Knowledge Fight - #606: June 18-19, 2003

Episode Date: October 15, 2021

Today, Dan and Jordan stick around in the past to learn a bit about Alex Jones. In this installment, Alex floats an outrageous 9/11 conspiracy theory, misreports at least two Supreme Court decisions, and takes (bad) aim at UNESCO. Citations

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge fight. Dan and George, knowledge fight. I need money. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. It's time to pray. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello Alex and Mr. Tim Cullen. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. Knowledge fight. Knowledge fight. I love you. Hey everybody. Welcome back knowledge fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. We're a couple dudes like sit around worship at the altar of Celine and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed we are. Dan, Dan, Jordan. Quick question for you. What's up? What's your bright spot today? My bright spot today, Jordan, is I'm

going to be taking a trip this weekend. I'm going to be going to visit a friend. Very, you know, sort of rare trip kind of thing. Yeah, I know. And so I mean, this is a bright spot because I like I'm excited about that. But then also I bring this up because, you know, because of this wheel. Our episodes are going to be out on Wednesday, Friday, next week. So here's the announcement of my bright spot. I cannot even enjoy without couching it within an apology for not doing the show for you. I apologize. My brain is a mess deeply for doing one thing for me and still putting out two episodes next year. Putting out two episodes. Lots of people put out one a week, buddy. I have a problem. I have a number of problems,

but this is one of theirs. It says up there. So yeah, what's your bright spot? I got a rare double bright spot, but it's also the same bright spot. We can't plug your stand up show. No, it's already happened. Yeah. By the time this episode comes out, that's, that's the point. I did not plug it on purpose. I have not done it for two years. Do not know what's going to happen. You did mention it on the show. You mentioned it on Twitter. Yeah, but that was like months ago. I think you, didn't you retweet Druff G post? Oh yeah, but that was today. Come on. Well, you're still promoting fair enough. No, there's that. But also the most important bright spot is on Friday. I found out last night that Maria Bamford is in town at the Den. And so

my favorite comic of 20 years who I have never been able to see live. Like I remember her first Comedy Central half hour. Yeah. Like I can still do the, the cult leader bit from the first half hour. And finally I get to see your life. I'm so excited. That's great. And you're back into stand up. Maybe you get a set in. Yeah, she's looking for an open. I just, you know, I just did my first set in a while back last night. I don't know if you need somebody. Yeah, look, I know there's nobody else look look available. I know. I know you've got good comics, but I'm me in case you were wondering. So yeah, I hope you have a great time. I'm so excited. It's gonna be great. Jordan, today we have an episode to do and because we're, you know, not going to be having an episode on

Monday. Sure. I was really hoping to have a present day episode to do, of course, to catch up, see what Alex has been doing in the real world. Stay in the present day. Yeah. As you know, we had a on Wednesday. We had a 2003 episode, but unfortunately Alex has been out of studio. Owen Shroyer has been hosting. Oh, yeah. For the week. I can't think of any reason why Alex would need to be out of studio other than probably furious eight hour a day meetings with lawyers. I'm not entirely sure what it is either. Maybe he's selling his house for a fourth time. Sure. But whatever the case is, there's there's not really anything to go over per se. Right. So we were in a bind, you know, like we're not going to have an episode on on Monday. Right. We can't not have

an episode on Friday because Alex is a long weekend. I kill you, dad. A long weekend might kill you. I have to get it. I have to get a hit of work. Yes, exactly. I need one. One of Jones. Just fry it up in that spoon and go to work. So I was trying to figure out like, well, what could we do? Maybe a Jim Baker? Nothing good there. Sure. Went to Project Camelot land. Didn't find anything worthwhile there. So I decided we're going to stick in 2003. Okay. And we're going to keep going through June 2003. We're going to be talking about the 18th and the 19th today. All right. And this started out terrible. Oh, awful. Oh, un-listenable. Maybe a long weekend bad. Boring. Oh, just trash. Yeah. And then it heated up. Okay. And I have

to tell you that this is one of the most revelatory episodes we will ever do. Accidentally found in the mire of just un-listenable garbage. Sure. Um, so we'll take care of that. Everyone's listening. You stop your cars in traffic right now. I was really hoping to avoid that kind of language. Yeah. Yeah. Essentially. I know. I got it. Um, so before we get to that, let's take a little moment to say hello to some new wonks. Oh, that's a great idea. So first, Emery, who's saline worshiping cats made them click this button. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks, Emery. Thank you. Next, Dan is naming his cat next cat, nock. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk.

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Then you get next. Erica from Louisville. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks, Erica. That was spelled ethnically. That wasn't me right. Next, Louise, the hobbit. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Like a Louise get out next, Bucky Donaldson. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks Bucky Donaldson. Next, if being a feminist makes me a witch, and witches are the brides of Satan. Am I technically the bride of cyber Satan? Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. And finally, coming out of my cage and I've been

doing just fine. No, no, no. I'm Mr. Bright spot. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. I decided to sing that one. Minus, minus points. I'm Mr. Bright spot. Minus points. That's fun. Okay. That is fun. So Jordan, today. Yes, we're going to the, to stay in in 2003. And we have two out of context drops. All right. One is an out of context drop that I think is just like sort of, you know, standard out of context drop business. The other is one that I think will be very helpful in the, in the future. Here's the normal one. Okay. You know, it takes a lot for somebody to suck themselves on fire. And I don't think it's a good thing to do. Okay. Sure. Sure. I mean, I have not, I have not heard a good argument. Yeah. Okay. I think in

terms of Alex's advice, that's about as good as it gets. Don't say, you know, things have to be pretty bad to get there. Yeah. Now this will come in very handy in the future. Let's talk to Dan in Illinois, then Spencer in Ohio. Dan, you're on the air. Go ahead. Yeah. Oh, God, damn it. Dan, you're on the air. I was listening to that and I was like, huh? Oh, Dan in Illinois. Hello. I knew the episode was from 2003 and it still was like, Hey, that's me. You weren't even in Illinois. Nope. All right. So here we go. We're going to start on the 18th. This is a slog. This was like really bad. Maybe the first two hours of the show are real trouble. I think it's fun. Oh, three seems to have a dual kind of like being a font of out of context drops nonstop. We're getting two almost

every time we go back there, but also being inexplicably boring for long stretches of time. It is sometimes walking through like knee deep mud for sure. For pearls. Yes. And sometimes you find them. Sometimes you don't. And one of the other things that I was struck by, I was like, this is so much, I've mentioned this, this is so much more of a radio show back then. Yeah. You know, he's like hitting the headlines and then going to calls and he'll have a guest. It's jumping around enough that, you know, it keeps your attention mostly. Yeah. But I was reflecting on how when we'd go to the 2008 stuff, he's just like singing along to country. Yeah, that's the yeah. Yeah. It's not that. No, it's it's kind of like he doesn't have as much freedom or like

draw to leave yet. Sure. At this point, yeah, that comes later and he starts singing country and then his life completely falls apart. Right. This is still like I'm trying to be a professional right. This is before he's comfortable enough to be like I'm letting it all hang. This is on the upswing in the highway man. Yeah. Yeah. Totally. And I missed that. I missed that freedom. I do like I do like that we can track ups and downs throughout his his time and we can just go to like I'm feeling in a real bad mood. Let's go to 2008 and sing some highway man. So I would say that the beginning of this show and most of it on the 18th could be summed up as like Alex is a cab all the senior people all the senior major detectives in major cities almost all of them from our

research are liars who will frame you who will deal drugs who will take your property who will kill you and nothing will happen to them. They run the hit men they run the drugs they they run the prostitution they're criminals. It's just constantly talking about how evil the cops are that's bananas. Yeah. I hate it so much. Yeah. This was a specific clip about like detectives but like he's he's going off on cops. Yeah. You know. But it's also boring. Sometimes sometimes I feel like the the right's entire moral philosophy is just like whatever the late left likes today I must kill. Like if we could because the right has the purity of focus that comes along with having no distractions but hating the left right. If we could just get

smart enough to make them hate the right things by us doing the wrong things then we'd win. This is a bad strategy because I don't have to do all the wrong things. That's a good point. And you run the risk of them being like oh I like that. Yeah that's a good point. There is a long shot. Yeah. It is a Hail Mary. So like I'm saying this is pretty boring. It's mostly a lot of like shit talking the cops and but it does lead to some interesting things like Alex gets a call here who has an interesting theory about the SWAT teams. Okay. In the United States. All right. Barney in Maryland Barney you're on the air. Go ahead. Yeah. How you doing Alex. Pretty good sir. I suspect that the reason that the brutal so-called SWAT teams wear a ski mask is because they are

criminals and that they are used to over and over again. Well they say that it's to protect their anonymity from retaliation and they cover their badge numbers now routinely police walk around awesome with their badges covered up with tape and it's all part of the new freedom sir. They don't want you to recognize them because they use them over and over again all around the country but taken from the art of war. It doesn't matter whether the king has a hundred thousand man army as long as the people think that he has a hundred thousand man army. So that's what they're doing. They're just bluffing. Are you understanding what's going on here. I can't begin to describe how excited I am. The suicide squad. This is this is amazing. There's there's one SWAT team for the

whole country. Yeah. They're just tricking us. Yeah. There's a few. There's a few there. Yeah. There's not that much. But the fact that that guy's new conspiracy is like it's only like 15 guys. I love it. And they're all criminals. That's the best. Yes. It's the best of the best. It's a look. It's the A team. Let's just be honest. Sure. SWATs. No. A. That's what we do. No. It's the suicide squad. Yeah. There's that. Yeah. Criminals. It's just it's nonsense. I like that though. I enjoy these out of left field theories that sometimes will come up. I love that. Yeah. So on a recent 2003 episode we talked about the case of Dr. Charles Sell who was that dentist who it brought up all the issues of the involuntary right medicating right because he was not fit to

stand trial and refused to take medication. And as we discussed on that episode in June 2003 the Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't be involuntary medic voluntary medicated. Right. Now here's how Alex covers that. OK. I'm not going to take any more calls. I want to cover news but talking about Supreme Court rulings there weren't a bunch of them this week. They said that they can forcibly drug Dr. Charles T. Sell the doctor. Did they for trial with antipsychotics though those antipsychotics may cause death. That's the ruling. There just can't be a high probability they'll cause death so they can now grab you hold you for longer than the Senate would even be and forcibly drug you in solitary confinement. So this is actually the opposite of the truth. Yeah. The Supreme Court

ruling in Selvers United States found that the courts had not established proper justification to involuntarily medicate Dr. Sell. Alex is reporting the opposite of the truth or what I call a lie. Yeah. Alex is also making up that the Supreme Court ruled the people can be drugged as long as it's not too risky in terms of side effects. The consideration of side effects is definitely part of the equation. But if Alex had taken even a couple minutes to read the court's decision he would know that the version of this he's pitching is fraudulent. The court has a very narrow window of cases that could lend themselves to involuntary medication involuntarily medicating a defendant from the text quote. First a court must find that important governmental interests are at stake.

