Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2020 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:46

The Fetz Presents (22 September 2020): Mark Anderson

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, okay.
	Okay.
	Bonus turned down.
	Very good.
	Okay, I'm gonna make sure that we can be heard here.
	That's a good thing.
	Ah, there we go.
	Okay.
	No, I think we're okay.
	I'm going to give it a try, Mark.
	Here we go.
	This is Jim Fetzer for the Fetz Presents, where I have as my featured guest this evening an investigative journalist of considerable standing and credentials.
	He's been a longtime roving reporter for the American Free Press, which may be the last real American newspaper left.
	With press credentials on Capitol Hill, apparently the only alternative media reporter who has those credentials, who specializes in Bilderberg coverage, follows the global cities movement via coverage of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and other key think tanks in the global grid.
	He's also done exclusive work looking at various pivotal, sometimes mysterious events, such as the November 17th church massacre at Sutherland Springs.
	Yes?
	John, I'm only here, my friend.
	I'll call you.
	I'll call you.
	My best efforts, my best intentions.
	I thought it might have been someone telling me that there was no sound, which may or may not be the case, but we're recording in any.
	And he has his own show on R.B.N.
	Stop the presses.
	I like R.B.N.
	Mark, my very first radio show was on R.B.N.
	Danny had signed me up.
	All right.
	John Stattmiller fired me on the air because I was talking about Hillary Clinton
	and explaining why it didn't matter, it seemed to me, if she were a lesbian or not.
	He called me up in the middle of the broadcast and said, Vetser, I'm gonna ask you a question
	and you gotta tell me the truth.
	I said, sure.
	He said, are you a liberal?
	I found this very funny, Mark, because the very first show I'd done,
	I talked about how I believe that everyone deserves representation,
	not just the rich, and that I consider myself to be a JFK, FDR liberal.
	Today, of course, the Democratic Party has long since left me, and I'm a very staunch supporter of our president, Donald Trump.
	But in those days, John was very unhappy that I should say anything that neutral about Hillary Clinton, and he fired me on the spot.
	Oh, ouch.
	Very funny.
	But I like R.B.
	Endon.
	I'm frequently back with Rick Adams, for example, and I believe you interviewed me not so long ago.
	Yeah, you've been on there once in recent years.
	Yeah, I've done different shows on there starting in 2008 and there was a hiatus and then I came back in late 2018 to RBN.
	Very good, very good, very good.
	Well, I've had shows on RBN, on GCN, on, you know, a bunch of others, and, you know, it's kind of crazy, but I've had about eight different radio or video shows thus far.
	Who knows what the future may hold?
	Tell me, you know, you're in the category of investigative journalist and really, frankly, the mainstream no longer cares about investigative journalism.
	I think they just don't need to know the facts.
	They don't need real, accurate information any longer because they have devolved to nothing more than propaganda organs.
	Would I have that roughly right?
	Oh yeah, I call it the mass media cartel.
	Not only is it a propaganda organ, it's an organ with one view and one view only.
	Even Fox News has the same exact data and opinion on the data about COVID-19, for example.
	So people might see a ray of light with Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity on Fox News, Laura Ingram, but it's only to a point.
	The same propagandistic information is out there about COVID.
	about the wars of interventionism that America's been carrying out under the neoconservative banner and under the internationalist banner and the globalist banner.
	So all the media is of one mind and that suggests they're a cartel.
	In other words, they share a common philosophy and act like they're opponents or rivals when in fact They're really just one voice, and it's the wrong voice, and it's steering us the wrong way.
	That's extremely interesting, because...
	Tucker's the one show I regularly recommend.
	He's been setting records, you know, for cable television the first quarter.
	He averaged over 4 million on one of his recent shows.
	He had 4.8.
	Right.
	I've long sensed, Mark, that he was a little naive when it comes to conspiracies.
	On the other hand, you know, he cuts through more smoke and mirrors than anyone else out there.
	I rank Laura second.
	Kennedy, a bit of a distant third, except that he has these interviews with the president that makes him valuable as a conduit of information, where, you know, I've really found this whole Trump phenomenon to be utterly fascinating.
	Oh, sure it is.
	Yeah, but I'm keenly interested in the disappearance of investigative journalism.
	As you say, they actually form a kind of a cartel.
	Would you elaborate?
	Well, yeah, I mean you got to consider it's down to about six families or six owners roughly maybe seven depends on how you shake it out and There's a lot of let's just face it a lot of Jewish influence there and they share a common ideology largely an anti-christian one and It's pro-zionist That's not something I harp about a lot.
	I don't make more of it than it is, but it's undeniable that that that's where the nexus of control is in the internationalist slash zionist slash jewish corridors of power and as such they want a certain worldview that you know accomplishes certain things and that necessarily involves the suppression of information but of course the suppression of anything that smacks of conspiracy theory is sort of
	Journalism 101 for the mass media cartel.
	Whatever they may agree or disagree on, they all have to agree that they cannot give a lot of currency to the idea that there's in-depth collaboration and collusion in high places.
	That is something that cannot be And you and I know, Jim, there are real conspiracies, and yes, there's conspiracy theory, but just because you put the words conspiracy theory together doesn't mean that all conspiracies are theoretical, and it doesn't mean all theories are conspiratorial.
	See, they play with words, and that word goes back, of course, to a CIA memo And I'm getting a note here.
	Oh, you go right ahead, Mark.
	I take care of the notes.
	Okay, but at any rate, the play on words, the linguistics, is what has really been allowed to take hold against the American people and people around the world.
	They hear the word conspiracy theory and the automatic assumption is all conspiracies are theoretical.
	But we know that that's not true, that there really is such a thing as conspiracy and the people with all the money and all the connections and all the reasons to conspire Are the most likely ones to do so and yet we're told that the most powerful people could not possibly be conspiring and conspiracies are only the realm of conspiracy with intent to deliver some local cocaine delivery or something that makes the daily newspaper.
	You know, people at the bottom of the barrel in society will be routinely accused of conspiracy, delivering drugs for example, but the higher up you get the ladder of power where you have conspiracies to be much more likely and the people have all the resources with which to prosecute those conspiracies, we're told that's impossible.
	There couldn't possibly be any conspiracies there.
	Now we know that's an inversion of the truth.
