Knowledge Fight - #429: May 3-4, 2020

Episode Date: May 6, 2020

Today, Dan and Jordan discuss the last few days of The Alex Jones Show. In this installment, Alex forces Dan to critically engage with the idea that his cannibalism rant was satire, and decides that a dumb op-ed is a revelation of the Globalists' plan for the 2020 election.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge and knowledge fight. Dan and George, knowledge fight. I need money. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Stop it. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. You're on the air. Thanks for holding us. Hello Alex. I'm Mr. Tim Cullen. I'm a huge fan. I love your fight. Knowledge fight. I love you. Hey everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. A couple dudes like to sit around, drink novelty beverages and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Indeed we are Dan. Jordan. Let me ask you a quick question. Okay. What's your bright spot today? Well, I mean, I just got to give a continuation of last time. I

realized that I could bake chicken breasts. I went. I got some chicken breasts. I did it. Still going. Have you figured out breading yet? Easiest fucking thing in the world. Yes, it is. I feel like a world is opened up in front of me that I should. This is something that most people probably experience at 20, 19, maybe right when they move out. Sure. Maybe when they still live with their parents. It can happen. I did not have those milestones and it's really, it's really fascinating to me. It's very exciting in some ways. I last night for dinner made some chicken and rice. Okay. Okay. And it was fine. It was marinated a bit. Just some lemon pepper and one. All right. All right. That's good. Yeah. Not complicated

today for lunch. I tried to kick it up a little bit more and I left it overnight last night in a bag. Okay. Soy sauce. All right. Chopped up garlic. Okay. And jalapeno. All right. And it was better. Oh, but what I'm realizing is like there's a whole world of marinades that I'm very excited to tinker with and explore. And I think my bright spots for the foreseeable future might end up with me cooking some stuff. Also in a couple of days I plan to make that lasagna finally now that I have this juice of enthusiasm and feeling of a can do spirit from cooking a chicken breast. I like it. I like it. The problem was like for so long. I thought like I like I mentioned that the only way you can really cook a chicken

breast is like in a pan on top of the stove. Sure. And I would always burn them. So I got to the point where it's like I can't do this. It's for someone else. That's what other people do that. But I love like a roasted chicken breast. Sure. Sure. Sure. So now I know that I can do this. I'm very excited and my life has changed. Let me tell you something. Wait until you figure out that you can sear it on both sides in the pan to get a nice little crust and then bake it after that. I've heard about that. Fantastic. I may explore that at some point in the future. Brilliant. Brilliant. That changed my life. I don't want to put all my chickens in a pan. Whatever the expression is that makes it upon. So I might I might only

do some work on this front and then start to explore some other recipes that I now realize maybe I can do it. Absolutely. So that's very exciting. How about you? Okay. Well, I will tell you I just had some white chocolate peanut M&M's. I was kind of thinking that might be what it is. I was really I was really struggling to come up with a bright spot and then twenty minutes ago while we were at the store I finally had my first white chocolate M&M. Fantastic. All right. Delicious peanuts. Very good. I'm glad for you to enjoy this candy. I thought it was good and not great. What we didn't get on a seltzer. It'd be over 50. It'd be over. I don't put it in the 70. I would give it a 63. That might be. I think that might

be a prudent rate. Yeah. So Jordan today we got an interesting episode to go over. We're talking about May 3rd and 4th 2020. I'm Dan. This is 2020. That's Saturday or sorry Sunday and Monday this week. Okay. Some interesting stuff goes down. Alex is very weird and you know he's got some problems. Sure. And we'll get down to business on that. But before we do, we got to take a moment to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show and do an overdue seltzer report for the year of the seltzer. So first, Hendo. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you Hendo. Next Jason. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks Jason. I won't call

you Jace. Nobody calls it anybody. Jace. Next, Nancy. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you, Nancy. I wonder if that's short for Nancy. Maybe maybe not. Who knows? Could be next. Colin. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks, Colin. Next. This is very exciting. Was that one of my most feared enemies from dynasty warriors has signed up and is supporting the show. Lou. Thank you so much. Lou. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you. Lou. Next, Andrew Jay. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you. Andrew Jay. Thank you, Andrew Jay. Next, and chicken bats run the world. Thank you so much. You

are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you. Chicken bats run the world. Who run the world? Chicken bats. Then finally, like I say, thank you to a couple people who signed up on an elevated level. We appreciate that very much. So, Jeff C. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat. And Will W. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat. I'm a policy wonk. Crocky, mate. That's fantastic. Have yourself a brew. How's your 401K doing, bro? We got to go full tilt buggy on this Watson, alright? Let's just get down to business. We ain't making that money off that heroin. Why are you pimp so good? My neck is freakishly large. I declare info war on you. Thank you so much, Jeff C. And thank you so much, Will

W. Yes, thank you very much to the both of you. If you're either listening or you're thinking to enjoy this show, I'd like to support these gents too. You can do that by going to our website, KnowledgeFight.com. Clicking the button to support the show. Or you can find a local charity in your area that helps people in the community who are in need and throw that sport that way. Indeed. We would appreciate either indeed. So Jordan, like I said, you're the seltzer quick report. I failed to do one on the last episode and part of the reason was I forgot and another part of the reason was I kind of been slowing down a little bit and stuck out to you. Well, there's that and I also was slowing down a

tiny bit and I realized one of the reasons was because I the last time I'd gone to the grocery store I stocked up on a bunch of the different flavors of sparkling ice. Sure. And I do not like any of them. There's a couple in my fridge. They were waiting for me to be the next ones to try and it just really became a hurdle to me being like. I don't want to do it. Sure. By the way, I'm talking about the sparkling ice that has caffeine that comes in the like 16 ounce can not the ones that are the slim plastic bottles. There are like a thousand varieties of those. I'm holding off on those. Is there easily readily available? They're all over the place and if I hit a wall and need to find more things

to try those. I those sparkling ice in the bottles are everywhere. They're on your back burner. Right. These ones in the can seemed a little bit different. Sure. They're terrible. Yeah. And so it kind of got to a point where it's like, well, if I want something to drink, I still have these leftover lemon cello ones. So I was drinking those and that's not new. So I had I had little to bring to the table, although because we had a good head start, we're still on track for the 500. Okay, we are at twenty seven currently twenty seven seltzers. We need to be at thirty by the end of this week. Sure, which we still have plenty of time on. Yeah, and I'll say I like how you're saying we. I feel like we're all in

this together. I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me. I'm talking about the all the walks. Everybody. Yeah, okay. I've been getting a number of tweets of people with pictures of Kansas Seltzer and by the way, my definition of Seltzer admittedly rangy and I want to say this. I don't care. Is this some of this stuff technically not Seltzer's you bet anything carbonated. I feel like it's a sell to know because I'm not going to go to soda. Right. Not a soda. Right. Yeah, it's that Supreme Court definition of pornography. I know Seltzer when I see. Yeah, I got you. I should have just called it's tipper gore. What are we doing? I should have just called it fizzy water. I should

have just said the year of fizzy water, but I said Seltzer and even if it's incorrect, we're sticking. What are we going to do? But I got to say in terms of a bright spot. I've mentioned I've given them a shout out before. I got to say bubbler be you B. B. L. E. No are just hypha apostrophe are sure. I've now had all of them, all of their varieties, flavors and they're all pretty good. That's great. They have a pretty solid consistency. I hadn't tried them before this adventure and I don't know if any of them rated below like a really admirable rating. The last one I tried this week was a cherry guava blender was the name sounds terrible. I got a seventy six. Wow. Yeah, seventy six out of a hundred.

I thought it was fantastic. All right. It was really good. It broke the seventy five threshold. Interesting. Yeah, it was pretty special. Okay, good. Yeah, so bubbler. I will no longer be shouting them out at all and for not a sponsor, but also I've tried all of them now. So there is no more to try. But as we finish the bubbler chapter, I just want to make make it known. I've enjoyed all of them except for maybe the blood orange. What was that one? It's a blood orange something. I know it was mixed with something. Sure. It was fine, but it wasn't as good as the others cranberry something or other. I'm telling you bubbler. If you guys want to continue getting this level of free publicity, you

better make up some new flavors real quick. Otherwise, you're not going to get the knowledge fight bump. I mean, if they did, I would be excited to try them. Of course you would. There was the also the pitaya berry nectar that came in at seventy three. That was a solid. That's good. That's a that's a dragon fruit. That's what a tie is apparently pomegranate acai that came in the mid sixties. What was the other one? The passion fruit wonder seventy eight seventy eight on the passion fruit wonder. Yeah. Yeah. That was part of my rediscovery of passion fruit. Gotcha. So anyway, thank you so much. Bubbler for having a some spying products for me to enjoy at the beginning of this year long adventure. Yeah, there's

going to be a slog in a couple of months for sure. You're going to have a real tomorrow that's possible. That's possible. So this has been the year of the cell. Yes. So Jordan, we got this Sunday, Monday swing to get through to explore. But before we get to that, I want to check in on a little bit of important news that's happening in the increasingly said world of Alex Jones. Sure. That does not come up on his show. The big news that broke recently was that Alex's main lawyer in his Sandy Hook case, Norm Pattis withdrew from representing Alex on Monday. Simultaneously, Alex's other lawyer in that case, Chris La Tronica, who also worked with Pattis, also filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel. According to the