The government's interest in bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime is important. However courts must consider each case's facts in evaluating this interest because special circumstances may lessen its importance e.g. a defendant's refusal to take drugs may mean lengthy confinement in an institution which would diminish the risks of freeing without punishment one who is committed to serious crime. In addition to its substantial interest in timely prosecution the government has a committed interest in assuring a defendant a fair trial. Second the court must conclude that forced medication would significantly further those concomitant state interests. It must find that medication is substantially likely to render

the defendant competent to stand trial and substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant's ability to assist counsel in conducting a defense. Third the court must conclude that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests and find that alternative less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results. Fourth the court must conclude that administering the drugs is medically appropriate. So there are a number of considerations that are in in in this ruling. Right. And so these are the factors that they have and in the in the decision they found that the lower courts who had ordered him to be medicated did not achieve any of these like the

standards. Yeah. And so they overturned the lower court's decision said he was it's the reverse of what I was saying. It did it the way that it does. Alex is a lazy fucking liar. It's it's outrageous. That just seems like he was like I don't really care what they say. I think the point is I'm going to say this. I think that his argument would be that. OK. Yeah. All right. Hear me out. So the decision says that they're overturning the decision to involuntarily medicate Dr. Sell. Right. But they're also saying that there are narrow circumstances that you can medicate somebody and so like that means they're going to do it anyway. Right. Now I respect that. However you also said that they are going to do it to Dr. Sell. Right. Because those narrow circumstances

they're going to make it. They're going to that's just them saying that they're going to do it anyway. Yeah. I know it's frustrating. It's very dumb. So anyway. Alex is a cab and this applies even to the FBI. Fuck. And let's be clear. These are not like the higher ups at the FBI. This isn't Comey. This is a new file. Yeah. Again I know three FBI in Austin because I'm friends of the other children or neighbors and they all live in five hundred thousand a million million dollar houses. They all belong to the finest yacht clubs and country clubs. They all drive brand new Cadillacs and Mercedes. They're a bunch of drug dealing trash. And I am sick of them sick of these FBI agents that he knows in Austin. I am so tired of the stereotype of the obscenely wealthy FBI agents

that garishly rich could not stop blowing money. FBI agent that everyone knows from TV and movies in real life. Yes. Yeah. So there's another bit of news that Alex is going on about other than just rambling about how bad cops are. That's fine. Roe sues to overturn Roe v. Wade decision. Now this is a story of how you can always come back from ignorance, come back from the deception and join humanity and decency. Wow. So Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade case was a woman named Norma McCourtney. Norma McCorvey. Her identity as the woman in the case wasn't a secret by 2003. And at that point she'd already undergone a public conversion to Christianity. As the person whose name is on the case that legalized abortion, she was exactly the sort

of person the anti-abortion movement was desperate to court. Oh man, that's a huge get for them. And they did. But all along it wasn't really all that clear cut from a piece about her legacy in the Washington Post. In the 1990s, when McCorvey was on their team, she would tell evangelical leaders that she supported a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy within the first trimester, the procedure that accounts for the majority of all abortions. We managed that by saying she's a brand new convert. She needs time to mature in her faith and in her understanding of the pro-life ethic, Schenck says. We thought just give her a little time and she'll mature. Eventually they got her to stop saying it publicly, but they didn't know whether

she'd actually changed her mind. Flash forward to 2020 and a documentary gets released called A.K.A. Jane Rowe, where director Nick Sweeney interviewed McCorvey. And since she died before the film was finished, her statement could appropriately be called a deathbed confession. And she also said, quote, this is my deathbed confession. Why would she say that? Well, because she was about to make a deathbed confession. Oh, that seems like the only reason you would say it in the documentary. She admitted that she wasn't actually ever anti-abortion, quote, I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say. And that's what I'd say to this. Sweeney replied asking, quote, it was all an act and her response,

quote, yeah. In that Washington post piece, Rob Schenck, an anti-abortion activist in the 90s, who is the guy who had that quote from the passage I read earlier. Yeah. He worked with McCorvey and a sense softened his position on abortion. He said that seeing her confession was shocking, quote, not because of what it revealed about her, but what it revealed about me and the movement. She forced me to be honest with myself. He had to be honest about the fact that they used her as a prop. And that's what Alex is doing right now. Yeah. And honestly, Jane Rowe's opinion on abortion rights shouldn't really be held up as any more important than anyone else's. No, I mean, she's probably the smartest one involved in all of this. She was playing both sides for everything they got,

man. She's smart as hell. I think that that is some of the sense you get if you read up a little bit. I like that. Yeah. And I mean, like it granted her name is on the or her pseudonym is on the actual case, but it's not like her saying, aha, I've changed my mind. That doesn't change the principles that the decision is based on. No, exactly. That's why she was like, fuck yeah, I've already got it done. Right now. I've got a million, billion dollars waiting for me to lie to people. It's so easy. It's a PR thing. It's a it's a it's a PR victory for the anti-abortion folk, but it's not. It doesn't mean anything in terms of whether you your pro life or pro choice and the anti-abortion folk know it. She knows it. Everybody involved knows it except for the

people they're trying to sell. Yeah. Yeah. So Alex gets to some news about Zachariah as a Musawi. Oh, what's he up to? He's in he's in jail. He wants to talk to Congress about how he didn't do it. Oh, did he? Did he not do it? So look, leaving that aside, this is one of the more shocking things I've heard on the show. Okay. Zachariah's Musawi seeks Congress appearance. The only man charged a connection with the September 11 attacks has asked to testify before the US Congress. Zachariah's Musawi claims that he and the suspected hijackers were under surveillance by the FBI before September 11 and the US intelligence agencies allowed the attacks to happen. This was the

latest in a series of handwritten motions by Mr. Musawi to the judge overseeing the case. Yeah. The government ran the attacks. There were no one on board those aircraft books. Oh boy. What? Okay. All right. So good. So we've got both Musawi being like, it was the government who did it, man. Yeah, totes. And then Alex being like, that isn't even how much the government did it. You're not even real. There's nobody there. All right. Okay. I thought that was an interesting thing to hear. I like it. And I was very disappointed that he didn't expound on this. There was nobody on the planes. Nobody. There was nobody on the planes. I would talk about this now, but it comes back up later and we'll get to it

Do you know how they got into the air? They didn't know no pilot giant slingshot. No, it's autopilot. Boom. The argument is remote control, but oh well, of course throughout this. My argument is slingshot. It's valid throughout this episode. Alex is teasing about like some announcement that he's going to make sure and I actually didn't think that it meant anything the first time I heard it, but he kept doing it. So I went back and here's the first time he does it. Got a warning to all the listeners and I want to expose some more of the globalist master plan of operations from my detailed understanding from my years of study and analysis of the enemy, of the enemy combatants, the outside force overthrowing our republic,

brainwashing our police, institutionalizing massive systematic corruption and control of allied crime syndicates under their control. They have the control of the ones under their control news. I want to get to his roses to overturn Roe v. Wade. So yeah, Alex has got this warning. Yeah, that's very exciting. Yeah, whenever there's a warning, I would like to be warned. You got to know. Yeah, it's big stakes. And so what are we being warned about though? You don't know. He's teasing that there's a warning. That doesn't make sense. Right. So now back to a ways into the show. Okay, and here he's teasing it again. What? I've got a particularly important warning for all the listeners and some key analysis on the New World Order plan. So please

stay with us for the duration of this hour, this third and final hour. For the next five, 10 minutes, I want to bring Jack Brown rig up. He hasn't been on for a couple months with us for Midas resources to talk about gold. Yeah, he teases the warning again. But instead of getting to it, he has the gold sale. Oh, that's the good shit. That's the good shit. Hey, guess what? I'm going to prime you to buy gold. I'm just going to tell you how great gold is, especially if say something negative were to happen to the rest of the world. I have a very vague, non specific warning to give you. And also gold is on sale. Hey, listen, Dan, I have got a lot to tell you some things are coming that you're going to want to be like really aware of. First though,

I'm going to tell you about how great guns are. I don't want to warn you about what I need to warn you about. Just yeah, I'm just going to let you know that would be no good because he's not selling guns. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Yeah, he's not his show is not broadcast on a network that's owned by a gun sales company as opposed to him being on by this resource. That's fair. Fucking smooth. Love it. That one's good. So Alex on this episode, along with being a cab, he's very much not getting the grasp of Supreme Court decisions now really understanding that so he fucked up the doctor sell one. Yeah, way wrong on that. And now he's got another one that he's totally wrong. Okay. I'd be interested to see what the actual comments were from the jet.