	The people with the power and the incentive And all the reasons to conspire, logically, are the ones that will, at times, conspire.
	So we've been fed that bill of goods for a long time and it's really inoculated the people in the wrong way against finding out what's going on in government and in corporate, you know, and in the corporate world in a much more in-depth way.
	So people are kept naive and then they're much more amenable and much more vulnerable to the propaganda of the mass media cartel.
	No doubt about it.
	I have, since 1992, been specializing in bringing together groups of experts to study these complex and controversial events by taking conspiracy theories from theories in the weak sense of rumors, conjectures, or speculations, to theories in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses Like Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution, in order to assess, especially by sorting out the authentic from the inauthentic evidence, where fabricated evidence tends to give us clues as to who is responsible.
	It's not, therefore, of no informative value.
	On the contrary, for example, We discovered early on that the autopsy x-rays of JFK had been altered to conceal a fist-sized blowout to the back of the head.
	Now, that was not something that could have been done by, say, Fidel Castro.
	We discovered that another brain had been substituted for the brain of JFK in the official records of the archives.
	That's something that Could not have been done by the mafia.
	I discovered the whole movies of the assassination of the Zubruder film and others had been massively edited.
	In fact, they were taken down from what originally were about a thousand frames to 487.
	Something that could not have been done by the KGB.
	So, Yeah.
	You know, when you start discovering and sorting the fabricated from the alternative, it can give you a major clue, since this narrowed the range of suspects to the members of the Secret Service, naval officers, and so forth, who had exclusive possession of these kinds of evidence, as well, of course, as the CIA, where it turned out the film had been massively revised in a Yeah, yeah, Doug Horn brought that out talking to Dino Brugioni.
	I've seen some of that and I'm familiar with that.
	Yeah, it's really interesting, Mark, that that should turn out to be the case.
	Yeah, yeah, Doug Horn brought that out talking to Dino Brugioni.
	I've seen some of that and I'm familiar with that.
	And they saw that that film, they knew that film had been altered at Hawkeye Works.
	And the Supruder film is basically part animation with a lot of frames cut out too.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So you have the violent back into the left motion.
	Which actually no one in Dealey Plaza observed because it didn't actually happen.
	The driver, William Greer, pulled the limousine to the left and to a halt to make sure Jack would be killed.
	He was hit in the back of the head and slumped forward.
	Jackie eased him back up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by a frangible exploding bullet.
	Which blew out half his brains out the back of his head.
	And then he just slumped to the left.
	He just slumped to the left.
	And that meant, what they did was they merged together the two shots, the one from behind.
	But there was just enough forward motion between frame 312 and 313 to be a residual effect.
	And then they took out so many frames, you wound up with this violent left into the, back into the left motion.
	Mark, that most people looking at the film say, obviously he was hit from in front.
	So, you know, in a way, the way they altered worked against the effect they were seeking to achieve.
	Yeah, but the main point, the main takeaway, and there's lots of ways you can go with JFK and 9-11 and these big bellwether events, the main takeaway is you're looking at things and alterations and manipulations that could not possibly have been done By distant communist apparatchiks or mobsters.
	These things take inside skills and inside jobs to accomplish.
	People with access to laboratories and specialized equipment and technology.
	And so that, you know, proves really on a Sherlock Holmes level and certainly beyond a reasonable doubt for most courts of law, that something went on from the inside out, not simply from
	the outside in.
	Yeah, by the way, you know, Doug Horn's a friend of mine, and here I'm holding one of his five-volume set, you know.
	Oh, wow.
	Volume four.
	I met Doug Horn. I met him in 2014 in D.C.
	Yeah, he's a superb human being, very admirable person, and one of the...
	those who was unwilling to compromise on the truth.
	I mean, it turns out that as in the case of 9-11 and many of these other events, but especially JFK, their massive infiltration of persons who are interested in preserving the official account and undermining serious research.
	Dog Horn was a sterling example of someone who stood against, and he made contributions to a couple of my books on JFK.
	Oh, that's great.
	I think that, again, the model to follow, and the strange question, or the important question, I should say, for the media is, like, for instance, when I met Doug Corn, he was speaking actually just outside the district in Virginia.
	I heard about it.
	I got on the DC Metro and caught him.
	It would have been six years ago this month, September of 2014, and he was speaking at a hotel, and it was a, you know, JFK-oriented event, and I Went there as a reporter.
	I took notes.
	And there was no other press there.
	And you just have to wonder why the press would, you know, not take any interest in what Doug said there.
	And I'm just putting this out as an example.
	Everyone saw that motorcade stop.
	The Zapruder film doesn't show it stop.
	That should concern you.
	He said that should bother you.
	Yes.
	Oh yeah!
	Just a simple pivotal question.
	Any, you know, half-wit, wet-behind-the-ears reporter should be able to understand that.
	You know, that people saw that car stop, the 100X, the Kennedy limo.
	The film doesn't show that.
	That's a huge red flag just by itself.
	You know, whatever happened to that, that, that lust for the truth, the reporter that will get, you know, do anything to get the story.
	That, that whole, That whole modality of reporting has been put down the crapper.
	It just doesn't exist anymore.
	Yeah, you're 100% correct, actually.
	Larry Rivera has done the most research on what actually happened during the limo stop.
	It turned out that interviews were done with the four motorcycle escort officers and their supervisor, Stavis Ellis, and Larry very patiently transcribed these audio tapes And worked out exactly what had happened, which included that Officer Barbie Hargis, riding to the left rear, JFK was shot in the right temple.
	He was hit with debris so hard he thought initially he himself had been shot.
	Parked his bike, ran in between the two limousines, which would have been impossible had they been in motion, to the grassy knoll where he believed the shots had come from.
	Officer Jackson, Douglas Jackson on the right, actually motored up on the grassy knoll mark until his bike fell over and then proceeded on foot Five agents dismounted from the Queen Mary as they referred to the Secret Service Cadillac and surrounded the presidential limousine.
	One took a chunk of skull from a little boy and threw it in the back of the seat.
	I used to think the limo stop had been maybe six or eight seconds but I've been unable to reconcile all this activity with less than fewer than 20 seconds.
	So it's very substantial and you have You know, one witness after another talking about the limousine stop, just as you're correctly implying.
