class. Yeah. And not the middle class, uh, on account of there were only 4% of them. Uh, no, no.

The 4% is 4% of the world's population. Oh yeah. Yeah. That's the way that Alex is meaning that. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. So you leave the 4% aside.

Sure. But even if we did have half the wealth, it wasn't like evenly distributed among the population. There may have been a fairly comfortable, uh, middle class. Yeah. I would argue the, uh, slave population probably wasn't taken care of as well. Yeah.

Yeah. At that point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, this, this issue with the founding fathers is the beginning of what is going to become a tear in the fabric of friendship.

Sure. Um, we have, uh, this, this, uh, conversation that ends up going to guns. Cause of course it does. Oh no, it's not going to go to guns. Yeah. Almost immediately. Of course it does.

I think, look, over the centuries, there's been a lot of struggles against this elitist concept. And the options for public participation did increase substantially. But was it for them to say that we would all be armed and have the right to keep their arms? Well, you know, that's not what they meant back at that time. What they meant is you read the second amendment, they said,

Never! In the context of raising malicious people should have the right to bear arms. Now that's, we're living in a different world, you know, we're not raising malicious. Uh, the question whether people should have arms is a separate issue. I mean, in fact, here the United States is off spectrum of

international society. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. No. No. Did you just say? No.

No. No. No. No. No. Neighbors. Noem, you have hit a very dangerous button. And you can't undo this now.

Nope. You have just told Alex that his interpretation of the second amendment is wrong. New world order. New world order. Oh, no. Turns out Noem Chomsky's a shill. The United States is off spectrum of international society.

Do you think people are hopeful? I mean, are you hopeful that folks are going to wake up to this system? I think people, again, like I said, maybe I'm naive, but I think that people more or less understand it. And what they feel is helpless. And they have to be able to overcome that feeling of helplessness.

And there are ways of doing it. You know, in the past people have organized, they have struggled, they've achieved rights. We have all kinds of rights and freedoms that didn't exist not long ago. And that's because of, because people were not willing to just sit back and take it. To organize, learn, act, educate, you know, do things to

change the world so that it's their concerns and needs. We have the opportunity to do that. And we're very privileged. We live in a society where, you know, people are not controlled by force. That's an extremely important privilege. Well, Mr. Chomsky, I have to be honest with you. And I really appreciate you coming on.

I want to tell folks about some of your publications and let you get back to work. But right there, it seemed like a group think hurting mechanism when you talked about the guns and you said, well, I think America, the US is, you know, off from, you know, the main line of the rest of the world. As if over a little backwards that we still have guns. I mean, that's that whole group think right there.

So he's, Alex is trying to express this notion that, you know, you're trying to shame America about guns based on the notion that the rest of the world is, is more civilized because they don't have guns. And this is, this is just anathema to Alex. He has decided that if you present that kind of a position on his show, you're fucking chill. Yeah.

And he, Alex throws out literally a great degree of agreement. Oh yeah. No, it's all gone. What guns? What could have led to a second interview? Probably couldn't have led to a decent, I mean, eventually would fall apart.

Yeah. But there wasn't hostility here. There was someone who has a different perspective on some of the similar themes that Alex talks about. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, the moment Noam said, we live in a country where you can't control people by force, all I saw in my head was

Alex pulling a gun and saying, you take that back. And it's like, well, guns are not about force. They're about politeness. Exactly. So even that, when Alex is saying that, you know, like, hey, this is a, you're trying to pull out some group thing. Yeah. Even that, like Chomsky is pretty generous and measured with

his response. As if, oh, we're a little backwards that we still have guns. I mean, that's that whole group thing right there. It could be. I mean, like, again, I don't think it's an obvious question. And then I think we'd really have to talk about it and think it's true. But if you want my opinion, I think they're much too easy

in the United States. But England's crime rate just doubled three years after they took all the guns. Well, the United States does not have a particularly high crime rate. It's been toward the high end of the spectrum of industrial societies, but not out of range. The one real difference between the United States and other

countries is killings with guns. So it seems like Chomsky is just ignoring Alex's obviously misrepresented stats. Yeah, he's not taking the bait. No. And he's framing the conversation where he believes it's more important, which is deaths, gun deaths, which is out of pace with other industrialized countries.