Well, I've got the article here. It happened last week and they said that that they ought that the officer just can't use it in court but they can deny medical care when you've been shot or hurt and then asked questions. I mean, that's what they said. And there wouldn't be any kind of repercussions to the officer. No, you can have your arm cut off bleeding to death and they can stand over you saying answer my questions or I won't call the ambulance. And if the person is delirious or not not this I just imagine where it goes from here. It sounds like the listener or the caller is saying like, I don't believe this at the end there, but he's not. He's just saying I cannot believe that we've come to this point. Yeah, outrageous because this is

very much not true. Alex has talked about this Supreme Court ruling that he's referencing here a number of times throughout the show, but he's never brought up the name of it. He's never brought up specifics. So the case in question is Chavez versus Martinez and it was decided on May 27th, 2003. Alex has presented the situation is one where the cop withheld treatment to a person who had been shot only allowing them to receive medical care once they agreed to answer their questions. This is a complete misrepresentation of even what the basic questions were in the case and what the Supreme Court ruled. So here's the basic details of the underlying case. A man named Oliverio Martinez was stopped on his bicycle by narcotics officers who attempted to put him in

cuffs. They were in a narcotics investigation. ACAD. A struggle broke out and in the process Martinez was shot five times. Martinez did admit that in the struggle he tried to steal an officer's gun but for reasons we'll discuss later this admission might not be all that definite. Yeah. After Martinez had been shot an ambulance responded and that's where the question in the case arises. Officer Ben Chavez rode along with the ambulance in the ambulance with Martinez and on the trip to the hospital and in the hospital room he questioned Martinez, which was potentially a violation of his rights. In the process of this questioning Martinez admitted that he had used heroin and that he tried to steal that officer's gun. So the primary

question of the case was whether or not that confession could be used in court or if it was a violation of Martinez's rights. Oh yeah that's a way more interesting question than just they can stand over you and watch you bleed out. Right. That's kind of the essential question but that's not even totally accurate. Right. Because for reasons we'll discuss later it doesn't even become relevant because he never got charged with the crime. So it never was used against him in court. I'm sorry what now? Right. But it's still potentially a violation of his rights. Sure no and it's a really interesting question to have solved. I'm frustrated by Alex's portrayal of it. So it because since he was never charged with a crime. Yeah. It's in his confession was never

used against him. It now becomes a question of whether or not the officer Ben Chavez qualifies for qualified immunity and is able to not be sued for his actions. Which he should be. Theoretically. Yeah. And so that's what the Supreme Court was deciding. Right. So Martinez claimed two violations. The first was a fifth amendment claim that he had been compelled to be a witness against himself. The second was a 14th amendment claim which guarantees due process and the right to be free of coercive questioning. What made the case extra complicated like I said is that Martinez never got charged with a crime and the confessions were never used in court. So even though these confessions were never used in court were Martinez's rights violated by the

officer questioning him when he was in the ambulance and in the emergency room because if so Chavez can be sued. And this is why we need to discuss this. Right. The Ninth Circuit Court had ruled that Martinez's fifth and 14th amendment rights had been infringed based on the persistent nature of Chavez's questioning and that quote the fifth amendment's purpose is to prevent coercive interrogation practices that are destructive to human dignity. Yeah. This was then appealed to the Supreme Court who decided in May 2003 that Chavez's actions did not actually constitute a violation of Martinez's constitutional rights. The rationale is a bit complicated but a lot of it does boil down to the fact that Martinez was never actually charged with the crime. Since he

was never under oath the court decided that his fifth amendment rights weren't applicable to these questioning. As for the 14th amendment question they found that the questioning Chavez engaged in wasn't quote egregious or quote conscience shocking as it was claimed to be in the prior cases. What's the point of a Supreme Court if their ruling includes it's not conscience shocking. Apparently apparently that's some of the specifics of the language dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. That's insane. They reviewed the specific conduct he engaged in and found that it was not consistent with the violation of the 14th amendment. On the consideration that the court had decided that Chavez had not violated Martinez's rights he was eligible for qualified immunity and

such he couldn't be sued for the actions that he took as his official capacity as a police officer. If you listen to Alex's show you would know literally none of these details. You would just think that a guy got shot in the stomach and then a cop refused to let medical responders treat him until he agreed to be questioned and then the Supreme Court said hey that's cool. It did seem that's the way he portrayed it. That is. Yeah. The first problem is that Alex's version of it focuses entirely on the wrong question because it's based on a made-up version in detail of the case. The court wasn't determining whether or not it was appropriate to withhold medical care until someone agrees to questioning because that didn't happen.

Here's from the Supreme Court ruling quote here there's no evidence that Chavez acted with the purpose to harm Martinez by intentionally interfering with his medical treatment. Medical personnel were able to treat Martinez throughout the interview and Chavez ceased his questioning to allow tests and other procedures to be performed. Nor is there evidence that Chavez's contact exacerbated Martinez's injuries or prolonged his stay in the hospital. Moreover, the need to investigate whether there had been police misconduct constituted a justifiable government interest given the risk that key evidence would have been lost if Martinez had died without the authorities ever hearing his side of the story. That is a very important point. That

is a good point. This case is really interesting and there's something to be learned from discussing it. You see interesting things you can learn from both angles, pro and con, what happened. But it's not interesting in the way that Alex is pretending it is. No, it's interesting because I think the ultimate hinge point really comes down to do you believe that the physical presence of the officer there is by implication a threat? Coercion. Yeah, exactly. While you are being treated, you are at about the weakest possible you can be. So the mere act of him being there, because of course at any point you are aware, he could just push somebody aside. So the question is, do you think that's real or not?

And I think that that consideration that is in the ruling that if there is evidence that the police had acted inappropriately in the shooting and he has that evidence and no one else would be able to provide it and he might die, it's in everyone's best interest to be sure we know that evidence. That is an angle on this that I hadn't even considered until I went over it. There's a lot going on here and what Alex does is he creates a fake version of these stories in order to get mad about them and then he accuses his enemies of doing something they didn't do so he can get even more mad and make the audience more mad. It's just silly. And most important of all, though, he doesn't have to learn anything. No,

that's the most important lesson we can take from Infowars. And here's the other thing, the other added benefit. He doesn't have to wrestle with ambiguity. Oh, no, absolutely not. Because, you know, even as I hear the details of this case, I don't know exactly what I think is the right thing to do. Totally. I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of police interviewing people in an ambulance. I don't think I'm cool with it. I think it could absolutely be very much abused. Yeah. At the same time, that argument of needing to possibly get evidence, they couldn't get any other way against the police. Sure. That does make sense. Sure. Theoretically. Theoretically. Yeah. Theoretically. And it's the same thing with the Charles

Sell thing, you know, like involuntarily medicating somebody, I think is not good. At the same time, if somebody is unable to stand trial, they are doing a disservice to their own defense by not being able to stand trial. People deserve an ability to defend themselves in court. Yeah. You shouldn't try and defend yourself in court on a full moon if you're a werewolf. Wait until the day you're feeling normal. The point is there's ambiguity. It's not black and white. There's grays in some of this when you're discussing it outside of, let's say, a courtroom. Right. Right. And I just think Alex isn't equipped to do that. And I don't think that he really has a way to make money off the ambiguity. He only can do

like definite, concrete decisions. Yeah. No, it's far more important for him because ambiguity suggests that there's the possibility you are both wrong and don't know. Sure. You may just not know and he cannot do that. No, he just can't. It's too humbling to be in a position where you might be like not the biggest expert. Yeah. Yeah. It does feel like he's afraid of that. It's terrible. It's almost like you just hear the word doing and you go for it. Yeah. Yeah. So we heard earlier that Alex believes that there was no one on board the planes on 9-11. And I thought that maybe he was just, were there any planes at all? Well, I thought he was maybe just saying it. Yeah. Yeah. Just trying it out. Just tossing it out, seeing how it feels. Turns

out a caller calls in and he's like, what were you talking about? Hey, hey buddy. I can't just not call after that. I thought that sounded weird. Yeah. Okay. Steve in Delaware, you're on the air, Steve. Yeah. You made the statement that the aircraft on 9-11, no one was in them. Oh, he's even got that voice too. Yeah. That's great. It shows that conclusively. Nine of the 19 hijackers are still alive. Okay. So, okay. So there were passengers on board. We don't know that either, sir. Wow. Wow. That is he walked back or not. Hey, we don't know if anybody was on the plane. It's the exact same thing as saying no one was on the plane. Yeah. You're doubling down just a little bit. Yeah. Exactly. So here Alex presents some of his evidence of this and it's really bad.

Well, nine of the 19 hijackers aren't dead. So they weren't on the plane. That's not true. Neither is this. Well, I was going to say, now let's just say that there's only 100 people on each plane. It was actually all at precisely 20% occupancy. Wait, but there is no one on them. All other planes in that region were at 95 to 98% capacity, but magically the four computers malfunctioned in two different airlines and only 20% were allowed to be seated. So yeah, that's already a contradiction of his, but I think that maybe what he's saying is that there was a 20% occupancy of each of them because it was artificial. Sure. It wasn't actual people. Sure. There's something suspicious to be looked into and he's saying that he's going to jump

still further and say that there wasn't even that 20%. Yeah. And it's not true. Alex is just lying about the people on board the airlines. What about the computer stand? So United 93 actually did have 20% of its seats filled with 37 passengers out of a total capacity of 182. This is noted to be significantly lower than the average load for this flight on Tuesdays in the previous three months, which was 52%. So that is a relevant drop. American Airlines Flight 77 had 58 out of a possible 176 passengers on board. This was 33%, which is right in line with that flight's three month average on Tuesdays, which was 32.8%. United Flight 175 had 56 passengers with a capacity of 168. This is a 33% capacity, which is a bit lower than their average on that flight of 49% full.