	And Doug Horn, as you have observed, was absolutely brilliant in discovering how the switch was made from the original Zapruder to the substitute, At the National Photographic Interpretation Center then in Washington D.C.
	where the original was brought in Saturday and Bruno was in charge of the crew there.
	They had to go, it was an eight millimeter all-ray split film that had been developed in Dallas.
	They actually had to have a shop owner open his store so they could buy an eight millimeter projector so they could view it.
	And they prepared briefing boards.
	Well, the next day, a Secret Service agent identifying himself as William Smith appeared and provided a now unsplit 16mm film that had been developed in Rochester and the substitution was made by virtue of a different crew working on Sunday than had been at work on Saturday.
	Doug did absolutely brilliant work in disentangling the elements to sort out what had actually happened, and he published several articles about it on my blog.
	Yeah, I actually spoke with Dino Brugioni, although it was difficult.
	He was getting older, he was kind of a cantankerous Italian, and I spoke with him Twice before he passed, just to corroborate a little bit of what Doug said, and from what I could discern, it checked out.
	But I think the lesson for journalism, without getting into JFK too much, because you can really get off into the weeds on that issue, is that there's still plenty of reasons to ask questions about that event, like there are other bellwether events, greater and smaller events.
	And the journalistic enterprise is basically a dead letter.
	It's really beyond repair.
	It's time for the alternative media to move up, and it is, slowly but surely.
	And it is a slow process, let's face it, because of, you know, lacking financing and, you know, the regulatory and monetary hurdles to be a really, you know, well-known alternative media.
	But the alternative media, bit by bit, Line item by line item, paragraph by paragraph, is pushing the big media out of the way and it can't be fixed.
	The mass media cartel has to be put on the ash heap of history.
	Its days are over.
	It's only going on the momentum of its money and its backers.
	There's no truth to it.
	There's nothing you can do to salvage it.
	And it's time to put it to rest.
	I mean, it really is that serious.
	I'm very impressed you actually spoke with Bruno.
	That's really terrific.
	Good work on your part.
	That kind of verification seldom occurs these days.
	Just as you're describing, I've actually now published four collections of expert studies on JFK.
	The first, Assassination Science 1998, Chattered the cover up by exposing the x-rays had been altered.
	There was evidence of a second shot to the head and preliminary research on the Zapruder film having been faked.
	The second, Murder in Dealey Plaza, included two pieces from Doug Horn about the switch and so forth.
	All three masterful essays by David W. Mantic MD PhD, who is the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today.
	That was in 2000, the third, the great Zapruder film hoax 2003, exposing, you know, the massive extent to which the film had been altered and then used as a guide to revise the other films, but where it was done imperfectly.
	So that on the next film, for example, which you view from the opposite side of the Zapruder, you can see Clint Hill going further up on the trunk and actually making contact with Jackie, which never occurs in the Zapruder.
	So, you know, they did a pretty good job, but it wasn't perfect.
	John P. Costello, who has a PhD in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects, did a brilliant tutorial About internal proof of the alteration of the Zapruder, where he reported it was like 98% technically perfect, but the other 2% gave it away.
	For example, it turns out that the stem and three-way sign was taken out and then replaced, evidently because there was a bullet hole in the sign that was inconsistent with the official account.
	But Mark, when they put it back in, they put it in improperly.
	So if you contrast where the sign was originally, you can see very easily how much it was out of place, which is a real simple, uncontroversial proof of the manufacturing of the film, just as you have been describing it.
	Yeah, and again, without getting too deep into the JFK thing, just things that I know are anomalous or false, when his hands are like this, if you look, if you blow the frame up when he appears to be reaching for his neck, you can see that those arms were drawn on.
	Just blow that up and you can see that's not real.
	It's animated.
	It's been sketched or artistically implanted in there.
	And it's just very interesting.
	The bottom line though is that that spirit of Sherlock Holmes, or maybe you want to say Columbo in a more modern venue, that spirit of Sherlock Holmes or Columbo is just not there in the modern reporter as a general rule.
	When I go to Capitol Hill once, twice, three times a year, it depends on finances, in the periodical Press Gallery, I'm credentialed there because American Free Press is not a daily.
	Daily papers are credentialed different than periodicals, which are credentialed different than photographers.
	It's all done separately.
	That's fascinating.
	We have a question from the chat room as to whether you bear any relationship to another noted reporter by the same last name, Jack Anderson.
	No, Jack Anderson, of course, is the late Jack Anderson.
	He did write about the CIA.
	And I met Jack when I was early on.
	I was a mainstream reporter for the South End Indiana Tribune.
	That's where I started out, right in the shadow of Notre Dame.
	And the Tribune sent me over to Michigan City, Indiana, to cover Jack's speech.
	And I met him there and he had a book out and the book sounded like it was describing the New York Council on Foreign Relations.
	I said, Jack, You're writing kind of cryptically here.
	Aren't you talking about the CFR in New York?
	Oh, no, no, no, no, he says.
	And he proceeds to give me some other dog-and-pony show.
	But no, no relation to Jack, although I met him.
	It's been interesting over the last 34, 35 years I've been doing journalism.
	I've been to about three or four Trump rallies, plus his inauguration.
	A lot of interesting things.
	Met Ron Paul and his family.
	I interviewed a lot of interesting people.
	The JFK thing is just something that sort of comes along for the ride, you might say.
	But what I was going to say, just to finish my train of thought, is the reporters on Capitol Hill covering Congress and whatnot are a really lazy bunch.
	First of all, the vast majority of them are 35 and younger.
	A lot of them are just playing solitaire on their computers.
	There can be an important speech going on on the Senate floor, and I'll be the only one in there.
	I'm not making this up.
	Listening and writing notes down on the speech on the Senate floor, and they're going to be sitting 10 or 15 or 20 feet outside the double doors where you go in the Senate gallery and watch it on a television screen or on their computer, which they could do if they were in Alaska.
	So it's like, why are they even there on Capitol Hill spending their company's money to watch a Senate floor speech on their computer when they could walk 20 feet and go see it in person?
	And you just see the laziness and the group think, you know, the way they all think alike and have the same judgment of the news, the same idea of what they think is important, cutting and pasting each other's stories.
	You know, it's gotten to be just a lazy, non-investigative, take-it-for-granted kind of enterprise.
	And it's just really sad to see.
	But journalism, I think, is at its lowest point in the entire history of the craft.