Yeah. Alex isn't the first person to come at him with that bullshit. Doesn't seem like it. No. So he might be the first. Alex might be the first person to come with this, though. The one real difference between the United States and other

countries is killings with guns. Yeah, it's very high here compared to other countries. Look at the economists no longer. We're number 12 England and Australia are number one and two now. In deaths by guns? Yes, now they are. I don't think so.

London is now more dangerous. Only the last three years. It wasn't three years ago. You're right. Three years ago. It's now worse than Washington, DC, sir. In deaths by guns? Yeah.

I have about four different universities, three different departments. Australian Bureau of Statistical Data. It's all on infowars.com. Yes. Right now, professor. I'd take a look. But if that's the case, I'd look at the reasons and I would

suspect that the reason is that there has been an increased availability of guns. If there's going to be an increase in availability, then there are going to be crimes using guns. You're right, sir. They outlawed the guns. And so now the criminals... They've always had guns out.

So now the criminals have a reason to bring them in because the black markets made it very lucrative. See, guns were always outlawed. I mean, even the police didn't have guns in England until very recently. Oh, people had guns over there? No. Look, in England, even the police were not armed with guns

until fairly recently. Professor Chomsky, the police didn't have guns. The people had handguns and rifles. They just confiscated them three years ago. No. That happened. There was an effort to do that in Canada. That's a different story.

I mean, look, this is a big issue and we have to... I bet you a million dollars right now that... I really don't agree with you about the facts. Well... But, you know, these are factual questions. We could settle it. I have the facts. Well, I'd love to debate you on it.

Real quick, tell folks about some of your books and publications. That is a word on here. Tell me about your publications. If there's more availability of guns... A bunch of billion dollars. There's more gun debts. No!

I see. I think that there's a really... Not bizarre at all. Very foreign to info wars situation going on where he's talking to a person who is staying on the one thing that they were talking about, which is deaths by guns. Alex is fudging statistics, making stuff up. Yeah.

You brought up a different issue. Hey, tell people about your books. I'm going to have to let you go. What Chomsky is doing is being overly charitable. He's not saying, Alex, you're a fucking liar. You're making stuff up. He's saying, I would need to take a look at that. And if that is the case, here's a potential explanation for

why that could be the case. Yeah. And then Alex has taken that potential explanation that Chomsky has for his fictitious stats. As an explanation for his fictitious stats. Yeah. I think I would have said something along the lines of if England and Australia are one and two in gun deaths,

I will eat a bowl of my own shit, you idiot. A better million dollars. I will take that bet. So Alex, what he's doing is he's talking about the Firearms Amendment Acts of 1997 in England, which are passed in response to the Dunblane massacre where a man in his 40s carried out a mass shooting at a primary school. The strategy that they employed was not to confiscate guns,

but to ban future ownership of most guns and let the valid licenses that were active lapse and not be renewed. In response, a ton of people voluntarily turned in their guns and Alex is pretending that's a confiscation. And it did make more guns illegal to own. But there's been some pretty strict rules about guns in England predating this. Yeah.

No, Chomsky is not far off. No. Alex could get him on a technicality if he was saying that all guns have always been illegal or whatever. But spiritually, he's not. He's not off. Yeah. No.

Cops shouldn't be armed. Now that having happened, Alex decides, I think I'm going to hang up on this day. Really do appreciate you joining us. I would just say this, one big part of controlling the thought process and the debate where the rat thinks it has a choice. You can go forward, left, right, or back, but it's still in their system is having people out there talking about this

in the state and Madison Avenue and only pointing out certain parts of it and then misdirecting people back into the big government paradigm. And frankly, sir, you need to get the information on the guns, on the land grabbing, on all of it because I have it right here. And I respect your work, but at the same time, just here talking to you, I think some of it isn't as honest as it could be. Well, you know, that's for people, others to decide when they

look at it. Certainly is. Yeah. My audience is pretty well educated. Thanks for joining us. Say out of David Rockefeller for me. Wow. What a dick.

What a complete dick. Yeah. Now. What a bizarre end to this, this interview. Excuse me, sir. I'm going to agree with you for about an hour, but it turns out that you disagree with me on guns. So you work for David Rockefeller.