Connecticut Post, quote, it's unclear who will now represent Jones. This is really bad news for Alex. And I think there's only a few possible explanations for what's going on. The most likely is that Norm Pattis knows that Alex cannot pay him to continue representing him until the case begins jury selection in November and then proceeds for however long it's going to end up going on. This totally checks out with Alex's claims that he's likely not to be on the air in the not too distant future and the, you know, a high profile media playing lawyer like Norm, he doesn't work for free. That's yeah. Nobody's representing Alex pro bono. Well, well, I mean, there might have been some sort of an arrangement between

him and Barnes. Sure. Sure. By the way, I don't know if a brother's up. Barnes does have his own show on enforce now. No, he does not. I don't know if it's daily or what, but he does have his own dammit Barnes. Yeah. Good work. Good work. So there might have been some sort of a payment in kind situation there. Publicity, right? Amplification, that sort of thing with him, but he's not his lawyer anymore in the Sandy Hook stuff. Can't represent one. Daza isn't either. Like Alex has gone through a number of folks who are all a little shady. Yeah. Lionel Hutz is dead. Unfortunately Lionel Nation might not be past the bar in Connecticut. Although Lionel imagine the court. The Sandy Hook case starts and Lionel's theme

song play. You know, I know, I know, I know. Oh my God, he's coming in from the back. All right, we're going to hold you contempt. I was just like it was totally worth it. I would be worth it for me. Yeah. So that's not good. I mean, that's one of the big possibilities is that he norm knows that Alex can't pay for it. Right. Another possibility is that he just got to the point where he hates Alex so much that he doesn't want to represent him. I think that's unlikely considering how much of a dick Alex was to him in the past. Yeah. And he put up with it. So my my big sense is that the financial aspect is a strong contender. And then the other second strong contender that I have is that norm might have

realized that that case was going to end with Alex losing in humiliating fashion. And he knew that it would be bad for his particular brand. It's fun and profitable to be the fire brand rebel lawyer who's supporting Alex for his free speech until you have to make that argument in court and fail. It's really good to be the lawyer who's standing up for him while you're postponing things while you're saying we're going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. But until you have to make the arguments in front of a jury and a judge, that's where it kind of that's where you're left holding the bag. And that's where you look bad if you're a lawyer like Patis. Yeah. So I think that this might just be

a thing where it's like we can't postpone this much longer. There aren't more motions for us to make to dismiss. I'm going to end up seeing the inside of this courtroom. Right. And I can't do that. I am not going to be. I will never work again if I'm the guy who's trying to defend Alex on this shaky ass ground. Right. So I think those are the most likely possibilities. Although Norm hasn't commented on it. So there's a you know caveat. There's a possibility. There's an entirely other explanation. Yeah. But Alex fucked his wife. I'm going to say that I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying that people are talking Dan. That's what I've been hearing. You you've been talking. I have been hearing many voices. Your self

talk. Many voices all around this great nation. I saw several tweets about it just a week ago. Uh huh. It's true. So whatever the exact reason is that Norm withdrew. The reality is that Alex will now have to get a new lawyer to represent him and his options aren't great. So even if Alex does find somebody else to take on the case, like he's got to now completely get them up to speed. It's a huge hit. Yeah. Norm leaving was a big like Barnes leaving or not being his lawyer anymore was one thing because like he had Barnes and Norm as like a sort of tag team of lawyers. Sure. You know, Norm Norm was his last sort of celebrity lawyer that it was there and doesn't look good. That doesn't. Let's see. Who's a who's

a? Oh, the guy who hates Roger Stone. Bring him back in. Clayman. Yeah. Let's get Clayman in here. Let's really fucking climb. Plumb the depths. We need to go spelunking for how far we seem to forget that Clayman recently sued Alex and Roger. Exactly. I don't think that's why it'd be genius. I don't think that one's going to happen, but it might be one of the few people who are of the inclination to to take on Alex's case. I look at it and I think the most likely thing is probably a combination of the money and the we're going to lose. Yeah, this isn't going to be this isn't worth it for me anymore. That's just my sense of it, but who knows? Also, he can't be thrilled with Rob do's deposition. It might

just be a delayed effect of that deposition. I mean, it might, you know, to me, it's probably like the money is part of it in such a way that the money now allows him to do what he's always wanted to do, which is kick Alex to the curb. You know, now he's always hated Alex, but the money was too good. Now that the money might be even shaky. It's like finally fuck you, man. Yeah, that kind of thing. So we're going to start here on the third, May 3rd, Sunday's show. Alex starts off a little bit wobbly and he's talking about how like the new world order is going to bring in this absolute tyranny. It's going to happen. But the problem is that there's some people who aren't going to go along with the plan, man.

Now, the problem is there is still be a large minority of Americans of every race, color, and creed that aren't going to go along with this, but unless there is a giant awakening now and a total understanding of this fraud, we don't have a snowball chance at hell. We woke the world up. Globalism was in trouble. Freedom brought prosperity. We were turning the tide. The Chinese spies were being arrested. And then the deep state that actually set up the Communist Chinese, the Rockefeller Foundation, who actually ran the whole lockstep program with Bill and Melinda Gates. I'm interesting, public programs to raise a bio weapon and bring in martial law. They're openly saying

that they're going to forcibly inoculate you. And I told you this day one, Bill and Melinda Gates have already patented the vaccine for a weaponized chimera COVID-19. It's already ready. They just want to make you beg for it and plead for it and show that it doesn't look super obvious. They already have it ready, but they actually patented it two years ago. Lockstep isn't a program. And all that other stuff is Alex just making shit up. Yeah. So good. Yeah. Great. Yeah. So there is a bit. There is a bit of news that Alex gets to pretty early on that sounds like a lie, but appears to be based on something that's actually real. And I found this to be pretty scary. I saw ABC News actually come out and report

on the unanimous five eyes saying that it was a bio weapon out of the Wuhan lab. Now we have the author of the U.S. law on bio weapons and a guy that prosecutes dictators joining us the start of the next hour. He came out first in February here. So just real fast, Francis Boyle didn't prosecute any dictators and international court according to his own bio. He was quote involved in developing the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic. No shade on that, but it's not quite the same thing. And Alex is still consistently doing the he developed our law by weapons that then was adopted by the international community as opposed to the inverse. So this is honestly one of the most scary roads I've

traveled down while looking into something for this podcast. What Alex is talking about with the five eyes thing is something real that appears, but what it actually appears to be is terrifying. Over the weekend, Fox News reported on an alleged research dossier that was said to have been put together by the five eyes intelligence alliance. This article on Fox is largely about this report being critical of Chinese actions over the course of the outbreak in terms of the lack of transparency, and of China likely knowing more earlier than they claim to. There's a good amount of discussion of the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But it's also clear that quote, no public evidence has yet been presented to

definitively point to the lab scenario and defense sources who spoke into Fox News say it's being viewed as simply one of two theories about how the outbreak began. The article is pretty explicit that no matter what theory is being believed, the lab or natural origin theory quote, both scenarios are attributable to mistakes. There's no malicious intent behind any of it in the Fox News story. This Fox article is based on an article from the Daily Telegraph, a tabloid out of Australia. The Daily Telegraph is owned by News Cor Australia, whose parent company is News Cor, who also own Fox News. So these are tentacles of the same operation really. So probably wise to view them as similar things in lockstep if you will. This Daily Telegraph article claims that they have

the actual five eyes report and while they did not publish it, the information they claim in it is absolutely terrifying because it sounds like building a case. Reading over this Telegraph article, there's some pretty big red flags. Perhaps the biggest was a reference to the 2015 UNC Chapel Hill study that Alex Yeah, that Alex uses as the pretend origin of the virus. This article doesn't say that this is where COVID-19 was created. But the idea is that it's a part of it. The idea that it's a part of an intelligent assessment that's trying to build a case against China is incredibly scary. Yeah. An article about this in foreign policy made me feel more worried as it discussed this supposed intelligence report that was being touted in the

media. This article points out that three out of the five countries involved in the five eyes, Australia, the UK, and Canada have all been very clear that they do not believe that the virus leaked out of the lab in Wuhan. That leaves us and New Zealand as member states that could possibly subscribe to this theory. And yet this intelligence dossier is being released under the imprint of five eyes, making an argument that a majority of the involved countries do not support. Keep in mind that Alex is specifically reporting this as unanimous, which it is not. I hear a Samba in the distance just gently saying Iraq, Iraq, Iraq all over again. So let's make up a reason to go to war. The foreign policy article points out that everything that is in the

telegraph article from the dossier is stuff that quote consists of open source intelligence, meaning it's readily available online. There's nothing in it that's new or would be indicative of an intelligence product or some sort of secret information. Sure. It's more of a compilation of things you can find online, which sucks. It's a it's a bunch of papers from Alex's desk. You bet. Yep. They spoke with Jessica Davis, who is formerly a senior strategy analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from the article quote Davis said that by pumping up this theory in the media, the Trump administration appears to be trying to draw the five eyes into it. Quote, I don't envy my Canadian former colleagues. Davis said to come out and contradict the White

House position is bad politics for the other five eyes countries. She said quote, but then to let it stand is also unpalatable because then you're being used as a tool of American politicization. It's almost like they did that on purpose. I can't say this with any certainty, but it appears this this appears to me to be an attempt to point a finger at China by using crowdsourced theories about the origins of the coronavirus. I hope it's not. And this is just some kind of unfortunate misreporting by the telegraph. But if it's not, I'm seriously worried about how this all could play out. It would represent the first time I can think of that info wars conspiracy theories made their way into a government intelligence report, which makes me shudder. Now, it's it's totally

great that Mike Pompeo came out on national television and said it was probably China's fault and it was a bio weapon. And the follow up questions where do you have any evidence and the answer was no, not at all. It's probably not a bio weapon, but somehow the media still reports it is. It's great. It's just great, Dan. Yeah, it's just great for people who read headlines. The way to go with that is definitely Mike Pompeo says that it's China's fault, not Mike Pompeo lies to our fucking faces with no information. That's the way to go if you're writing a headline. Yeah, we need we need some real serious proof about these sorts of things that these conversations are happening at this level. And like because you're playing with fire, you're absolutely like you

you risk getting involved in a situation that you're like we're in way over our heads on and it the ramifications of it could be unthinkable. It's ridiculous. So Alex complains in this next clip, but he's been right about Fauci and how they sold the virus to China and all this stuff all along. And because of it, he's got a tail on him. Now we told you that exactly as it happened, precisely as it happened. Not just Oh, I bet Fauci's involved. Oh, we said the exact virus, the Camero showed you the white papers, did dozens of shows on it. And it got the FBI following me around. I mean, that's that fine. Whatever. I mean, that's what goes on in this country. So they're getting ready to general Flynn me. That's fine.