	No doubt about it.
	Mark, I believe that's 100% correct.
	I notice we have an overlapping interest in what happened in Sullivan Springs.
	That was such an obvious staged event, it was embarrassing, and yet the mainstream played it up as though it had all been real.
	Yeah, I can tell you a very intimate story on that.
	Me and a videographer friend named Ron Avery, and we'll talk about The Question Everything 2020 conference coming up in Austin November 7th and 8th.
	We'll give details about that soon.
	You and I are both going to be there and some 20 plus others.
	And Ron Avery and I were both in Texas at the time in December of 2017.
	The so-called shooting happened on November 5th, 2017.
	Remember, remember the 5th of November.
	Coincidence?
	Probably.
	One month later, December 5th, 2017, we were in Sutherland Springs, and we went to the First Baptist Church.
	And we get there, and I start looking at it, and I'm looking around.
	We talked to the main witness, Terry Smith, who at the time of the shooting, worked at the Valero gas station directly across the road.
	And she told me that, told Ron and I, that she saw the alleged shooter, Devin Patrick Kelly, run around the building probably at least three times and I hadn't taken a good look at the building yet when she told us that.
	Then we proceeded to take a closer look at the building and what we found was it wasn't just, I'll use this for an example, it wasn't just the main church sanctuary like a rectangular building.
	It had an offshoot that that had classrooms and storage rooms and that offshoot went off this way and then went off this way.
	So for him to run around the whole building, he'd have to run around not only the main sanctuary of the church, but that entire auxiliary structure.
	And to do that two or three times, and she said it's, you know, numerous shots going off that would presumably hit the outside of the building and presumably hit the very large windows on the building.
	And I've got photographic evidence of all of this.
	And we're looking at this very, very closely.
	I mean, I'm putting my finger into the siding.
	I mean, I'm looking at things, you know, I'm touching things.
	I'm looking at it, okay?
	And I'm looking at this, and I just said to Ron in so many words, I say, there is no way that this building was shot up in the manner that we're told.
	It is just not possible.
	And here's the main way we know this.
	Okay, the building, the windows, where these windows I think they're called theater windows.
	Architects could correct me.
	But it's one window where there's smaller windows within the window.
	And each of them had, I think, 12.
	Four sets of three.
	And so there's little frames throughout that are holding a very old kind of stained glass in there.
	You know what milk glass is?
	Yes.
	It kind of looks like milk glass.
	It's a crude form of stained glass.
	It's not the real refined real pretty light enhancing stuff.
	So we're looking at it and somehow Devin Patrick Kelly with his AR-15 and there's numerous windows the way I described around the sanctuary.
	Somehow he managed not to hit one window as he fired away blasting the outside of this building.
	And the pastor, Pomeroy, claimed, get this, I hope you're sitting down, you are, that that building was hit by well over 400 rounds, and I believe I'm even even understating that.
	400 rounds that made no impression in the building whatsoever, no physical signs?
	Well, there was the occasional mark that like hole or sort of looked like a hole that looked like it was filled in with putty, But there was only a relative few of those and somehow
	You know, put yourself in the shooter's shoes.
	You go there.
	You want to inflict damage and death, I guess.
	You're a killer kind of guy, right?
	So you go up.
	And what are you going to do if you want to get at those parishioners?
	You're going to shoot out the windows and aim inside and see what you're hitting, right?
	Because remember, he went around the building and did all this shooting long before he went inside.
	So the people had all this time to hear this ruckus.
	And by the way, a very large dog lived near there.
	That when Ron and I pulled up there, that dog raised, holy hell, you could hear that thing bark from a quarter mile away.
	That dog would have been going nuts.
	And you could tell the dog had lived there a long time because he dug like ruts in the yard and stuff.
	But that dog would have been going nuts.
	He would have had an AR-15 going off at very close range in a very quiet rural community on a Sunday morning.
	This is going to be one boatload of noise, Jim.
	And yet, he's running around the building doing all this shooting, manages not to hit a single pane of glass, and the parishioners are going to be caught that flat-footed, where 26 of them, there's that number again, 26, are going to be dead.
	None of them are going to use the four or five internal doors inside the sanctuary where they could have easily escaped into the other parts of the building.
	You mean to tell me that none of them thought to go through those doors?
	Apart from the fact that it's Texas and some of them presumably would have been armed, you would have had plenty of time to make 9-11 phone calls on cell phones in an era when even seven and eight-year-olds typically have a cell phone these days.
	And so people had plenty of time to respond with a gun, to leave through those other internal doors, to make plenty of 9-11 calls, and We know those windows weren't removed and replaced or shot out because, okay, we thought, well, maybe the glass was shot out and this was different glass that was put in.
	But no, no, no, no, no.
	We looked very closely, and I've got very close-up photographs.
	The old caulking and old sealant was still on there, all crumbled.
	Had that been fresh glass to replace shot-out glass, you would have seen a fresh line of caulk.
	A fresh line of sealant.
	There was none of that.
	This was the glass that had always been there.
	This was the siding on the outside of the building that had always been there.
	That looked virtually untouched, apart from the occasional pockmark, like I mentioned.
	But not holes, you know, things were filled in.
	But this was a day of memorial, one month after the alleged shooting, so Ron and I are trying not to look too dumbfounded and aghast at what we're seeing.
	Incredulous, yes.
	Incredulous.
	We're trying to keep a straight face because this was a very solemn time.
	So we walk in the building.
	I got photos of all this.
	All the pews had been taken out and the entire inside had been painted white.
	And what's the word that comes to mind when you see everything painted white and they're covering up the facts?
	Whitewash?
	Whitewash.
	And so, they, and symbolically it was very, you know, touching in that sense.
	They had a chair where each person who died was approximately sitting, and each chair
	that replaced the pew that was there, these were individual folding chairs, had some roses
	It was all very poignant, and I'm not, I'm not ridiculing those that believed it was true.
	I'm not ridiculing anyone that may have lost someone that day.
	I'm not making light of anything.
	It's, you know, when something's true or false, if you don't believe that it's true and you're, and you're crying foul, you've got to say this.
	It doesn't mean that you dislike anyone.
	It doesn't mean that you're dishonoring the dead.
	It doesn't mean that you're insensitive.
	What better to give the people than the truth, right?
	How do you... I cannot think of a way to dishonor someone more than telling lies.