You lying piece of shit. I hope you die. I hope you die. Click. Something that I think is really admirable is the way that Chomsky responds to that. Like Alex is basically calling him a liar. Yeah.

He's like, well, I guess people just figure that out. I'm not going to engage with your, your, your attempt to give me to fight with you or whatever. Exactly. I like that. Excuse me, Alex. You realize I'm no Chomsky. His pulse.

His pulse didn't even go up at all. No, no. Alex is like, I think, I think your controlled opposition and the real dick at a liar. Well, I understand your point of view. I think people will be smart enough to look into it and see the difference here. And no Chomsky, you're wrong, buddy.

Say hi to David Rockefeller. You busted. So now that he's gone. Now we get to talk shit. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. There goes no Chomsky, ladies and gentlemen. And I've read his books.

And now I'm more sure of it than ever. He's a new world order. She'll up one side and down the other. Oh, I never had guns in England. They most certainly did. Certainly gun ownership wasn't as prolific. I mean, how many, I mean, you've seen the video that's been on nationwide of them cutting the guns in half over there,

confiscating the handguns, the rifles. Three years ago, we've read the reports, the economists, world net, daily. Yes. I mean, just speak freely once he's gone. I've read his books. Now I know for sure. So it was the idea to get him in there and then find something

to disagree with and then declare him a shill. I think it has to have been because he has to have like if, if, if what Alex is saying is true and he's read Chomsky's books and suspected that he was an NWO shill. Yes. Then it would have to be like, I'm just looking for a point of disagreement in order to make you an enemy.

Yeah. That's not, that's not cool. I would have suggested that when he was talking about one of the books that you supposedly read would be the time to say that, Hey, I think after having read your book, you're a shill. Yeah. I don't like your position on anti-communist. Exactly.

Yes. It'd be very simple. All of my favorite people are anti-communist as hell. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So I, I thought that this was really strange. Alex, I don't, I don't know what he was doing. Cause I'm, I'm completely perplexed. There's so much agreement. Yeah. Now Alex would have to give up a lot of the sort of more fun elements of his conspiratorial nonsense if he were to continue engaging with Chomsky.

Sure. Because that stuff would fall apart. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of it would. The more real sort of dynamics that Chomsky could bring to the table are not necessarily as exciting or lucrative. Yeah.

Yeah. And maybe there isn't value in it for Alex to be an ally of Chomsky. Right. Right. Right. Right. No, I mean,

It's hard for me to imagine that he did this interview as a trap in order to create this moment at the end. Yeah. Cause this, it just, it also doesn't feel angry enough for it to be like a visceral response on Alex's part where he's just like, fuck it. I'm just mad at this guy. Yeah.

I mean, it kind of feels like if, if I were running it here would be my kind of a game plan there, which is if you and Noam Chomsky have an awesome interview, then you get to say Noam Chomsky is a fan of yours. Sure. And that legitimizes you to a lot of people. It would help Alex's arguments of, you know, being above the left right paradigm.

Yeah. If you get into a fight with Noam Chomsky, you got into a fight with Noam fucking Chomsky. A one sided fight. And a lot of people will be like, hell yeah, man. So Alex really can't lose in this scenario. I do, I do think that the extreme right elements of Alex's audience,

which is certainly more of the, the, the keystone of it. Sure. Then anything would not like the idea of being friends with Noam Chomsky. Totally. Totally. Yeah. It's, I honestly, I've listened to this interview a couple of times and I don't really know exactly what happened.

I'm not sure. It makes no sense to me. Yeah. And maybe there's a decent chance that what we saw there with him being like, sir, you know, I believe that this is a group thinking, you know, I think that you're not being as honest as, maybe that's 2001 angry Alex. Could be.

Maybe you didn't, you know, like maybe we're just judging it based on the bombastic performances of the present. Maybe, maybe that's how he was an angry dick back then. I, I, how many years had he been doing this? Not long. He's inexperienced. I mean, I wasn't,

I didn't get mediocre at comedy for seven years. So you can't imagine him being, you know, right out the gate, the bombastic sure a disgusting human being that we expect today. Yeah. And the years of substance abuse and that'll help. And globalists and hot tubs. Yeah.