You can't stop all Americans. So let's continue getting ready to general Flynn. I like it. I want to turn that into a verb for sure. I mean, I think what you have here is the continuation of legend building in terms of whenever this all comes to pass whenever his consequences catch up with him. The FBI has been following me around, man. I could also see that being a private investigator. Maybe like that would put out a private investigator on his current wife. Yeah, that's how she got a DUI. So like he had someone following her around. Who knows? Maybe someone's following him around. Yeah. And there's so many lawsuits currently against him. Why? It's not it wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer has hired a private investigator. So yeah, fuck it.

Why not? Yeah, that's a possibility. I mean, we can't concretely say that it's as likely that it is that as it is that he's just making this up in order to create to continue the narrative that allows the end of his career to be a noble thing or something. What's not happening is an FBI agent following him. I would find that hard to believe. Yeah. So in this next clip, Alex takes something that he probably saw on maybe one of his employees, Twitter's and reports it as news. We've got the fraud articles where they're just openly admitting that the CDC's numbers are half of what the media is announcing. Really, there's only 37,000 deaths, and that's with the inflated numbers. That's like a yearly flu. So this was a story that was making the rounds on social media

that the CDC had come out and admitted that instead of over 60,000 deaths in the United States from the virus, the number was actually 37,308. We got him. This claim was taken and repeated over and over again on Facebook and Twitter with no one bothering to check the data where it came from. This was from the CDC's, quote, provisional death counts for COVID-19 tracker. And it's something real that is that is up on the CDC's website. But there's something important to remember here. And it's something that I've brought up in the past a number of times. The CDC's website is not the most up to date or helpful website. That's not necessarily a knock on them. It's just that their process doesn't cater to up to the minute reporting.

And they're not they're perfectly upfront about it. The page that these claims are taken from says very clearly, quote, provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track one to two weeks behind other data for a number of reasons. The reasons listed are, quote, death certificates take time to be completed. State states reported different rates. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. And other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths. They further go on to say they quote provisional death counts are not final and subject subject to change. From the very web page that's being used as a source, the the best claim that

you can make is that the numbers that there are a picture of what is probably about two weeks behind possibly a glimpse into how things looked two weeks ago. If you look at other trackers like worldometers, you can check what the total death count was two weeks ago, and it's pretty close to 37,000. So that kind of makes sense. In two weeks, we can check back on the CDC site and see what they have up. But for now, this is in no way an instance of the CDC cutting their numbers in half as Alex is reporting. Alex just saw a tweet and decided to report it without consulting the CDC page himself to get any further information on the subject. He doesn't care about the stories he's reporting only about advancing the narrative, regardless of how much he has to make up along the

way to a naive listener. Alex is reporting on hard research news. But if you have any idea about the subject he's covering, you'd know that all he's doing is blindly regurgitating viral right wing content. That's factually inaccurate, which is all he's ever done. It used to be drudge headlines and now it's idiocy. One of his interns found on four chain or Twitter. That's what his show is in terms of information. Yeah, yeah, it's a war on it. Oh yeah, it is a war on information. You might say that it is not a it's not an information war. It's a war on information. Destroy it. Reality is nothing. Yeah, very, very fitting name perhaps. So Alex has another article. This one's about the election. It's very exciting. We've got that. And then of course, you didn't just hear this here first.

You heard this here thousands of times that Hillary was going to have a weak candidate up front. Oh, here we go. Convention and then swoop in. Here we go is now reporting officially that that they are considering the plan for Hillary to run but Obama to be her VP. We're not on time. Oh my God, I recall that a lot of the conversation was about Michelle Obama running back when Roger Stone was saying this was the inside baseball before he got arrested. Calm it down guys. So this is just Alex reading a headline of an op-ed in the Hill that literally has an its header quote the views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of the Hill. The headline is quote a Hillary Clinton Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden. Is it even possible? It's a fantastical

opinion piece where the writer is suggesting that if Biden drops out of the race, what would happen? For one thing, it doesn't seem to mention that Bernie won nine primaries this election season. And maybe if Biden were to withdraw from the race, he's someone to be considered. Nope. This editorial is mostly about Andrew Cuomo being a sensible choice or the out of the box idea of Hillary and Obama and then the discussion of could Obama run as a vice president based on the Constitution. Sure. Sure. There's literally nothing to behind this op-ed other than one person's fantasy booking of the election. Yeah. So this op-ed was written by Douglas McKinnon and it would be wise to consider that his bio is included at the end of the article quote Douglas McKinnon,

a political and communications consultant was a writer in the White House for presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. It would also be good to know a little bit about who the guy is before you take this with a without a grain of salt. I don't need to know anything more than writer for Reagan and HW Bush. It's not great. That got it all for me. It's not a good bit of a resume for him to be spouting nonsense about the Democratic candidate. You know, you would think that, but I really do think that now is the time for us to listen to what Republicans have to say about what candidates we should elect. So they've got a great track record. Jordan, you're way ahead yourself. I'm sorry. You should be more mad at this guy and you don't even know. I want to hit

him with a blackjack already. In 2014, McKinnon published a book titled quote to the secessionist states of America, the blueprint for creating a traditional values country dot dot dot now love it. His book was legitimately a call for the South to resucceed largely in response to rising acceptance of LGBTQ folk and create a new country to be ruled by extreme religious right principles. Basically a fundamentalist Christian Caliphate. Cool. His proposed name for the new country was Reagan, which makes sense given that he used to work for Reagan and he's an idiot. He wanted to name the country Reagan. Yep. I really think somebody with ideas that bad needs to be kept somewhere safe. Apparently this country that he wanted to create would be Florida, Georgia,

and South Carolina initially. And then he'd hope other states would get on board. Alex would be disappointed to learn that he specifically left Texas out because quote, there have been a number of incursions into Texas and other places from some folks in Mexico. Of course. Of course. Why would you want Texas in there? Reagan has got to be a fucking armored. Oh God. Probably someone should tell him that Miami Dade County in Florida is the second highest county in the United States in terms of an immigrant population after Los Angeles and Broward County is number 10. Good to know though that his plan is that was based on anti LGBTQ intolerance is also full of overt racism and xenophobia. Yeah, I was thinking of another name. Do you remember? I think they

tried it one time before it was in Africa. It was a they took a whole swath of land from the native peoples there kicked him out and created a white nationalist. What was the name of that, Dan? I'm not sure. I think we should know if I've heard about that. That's probably right. Never mind. I bet this idea is brand new. So McKinnon promoted his book on a right wing radio show and his appearance, which included defending the Confederacy was covered by right wing watch, most likely in response to this horrifically bad press you subsequently fired from his position as a columnist at the Tampa Tribune. Since then, he's been a wingnut conservative writer for places that have low standards like Tucker Carlson's trash rag, the Daily Caller. On January 15 2020,

he posted an article there titled quote, the Red Sox fire Trump hating Alex Cora, giving him time to learn about the issues. This dude is a Trump loving columnist who's largely published in bullshit outlets. So I've absolutely zero doubt about why he would write a column suggesting that Hillary and Obama should replace Biden on the Democratic ticket. It's because they really like yelling about Hillary and Obama and his goal is to stir shit up. It's basically trolling that's been allowed to be published in the Hill, which they absolutely should not have done. Thanks to the Hill. It would be one thing if it was just a random person writing a column, but whether or not it was constitutionally

possible for Obama to run as a vice president. It's another thing to publish this bullshit written by a dude who not six years ago was writing a book encouraging states to secede from the country because he was mad about LGBTQ acceptance. Did the Hill publish that one too? I'm not sure. Maybe they should have. So anyway, my point is that I'm not taking this op-ed all that seriously, but apparently Alex thinks that this dude writing this garbage is the equivalent of the globalists coming out and admitting that this Hillary Obama ticket is their plan. Probably because Alex is dumb and lazy and the optics of this work for his narrative. So whatever. I mean it's almost borderline controlled opposition for Alex kind