	Yes.
	Yes, and the flowers are just a bit theatrical, are they not?
	And I have photographs before from the services, and it looked like kind of a simplified recording studio.
	And instead of having traditional, you know, like an organ, you had a couple guys playing electric guitars and you had an amplifier there.
	It was totally non-traditional.
	I don't believe a word of it.
	I don't think anyone died there.
	And certainly the story of him running around this fantastic circumference When you add in the extensions of the building, it's ludicrous.
	I don't see how the woman with whom you were speaking could have thought you would believe it.
	I mean, she had to know what she was saying was ridiculous on its face.
	Well, she looked, from her point of view, the church was just far enough away, over a slight hump, that it would have obscured her view a little, to be fair.
	But here's the thing.
	Not only did he run around the building, and she's saying he spent at least seven minutes before he ever went inside, and that's a minimum.
	And that's all that time for the people to react in the ways that I described on the inside of the sanctuary.
	But here's the thing.
	Before he went into church to supposedly finish his dirty deed, he went all the way back to his car, across the side street, right next to where that loud, nasty, mean dog lived, Which is going to make additional racket.
	And then only then did he reload or get a new clip and then run all the way back in and finally burst in.
	And supposedly all these people had never moved, had never reacted to what they heard, and were just sitting there like sitting ducks.
	None of that lines up with logic.
	None of that lines up with human behavior that one would expect in that kind of event.
	And the proponents of gun control won't mention that had any of the members there been packing concealed carry, they could have taken this guy out effortlessly.
	Instead, they say this is the reason we should get rid of all guns, which really means confiscate all guns from law-abiding citizens.
	Leaving the criminals armed and the citizens defenseless.
	Mark, this is just the stupidest agenda I've ever seen, which I'm glad to say appears to have completely collapsed under the weight of all the rioting and looting that the Democrats have been proposing, all their talk about defunding or abolishing the police.
	Well, if we don't have the police to protect us, who the hell is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?
	Millions of Americans have purchased firearms for the first time in the wake of all this madness, which was orchestrated to try to drive Trump out of office.
	It's not going to work, but it sure led to an enhancement of the number of members of society who are locked and loaded.
	Yeah, oh absolutely.
	And it's worth finishing the Sutherland Springs story because it's so illustrative of obvious questions raised, but those questions not being asked and pursued by the media.
	So then, and I'm going by memory, I'm trying to remember as clearly as I can, but Devon Patrick Kelly then got in his car and just feverishly drove down this road that branched off the main road that went past the church.
	And by the way, since that shooting, Sutherland Springs managed to get donations from around the world and build a multi-million dollar new church.
	Nice little plum there, right?
	But anyway, we're told that a citizen finally responded and took some shots at him with a pistol.
	I don't remember his name.
	Stephen something or other.
	I don't want to get names wrong, so I won't say the names.
	But the citizen Finally intervened and probably hit Kelly, we're told.
	And then another guy happened to come by in his pickup and pick up the guy that had shot at the assailant.
	And they proceeded to chase Devin Patrick Kelly down this road, we're told, for I want to say at least nine eight or nine miles probably pushing 10 miles kind of a narrow road so if you're driving 60 or 70 that's a mile a minute so 10 miles will take you about 10 minutes and we went down that very road and we're told that the people chasing the assailant the two the guy in the pickup who picked up the guy with the pistol that were pursuing the assailant we're told that they're on the phone with the police as they're chasing this guy
	Well, everything we gathered was that no one talked to a cop in any meaningful way until Devin Patrick Kelly had already slain all the people in the church, allegedly, had done all that after running around the church and going through all that rigmarole, and then was shot at by the citizen, by the civilian, Who was picked up by the guy in the truck and they chased him and only then were the police talked to in a meaningful way being told that, hey, we're in pursuit of the assailant.
	What happened in all that time before that?
	Why weren't the police already at the church before Kelly got away?
	I mean, he gave them plenty of time to get there.
	I mean, Wilson County is a rural county.
	But one would think that a local gendarme, some local deputy somewhere, or a local village cop or whatever, would have gotten there.
	But I have not seen any evidence that police did anything until they finally responded to this two-vehicle chase and chased down the assailant who pulled over finally and shot himself dead, of course silencing himself.
	How convenient, right?
	And So the police were never involved, we're told, until that late point in this chain of events.
	Wouldn't they have intervened at some point earlier?
	The assailant gave them plenty of time.
	He didn't just pop in there in two or three minutes and get out of there.
	He hung around for quite a while, as I understand it.
	See, so none of this adds up.
	And when I contacted the police the following spring, the Texas Rangers and the state police I asked for a report.
	I got 11 of 86 pages, and of those 11 pages, they were heavily redacted.
	But it said, like, 1 of 86, 2 of 86, 3 of 86, so I knew there were 86 pages in the overall document.
	They only gave me 11.
	The 11 were heavily redacted, and all it showed was lists of cops' names and phone numbers and a couple innocuous comments.
	So I tried to do my due diligence as a reporter, and it was complete stonewalling by the police.
	So that pretty much sows up that for tonight's discussion, but... Were you able to publish about it?
	Yeah, I wrote two long stories for American Free Press and I've talked about it on my radio show and I'm talking about it now.
	I haven't written about it in well over a year.
	The situation might be revisited.
	But your overall impression was the official story was stunningly improbable, in certain respects even impossible.
	Therefore, what was being disseminated as the official account could not possibly be true.
	Yeah, right.
	I've always taken the view, Jim, that before I say what happened, I'll first determine what didn't happen.
	You know, you got to kind of clear the slate.
	You got to separate the wheat from the chaff and look at things that are either implausible or impossible and put those to rest and then put those aside and say, here's the implausible and the impossible stuff.
	Now let's look at the stuff that might be slightly plausible.
	And then I go through that, and then finally I get to, well, alternatively, what might have happened?
	Now, I didn't get that far with Sutherland Springs, but I know what didn't happen.
	I know what's implausible and what's impossible.
	And the conventional story just cannot be true.
	And there's nothing circumstantially or physically that supports it.
	And if you try to get more information, you get stonewalled.
	Further confirmation that it's a fabrication from beginning to end.
	Right, well, whether it's a complete fabrication, I can't say categorically, but there's nothing that supports the conventional story.