On the other hand, American Airlines Flight 11 had 81 passengers with a capacity of 158, which represented 51%. The three month average for Flight 11 on Tuesdays was actually 39%. So this is a bit more crowded than usual. Sure. The point is that Alex is just making up statistics to make things seem suspicious, but it's all completely disconnected from reality. He's a malicious liar because if you follow this logic through to its natural conclusion, he must think that everyone who had a loved one on one of those planes must be lying. Or I guess there has to be a far more complicated conspiracy where the passengers got taken off board and killed in a hangar somewhere or whatever. No, I mean, it's impossible not to look at this

and see Sandy Hook written all over it. Yeah, there's shades of it. They're not there. It's like a proto. It's like he's beginning the thing that will overthrow his career right now. And it seems pretty relevant to notice this trend of behavior even 10 years, 9 years prior. Not real. So look, it's just awful. It's really sad. When you go back to this period, you kind of hope that Alex is going to be trying to sell more grounded 9-11 conspiracy theories. I don't buy a whole lot of it, but I figured he'd just be talking about building seven and the speed of things falling and stuff. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Yeah. It's pathetic to go back and see that he's actually trying to argue that no one was on the plane. Space lasers.

Now there are space lasers that shoot planes from space. It's all the government. Now, if you think that Alex arguing for there being nobody on the plane is a mess, that's a mess. This gets worse. Okay. So they go to break in the middle of this phone call. Alex holds him over until the next segment. And then we get another tease. All right, folks, Elaine, Carmen, Bob, you guys will be the last callers after Steve, because I've got to get into some of the news and the warning to everyone about the New World Order tactics and their program of enslavement. So yeah, he's got another, he teases again. Yep. And cool. Who knows what's going to happen next. Maybe you should buy some gold. Maybe. Maybe. I told you where you could early. I think you know

where they. So Steve, this caller has a great point. Okay. And that is based on the things that Alex has been saying. Right. There seems to be a suggestion that there's nobody who was on board. Yes, correct. Which is very much the argument that Alex has been making. Yes. So Steve is like, what about all the people who are at the funerals? Let's not talk about those. Right. Now, you'll notice that Alex starts to pretend they're having a different conversation than they're actually having smart. And all the people that went to the memorial services that knew the people who did who are no longer here are paid being paid off. Well, wait a minute, they don't have to be part of this of the system that no, I mean, they load family on board, they remote control the planes,

turn the turn the systems off and got a fly in coffin. That's how that works. So none of the flight attendants and the pilots, I mean, were on board. Well, under national security, all of those tapes have been seized and none of those have been released. Well, I'm talking about I mean, the funeral services. I didn't say there weren't people on board the aircraft. That's what I'm talking about. You're not listening to my cruise. I mean, that's abusive. That is abuse. That is gaslighting. Yeah, of course you are. Alex legitimately had been arguing that there were nobody on board. There was nobody on board that play, ma'am. He literally said that I'm going to go play that clip. Yeah, I'm going to go back

and see Zacharias Michelle. He seeks Congress appearance. The only man charged a connection with the September 11 attacks has asked to testify before the US Congress. Zacharias Michelley claims that he and the suspected hijackers were under surveillance by the FBI before September 11. The US intelligence agencies allowed the attacks to happen. This was the latest in a series of handwritten motions by Mr. Michelley to the judge overseeing the case. Yeah, the government ran the attacks. There were no one on board those aircraft books. So Alex, Alex is trying to what he's done is he's fucked up. Yeah, he's talked a bunch of shit and he's realized, oh no, there's someone confronting me about effect. I can't back up

at all. Zero backup. So what I'm going to do is hostily pretend that we're having a different argument and that argument is about all I said was that they were remote controlled planes. Yeah, why do I said, why are you saying that they were paid? You're the one bringing in crazy information here that I've never heard. I never said there was nobody on the plane. Exactly. Why would you think that all I said is that they were remote controlled sir. You're not listening to me. Yeah. If you say you're not listening to me when you're gaslighting me, I want to I want to punch you in the face. Yeah, I really do. It's real rough. It's violent. So this Alex continues to pretend that they weren't having a conversation about no one being on board their funeral services. I mean,

all of their government remote control the aircraft in. If you didn't hear all the evidence, I just stated there's about 500 other pieces. I'd like to know, like I said, you know, how did they buy off all of the people who went to the memorial services? Stay focused, buddy. How do people stay strong? They have family on board. The plane gets remote controlled into a building. They don't know. So the pilots and the flight crews families were all on board. Yes, the evidence shows the planes were shut down. The communications have been seized under national security. You didn't know that. Yes, I knew that I know. Let me add something. I called up firefighters who were in the newspaper saying bombs were going off

and the fires were out and the firefighter tells me I've been told not to talk. I'm afraid. So Alex isn't getting anywhere really because this guy isn't letting go of the fact that they were having a conversation about something else. And so Alex gets mad and starts yelling about authority. Sir, you made me almost have to kind of agree with you. Let me tell you something. I talked to firefighters. Yeah, like, Oh, what a fucking dick. So Alex just proceeds to get more mad. What an asshole. You start adding all these pieces together. The evidence shows they were remote controlled. It is impossible for four hijackers to do what they did. Number one, number two, nine of them were still alive. Number three, the CIA was running a drill that morning

of carrying out these plans. Number four, we have an official US government plan called Northwoods where they call for remote controlling jets full of passengers into the ground full of passengers. He said we have a confession. We have an official plan, sir. You have a confession that's been admitted into court. Yes, it's called Operation Northwoods. What a bluff. What a fucking bluff. Well, he said that it's Northwoods. How dare you confess. Yeah, it's very weak. So yeah, I mean, like, I can't tell you enough how like weird it was to listen to this. Yeah, because this guy is very much responding to something that Alex did say, which is that no one was on board the planes on 9 11. Oh, yeah. Alex has

used weird evidence to try and argue this point. And having realized he can't, he has treated to pretending they were talking about whether or not the plane was remote controlled. I never said what you said I said. I never said that. I never said what I said. There were people on board who died. All I said was that the planes were remote controlled. So I said, yeah, how dare you put words in my mind. I don't understand how you say that I say things when I know what I said, and there's no way for anybody to follow up on this later and find out. So now here's where it gets really clear that he's doing this on purpose. As soon as this dude gets off the phone, Alex starts kind of suggesting that no one was on board again.

Well, we'll be talking again. Good day, sir. All right. Appreciate the call. The reason I start venting and raving is because I'm in a hurry here. Yeah, I got the facts, folks. Bottom line. Oh, and the victims families have been told to shut up or they don't get the payoffs. Oh, and by the way, the the globalist are managing that right into the ground. They try to declare under national security the interviews with the families before Congress. Wonder why they're trying to make that secret. So now here's the thing. If you're suggesting that the families are being paid off and that they're making sure no one can see the interviews with them, right? That has nothing to do with whether or not the planes

were remote controlled. The families wouldn't know that they weren't on the planes. Right. Even the passengers on the planes wouldn't necessarily know that. I mean, I assume there would be a movie moment where somebody is like, I don't know what's going on and they knock on the door of the cockpit and it opens up and they're like, there's no one flying the plane. You know, I bet that wouldn't happen. That would be a fun moment. The only thing he could be suggesting by way of these insinuations is that the families of the people who are on those planes are lying about their family member being on those planes and they're getting paid off to do it. You got it. Correct. There was no one on that plane. This is

so intentional. What Alex did on this call is so intentional. It's so clear. He realized he couldn't defend his thing next to a guy who actually wanted to talk about that thing. That was an offensive suggestion. Oh yeah. And I realized I got to save face by pretending we're having a separate argument. It's cowardly. It's amazing. It's the disgust I have for a person who says something backs off of it, whines, and then is like, now that I'm away from that guy, I get to go back to saying whatever I want. Exactly. It was immediate. Yeah. No, not five seconds. What an asshole. Yeah. Because if he had said those things while Steve was still on the line, he'd be like, wait, what are you suggesting? You are suggesting that they're lying to cover this up. No, I'm

not. They're just remote controlled. Yeah. Like, no, he did that when the guy was gone because he couldn't get away with it while a critical voice was talking to him. No, this is the type of behavior that caused capital punishment in schools to be acceptable for a while. Corporal punishment. Corporal. Yeah. Yeah, they used to murder kids left and right back in the 1878, 20 kids a day. No, I mean, just like that kind of childish, like I didn't say that. I didn't say that makes you want to slap somebody. It's just you can't not. I understand where you're coming from. I just get off or not get off, but like I'm more validated by demonstrating. Oh, no, no, totally. It's great that I can show you right this behavior. Right. And it's been consistent

for the last 18 years. Right. Exactly. What a dick. What a dick. So Alex gets another caller and this person is talking about stories about the Supreme Court decision about Charles Sal. The medication issue. And here is why his audience is just screwed in terms of their information space. The ruling says, oh, we love you. We don't, we care about your rights. The ruling says we love you, but you can forcibly drug whoever you want. So exactly. As I said, here's the Washington Times headline. High court, okay, is forcible medication for defendants. Then you read the Washington Post headline. I'm trying to dig it out right now. And it says that court limits forced drugging. Well, no, it doesn't. It just says,

if there isn't a substantial risk, the drugs won't kill you. They can. Well, the whole article reads as if they're not going to do it. I didn't even catch it until you said this. I went back and got the article and it's like, crap, it's right there. Yeah, it's man. It's double speak. It sure is. All right. Thanks for the call. Thank you. So yeah, you're just trapped because the decision also discussed the narrow circumstances where in involuntarily medicating somebody could be acceptable, they have decided that that invalidates the other part of the ruling that overturned the previous court's decision to involuntarily medicate Dr. Sell. It's, I mean, you're trapped.