of. He wrote that article so Alex could get mad about it. Yeah, yeah. It's a alley you. Yeah, exactly. It really does seem like they're working together on this one. Yeah, I mean obviously and the Hill is fucking us all over. Obviously not actually working together, but but their means work together. Yeah, yeah, whatever they're doing fit together like Lego blocks. Oh yeah, yeah perfectly. Yeah, so it's very stupid. Yeah, it's great. So early on in this episode, Alex decides that, you know, he needs to discuss the fact that everybody's talking about him talking about eating his neighbors. So he gets into that here in this next clip. But when we return, I'm going to respond

to what was one of the biggest stories Friday and Saturday and what trended for two days, number one on Twitter. Alex Jones will eat his neighbors ass. Thanks everybody, by the way. To spend that that it was some sexual reference because that's what's in their mind. It was a allegory that I've a few years a modest proposal. Sure. And I intended for them back on Tuesday to grab it and make a huge deal about it. But yes, you did failure. But then Friday they did grab a hold of it and misrepresented exactly as I thought they would. And so they took the bait beautifully on that. And so now I've been able to have millions and millions of views on other videos we put out

that have been picked up by newspapers where we talked about a modest proposal and how we could expose the absurdity of eating children to expose those that just say let the third world die. I don't believe that this is actually accurate the way Alex is presenting it. I do think that in the moment he was hoping that his dumb cannibalism outburst would get covered in the media and that he'd be able to translate it into a bunch of free press. But I don't believe that there was any satire behind it or any plan to use it to bring attention to the hunger in the developing world. Absolutely. That's just the spin he's come up with once it was already trending and people were making fun of him. It's good spin. It is. Yeah, I can't argue

with that. That doesn't work. But it's it's the best thing he could do given the circumstances. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Ultimately, I do think that he's being sincere when he says that he thought it was a failed attempt to get attention after people didn't cover it on Tuesday and Wednesday. This is why it's really important to view his outbursts through the correct prism. When no one made fun of him, he considered the outburst a failure and a waste of time. He didn't get what he wanted out of it. Now he can pretend that what he wanted out of it was more attention on the videos about world hunger issues to make this seem noble. But that's nonsense. This was always about getting himself attention with the hopes of feeding more people into his

revenue streams. And that's exactly what he got. I am so mad. He said that directly to us. No, I waved his ass in our faces. That was that was a that's not true because we are keenly aware of the things that he's saying already. No, no, I mean that he said it so explicitly the exact the exact thing of how it happened like at least try and lie a little bit. He's at least try and lie a little bit. This isn't the first time he said like that worked exactly how I hope to know. But come on, man. That's not fair. And I don't believe that in the moment he was like really like I'm going to get press out of this. I think as soon as he went to commercial, he was like, man, I hope they cover that. Take it. Take a clip and I could pretend they're taking it out

of context. Yeah. And then when it didn't happen, it is obviously disappointing because that's just money on the table. So Alex talks a little bit about this this rant and I'd hoped not to talk about this more. But the more he talked about it, the more frustrated I got and we'll get, you know, you'll see, you'll see why. He didn't say instead of killing babies, let me eat my neighbor. Absolutely. That was never a piece of the equation. No, that's a completely new element that he's added after the fact in order to try and make what he was saying make some sort of ironic sense or whatever. He's trying to add literary layers to it in hindsight and that's pretty abusive. No, remember what he was saying

is that when we run out of food, I am going to trick my daughters into eating a human being by saying it's beef. That was not a heroic act. We're going to get to it. That was only a part of it. Sure. Sure. There's some. We're going to talk about this way more than I want. Okay. All right. So Alex, when he comes back from break, he does get into this more and he starts talking about some of the actual press that he got because of this like an article in Forbes. Here's Forbes, please don't eat your neighbor. Why? What Alex Jones said is so dangerous. They go on to say he is commanding the people in Michigan who storm the capital. They may start eating people. You talk about satire, but they're writing this as serious. So that Forbes article does not say

that Alex is telling protesters they should eat people. The thesis could probably be summed up in this paragraph from the article. Quote, the real danger, however, probably isn't to Jones's neighbors, but to all of us who might suffer the consequences from the actions of Jones who take his words literally. While millions of Americans have good reason to be concerned about their economic well-being, Jones is tapping into the fear of his listeners and suggesting that violence might be necessary for self-survival. We're living in days when openly armed protesters are storming legislatures, so it's not a far leap to believe that people listening to Jones' extreme exhortations might be further provoked towards fear and violence.

Perhaps they might not see their neighbors as meals, but they might increasingly see them as adversaries in a world of accelerating scarcity. The point of this article is that in times of crisis, it's crucial that we recognize our interdependence and that we see each other as being in this together. Rants about eating your neighbors to feed your children is the sort of thing that's based on the opposite mentality, where you view everyone as on their own and that you are at best a commodity I can use and at worst a threat to myself and my loved ones. The author of the article is really clear about this and even defends Alex's right to say all the dumb and dangerous shit that he does. Quote, although Jones' free speech should,

by necessity, be constitutionally protected, his dangerous messages of distrust and division need to be combated with even louder appeals for solidarity and common cause. When Alex does these publicity stunts, a big downside to responding is that your response will be turned into a straw man that he will use to further radicalize his audience against any non-info war sources of information. I think this Forbes piece makes a great point and I think it's an important thing to remember that it's crucial to look at people around you as collaborators, not competitors or food, but ultimately making that point in response to Alex's rant is probably counterproductive. So like I said, that's what's going to happen. Alex is going to lie about

coverage of his stuff in order to fit it into the mold that he has in order to further insulate his audience and gaslight people who are coming to check him out based on that. So Alex keeps talking about a modest proposal and he said it's one of his favorite essays. I'm not sure he's read it. Now let's get into it. A modest proposal from 1730 was Jonathan Swift and Englobe slash Irish cleric who was so sick of watching people starve to death by the thousands and the English government saying, oh, it doesn't matter, keep their taxes high. He said, well, then let's just tell them to keep their taxes high. Tell them to us and we'll eat them. He describes how to fatten them up, how to butcher them, and it's the most famous piece of satire out there.

So real quick, a modest proposal is from 1729, not 1730. Small difference, but it's one of the indications that Alex probably has no idea about what he's talking about. It seems from Alex is telling the story that he thinks a modest proposal had something to do with taxes being too high, which is not considered to be a mainstream reading of the text, but it does make sense considering that he probably only knows about pamphlet from reading about it in some JBS, John Birch Society book. I mean, like he's talking about beggars and like destitute poor. I don't think taxes are the ones who don't worry too much about taxes. I don't think they're a primary concern. Yeah. So one of the main issues about reading a modest proposal from the academic

standpoint is determining if Swift himself is the speaker in the text or if it's a disconnected persona he's created for the pamphlet. Elizabeth Hedrick explores this question in her piece for the journal studies and philology from fall 2017, which gets into why this is a relevant question. The suggestion of eating the poor relies on irony to be satire. But if it's understood that Swift himself is the one making this proposal, there's a problem with the irony, namely that Swift is well documented as absolutely hating the Irish poor. His writings and sermons have been shown to include quote, angrily blaming the distresses of the Irish poor on their moral failings. You can easily see how the the the if this is the person making the modest proposal,

things get a bit murky. And thus the more widely accepted views of the character speaking in the pamphlet is not the author's voice but fully detached from Jonathan Swift himself. Hedrick argues that the way to bridge these two persona is to consider Swift's other writings, including his particular particularly his non satire pieces, to gain a better understanding of exactly what the target of a modest proposal satire was. Though admittedly there are a lot of barbs going in many directions, taken in the context of his body of work, Hedrick argues that the main thing being attacked in a modest proposal is societal politeness, and the wig assumption quote, that good manners were in a sense transparent rather than performative, a reliable a reliable

sign of one's own innate goodness rather than a pleasing front for malice or aggression. This was a view that Swift quote found ethically simple minded and politically dishonest. The narrator of the proposal is perfectly polite, in juxtaposition with the barbaric suggestion he's making, seeing himself as the savior of the country for proposing a solution that would deal with the problem of poverty. This was mirroring the equally stupid but politely delivered suggestions that polite people were making at the time. And if you consider who Jonathan Swift was and what he believed, it's pretty clear that this is the largest part of what he was satirizing. So essentially he's talking almost about like the difference between Obama and Trump bombing

people. It's like Obama is putting a very calm and polite face on the atrocities that he's committing and Trump is a barbaric monster. He's satirizing the political position that that is a relevant difference. Exactly. That the polite face is more important than the action itself. Right. Right. To an extent. Yes. And that a lot of the things that had been suggested to help with the problem of poverty were awful, unviable, not working solutions delivered politely for the sake of putting a mask on your own nonsense. Yeah. And he sure should did not care about the port. That was not his motivation. He wrote screeds against them, including 1737's quote, a proposal for giving badges to the beggars and all the parishes of Dublin. That piece was very much not satire

and it includes this description of the impoverished quote, they are too lazy to work. They're not afraid to steal nor ashamed to beg and yet are too proud to be seen with a badge as many of them have confessed to me for several years past. I've not disposed of one single farthing to a street beggar nor intend to do so until I see better regulation. And I've endeavored to persuade all my brother walkers to follow my example, which most of them assure me they do for if beggary be not able to beat out pride, it cannot deserve charity. Swift did not care about the well being of the poor. He was offended by the false wig politeness with which solutions to the problem of poverty were suggested. Ultimately, that could have the effect of pushing for actual