	That much is certainly true.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Well, I'm fascinated by your description of Washington reporters as lazy, self-indulgent.
	Sounds like they really don't care about the difference between the true and the false.
	No doubt, because as you've also implied, they have a script and therefore they don't need to do any research.
	They know what they're going to report before the events have even occurred.
	Yeah, I think that's true.
	When they cover Congress, they're looking for the same news bites that their so-called competitors are.
	They're all looking for the same talking points.
	So until they hear those talking points, they're kind of in a neutral mode.
	Whereas, you know, my view is just common sense.
	You know, just write down a lot, record a lot, photograph a lot, and sort through it later.
	And, you know, try to listen for things that are unusual or might put a new angle on an existing story or might be a new story altogether.
	Keep an open mind and just, you know, rake it in and analyze it and look for, you know, diamonds in the rough.
	Don't have a, you know, preconceived notion of only what you want.
	I mean, everybody does that a little bit.
	You know, there's certain issues that, yes, they're important, and yes, you want more information, so your ears perk up when you hear it.
	But, you know, you don't want to be just preconceived notions and nothing else.
	You know, you've got to just go at it kind of cold, without any, you know... Well, even if you have preconceived notions, if you're willing to revise and reject them in the face of actual evidence obtained, You know, that's something I emphasize repeatedly, that it's part of scientific reasoning that with access to new evidence or alternative hypotheses, we may have to reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
	And it seems to me you're engaged in that kind of reasoning.
	Where it really, from a logical point of view, doesn't matter which came first, the evidence or the conclusion, because it's a relationship between them that is crucial, not which were, in time, first gained access.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a philosophical and structural problem in modern journalism.
	I don't know when The Rubicon was crossed, but it seems like it was sometime in the 80s or early 90s that investigative reporting, other than this kind of pseudo investigative reporting you see on 60 Minutes and stuff, investigative reporting was just sort of declared not profitable.
	Maybe it was strictly along economic lines.
	There's no profit in it, you know, and the networks are trying to survive.
	Whatever brought it on but regardless of the cause of it.
	It's been disastrous and that's saying nothing for the fact that you know you have you have reporters that That don't just avoid asking tough questions, but you have like The Danish editor of politikken That's in Danish it's like politics politikken and the Danish editor I contacted him when I was covering the Bilderberg meeting in Denmark, Copenhagen in 2014, and said, you know, why aren't you covering the Bilderberg meetings?
	You go to the Trilateral Commission meetings and you actually take part, I wrote in the letter to him.
	I said, you're collaborating with the Trilateral Commission, which is kind of a small, younger sibling of the Bilderberg group.
	So, you know, what gives here?
	You know about the Bilderberg Group.
	You've broken bread with the trilats, the Trilateral Commission.
	Why aren't the readers at least hearing the basics, you know, that Bilderberg is even meeting?
	And he wrote back and, you know, kind of blew me off, saying the Bilderberg Group was just a private group, you know, they deserve their privacy.
	And And then my argument to him was, well, if they're a private group, but you're a journalist and the public's interest should be your first priority, you should not be collaborating with these private groups.
	And that's, that's the other side of the coin in journalism is, you know, the economist John, excuse me, Zanny Minton Meadows, Who's from the UK.
	And John Micklethwaite, who's with Bloomberg.
	You know, reporters like that go to Bilderberg meetings every year.
	They collaborate, but they don't report.
	And then you've got Gerald or Gerard Sieb.
	S-I-E-B.
	I think it's Gerald.
	I believe he's with the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.
	You've got reporters like that that go to the Trilateral Commission on regional meetings and their big meeting every year.
	Again, collaborating with the power brokers.
	So they're not only not speaking truth to power, they're actually collaborating with the power brokers.
	And so it's the exact opposite of investigative journalism.
	They're not just avoiding asking tough questions, they're collaborating with the powers that be.
	So that shows you just how far off journalism is, including these Heavyweight editors like Zanny Mitten-Bettos and Mikkel Thwaite and Mr. Sieb and others that are at the top of the heap or, you know, are veterans in their writing of their columns, veterans in writing their reports, but collaborating with these think tanks that form the kind of the Bilderberg network, that collaborate with the international banks, that collaborate with other power brokers, corporations and whatnot, the world's biggest corporations, in fact.
	The journalistic enterprise has committed a lot of sins, and avoiding asking tough questions is only one of them, is what it boils down to.
	Well, way back in the beginning you astutely observed the Zionist influence over the mainstream media.
	I have a panel of a hundred executives from CNN, all of whom are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, I have another panel of 100 executives from NBC, all of whom are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
	I have a third panel of 100 executives from The New York Times, all of whom are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
	I think they've known what they were about in taking control of the mainstream so they could control the narrative.
	What information did the American people receive?
	And this is over and beyond the pledge, which Cynthia McKinney reported in 2011 or even earlier, that new members of Congress are asked to sign to put the interests of Israel ahead of even those of the United States.
	Where those who decline, who are few in number, find their financial resources dry up, next time around they may be confronted with a well-financed alternative candidate, or even as in the case of Dennis Kucinich, whom I regarded at the time as the smartest member of Congress, their district is redrawn so they no longer have a seat.
	Yes, I remember that.
	I remember when he was drawn out of Congress, you might say.
	Dennis had some interesting monetary reform ideas.
	I knew, before he passed, I knew Stephen Zerlinga of the American Monetary Institute, and Kucinich would speak at Zerlinga's conference every year in Chicago.
	I covered two or three of those.
	And I met Kucinich briefly in DC, and I believe one other time in Chicago, and he understood that for the nation to prosper and get out from under the grip of the power brokers, the country would have to produce its own currency free of interest, and not borrow money into existence, but spend money debt-free and interest-free into existence.
	And take care of the shortfall of purchasing power in the hands of the people versus all the prices and huge amounts of production.
	You know, hunger or what do they call it?
	Poverty amidst plenty, right?
	Full stores and empty wallets.
	And poverty amidst plenty, full stores and empty wallets.
	These things were discussed.
	And yeah, Dennis was, yes, a progressive.
	But, you know, monetarily, I think that conservatives have made some mistakes.
	I don't think the gold standard is necessarily a good idea.
	But I think that when it comes to monetary reform, we could have a lot of Americans from all walks of life and different political philosophies agreeing on that issue.