It's just, it's a trap. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's, I'm rubber your glue, you know, just forever. I'm never going to admit to anything and whatever you say is just going to bounce off me. Yep. So, um, Alex gets another call and this guy says that, like, we know what we need to do. We need to get you and John Stapmiller together as another right wing talk show host. Um, and we need to do like a demonstration in DC. We need to protest, you know, and Alex gets off on like jack, like a jag about how like any time the Patriots want to protest, the government will infiltrate and make it look bad. Sure. So he's just basically trying to make arguments for why you can't have a protest or whatever. Right. Right. Right. Right. So now every time we start protesting,

there's an OKC bombing and everybody thinks that it's us. Uh huh. So what I can't quite understand is I think this might be his big warning, but I'm not sure because it's also very clearly woven in as a response to this caller who wanted to march in DC. Right. So my warning to you is this. I mean, I have prominent people on this show. The heads of prominent gun organizations, the head, you know, prominent lawmen, prominent writers, and they talk about, yeah, you know, it's, it's time for revolution. It's time for things to get physical. And I say no to that. That is exactly what the globalist want. That's exactly what they need. They've tried to provocateur it. Let me tell you folks, I've

been trying to build a veteran, a new house, Joe Campana, and they were going to tear down his house. And it's black people, white people, uh, you know, American flags flying, uh, local building supply companies getting involved in donating materials and undercover cops show up and try to talk about blowing stuff up, trying to frame me. This is five years ago. They're criminals. So I, I, maybe his warning is that there are feds around there. They're coming. They're coming for you. Well, I think the warning, if that is the warning, I guess that he's been teasing this entire episode. And now we're at the end of the third hour and there is no fourth hour at this point. So this is the end. This is the end. Um, he, he's saying that people who

want to do violence are feds trying to set you up. You have been warned. Fine. That's a fine warning, I guess, because the ultimate conclusion is don't trust people who want to commit acts of violence. Right. And that's probably a healthy perspective. That's a good idea. I don't know. Um, why did you build it up so much? This is a trite point. I mean, it's a don't start violence. Uh-huh. And also this warning. This is, but this is coming right after a phone call where the guy wasn't suggesting violence. No, he was suggesting a protest. Yeah. Warning. Don't do violence. Stay off drugs. Good. Kids in schools. Great. Do it all. Warning. I don't know. You know what I've always found so disgusting. What's that? The way that he says, uh, you know,

this happens to everybody. It's, it happens to black people. It happens to white. He always starts with black people. And the reason he does that is because he uses this false empathy. And he's functionally or like he's, he's vocally using black people as a shield for his white supremacy. Yeah. It is so fucking such a small thing, but every single time he does it, it's disrespectful and disgusting. Yeah. And I just, it's, it makes my skin crawl. I hate it. It's pretty bad. Yeah. Um, so that could have been his warning, but then this also could have been his warning. I'm not sure. He doesn't clarify enough. And I, and I have a declaration right here on the year that I am nonviolent in any offensive capacity that I will defend my family though.

Good declaration. U.S. Constitution of all rights from enemies, foreign and domestic, but I am nonviolent offensively that I have no wish to commit suicide and I will never commit suicide because I like to kill you and say you committed suicide. They love it. I will say on the record that this government is illegitimate and is carrying out terror attacks to blame it on their enemies. Sure. And I give the Northwoods plan and a hundred other documents as the evidence to that on info wars.com. This is my declaration of reindependence against their corruption. So I don't want people calling my show, uh, you know, sitting there in a macho fashion, talking and a lot of our provocateurs about how they're going to do all this stuff

physically. Just go back and take your federal paycheck and stay away from my show bottom line. You understand? I'm not going to be stupid and fall into their trap. They're going to do something to me. It's going to be a total frame up. So maybe this is the announcement that he's been teasing the whole. I'm not sure. I want something happens to me. It's false. I want to say also too that in Alex's defense, he does clarify that like when I'm saying this about like stay away from my show with this bullshit, he wasn't talking about the caller who was just suggesting a protest. Right. Right. He does at least catch himself and realize like, oh, this could be seen as me saying any protest. Right. Right. Right. And at least he does that. But yeah, I don't,

I don't understand what the point is of this big warning. I mean, it was to declare his reindependence obviously his reindependence. I mean, one might say that it's a reclamation of independence as opposed to a declaration of reindependence. You might. I suppose that also works. I think you could also call it. What's the word? Pointless. Oh, that would be a good one. Yeah. I'm going to call it. Listen, I'm going to call my senator right now. I want them to reaffirm the declaration of independence. That would be great right now. Yes. And I am if they don't, they hate. They got it. They hate America. They hate America. They're clearly working for Satan. So unfortunately, Alex has run out of time to get any new stories. Yeah. And I'm sure other callers don't have

time to get to you. The news we couldn't cover is on info wars.com and prisonplanet.com be up in front. Thank you for the call. We'll let him go now. Yeah, I appreciate it that that that we're going to be up front that we're going to be mainstream that we're going to stand against the globalists with the facts that they're terrorists. We're not going to hide around in the backwoods and hang around with the moron feds. We're going to stand up, be strong, be bold, and expose the terrorist. Before I end this hour, I just want to remind you that there are some $10 Olympic gold coins left at Midas resources. Cool. Cool. It's awesome. That's somehow that's even sadder than saying $10 Olympic coins. That's an infomercial at two a.m. Yeah. And the the guy

who was on from Midas resources is like, Look, we can't ever find these. We can get the $5 one. We can never get the $10 ones. Now these are just for Alex Jones listeners. I got my hands on guaranteed 250 of these. We're going to be able to try to sell 250, but hey, how about we try and sell five thousand or five hundred maybe whatever it is. He's like, let's try and sell double that. Yeah, I'll find them. The classic. It's like you have all of those snake oil used car sales with bullshitter. Pretty awesome. So maybe Alex's big announcement and warning is that they're going mainstream and you know, we're not going to be hanging out with militias in the woods. All the feds. I don't know. Yeah, sure. Why not? Anyway, it was disappointing to get to the end of

this and not really know what his announcement warning. The show's over. Yeah, don't have time. But like I said, in that mire, you find Alex getting schooled by this guy about a claim that Alex made earlier in the show. And I think that there's something really valuable about understanding what happened in that exchange between the two of them because it's essential to understanding how Alex deals with discourse, how he deals with the idea of anybody having an exchange of ideas or a debate with him. These are the sort of tactics that will get most people off track pretty easily. Just pretending you're having a different conversation. No, we've seen that his ultimate weakness is just staying on target. Like the moment that you don't fall for his, well,

have you heard or this is the or all of it, you know, that's, that's why if I ever were to talk to him, I would just stay laser focused on Operation Lockstep. Yeah. I would just any time there was something that was slightly off track. I'd say we'll talk about that later. Right. We're staying on this and it would just deteriorate and you'd start yelling out. No, he'd begin to vibrate. And then I assume go Super Saiyan. Most likely. Yeah. And it would be unsatisfying for me as well. Everyone. It'd be miserable. So we go to the 19th now. And again, this is a fucking slog at the beginning. It is so rough. It is mostly the first 25 minutes is largely Alex complaining about how some Christian organization has been bootlegging his movies. Oh, those bastards. Yes.

Bootlegging. So he wants his movies to be made. He wants you to make copies of them and spread them out to people, but he does not want you selling them, I guess. And I think that he what he's really mad about is they ran an ad in something selling his DVDs. That's annoying. Right. That's copyright infringement. I agree with that. I do too. But it also is a little bit of a gray area based on the way that he sort of gives everyone. I want you to make as many copies of these as you can and do whatever you want with them. Right. And don't don't like charge for them. But then it's like, okay, what about the expenses of making copies of tapes? It does seem like maybe could I recoup? Yeah, exactly. Where's the line? What's the wholesale cost? And that'll be it.

Yeah. So I and I also think there's another thing that he's a little bit mad about that I actually find far more reasonable. And that is that the copies that they're making are like fifth generation copies. So they're bad copies that they're selling. And people will call him and complain about things that he didn't sell. Right. If someone else is pretending to be a distributor of your thing and you have no quality control ability, that would make me mad too. Yeah. I mean, it would make me mad to be in the black market for Alex Jones tapes. But you know, there are a lot of other problems. So this is about the first half of the first hour is this. Sure. And he finally talks himself into suing them. Okay. All right, my friends Alex Jones back live and one more note about the people

bootlegging and selling my videos ripping me off. You know, I'm not going to talk about any of these people on the air. I'm just gonna sue them. And you know, I've seen people before I don't I don't make a big deal or public deal about that. But on other issues, I'm not going to sit here and take this type of garbage from people, their deception, their lies, their corruption. But I am, I am certainly just just angry, angry about that type of stuff, because I have worked so hard to fight the New World Order. I when he says I'm not going to talk about these people, he means by name. And I guess that's like, that's fine. Don't give them attention. Yeah, whatever. Sure. But anyway, this is just a there's the almost present day ish. Yeah, in terms of pointlessness. Yeah.