solutions that could help the poor. But that doesn't seem to be Swift's primary concern. Yeah. So how does this relate to Alex and his rant about eating his neighbors? Simply put, it doesn't, because nothing Alex did had a point. He's trying to claim that he was making a modest proposal about eating his neighbors to draw attention to the fact that they're people in the developing world starving. But that is completely absent from his actual rant. He was just talking about being willing to eat his neighbors so that his children don't starve. If there's any rhetorical connection to people starving in the developing world, the best Alex could possibly claim is that his words are a condemnation of the people who are parents of

starving children in those countries who don't kill their neighbors to feed their children. But that doesn't seem like the point he was trying to make, but it would track. Yeah, that is a fair. I could. I could read it that way. Yeah, no, no, no, no, you couldn't. No, but I think I will. I think I have. You're welcome. You know what? Actually, you've convinced me, Dan. That was a brilliant piece of satire on Alex's part. I don't think I do think that people in countries should eat their neighbors. I think that that's the best he could do. If you take the position that Swift was really attacking the genteel politeness that was just the pleasing facade that hid people's real cruelty, would it be possible to connect that

with Alex's rant? I still think not. If he were covering the people starving in the developing world and suggested we eat them, then the connection would be really clear. But it doesn't track that yelling about eating your neighbors to feed your child is somehow a suggestion that lampoons the politeness of people who offer suggestions of how to help people in the developing world, but don't actually care. I've really tried to find an angle where it could reasonably be argued that Alex's rank qualified is some kind of purposeful act of irony or satire, and everything I can come up with fails to satisfy the basic qualifications. Also, let's not forget that Alex, you know, he talks about how everyone becomes a cannibal after

like 14, 15 days with no food all the time. It's something that long predates his newfound concern with foreign hunger. And his discussing of his willingness to eat people isn't even really new. On his show from December 16, 2019, he discussed how in a collapse, if people were coming to eat him, he would eat them. In about 10 days of no food, most people become cannibals, about 80% become cannibals. The 20% usually commit suicide. And so, yeah, your kids are starving to death. I wouldn't go out and grab other groups of people and then eat them. But I'm just being honest, we're talking about the lizard brain kicking in the lower brain. I'm just being honest, let's say a rating party comes to your house, tries to eat you during a collapse,

and you haven't eaten in about a week and a half. They're trying to eat you. I'm not going to go out and eat children and stuff, but I'll just gun these guys down, and then I'm going to eat them. So, I mean, it's self-defense cannibalism, but it's still like, he has these fantasies a bit. It's a long way to go to justify you kind of wanting to taste what a human is, you know? Alex doesn't care about people in the developing world that he never has. He supported Ron Paul for most of his career, which is disqualifying when you try to pretend that you're now concerned about the well-being of people in poorer countries. Alex only pretends to care now because he believes that pointing

to people going hungry in the developing world makes his argument about reopening businesses easier. He thinks that it's his trump card. He can play to win any argument by accusing someone of not caring about the people going hungry. If we do get through this virus crisis and things go back to somewhat normal, I bet anything I own that Alex completely forgets about how much he cares about people having food in Africa or South America. He's just a sick fuck who sits around and pretty regularly thinks about how he's going to eat people when shit gets bad, and what he's doing now is just the way Alex is trying to pretend to take a moral high ground after getting a ton of free press, and he's trying to make his unhinged outburst seem like it was

some brilliant piece of art. Also, fun fact, in a modest proposal, Swift totally blames imaginary American for his proposal, quote, I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London that a young healthy child well-nourished at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or ragout. I guess this outlandish idea would come off as more genuine and thus better straight face satire if the idea traced back to an American. Alex should probably reset that if he's ever read it. I mean, if he's if he's doing 1729, then I imagine that the other implication there is that people who live in America are all savages

along with the the Native Americans, that kind of thing. Yeah, that's why other you know back woodsy. Yeah, perhaps I remember that I when I was in what I think 11th grade, my friend and I for our we had to read a modest proposal and do a creative thing on it. So we made a cooking show where we we cooked and ate a baby and it was delicious. It was very good. It wasn't an actual baby good. I'm glad you clarify. I needed to make that point clear because it didn't come off like I was making that point clear. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that's that's what you do in 11th grade. Alex is 46. Yeah, that does seem a little different. Yeah. So Alex is really insistent that this was this Swifty and satire and all that and the media has taken him seriously. But some people got it.

Now a lot of folks did get it. RT got it. It's a Swift reference. Alex Jones says eat my neighbors. Grant was satire to highlight people starving in COVID-19 lockdown. National file got it. So Alex's two examples of people who got it are RT and national file. That's sad. State run propaganda network and basically my run propaganda network. National file is run by Alex's associate and probably employee Tom Pappert. So might as well be in for wars. As for RT, the article Alex is referring to. He read the headline. It's quote. It's a Swift reference. Alex Jones says eat my neighbors. Grant was satire to highlight people starving in COVID-19 lockdown. That headline is not reporting that Alex's rant

was satire. It's quoting Alex's explanation. Yeah. The actual RT article at least twice calls into question if Alex's words were really satire, most directly in this paragraph quote. Notably, Swift's essay is largely about class and the poor being used as commodities in society with little regard for their lives and not about a viral pandemic. But Jones insists that the COVID-19 lockdown will cause more deaths than the actual virus by wiping out the third world and causing millions of poor people to starve to death. This is not about RT getting it. It's an article covering Alex's attempt to explain himself that doesn't actually sound like they're all that convinced. So good. Alex use this as these people get it. Yeah, it is. It does

have the feel of like they're not good. They're they don't buy his argument at all. However, it is very expedient to put the headline up there that makes it look like he's got a defense for himself. Yeah, that that would make the most sense to me. Yeah. So Alex drops this thread for a while. He's he said his piece about the great press that he's getting and all this. Sure. He gets to just ranting about, you know, standard ass coronavirus nonsense. And he basically is going even harder on the all the doctors are partying. Sure. Sure. So when somebody gets in your face about be a hero and, you know, bow to the medical workers, most of them are partying their asses off and the hospitals are empty. That's a fact, folks, because they get $39,000 per COVID patient. Look out, you come in

there with a cold. They're going to snake a thing down your throat, blow your lungs out, kill your ass, and then collect the money on your dead ass. Well, it's nice of them. So now they're going to kill you. Yeah, go to a hospital. So great. That's really dangerous rhetoric. Yeah. Yeah. If you are feeling sick, do not go see a medical professional because they will kill you $39,000. That's what your life is worth. Does Alec? I mean, I don't know if he understands how medical work works. He absolutely does not. Does he? Does he think that these hospitals, even if they're getting $39,000 for these patients, do you think that's more than normally operating hospitals would be bringing in? Of course. This is it's the COVID bump. It's everybody's everybody's inflation. Ridiculous.

Pretty, pretty fucking ridiculous. So Alex, he, like I said, he's done, he was done with the thread of defending his cannibalism comments, but he's never really actually done because he gets into like behavior that I would say he's clearly begging people to write more articles about it. It was a total collapse and everything. You're right. I won't, I won't eat full grown adults because they're, they're good. I will go out with the left and I will eat babies or I will support Governor Northam when he says, keep babies alive instead of just harvesting their organs. I'll go out of the hospital and we can, and then I'll buy aborted babies to eat them. Now the headline will be Alex Jones wants to buy aborted babies and eat them. No,

that's what Governor Northam does. He keeps them alive. He takes their organs because it's real. Everyone says it's good and loving, but because I'm pointing out how evil they are and trying to save people, I'm the bad guy. That's how the delusion works with the corporate media. Speaking of food, the whole civilization is designed to collapse. The depression continues. We'll be dying like people in the third world. So don't eat your neighbors and don't eat your, never do that. I would take God damn it. No, ladies and gentlemen, get high quality, horrible food, which we have now available again. What a dick, man. Yep. Yep. That's what it's all about. Yep. That's all the game is.

You can see it pretty clearly there. If you can't turn it into an ad, what are you doing? What's even what do you do it? Yeah, what's the point? All it's all just flowing downhill till it gets to this point. Yeah, that's the game. Yeah. So Alex says Francis Boyle on the show and who cares? It's mostly pretty standard stuff, but I do think that this clip is pretty interesting. At the beginning of the show, we talked about how Alex was saying that the CDC admitted that there's they doubled the number of deaths. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Boyle has a very different perspective. And we have to understand that that I think President Trump has to come to grips with that. We're at war with COVID. It's

existentially dangerous. The figures we are being given on casualties are completely bogus. The Financial Times last week ran an article on excess casualties that the real figures here are not the reported casualties, but the excess casualties. And they went country by country. And the excess casualties were twice the reported casualties. So I think that's probably what what has happened here in the United States as of today. We're being told it's only 64,000 people who are dead. Well, excess casualties, no one's given us a figure on that. My guess it's it's twice what what we are being told. And these officials at CDC and many of the others are just downplaying what we are really facing, Alex. Most experts who have commented on the

situation with the coronavirus have said that in all likelihood, the numbers that we have are underestimating the actual number of deaths as opposed to overestimating them. I'm not sure if the conclusion that Boyle is coming to here is accurate, but it's worth pointing out that what he's saying is a direct contradiction of the things that Alex claimed to know for a fact earlier earlier in the episode. He reported that the CDC was admitting that they'd exaggerated their death count by doubling it, but here Boyle is saying that it's probably the exact opposite. Both of them are dealing with a factor of two. Let's not worry about how they're using the math. It's either one half or twice as much. It's the same basic concept. So the Financial Times article he's