	And that's one of the reasons that the mainstream press distorts that issue so much.
	That's because that's one of those issues, Jim, where a lot of people of different persuasions could find common ground and really throw their weight around.
	And once that monetary power is diffused and taken away from those that wield it, what would come next would be their control of the press.
	Because in order to control a country, first you've got to control the monetary system.
	With that, you can buy the media.
	With that, you can steal elections.
	And with that, you can do the things that we see going on now.
	Sponsoring mobs, rent-a-mobs going into these cities in the United States, you know, committing arson and mayhem.
	And, you know, that all stems from control of money and finance and credit.
	A monopoly of credit.
	So, the mainstream press definitely circles their wagons around that.
	They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
	And they know that it's the death knell of any enterprising reporter in the mainstream if they try and report substantively on that issue.
	But Dennis Kucinich, he did a pretty good job bringing that out.
	He even had a bill in 2011 that would have fundamentally changed the monetary system.
	I can't think of the bill number right now, but it's the better part of 10 years ago.
	Yeah, that's a very interesting chapter in terms of my reporting.
	The American Monetary Institute, Steve Zarlanga, Kucinich, and what went on in those years, 2008, 2009 through 2011.
	I even went to Switzerland in those years and met some bankers and some monetary reform people there and covered Bilderberg in 2011 in St.
	Moritz, Switzerland.
	And those were some very interesting years for me as a reporter.
	I suspect that it was his proposals for monetary reform that led to his district being redrawn and his losing his seat.
	Yeah, it's like he was cut right out of existence, right?
	There is no more Dennis Kucinich or his district.
	They used an X-Acto knife and just cut him out.
	I would suspect that, yeah, because he was very articulate about it.
	And he was kind of the liberal version of Jim Traficant, in a sense.
	Trafficant was more boisterous, of course, and more populist, but Kucinich was your kind of left-wing populist, and Trafficant was your right-wing populist, and they were both cut out in different ways.
	Yeah, that's fascinating stuff.
	You mentioned Ron Paul in passing.
	The very first political speech I ever gave was on 15 April of 2008 at a Ron Paul Freedom Rally held on the grass in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
	I was there!
	I gave a talk that would later be published under the title 9-11 and the neocon agenda where I explained that no dual citizen should ever be placed in a policy shaping or decision-making position because you cannot know that his loyalty to the other state does not outweigh his loyalty to the United States.
	That was quite a good event I thought, Mark.
	I remember that.
	I remember Ron Paul's wife was out there on the lawn And it was a sunny day.
	Somewhere I've got photos of that.
	And yeah, that was a fun time.
	I had only been at AFP for about a year at that point.
	And I was still sharpening my pencil, you might say.
	And I was really enjoying covering the 2008 presidential candidacy of Ron Paul.
	By the time he ran again in 2012, he was a little older.
	Some wind had been taken out of his sails.
	My son Evan and I went to Minneapolis in 08 when he had this big Campaign for Liberty huge freedom rally in the Twin Cities there in Minnesota and drove through Wisconsin there and I remember covering that.
	That was a really fun time in my writing career and A lot of people were... Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, he was still alive.
	He was on hand.
	John McManus of the John Birch Society was there.
	A lot of different voices and different viewpoints.
	Gary Johnson, the Libertarian.
	And it was a heady time.
	And Ron Paul's idea there, the Campaign for Liberty, I think is still valid.
	Liberty-minded people need to run for office at all levels.
	School board, city council, county board.
	Don't just aim for Congress.
	Don't just aim for Senate.
	And God sakes, how many people are ever going to be president, right?
	This obsession with the presidency, Jim, I don't even think is healthy.
	We need people at all levels, right down to county and village and city and township.
	We need good people in there.
	That's what Ron Paul was pushing.
	And to do things from the bottom up rather than the top down.
	And I think that's still very valid.
	But again, the press would not give that any currency of any magnitude.
	But it's a very valid common sense idea that would bring a lot of people together of differing viewpoints to find common ground.
	Again, very important.
	I had an astute political commentator, a good friend of mine, on my show The Raw Deal on Revolution Radio earlier today, and he was saying that the sole reason for all the rioting and looting was trying to draw out the minority vote.
	But that may have been the objective.
	I think the effects have been precisely the opposite.
	It's the poorest members of our society who are most in need of defense from the police and the idea of abolishing police departments and defunding the police.
	They've done, you know, random polling in Harlem and a black resident said there, you know, defund the police.
	He said that would be suicide.
	So I think the Democrats have bocked themselves in and they haven't a prayer.
	I believe the election is already decided.
	When the Democrats had a four-day virtual convention and didn't talk about urban violence, and then the Republicans had this masterpiece in terms of production values, speakers, message delivery, precisely the opposite.
	I think that was the turning point.
	You know, NPR Was taking calls from Democrats and Republicans at the end of the Republican convention and so many Democrats were calling in to say they were going to vote Republican that they had to change to calls for Trump versus Biden so they'd get some Biden supporters on the air at all, Mark.
	I mean, it was so embarrassing.
	See there again, they're rigging the reality.
	They're messing with reality.
	That's not what you're supposed to do.
	You're supposed to take it as it comes.
	You're at the football game.
	You're covering the sporting game.
	You're a sports reporter.
	If your team doesn't win, your team doesn't win.
	That's just the way it goes.
	You got to tell the truth.
	And they just can't do that anymore.
	They're just not devoted to the truth.
	I'm just dumbfounded by how many Democrats are going to vote for Joe Biden when he's obviously cognitively impaired.
	He had two aneurysms.
	He's had brain surgery.
	He's frequently completely incoherent.
	And now they seem to be juicing him up.
	You know, Trump has even overtly talked about him being given drugs.
	So he wants, before the debate on the 29th next Tuesday, for them to both be subjected to drug tests, which he's willing to do.
	But Biden is, you know, how they could have put someone this incompetent as the candidate of a major party in the United States is dumbfounding, Mark.
	Oh, it is.
	And there's a lot that can be said about, as much as it's important to run for lower offices under Ron Paul's model, like I mentioned, there's a lot that can be said about the presidency.
	Just for starters, back in July this year, I'm in Michigan now, I spend the winters in Texas,
	I covered the Constitution Party's Michigan Convention near Flint
	and met their presidential candidate and his vice presidential pick,
	Don Blankenship, who's been noted in the New York Times and the Washington Post rather negatively
	as a coal baron in the coal mines in West Virginia.