I mean, I think you could probably just send them a quick cease and desist letter and they'd be like, you don't you don't need to complain for a long time on your show about it. No, it seems like a waste of time for a very important talk show. Yeah. So warning, these people have been selling my fucking tapes. Yeah. So Alex talks about UNESCO, because there's talk that Bush is going to reenter UNESCO. And this is something that is very bad, because according to Alex globalists, well, they're gonna they their plan is to destroy the family again. Let me cover what UNESCO had to say. And this is important. We got expose UNESCO. It says strangle this monster in its crib. That's the headline by Phil Vernon, Newsmax. Now, now listen to the propaganda in this article.

Unless Congress regains its modicum of sanity, they're not insane. They know what they're doing. They want slaves. They're not insane, Phil. Unless Congress regains a modicum of sanity, the United States of America is about to rejoin an organization dedicated the destruction of the last vestiges of Christian civilization. He reads that paragraph twice. And one thing that I found really weird is if you go and actually find this Newsmax article, it's at the end there, he says Judeo Christian civilization. But Alex's chops off the Judeo. But I don't know if he's reading like a different version of it, or if that's intentional. But I have no idea. Yeah, maybe he just doesn't care. Could be. So Alex is like he's been rambling about this plan that UNESCO

has to destroy the family to destroy civilization. And I guess he's deciding to cover it by reading an op ed in Newsmax. I think that's a good way. Sure. So this op ed honestly reads like a fucking parody. Take this ridiculous run on sentence, for instance. Okay, I'll have to catch my breath before I do this. Yeah, yeah. Most of my quote, most Americans are blissfully ignorant of the insidious nature of this crowd of one world paganistic pseudo communists and real ones who are bound and determined to create a new world order, establish new world religion of tree worshipers that supplants and scorns Christianity and Judaism promotes abortion worldwide seeks to capture control of the schools and school children and is in the process of transforming national and privately

owned property in the United States and elsewhere into its greedy hands. Dan, I told you I didn't want to hear Ted fucking Nugent on this show anymore. Need a break in that sentence verbose asshole. Yeah, tree worshipers tree worshipers. So that's apparently what UNESCO is doing. And the basis for this, according to this op ed is a publication called toward world understanding, which apparently UNESCO put out in 1949. Actually, he's now referring to that publication. He's referring to an op ed in the new American that talked about that publication. My God, these people are so easy. So here's the quote that that Newsmax article attributes to the publication. Quote, but government schools must stamp out the love of country in the family.

The family must be viewed as the enemy. As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we've pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism. The sentence quote, but government schools must stamp out love of country and the family must be viewed as an enemy isn't from the UNESCO text. That's really surprising. Yeah, that really is surprising. That's the interpretation of the guy who wrote the original article in the new American, which is being quoted in this Newsmax article. Hmm. Alex

constantly says that UNESCO admits that the family is their enemy when that admission is really just an accusation from a right wing rag. This is not a single publication from UNESCO. It's actually part of a 10 part series, which aren't textbooks like many blogs incorrectly claim. And Alex incorrectly claims is their founding documents. Jesus is ridiculous because they were founded four years prior. Right. But these are reports of meetings where various perspectives were given by various speakers on issues related to education. You can find the full text of this volume that it comes from. This is volume five. And if you do and you read it, you come away with a slightly different sense of what it's about. Just broadly speaking, the point of the text is that that an essential

part of healthy development for children and adults is feeling like you belong. As you progress through life, the size of the group you belong to grows along with you. Initially, it's your family, then maybe some friends in the neighborhood, then it's your class at school, then maybe your city, your state, then nation, and eventually ideally the world. This document is about public education. So it's basically a discussion of how to promote this healthy process of seeing the world as something you are a part of, along with everyone else. The issue is that a lot of this is an emotional process and it relies on experiences. So for students, being exposed to sensitive and humanizing representations of people from other cultures is critical. Also, they recommend having an exchange

with a family who has a kid of the same age in another country. So a bond can be formed with people from another culture, which will instill in a youth the knowledge that stereotypes and prejudices someone may have about foreigners aren't real. The educators are implored to focus on the deep, meaningful ways that we are the same, as opposed to the more external and trivial ways that were different. That said, I will admit that this document is very much against nationalism, and I can't imagine why someone would not have a great impression of nationalism in 1949. Why would they? I mean, impossible to imagine. Look, okay, so you have a couple world wars driven almost entirely by jingoistic propagandist nationalists, and all of a sudden you think

nationalism is bad? Have you not sang the Pledge of Allegiance in class this morning? It's very bizarre that someone would have this perspective. So weird. So if you actually read the thing they spell out what they're talking about, quote, education for world-mindedness at present encounters obstacles outside the school. The principle one certainly is nationalism. If the feeling of belonging to the human community develops normally by an extension of the feeling of belonging to the national community, it cannot possibly develop from that caricature of patriotism, which is extreme nationalism.

Nationalism in the sense of caring about your country and seeing yourself as a part of it, that's an essential step toward seeing yourself as part of the world community. So the writer of this report is in no way suggesting that nations should be destroyed. Conversely, the real point being made is that extreme nationalism is a perversion of patriotism, where everything that involves here is good and everything involving other countries is suspicious at best. Also, this is just a report of a seminar and the introduction literally says, quote, the views expressed are, of course, not the views, the official views of UNESCO, nor are they necessarily acceptable to all members of the group. It is hoped,

however, that they will arouse interest and stimulate discussion among teachers in many countries. So a little bit unfair, this interpretation that they're admitting that they want to destroy your family. I want to take I want to take one of those one of those guys to like a baseball game in 2021 and watch the planes fly over the evil jet planes and just be like, hey, buddy, you did it. So here's what happened with this UNESCO document. Yeah, this report on a seminar was published in 1949 and no one really cared, except people deep in the weeds in terms of education. Then in October 1950, William Henry McFarland wrote about it in a newsletter from his group, the Nationalist Action League, and then the outrage started.

Great. Previous to this, actually, I kind of misspoke. The name was changed from the National Action, Nationalist Action League to something else before this public right. Right. Previously, the Nationalist Action League, and now it ends up being the American flag committee. Right, right, right. We got real close to Nazi there. So now we're American flag Nazis. Yeah, previous to this publication that had to do with the UNESCO thing. McFarland had self published a series of newsletters called National Progress. And boy, it's bad. I was reading over the first issue from September 1945. And it's about what you'd expect for the first bit of it. It's laying out an aggressively anti communist position for the newsletter. And it's all pretty standard until

you get to plank four of their suggestions of how to fix the country, bring Hitler back to life, quote, a real and lasting solution of the whole racial problem in America. Do you mean a final solution to the racial problem in America to be based upon justice for all concern? It must be understood that two races, each possessing a different set of morals and ethics or a different culture, not good, cannot be forced to exist together as equals. This is trouble. We believe that the Jewish race can never become part of the Christian culture. We know that a Christian America will never accept Judaism. Those who fail to see the choice which must be made are active, active to complicate matters. Sure. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. This is a notion that they suggest is

quote to the immediate deportation of all aliens. And I'm guessing that his definition of that term is pretty broad. I would probably argue it is very broad. So this national progress was put out by the Nationalist Action League. Right, right. And then by 1950, he created this new organization, the American Flag Committee, which was based on an outrage over an incident in Philadelphia where a UN flag was raised during a ceremony. He began distributing American flag seals, which was most likely just a good PR scheme. An informant told the FBI that the American Flag Committee was, quote, it was just, quote, a sub body of the Nationalist Action League. And the goal was to gain national attention with the American flag seals. In essence,

McFarland was doing what a lot of the current day fascists are doing with the anti mask protests. That's the exploitation of a wedge issue that you can use to drive people unknowingly closer to extremism. Yep. Members of the American Flag Committee received a monthly newsletter just titled the newsletter. In issue 13 of the newsletter, McFarland did a misleading article about this UNESCO document. And from that point, it spread around various extreme nationalist communities. It's the circle of the right. By 1951, it had reached a Republican Congress member named John T. Wood, who read not the actual UNESCO document, but the coverage of it from the American Flag Committee into the congressional record. Right, right. Naturally, this spread the word a bit

further about this conspiracy. And the rest, as you say, is just a game of telephone. Yeah. People don't respond to actual things in the UNESCO report, most likely because they've never actually seen the report. It would be hard. They've only heard about it through the sources that have filtered down from this anti-semitic fuckwad, William Henry McFarland. Alex hasn't read it. He's just seen this Newsmax article. The Newsmax article doesn't cite the actual document. It cites a different right wing publications take on it with the very same blurb that's been used to drum up fear and extreme nationalists since the days of McFarland. Great. The same person who I should remind you who wants to deport all nine non-white people

from the United States. Yeah, I bet McCarthy had no idea who these guys were. I bet Joseph McCarthy was like, these guys are so crazy. Now I never would ever know. I will say that there's some pretty positive references to McCarthy. Oh, yeah. Oh, you think some of these newsletters. I wonder why? Yeah. I will. I think that it's fortunate in some ways that the FBI was keeping an eye on this guy's committees because now the newsletters are on the FBI's website. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The record exists. And this is, this is one of the other reasons that all the newsletters are there. Not because the FBI sought them out, but because McFarland sent a copy of all of them to the FBI, almost sort of as a way of being like, I'm, I'm taunting you or, or like I want you to

be aware of what I'm up to. I'm the Zodiac Nazi. I'm going to leave little clues. Also, he was in his mid twenties at this point. So he, he has a, a bit of a, a, a Fuentesi vibe. You know, the problem with fascists, very uncreative, but enterprising when young. This is an issue. Yeah. I mean, like if you think about it in the like mid forties, putting out in like a newsletter that you distribute and just calling it newsletter, there is a lot of competition in the forties. There's a lot of undertaking that needs to be done. You put, you're doing a lot of work. Oh yeah. To commit to that is, you know, I mean, obviously I think what he did is shit. And I think it's, it's obviously, you can see the ripple even in 2003 of this fear baiting about UNESCO. No, it's horrific.