referencing looked into statistics of how many more deaths had been reported in the week ending April 17th. From the article, quote, in that week, 22,351 deaths were registered in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. The highest figure since comparable weekly data started in 1993 and worse than any figure in similar data of the past 50 years. The average for the comparable week from 2015 to 2019 was 10,497. From that data, there's a conversation that seems to suggest the death toll might be much higher than is being reported in England and Wales. The total of 27,015 more deaths than the five-year average being between the beginning of March and April 17th. It's too premature to draw too many conclusions

from this data, but it's definitely notable and something that demands further exploration. This article doesn't go through country by country. It's just about the discrepancy that the Financial Times found in England and Wales. However, there was a separate Financial Times article that looked at the overall fatalities during March and April across 14 different countries. This article was published on April 26th and found 122,000 excess deaths in these countries, as compared to the average number of expected deaths during that time frame. This was compared to the approximately 77,000 reported COVID-19 deaths at that time, which they suggest could mean that the official numbers are pretty low. They go on to suggest that if the same pattern of underreporting

were to be universal across the world, there could be as many as 117,000 unreported COVID-19 deaths that we're not capturing in official statistics. This, again, is something that needs further study, but it's definitely hard to look at some of the data they present about how much higher the number of deaths are in various places than the normal average numbers and even higher than the average plus the official COVID-19 count and not think that something's being missed there. It's tough to explain, but it requires further explanation. It's hard not to account for the extreme political desire that people would have for underreporting. In the two eyes and three nays report, it does seem like they're blaming China

for withholding information about that and trying to downplay the severity of the threat, as though that isn't exactly what Trump did at the same time, almost simultaneously. The idea that these two governments— China did it at first. Yeah, great. The idea that these two governments are going to report things honestly is utterly—you can't believe it. It's simply not possible to believe. Maybe it is true. Maybe they are reporting it, but believing it without absolute information seems ridiculous. They've lost all benefit of the doubt in regards to lying directly to our faces. Speaking of people who don't have the benefit of the doubt, we got Alex Jones. Here's the last clip from May 3rd, and it's Alex talking

about his cannibalism comments more. And this one really set me off. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, Alex Jones here, and I don't try to get up here and say sensational things just to say it when I'm covering serious news. Sometimes I do satire. Like last Tuesday, I picked up Friday. It was the number one thing on Twitter for two days, where I said, I'm not going to eat people's children during a collapse. I'm going to eat my neighbors. Then I went on to explain I was doing a Jonathan Swift allegory, but the— Oh, did you? Oh, did you? Just a minute of it out of context. But I knew they'd do that, and people then came and found

the truth of what I was talking about. So, Jordan, I'm sorry about this in advance, but like I said, that clip really set me off. Holy shit. I'm set off. That is such a brazen act of gaslighting that it triggered a bit of a pointless exercise on literary criticism that we're about to embark on that I view as equal parts illuminating and completely pointless. All right. I went back and listened to the entire cannibalism rant again, and at no point did Alex ever say that he was suggesting he'd eat neighbors instead of eating children. That is absolutely not a part of his rant. He's just making that up. Also, at no point did he say he was doing a

Swift-style allegory or whatever he's pretending now. That's bullshit. In fact, multiple times, he says, I'm not joking. No, he says it multiple times. And when he does say that he's joking, he's saying it very obviously to suggest that he's not. So, I was listening back to it, and I kind of realized that if we accept what Alex is saying, that, you know, it was satire, it's essentially impossible to discern what his point was. That's because the approximately four-minute rant has a number of tonal shifts within it, where he's talking about this theme of eating people from completely different standpoints.

It starts with him talking about how in the Great Depression, people were more self-sufficient than we are now. And as we know, Alex believes that fake statistic about seven million people starving in the Great Depression, which he doesn't bring up, but it's clearly in his mind. This is where things begin, at which point he says that he's willing to eat his neighbors. This is clearly meant to be a declaration of how tough and survival-ready he is. There's clearly nothing more to the conversation at the beginning than this. He's clear that this is about his children not starving and whatnot, but it's all just I'll kill and eat humans to survive type bragging.

It's conversation about how he's been looking at his neighbors and wondering if he would kill and eat them, and he's decided he will. This section of the rant could be seen as satire possibly of how stupid preppers are, and how they have these survival fantasies that are more based on things they want to live out as opposed to realistic scenarios that may come to pass. But I don't think that's the intent. There's zero chance that this section of the rant could be interpreted as any other kind of satire. There's just nothing going on there other than violent fantasy ranting. This goes on for about a minute and a half before Alex gets a light in his eye and shifts things, saying, that's why I want you globalists to know I'll eat your ass first.

This section of the rant completely abandons the idea of feeding his hungry children, and now eating people has become a specifically violent act. He mumbles his murder fantasies about getting his hands around globalist throats and said he's going to eat them because they didn't accept Christ. It's clearly cannibalism that's meant as a punishment where Alex is the instrument of punishment. During this section, the notion of eating people for sustenance is completely forgotten. He does. He did forget that that then it turned it went from defensive to offensive very quickly. Yeah. About 40 seconds later, he returns to the idea of his children starving. So he's spinning two plates at the same time. He's ranting about eating his neighbor

to feed his children and also eating a globalist as a religious punishment. At that point, Alex says you could quote take this as a metaphysical hypothetical, but it's not really. And he says that we need to get over the jokes. Alex is bad with words. So metaphysical hypothetical in this context probably just means hypothetical. He's expressing that this is not hypothetical. It would be like if there was a line in a modest proposal where Swift just throws in. I know this sounds like satire, but it's not hold on guys real quick act break. Just going to put this in as a side like it's a it's a David Foster Wallace note. Yeah, it's a convoluting influence and it serves to muddy the performance considerably if he actually has some kind of

intent behind it. After Alex says that he's serious, he rambles about how actuaries show that after seven days, everyone kills for food. And after 14, most people are cannibals. This is the introduction of a made up thing, but it's something that's very real in Alex's world. He's using sources that are real to him and his audience to justify the act of eating people. Alex says that he would commit suicide before eating people, but his children are his quote weak place. So now we're back to this being about eating his neighbor to feed his kids. And it appears the entire section about eating a globalist to show them how they're wrong about God is supposed to be ignored, which is not the mark of a master craftsman. Then 30 seconds later,

Alex gets back to punishment cannibalism, talking about how the spirit cookers out there are drinking blood and how he's going to drink their blood. He says that it'll cut them into filet mignon before watching his daughter starve, which is weird because now these two different contexts of eating people are getting mingled together when they're very different ideas that he's been juggling. From this point on through the rest of the rant, nothing makes sense because it's two different discreet ideas that are being combined. There's the notion of eating his neighbor for survival and the notion of relishing eating a globalist. These are not the same ideas, but they're being combined. So he's saying he'll barbecue your leftist ass so the kids won't start.

It's convoluted. This kind of only makes sense if his neighbor is also a globalist that he's going to eat his punishment, but only once he runs out of his storable food. That's another point as to why this isn't satire. Alex explicitly says that he won't have to eat his neighbor for a few years because he has a lot of storable food. If this truly was something that was meant to be swiftly in satire, how does that element factor into it? According to Alex's own narratives, by the time he's out of survival food, the people in the developing world will not need to be helped in any way. It'll be too late. They will have already eaten each other. Well, I mean, because they don't all have storable food. The crisis that he's talking about is already

past the point man in two years. This is going to be such good satire. And even if any of this is connected a couple years down the road, he eats his neighbor because he's run out of storable food. That does nothing. You know that'll save the hungry. Yeah, that is absolutely nothing to help out people in the developing world. Oh, thank God. Alex ate his neighbor or a globalist. No, you got to understand and it's just like Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do. You have to attack while defending and defend while attacking. That's the trick. You're saving your daughter's life and you're punishing the globalists all at the same time doesn't work doesn't work brilliant. So that detail, though, of I won't have to do this for a few years because I've got survival

food. That's a fingerprint that Alex is just spitballing and making shit up as he goes along. He realizes in the middle of his violent rant that he sells storable food. So he needs a caveat or else he might get a phone call from my Patriot supply asking him why he's promoting a different disaster nutritional plan when he's a paid shill for them that you can kind of tell that's what's going on there. So at the end of the rant, Alex says what comes closest to being what I think he thinks is poignant. He says that quote before I live off starving Africans and Latin Americans, I swear to God, I will eat one of the globalists on a spit before doing his throw to commercial making fun of the idea that people call him a performance artist. The performance artist thing

taken in the context of Alex's show is meant to be a signifier that he's not a performance artist. It began in his custody hearing a few years back when his lawyer argued in court that his show should not be used to determine custody because on air he's playing a character. Alex got mad about that. And since then, he's gotten really defensive when people say he's a performance artist. So when he goes to break saying something like that, winkingly saying I'm a performance artist, I'm as fake as they come, regular listeners know exactly what that's code for. As to the idea of that last line being about starving people in the developing world in Africa and Latin America, that's cool. But it doesn't relate to literally anything he said