He created the character that he is. Yeah. I don't know. Anyway, here's the last clip. Yeah. I had to spanking there at the end and I certainly enjoyed it. Really? Chomsky.

Really? You're a new world order shell and I've got twice the brain you've got with both arms tied behind my back. Makes sense. I tell you these people. It makes me want to puke. Our founding fathers were elitist. They wanted to protect the elite.

They were bad. That might not have been the right thing for him to mock. Yeah. They owned humans. So they definitely wanted to protect owning humans. Yeah. I think that if you take anything away from this, it's Alex's contention that he has more brains with both hands tied behind his back.

Man. A completely meaningless brag. It really couldn't get more obviously incongruous for someone to say, look how smart I am. I'm going to use a cliche that could not less apply to the very thing that I'm saying I'm smart about. Yeah. I think that really kind of sums it up.

And honestly, strategically, it even sums up what I look at. There are very few times that I take a look at something that happened in Alex's past and I'm just completely flummoxed. Yeah. And I really don't know why this happened the way it did. No. It's confusing. I don't know.

And I don't think I have any answers. I would like to know how the Booker got no Jomsky or I think a lot of people are more gettable than we think. That's probably true. I think that a lot of folks that you might want to talk to it would just be a matter of a couple emails. Yeah. I mean, considering how much free time I could make at the drop of a hat,

I imagine public intellectuals are in a very similar spot. Maybe a little bit less free time. Maybe a little bit less free time than me specifically. The Paragon of free time Jordan. Yeah, I think I think about how it differently history could have gone if Alex and Noam became buddies. If instead of Steve Pachanik, you're not going to get as many big swings from Noam Chomsky.

I believe you're just not Steve came into the fold in 2002. This is 2001. Wow. So this is pre Steve Pachanik. Hey, we got to get a new Noam Chomsky. Get Steve Pachanik in here. Dude, if the infinite universes is real, there is a universe. The multiverse theory.

Where Steve Pachanik is played by Noam Chomsky on the Alex Jones show. How does that go? Do you think Noam Chomsky gets crazier or Alex gets less crazy? I mean, if you go solely based on this interview. Sure. Sure. I think Alex gets less crazy. Yes.

Noam Chomsky seems immovable. No, he's he's got a heart rate. He does not care. 120 over 80 all day, baby. He does not seem to care too much and is willing to elucidate positions and clarify things while discussing things with Alex. Yeah. And I think that that would not.

He would disappear before he got crazier because of Alex. Yeah. I think Alex believes that he is the waves that could wear away the rock, but instead it's Noam Chomsky. Yeah. Yeah. And to be honest, I think Steve was crazy when he showed up. Oh no, of course.

I think Alex didn't make him more crazy. Steve was crazy when he was working for the State Department. Probably. Yeah. When he killed Aldo Morrow. They were all probably like this guy thinks he killed Aldo Morrow. He did kill Aldo Morrow. That's true.

So anyway, Jordan, we will be back. This has been a long overdue checking this box off. Oh yeah. And I wish I had more to bring to it, but I honestly don't. I think it's just an interesting glimpse of public intellectual. It really is. Like having a conversation with Alex that it steps on a number of commonalities between where sort of critical historical study

overlaps with, you know, pseudo conspiracy. Right. You know, and where there is distinction where there's departure. And I think you also get a really solid glimpse of even in 2001, Alex is so sensitive about guns. Totally. And it may be one of the only things that really means anything to him.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what is, but to a certain extent, you know, so many men treat guns as an extension of toxic masculinity. So maybe that's even more like at the deepest level. It's just toxic masculinity. Sure. You know, or property rights.

Sure. It could be a symbol of the idea of personal private property. Sure. Sure. I don't know. Totally true. But it's, it's, it's strange. It's strange that he had to make a fight out of essentially a

decent point. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Anyway, we'll be back. Jordan, but until then we have a website. We do have a website. It's knowledgefight.com.

We are also on Twitter. We are on Twitter. Is that knowledgefight? Go to bed. Where else on Facebook? We are Facebook. If you'd like to download the show, please go to iTunes and et cetera. And if you could, please find a local charity or bail fund in your area to

help out people doing God's work. Yep. We'll be back. But until then, I'm Nio. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I'm Daryl Rundis. And now here comes the sex robots.

Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.