And he, at the same time, if you just look at how much you have to do, it's kind of impressive just from a like, you know, ethically neutral standpoint. You know, he really put his stamp on the destruction of democracy. You know, it's, you got to give somebody credit whenever they really leave their name in the history books as destroying democracy. And when their name is completely forgotten, because their influence was just insidious. Yeah. Yeah. Fucked up, man. Yeah. And the other thing that was really fun just because I read a lot of it. So why not share some details? Sure. Got it. He accepted payment for the, the, the publication, like subscriptions and stuff, only through money orders. But if you were going to buy a single

issue, you could pay with stamps. Now, he didn't accept money because I guess it would get lost in the mail or something. Right. Right. And then he didn't accept personal checks. Sure. Because, and this is spelled out in a very long story. Oh, I believe it. I believe he's not short-winded on this front. He did not have an account at the bank that allowed him to cash these checks, because his account size was too small. Like the bank wouldn't put, like in case the check wasn't a good check, they weren't willing to front him that money until the check cleared. Of course. And so he ended up having to find a friend with a better bank account. Oh my God. Who the bank would cash the check for him? Oh God. And so he describes this as being a very cumbersome

process. I mean, that sounds like a cumbersome process. I will agree with him on that front. So that's why you need to pay in stamps. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So he's the original Bitcoin bro is what you're saying. So I guess it's called blockchain, man. I was really interested diving in and seeing where this conspiracy came from. And it's, it's not always as kind of the roots aren't always as sort of traceable. Right. Right. And this one's pretty clear. And you can, you can see the way that the original source material is perverted initially. Right. And then that goes, you know, A to B to C to D, eventually all the way down the line to the new, new American, which is then covered by Newsmax, which is then covered by Alex. It's just, they, they just know

the game. Yeah. You know, they're just really good at the game. They're not good at helping or doing anything, but the game, it's fucked up. Yeah. And so earlier in the episode, here's another little clip of Alex talking about this UNESCO art thing, just because like this is he's got everything wrong. At a Newsmax story I never got to that has quotes out of UNESCO's founding documents that Bush has just signed on to the United Nations educational scientific and cultural organization where they say the family must be destroyed. Yeah. So that's, that's his angle on it. It's shit. They're founding documents. Founding documents of UNESCO say that they must be destroyed. And the part about the family being the enemy and needing to be destroyed is from

the new American article that's sort of manipulatively quoted in the Newsmax article on Alex. I guess, I mean, if he's not curious about it and just takes that Newsmax article as gospel, must think that that comes from the UNESCO document. Yeah. When it actually doesn't. Yeah. No. Newsmax is fucking breaking bad's car wash. Just, just like we, we've got all these lies. I don't know what to do with them. We got a launder. Yeah. So now we get to Dan in Illinois. He calls it. Dan's got an interesting... Dan, you're on the air. Hey, I've got an interesting theory. Yeah. What do you, what's your theory? There's only two SWAT teams. No. Okay. He thinks that North Korea is a decoy. Like there's not going to be a war. Are there any people in North Korea? Because

they don't have any resources to exploit. There is that. Then Alex kind of goes off. Dan tries to stay on point, but Alex isn't allowed. Oh no. Let me throw this by you. What if North Korea is a complete decoy? What if the leader, whatever his name is, is totally in bed with this regime? Well, we know he's in bed with a communist Chinese who are in bed with the globalist. So when you say regime, I mean Bush isn't even a regime. He's a front puppet just like Clinton. Well, yeah, whatever. The organization... But no, North Korea is the real deal. They've been armed. They're psychopathic. They're pure evil as evil as it gets. But what about just a scare attack? They don't have any resources. They don't have anything to take, you know, taking that country

over or whatever is not going to... But in the meantime, there is... That's not, Dan, that's not true. The Iraqis laid down special forces infiltrated British and U.S., had them off in gold bars, zeros and dollars. That's now admitted before the war, during the war. With North Korea, whenever they catch one of their police boats in South Korean waters, everybody takes cyanide. They're totally mind controlled. What? What I'm saying is they don't have the resources to steal from like the Middle East, you know what I mean? You forgot that they're one of the biggest opium producers in the world. And the CIA likes to deal smack, don't they? So yeah, that's not true. But yeah, so Alex, again, is trying to respond to a different point than what the caller is

bringing up. And this one, I think, is a little more unclear to me, because I do think that it's possible that Alex misunderstood him and is responding to what he thinks this guy is saying, as opposed to being caught in a ridiculous situation like in the previous day's show with the no one was on the planes. This could just be Alex not paying attention, really. Yeah, I can see this one just being like, nah, North Korea's probably got enough money to kill us all. And Alex has turned this story about North Korea being one of the largest opium growers in the world into just something that he can say. Yeah. And it's just toss it out there. It's not a good rebuttal to this guy's point. No, it is. Anyway, Alex has a guest. He has a couple guests on this

episode. Okay, one of them is this singer songwriter named Michelle shocked. Okay, and we're not going to listen to any of her interview because it's pointless. Oh, no. But what she play? What is she any good? I don't know. You didn't. You didn't follow up on her. Is her singing career? No, Dan, I expect you to do research. I did. I did look into who she was. And yeah, I don't know. She gave me a bad vibe. Okay, well, that's fair. I mean, I think a singer songwriter on info wars does have a very poor track record. She had some controversies that popped up about her saying some things like jokes about how all the singer songwriters who were nominated in a particular category for an award. Oh, no, we could have called this the lesbian

vocalist. There it is. Yeah, something. Yeah. And then later on, she like got really mad because she was asked about her take on homosexuality like a, I think it was at a Christian concert great, some sort. Great. And she's like, I don't know why everyone asked me this. You're looking at the biggest homophobe in the world. Like she said, I don't know. That's that's fair. I don't know if that was just her being fed up with people asking her that kind of question. Right, right, right. Or what? Or if she was just throwing it. I mean, hey, throw it out there. Yeah, I didn't care. And I think that she probably just sucks. I don't know. You're on Alex's show. You're not great. Yeah. Speaking of that, Alex has another guest on who's not great. And that is the

lawyer who's representing Jane Roe. No. And now the the woman known as Roe has, well, she's allowed to have a brief of the court because she was plaintiff in the case. She's, of course, a born again Christian and knows now that it's a murder and wants to reverse this and it's being brought to the Supreme Court joining us is Sharon Blake knee. And we appreciate her joining us, Attorney and Counselor in law. And she is one of the lawyers on the team with the organization here in Texas that is countering the government and trying to reverse this Nazi policy. So it's very clear from this interview, if you listen to it, that this person is less a lawyer. And they're a lawyer, but yeah, they're more to the point, an anti abortion activist, right, right. They work in

anti abortion. They read law, but they're mainly an anti abortion activist. They represent and work with primarily anti abortion causes, even outside of the legal aspect, just promoting. Hey, why not? Somebody's got to do it. So this is really funny. The lawyer is trying to give some background on the case. Okay. And Mike down for this, because you will be tempted to talk. Okay. It was all based on summary judgment motions. And Norman McCorvey herself learned of the ruling at the Supreme Court by reading it in the Dallas Morning News. Alex. Yes, I'm right here. I was over here on the other side of the studio digging through news articles. I'm listening. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So Alex just got up and got away from the mic. Hey, I'm gonna let her I'm gonna let her cook

for a little bit. I'm gonna get out of here. Alex. Are you there? She's probably got a lot to say. I'm gonna take a little nap and get a sandwich. It's good to know that this kind of behavior is pretty consistent. Yeah. Yeah. Throughout his career. If he had any respect for his guests, they would be in studio so he couldn't run away from them whenever he felt like it. Yeah. So Alex has a real lot of horrible things he says about abortion. Sure. In this in this interview and this section, I will say that it's suspicious that he's not talking about his own experience. He's not talking about how many abortions that he's paid for at this time. That does not seem something like something that he is willing to discuss publicly at this time.

Wow. It really feels like that's an important background for this kind of interview, right? He does seem to talk about a lot of feelings he has about people who do get abortions. Oh, yeah. And yeah, kind of. He feels like they deserve punishment of some sort. And it just leaves off the whole thing about his experience. Right. Now, I don't deserve punishment, of course, because I'm better now. Right. So now, obviously, if we were to reply retroactively, then yes, I would be in trouble in the same way. But since we aren't going to, hooray, I'm Scott Free. And also, he seems to have a position that abortions are never okay in the case of protecting a woman's life because

you know, if God wants you to abort and it's a bad pregnancy, it'll happen folks. And it's very bad for women to increase cancer. If you do it in an unnatural fashion, if you go in and kill the baby, it also causes massive emotional problems. And it creates all these damaged women who then join the New World Order cause to carry all of this out. That's disgusting. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's always been such a bullshit. Like, okay, fine, give me an exact list of when doctors are allowed and not allowed by God to do shit. Okay, just give me give me a hard line. Okay, if you if you're going to get an abortion, God will do it for you. All right. God takes care of all of that. What if say you've got a broken

leg? Is God going to heal your broken leg? Or is it okay for a doctor to heal your broken leg? No, God's gonna give me give me a fucking list of what God can and cannot do. All medicine must be suspect, I guess, according to this kind of thinking. Fuck off. Yeah. And then also just the idea that it's creating a bunch of broken people, you know, like it's this is just offensive. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that it's not been something that people have done for the entirety of humanity. Well, I mean, I can't imagine what the emotional toll would be of being forced by the state to carry a pregnancy that you don't want to. Oh, no, it would make Alex happy. But it but I mean, the person would probably have a lot of emotional impact. The person is not important here. Oh,