up to that point. You can't just tag an unrelated line on the end of something and then pretend that everything before it relates when it doesn't. Also, what is living off starving Africans and Latin Americans mean to Alex? It would be interesting to hear him explore that concept and, you know, wrestle with how he could have ever supported politicians who use fiscal arguments to decrease both foreign aid as well as nutritional assistance programs domestically. I'd like to see him discuss this a little bit more. Hey, Ron Paul doesn't want to eat people from developing nations. He just wants them to starve on their own two feet. Pull yourselves up by your own cannibalism. That's what Ron Paul was really all about. Anyway, this critical

reading has gone on far too long, but I just realized when I re listened to the rant that one of the primary reasons that it fails as both a straightforward argument as well as in terms of satire is because it has no consistent theme to what cannibalism means in the context of the speech. This is a really important aspect to why some satire, like a modest proposal, works and this doesn't. If Swift had spent part of his pamphlet arguing politely that people should eat poor children to eliminate poverty and also had chunks where he descended into fantasies about how you could eat those kids because fuck them, no one would hold that up as a coherent piece of writing. Satire is intensely difficult because it requires a precision that most people aren't

capable of and you can definitely count Alex among such people. I am furious that the right wing even knows the word satire because they are incapable of it and yet they keep trying to use it as though they know what it means. You guys don't have any fucking clue what satire is. It's fascinating. You are satire. It is impossible to parody you because you are you are parodies of yourselves. Yeah, you embody the thing that you are incapable of understanding. It's infuriating which could be satire. I mean if I if I wrote Alex's rant as a satire of what of him then yes that would make sense. Yeah, and but even then I would do it poorly because I would try and have a consistent theme. Well that wouldn't be the shape it would take no probably no and I really did

sit with this for a long time last night really trying to figure out a way to fix it like fix his way and make it do some punch up but I really couldn't come up with like a coherent way that you bridge the gap. What he's trying to say is like instead of satire publicity stunt yeah like what he's trying to say is I did something like as a spectacle in order to get eyes on my product yeah and then he's rationalizing it by saying what I really wanted people to pay attention when they came was me talking about people who are starving in the developing world he's trying to say that it's satire but it's really just I yelled into a bullhorn it's not satire it's he's a disingenuous opportunist yeah that's that's the opposite of satire yeah so the fourth

monday comes around and this episode's trash yes aboves really not good on star wars day yeah may the fourth was not with him however you phrase that yeah it's bad it's really bad and guess what we start in familiar territory now let me get into this because I want to cover this right now cannibalism was a big controversy when I came out last tuesday and I was going along with the satire oh going along with it 1730 saying he would eat irish children because the irish were subhuman because no one was taking care of the irish it was overtaxing them and over regulating them and they were starving to death over regulating the irish because he was irish he said how about we just start eating the irish babies and he published it like he was serious and it's

the most famous satire in the world so I did a whole piece showing real articles from the un about 30 plus million starving to death right now 135 million set to starve to death I played the head of the world food program talking about it and then I said well fine once all the food runs out I'll just eat my liberal neighbors knowing they'd pick it up but they edited it down to one minute I did it to draw attention to the starvation because when the first world collapses the third world dies that's a catch phrase that alex is trying to push on this episode pretty clearly and also again alex knows nothing about swift like if anything he wanted a higher regulation of the poor he wrote that uh proposal to give badges to the beggars like that that is specifically

a control regulation in some ways he was asking for the mark of the beast to be applied to the beggars he did not like the poor at all from that proposal to give badges pamphlet quote as a great part of our public miseries is originally owing to our own faults I'm so I am confident that among the meaner people 19 and of in 20 of those who reduced to starving condition did not become so by what lawyers call the work of god either upon their bodies or goods but merely from their own idleness attended with all manner of vices particularly drunkenness thievery and cheating he has disdain for the poor there was a one of my favorite lines a there's a really good book called futuristic violence and fancy suits by david wong and one of the one of my favorite

lines is when the main character just says the rich always think they can starve the poor into the behavior that they want and it's just such that kind of shit of like if we just fuck them over enough they'll do what we say and for swifter was they'll wear the bag exactly or whatever exactly and let's not even get into the topic of jonathan swifts feeling us about foreign beggars who he calls evil in an infestation and suggest they be quote driven or whipped out of town whoa are you saying that a british aristocrat in 1729 or no 1737 or whenever this was public that was yeah 1737 for the second one yeah so you're saying that he did not have a positive view of foreigners that's wild sounds a lot like alex that sounds wild right yeah he's a non-ironic

treatise on giving badges to the poor are very alexian very similar to a lot of ideas out alex doesn't understand the underlying satire of the piece he's trying to pretend he's emulating and perhaps more importantly he's completely lying about his presentation this is all just a pathetic act of gaslighting his audience and he's trying as hard as he can to keep this story alive he saw good returns from it so he's just begging people to keep giving him that attention that he needs yeah and honestly the thing that's probably most offensive about it is his attempt to use this in some way to further use the plight of people in the developing world as a prop for his own purposes he's cheapening that by virtue of the way he's incorporating it as his pretend motivation

behind his rant it's all very offensive really when you get down to it and all very sad i give it a week before trump comes out and says we need to reopen the economy in order to help other countries i would i give it a week i i think that it's the way you make that argument yeah and actually we don't have any clips of it because i don't really care but alex talks to alan keys on this episode for like an hour and he's kind of he's kind of making that same sort of argument it's like yes we are fine with distancing and closing businesses because we don't want to hurt other people that's the america like we're not scared but we don't want to hurt other people and so if you make the argument that are going back and getting sick is better for everyone yeah

people will want to do that he kind of has that sort of sense and we don't have any clips of it because it's really boring and i don't i don't really like alan keys but there's a sense of like throughout that interview and most of the first i'm sorry the fourth that is very much this like we've got to get back we've got to go back to work you know you've got to you know and i think that what's being expressed is a real desire for this to be over and i think that there is a feeling that alex and his guests are presenting that they seem to think that there are people who don't want this to be over yeah and i don't know any such people i don't know who those people are i think everybody wants this to end and i kind of feel like this is basically like a

bad trip you know like i i took acid when i was younger and i had a bad trip it wasn't a terrible bad trip like some people have but it was pretty bad and one of the things that allowed it to not be so bad and i've talked to other people who've done far more psychedelics than i have and this is something that rings true with a number of people i've spoken to is that i recognized that i'd taken a drug and i accepted the terrible things that i was experiencing and knew that this is going to end eventually yeah you get into more trouble in situations like that if you fight against it if you feel the need to argue and try and fight with the ghosts that are are yeah you know whatever yeah and so what's going on is i think that you see these different reactions

to what is essentially uh overwhelming inconvenience a bad trip is an overwhelming inconvenience that you have no control over and you have to ride out it will end you can make it worse when i you know maybe extend it i don't know i don't know the pharmacology of it i have no idea but you know it's the same thing with this circumstance that we find ourselves in everybody is having a metaphorical bad trip and you can either choose to go along with it except that this is like yep this is just something that is there is a point when we will be through this yeah um but if you the people who are fighting against all of this like alex insisting we need to go back to work prematurely and all this they are the people who are fighting and are going to

make it all worse they are the people who are going to make the bad trip hellish as opposed to inconvenient and bad there are problems that you have to deal with along the way obviously but there are problems that aren't being solved by actions of people like alex that was just just a sort of thought that i had i couldn't shake it's it's i think we're in a situation where we have to recognize that height has nothing to do with whether or not you're an adult and we continue to treat these people as though they're adults and they are not we we do not want you don't want to argue with these people you they need a daycare they need they need somebody who knows how to deal with children because we also need to eliminate financial incentives to act

like totally totally i mean it's it's just so i of course you want this to be over so take the steps necessary for it to be over right because the steps you're taking make sure that it never fucking ends it does so if you want it to be over then it has to end it you can't just say it's over and that's the magical thinking that we're dealing with it's just like oh if we say it's over then it will be over well i think one of the problems too is that they recognize that if everybody cooperates and goes along with things you know the measures that we've been taking um that there's a good chance that eventually we will get through this and that doctors will make some breakthroughs that are able to move maybe it is a vaccine i don't know but you know

and that is a nightmare for them because the possibility that doctors the evil people in their in their heroes end up being able to help us return to more of a normal state of affairs that works totally against everything they need to be there so i think that there's part of it that might even just be subconscious that is hoping to sabotage that yeah yeah if the government is the solution then that's a refutation of everything they've ever believed right even if it is a weird government yeah even if it's even if it's the worst government in history even if it's anything if government is the reason that we get through this yeah then everything they've ever believed about fucking whatever i in rand can go fuck itself yep and then they would rather die than be wrong

yep and alex would rather die than actually read and a short pamphlet that is exactly the case so i've noticed and i haven't brought this up because i thought it was maybe a little bit gauche um but i've noticed that alex has been coughing a bit on air um and alex brings that up and it's interesting what his interpretation of this is speaking of uh covid 19 i don't cough like this except when i'm in this new studio and i think we should have the air conditioners checked in here because my wife was watching the show last night the sunday show she's like gonna keep pausing the cough and yeah it's it's when i come in here maybe it's because the air conditioner's right above me but it just makes my makes me cough and it makes my bronchial seas up so we need to have

these air conditions and air conditioners inspected or looked up there's something something's going on i think that alex is trying to put in place a possible other explanation in case he ends up getting covid 19 from going to all these rallies because certainly you wouldn't want that to be the uh the optics of it that yes we went to all of these open everything up rallies and then your hero with the bullhorn shaking everyone's hands ends up getting sick yeah no no someone's put something in the air conditioning unit or whatever gotta be now i don't know if alex is sick i have no idea but i'm only bringing this up because he brought it up and from my understanding of listening to alex and knowing how his narratives work that feels to me like preemptive just in case