God is important and how Alex feels about it. Alex's thoughts about God. Yeah, not even God per se. Yeah. So this is this is one of the only things I found really interesting about this interview with the lawyer. Because I mean, the case didn't go anywhere. It's stupid. Yeah, it's all over. Yeah. But she does have a website that she's promoting that puts Alex in a real pickle. The makeup of the Supreme Court is of incredible importance, especially given this case that we have filed, which may and most likely will be heard there sometime in the near future. We're facing some possible vacancies on that court. President Bush in his campaign has said that he would promote a culture of life. There is a project called Project Rosebud. If you

go to www.F2A, that stands for face to action, F2A.org, you can be a part of Project Rosebud, which is sending roses to President Bush for $10. You can send a rose to President Bush with a message supporting his decision to promote a culture of life and to to to appoint justices that will rule in accordance with that. I bet the White House is just full of roses there. That's right. There's been thousands that have been sent and we want to send more, Alex. So now Alex is in an unenviable position of having to support the guy who did 9-11 because he might appoint Supreme Court justices that end abortion. Okay, so he did 9-11. That's bad. Right. He might end abortion. That's good. I'm in a real pickle here. Yeah, that's a real

that's a real bind and I have to send roses. That might be the deciding factor. I don't want to send any roses. Fuck you. Yeah, I could hear the discomfort Alex had with someone saying positive things about Bush. Yeah. And I can hear the discomfort he has with somebody giving money to somebody, not him. True. So they take some calls, the two of them, the lawyer and Alex, and get this. What? We can shut the book on the devil question. Oh, okay, good. It's literally spelled out in this quote. Okay. I don't think men in and of themselves can orchestrate what these evil men do. So I mean, that tells me that sighting himself is the one that's actually you know, the genius behind it all. Well, of course, the devil's biggest trick was convincing

is he didn't exist and now you have moral relativism and people, you know, don't even know what good and evil is. Thanks for the call, Debbie. Yep. So Alex does believe that there's a literal devil in 2003 that he is fighting against. Little Christian devil. And the caller is actually even definitely saying that the devil is behind the globalist. The genius behind the globalist. The evil plans are too evil for people. Too smart. They're too evil. And so it must be Beelzebub. It's gotta be. There's no way. There's no way. Obviously, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he wasn't real. And now we have moral relativism. See how quickly it happened. Dangerous. When did he do that? 70. Like when like, I mean, if the devil pulled the

trick, I would like to know the day. October Gregorian calendar. Yes. Okay. No, I don't know. Okay. So yeah, the devil. We've been wondering for a long time, listening to these two thousand three episodes, whether Alex Jones believed 18 years ago that he was fighting the literal devil. He does, but he doesn't talk about it nearly as much. It's very clear in the present day. But he's a little bit more careful about it. Yeah, it would probably be harder on the upturn to talk about the devil as much. Now that you're on the down, you can fly. I think that's probably also the case with him talking about his experience personally with abortion. I mean, in the same way that he didn't talk about having COVID twice or whatever until after it was already

politically expedient for him to do so. Yeah. At this point, his career could take a major blow if he was to say, I paid for 10 abortions. Oh, this Alex guy is all anti abortion, but he just said that he paid for 10 abortions. He didn't have the position in like his sphere and his community to be able to have that and justify it. Yeah. He would have, he would have been looked at a certain way. Yeah. And in evangelical communities, there's absolutely, it's not a hard time limit, but a year after you pay for an abortion, you have not repented enough 10 years after you've paid for plenty of them. It's like, hey, yeah, he's a changed man. It's completely different. It's totally fine. Well, also the

repentance at this point in his career would probably require some humility. It would probably require him to, um, like accept that, that, you know, he's not the arbiter of all these, right? Right. But, but now he's a star. And so his, his repentance is not really required for him to be humble. Hey, quite literally when you're a star, they let you do whatever you want. Sure. Yeah. So Alex kind of wants this case to go real quick. Uh, and the lawyer informs him that it's going to take a while and no, no, no end abortion today. He seems to get pretty mad about that or at least frustrated. And then this weaves nicely into a little bit of a transphobia. So we're talking about years here. It could be years or it could be one year. It's millions

more dead children. Right. We're, we're, we have to wait. The, the, the federal district court here is, has a lot of decisions to make. And, and sometimes these things just move very, very swiftly and other times they get bogged down and well, how do we lobby to make sure it moves quickly? Well, uh, I guess it's a lot more important than kind of school teacher wear a dress. They're a man. You know, they got cases like that. I know in the courts, right? Right. Yeah. It's good to, good to see that Alex is pretty early on that train. Great. Yep. Awesome. So we have one last clip. Yeah. And, and like I said, it is bizarre that Alex is not talking about his own involvement in abortions because it's hyper relevant to the conversation

that's being had. Yeah. Um, I think that, um, you know, someone having abortions, paying for an abortion is not anything to be ashamed of. I don't think that there's anything wrong with it. It's great, but do it. Alex does. Yes. In that community, Alex does think that there's something wrong with it. He thinks it's the ultimate evil of murdering children. Right. But you can also be forgiven. Of course you can. So this clip really feels like Alex talking to himself. Okay. Because we know what we know from things that he talks about later, but is not talking about at this point. Okay. And I know a lot of you've had abortions out there. And so you're, you've tried to rationalize what's happening, but you got this pain in your heart and your stomach and your mind.

Why don't you repent and ask God for forgiveness and beg the baby for forgiveness and you'll be forgiven. You'll be forgiven. Well, then keep it legal. Like the thief hanging on the cross next to Christ folks, you really can be forgiven. It was a human being you killed. Stop being a party the murder of other children. Join us in the fight against this. So he's saying this like you can be. Yeah. He's talking about himself. Yeah. It sounds like he's trying to reassure himself. That he can be forgiven. Oh, of course. And I think that this is an unfair way for him to discuss this when he's holding back that information. Everyone else who does this now is evil forever. And they're working for the devil and should be punished. Obviously from prior to this moment,

when I did it, you were still able to be forgiven for it. I was grandfathered in to the whole, let's punish everybody for the crime of murdering babies thing. I think that there's such a, such a weird sort of line with this. And a lot of it comes down to, I don't think that people should be required to disclose things that are personal. You know, like if someone did have an abortion or something, I don't think that it's anybody's business that they don't want it to be their business. You know, it's personal to your business. That said, Alex is engaging in a conversation that applies to himself deeply about a political issue that he's trying to deprive people of being able to access abortions. It does in this case, it does feel like he has an

obligation to denote that in the same way when he talks about like his big burky water filters and stuff. He has a responsibility to say they're a sponsor, you know, like it's, it's, it's, it's, I was thinking the same thing. I was just going like this, it reminds me so much of just spawn con, you know, like there's such a huge conflict of interest here. But it's like an emotional conflict of interest for him. Well, I mean, such that it is, it's just fucked up. It's just really fucked up. Well, I mean, like you listened to that last clip and it does really feel like he's talking to himself. And to the extent that like this conversation is actually a psychodrama of his own, sure, him trying to deal with his own past, true, that's being projected as political

principle or advice to the audience. Yeah, that is unfair. That is a conflict of interest. Yeah. And I think, I think that it's unethical. But then again, it does come up against the principle that, you know, I don't think people should be forced to disclose things. I don't know, you know, it's a mess, but I do know that as a radio show, this is on inappropriate to to the extent that you are influencing a law, you got to you got to disclose that shit. You got to because if you're if this is who you are, then that's the context with when with which I'm going to understand what you're saying. And maybe if this personal experience that you have is really a major portion of what's driving your position and this emotional plea that you're making to

the audience in service of trying to change law, yeah, it does feel like it's super relevant. And again, I understand the reasoning behind not talking about it. He couldn't get away with it back then. Yeah, I mean, it's just the thing that follows obviously is, you know, he's leaving out that if you're getting one now, you can be forgiven. It's very conveniently in the past, if you got an abortion, you can be forgiven right at no point in time. Is he saying that in the future in the context of discussing abortion in the present? It is evil punishment, violence, right awful. We need to overthrow the fucking government in the position of the past. You can be forgiven. There's no worries. There's nothing in the present. You should be killed

for getting an abortion. So I end this on a pretty good. I mean, obviously disgusted but also conflicted position about this whole whole thing. I do think it's very interesting the way that Alex refuses to talk about his own experience when he does later. Yeah. I think that's, but I mean, in terms of this episode, I really think that the most important takeaway is that nobody was on the 9 11 plans, right? I think that what happened in that exchange is so relevant to understanding the way Alex deals with people who disagree with him or are threatening to his ideas. Yeah. And and also it's such a good just demonstration of why talking to him is a waste of time for pretty much anybody. Yeah, I mean, and it's it's another power dynamic to that exact same

situation. You know, when you talk about the way that Bill Ayers talked to him of just like the same kind of functional just stay on topic. Just stay on topic, buddy. Just stay on topic. But because Bill Ayers is a name, then Alex has to engage with that to some extent. He can't just scream over you. True. Gaslight you directly while while scolding you for daring to ask him those questions. Yeah. In this power imbalance, he just gets to yell at you and say you're stupid. He gets to pretend you're talking about something else. And as soon as you're gone, he can go back to you're not listening to me. You're not listening to me. You are not, you know, I didn't say that there were no but there's nobody on board until we hang up. And

then I'm going to suggest it again. Yep. I think that's so just awful and what he does all the time. Yep. Anyway, Jordan, we will be back on Wednesday. Indeed. But until then we have a website. We do. It's knowledgefight.com. Yes, we're also on Twitter. We are on Twitter. It's that knowledge underscore fight and not go to bed, Jordan. You bet. We'll be back Jordan. But until then, I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I'm Daryl Rundis. I'm Dan in Illinois. Andy in 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.