yeah kind of thing like he has been coughing a bit on air yeah and this would be a good way for him to have a a story in place in case he gets sick maybe just call it mold sure yeah toxic mold yeah he's got mold can't go on air yeah sure he's hospitalized for a few days but that's no big deal it's mold so he gets to talking about this and how he uh has probably has throat polyps um and uh he probably should get surgery about it but he can't because then he'd be off air because he couldn't talk for a few days he's gonna have some time he might where is my this is not a plug but it is a plug oh yes i forgot about this this little lung lung cleanse huh they're good people have been saying to they noticed that my uh i saw nurses and stuff on the website last night going how much

you've got polyps on your larynx i guarantee you've got to get that checked we're like do you have throat cancer you know i have not had a checkup since uh i was like 42 and i definitely screamed too loud a lot of demonstrations over the years and so that's why my voice got very very deep this is not a put on with my voice and it it does need a good rest at some point but i'm told if i do have polyps which i undoubtedly do it would put me out for up to six weeks of not being able to talk if i had the polyps removed and that my voice would be a lot better but i do think i need to go get a checkup because it is going from being very deep very baritone to sounding like rocks being put into a blender so i am aware of that and uh a lot of folks like my voice i personally

don't like it and so maybe i should start just speaking the very front of my mouth like this right whisper because uh that's what's happening to my voice and i apologize for it but that's just the way it is and it gets exacerbated with whatever is in this room by the way i guess i'll turn this into a plug most oh if you have to throat or palate cleanser while i'm here one or two essential oils or some menthol and then something about alcohol this is incredibly thick syrupy so sometimes you got to pull the top off under hot water to it's all just a plug for his lung cleanse that's gross yeah it is really gross what he just described is gross yeah yeah pretty gross also go to the doctor alex oh but he's probably worried that they'll call it covet 19 and kill

him for thirty nine thousand dollars or something and if a nurse is on the info wars website alleged nurse that's wolf yeah oh boy i don't want to go to that hospital so like i said the episode ends with the interview with allen keys and it's not important but also the second hour of the show is almost entirely and like an hour of david ike being interviewed on that london real show they did their third interview in that series or whatever sure it's stupid and i don't care about it but it's kind of funny the way alex is presenting it he's talking about how great it is that london real is setting up their own platform where the main can't censor things like this david ike interview and how you have to support that simultaneously alex is insistent that people watch this london

real interview on band dot video which is literally driving traffic away from london real towards alex's own platforms and alex is playing almost the whole interview on his own show hey you got to you got to watch it on both stand support everybody you got to get those views got to get those clicks write an article in the hill doesn't matter alex is expressing that you need to support this thing just enough to profit off of it which is kind of his mo yeah again this is an interview where david ike is arguing that there actually is no virus which is an absolute and complete contradiction of everything that alex is claiming to know definitively alex should not be promoting this interview without also taking issue with the things david is is saying and deconstructing how

he's wrong if you're listening to alex's show you're hearing him yell about how the virus is a bio weapon created by fouchy and the chinese and simultaneously hearing him promote and tacitly support david ike saying that the virus is completely made up alex tries to get around that's glaring problem with stuff like this i agree with 99 of what he's saying other than just you know deny there's any virus at all no they they had to release a simulant virus that does kill some people so that they can encounter it with their vaccine but this is dead on stay with us so the problem here is that the disagreement that alex and ike have uh that they seem to have it shouldn't be a matter of opinion whether or not there actually is a virus alex claims that all

the things he's covered about the coronavirus are proven and absolutely factual so his position should be that ike is wrong alex had david ike on his show recently and the two are in contact so alex has had every opportunity to correct ike about this clear misconception that he has about the virus being fake that hasn't happened and there's a good reason as to why alex isn't concerned with the truth because if he was he would have debated david ike on the virus's reality when he was on the show and one of two things would have happened he would have either convinced ike at which point ike would stop this bullshit or he would have failed to convince ike which would have to lead to the pretty clear conclusion that ike isn't interested in living in reality and maybe a whole

lot of his other ideas should be treated like they're coming from the same brain that insists that there is no virus but really neither of these outcomes are good for business if alex convinces ike that he has to stop saying that there's no virus then ike loses the thing that makes him stand out in this time of craziness his position in the market greatly decreases because he's staked a claim that was demonstrably wrong and he's had to admit he was wrong having been outwitted by fucking alex jones of all people yeah that'd be a real bummer for him that doesn't work for him conversely if alex fails to convince ike and has to conclude that ike is a delusional weirdo who's expressing dangerous ideas for no reason alex can't co-op the attention david ike is

getting for making these insane claims alex needs all the attention he can get at this point when david ike is exactly the sort of weirdo you can count on to say something stupid when the going gets tough each of these possibilities would hurt one of their abilities to run their game and thus it's not something that can really happen whether or not there is a virus should be a foundational primary disagreement between them which should have to be resolved before you can get into anything else if david ike is right then every corona virus conspiracy alex has claimed to have proven falls apart immediately so it's not something that you should be so quick to wave off as a small one percent of david ike's comments that he doesn't agree with it's not disagreement it should be

things that alex knows david ike is wrong about and if he cared at all about conveying accurate information he would have corrected ike about this when he was on the show that blows up the game though so alex alex punts and gives lip service to disagreeing about that and praises ike generally so he can continue to profit off of the negative attention that david ike is getting right now that's how this game works it's all it's all maximize our outcomes and not do anything that explicitly ruins one of our ability to grift yep and the ultimate side effect of that is also beneficial to them which is destroying any trust in anything as long if even the people you trust have a completely fundamental disagreements that nothing matters inherently contradictory yeah

alex has france's boil on the show on sunday to say that there's double the deaths we think well alex is reporting as proven fact that there's actually half the deaths that we report on monday alex has david an hour of david ike's interview saying that there is no virus while he's saying like i disagree with that little detail yeah yeah that one that one tiny little thing nothing makes sense we have meanwhile alex is lying about his cannibalism rant throughout most of this yeah it's just the show's dumb the level of gaslighting that we live through on a daily basis now i feel like we're living in groundhog day where from day to day nothing that happened yesterday has any effect on today there's no narrative consistency nothing every single day there's a new thing that

is like yeah that's probably not true and then you find out it's not and then the next day no one's held accountable for lying so they just do it all over again i think part of that is because trump is president and because we focus on alex jones we probably feel it far more intensely than probably someone who doesn't do this yeah and so it can it can impact more but yeah i i i think it's it's tough and um yeah i don't know i was um i was kind of disappointed that his monday show was an hour of david ike and an hour of alan keys because that's like nothing for me i don't i don't care at all so i mean a lot of this is um it seems like he's really trying to keep the cannibalism story alive because it's his best play to get eyes on his shit yeah yeah he get it's not going to

work though the only reason that it did get him attention was because he meant it because he wasn't doing any fake satire bullshit yeah it's because everybody saw that clip and were like that is a genuine moment of a man saying that he is going to eat people right and so everything after that is going to be manufactured and disingenuous yeah yeah and it's going to be diminishing returns he's going to he probably is a giant spike and then i mean i i do think that there will be a small amount of people some percentage that he'll be able to sway sure but i don't think it'll be all that much now i think it'll be a flash in the pan and i don't know what else you can do like i keep saying this whatever he does stuff like this like i don't know what the

next outburst is going to be yeah yeah it was like how do you like the public's attention is now at the level of alex said he'll eat his neighbors if he says something like i'll beat up a stranger nothing no one cares he's got to buy a rocket something like that yeah he's got to buy he's got to buy something big something stupid something flashy because he can't talk about a tank i know he bought a tank but that was that wasn't flashy that wasn't flashy that was black it was a little flashy it needs something with a ring it was garish i will give you that it was yeah i don't i don't know what his strategy for attention is uh moving forward actually eat his neighbor maybe try and settle the sandy hook loss nothing would be more satirical than actually

eating your neighbor at this point right maybe that's what satire is deciding he's going to defend like represent himself in the sandy hook that's what he's going to have to do oh god that would be a disaster rob do should do it yes yes absolutely so i guess i think that our next episode is going to be maybe some fireworks because by the point that monday's episode was happening um alex didn't at least the news hadn't broken that norm had left the case yeah so the some of that stuff is increasing frustration i do think that towards the middle of this week you're probably going to end up seeing some mass so i'm sticking around this present and and hoping that i don't have to do another literary deconstruction of alex's cannibalism

rant because i am i'm done with it i'm done if he brings it up again yeah i'm not going to discuss it i've said far more than my piece and i'm sorry if anybody uh is is you've said everything that needed to be said and a little bit more for good measure which i think i appreciate so we'll be back uh jordan but until then we have a website we do have a website it's now trite dot com you bet we're also on twitter we are on twitter is that now there's just provided i go to bit jordan uh we are also on facebook indeed we are and if you'd like to download the show video itunes liberate leave review go to the patreon or if you could please donate to a local charity in your area uh that would be very appreciated you bet uh we'll be back but until then i'm neo i'm

leo i'm dzx clark i'm whoo whoo nope trying to make a pun of taylor jonathan swift jonathan taylor thomas swift i can't do it anyway we'll but see you andy and chanzas you're on the air thanks for holding so alex i'm a first time caller i'm a huge fan i love your work i love you