	But here's a presidential candidate, Don Blankenship, and his VP pick, Bill Moore,
	who is from Martin, Michigan, near Grand Rapids, a good guy.
	And they've got a lot of sound ideas and very valid and salient insights.
	No media there, I drove over three hours, I'm the only reporter there.
	And not only do we have sleepy Joe Biden who's asleep at the wheel 24 seven,
	and how can this guy be running like you said, Jim, but we have the media only focusing on the duopoly.
	Yes, Donald Trump is a different kind of Republican.
	He's cut from a little different cloth.
	He's a little more sympathetic toward the middle class.
	He's a little bit more populist.
	He's a little bit more sympathetic toward Christianity and getting the country on a more Christian footing again.
	Whereas you have a lot of these counterfeit conservatives, these neocons, these Republicans in name only, rhinos.
	And those that have had skull and bones and CFR connections like the Bushes, elder and younger Bushes.
	So the Republican Party is by no means monolithic.
	It's a big tent and people of very strange persuasions and spotty backgrounds are inside that big tent.
	So you get to the Constitution Party, you get to the Libertarian Party, but the press is covering none of these other parties.
	The American people are not told that when they go to vote and they get their ballot, they're not told that besides Democrat and Republican, they're going to see five or six other parties with presidential candidates on there, possibly more.
	And many of them are going to wonder, why don't we ever hear about these other parties and their candidates?
	So you see, before they rig an election with the electronic voting machines, which is something I've also studied a lot and reported on a lot, Before you ever get to vote, first they rig the American mind by telling you there's only Democrats and Republicans.
	Those are the only parties that matter.
	These are the only candidates that matter.
	And then on top of that, they tell you that the Democratic Party, the best they can do is Joe Biden.
	So not only do they not tell you about all the other parties, they tell you that the best the Democrats can do is Joe Biden.
	And so it adds supreme insult to extreme injury here.
	And it's just incredible when you look at the whole specter of this thing, how much omission is going on.
	Not just the commission of telling lies, but the omission about entire schools of thought and several numerous political parties that get absolutely no publicity.
	I mean, just huge gaps in the mass media cartel's narrative.
	Even on Fox News, let's just admit it, they're not going to tell you about the other parties.
	And so, you know, in a journalistic world that we thought we had, you would have some reasonable coverage of everybody, no matter what their prospects for winning might be.
	Yes, you might give a little more airtime and ink to the dominant parties.
	I guess that's just habitual.
	But this idea that you completely ignore other parties altogether, When some of them do have sound ideas, and at least deserve to be heard, and they're kept out of the debates, you know, next Tuesday on the 29th in Cleveland, 29th of September, it's the 22nd right now, it'll only be Trump and Biden.
	There'll be no other parties there.
	No other parties, presidential candidates.
	And many people would say, well, that would clutter up the works.
	Well, maybe it would, but You can see what's happening here is the American people get a completely false picture of reality.
	Do you think Joe Biden will actually show up?
	Well, maybe in body, but I'm not sure in mind.
	You know, the mind goes blank, but the sound stays on.
	You know what I mean?
	The guy is, it strikes me, Jim, and this is just instinct, this is not fact, but he strikes me as somebody who's just a stand-in.
	Just a cardboard cutout, like kind of the Kerensky of his party.
	In other words, when's the other shoe going to drop?
	Are they going to turn around and say Kamala Harris is now the presidential candidate and Joe is just her, you know, water boy or cabana boy?
	What's the trick?
	Is Hillary going to, you know, jump out of the jungle again?
	Yeah, I think the idea, if they can get him, secure the nomination, he'll resign almost immediately.
	Kamala, I guess, will move up, but they'll appoint, like, Hillary as Vice President, then Kamala will step aside for Hillary.
	It's gonna be something on that order, Mark, if they were able to carry it out.
	Which I am 100% convinced will be impossible, because they've done so many stupid things along the way.
	They have antagonized virtually every element, with the exception of those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
	Can you give us an analysis of how that's properly understood?
	I mean, what in the world is going on here?
	Oh, you mean Trump Derangement Syndrome?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I don't know that I can do better than the next guy.
	Part of it is the absolute absence of intellect and the absolute overwhelming of the intellect by emotion.
	This is just basic psychology, but it's the literal absence of thought.
	Not just dumb thinking, not just ignorant thinking, the absence of thought.
	Just pure emotion.
	People reduced to almost a pre-linguistic state.
	Like imagine somebody that All of a sudden forgot how to talk, maybe they had a bad stroke, and they just start going... It's almost like pre-linguistic, like they're not even using what we would define as language.
	They go into some sort of subhuman, purely emotional, sub-intellectual state.
	I'm struggling here.
	Why do they find Trump so threatening?
	Um, well, the fundamental changes, uh, one of the things now, as you, as you know, Jim, you're, you're pretty astute here.
	Um, you weren't born yesterday.
	This is not JFK's Democratic Party.
	Your, your grandpa and grandma's Democratic Party is gone.
	That at least had some modicum of respect.
	You know, they, they represented the unions and the working class.
	They, they oftentimes were against heavy taxation.
	Uh, they, they wanted more fair wages for the working man.
	They rightly complained about corporate privilege.
	But that Democratic Party is dead and gone.
	It is now just a menagerie of Marxists and ultra-liberal internationalist misfits that are literally off their rocker.
	There's no coherent center to it at all.
	They've forgotten the working man.
	They've forgotten all the old-school democratic values.
	Trump comes in and steals the middle class from them, brings back at least some of the jobs that the middle class once thrived on, that in fact helped the middle class form in the first place, and Trump speaks to the working man, to the veterans, appeals to the middle class for reasons I just stated, does more for the veterans in terms of their health care.
	And he also speaks to the old school Democrat that used to say, we need peace.
	The US is too warmongering.
	We're sending our army hither and yon into all these countries, give peace a chance.
	That was the old democratic mantra.
	The liberals used to own the peace movement, right, Jim?
	Well, Trump comes along and says, I'm going to bring troops home.
	I'm going to have a less interventionist foreign policy.
	He has a little bit of the Reagan piece through string.
	He has that on the side.
	That's one of the cards in his hand.
	But combined with the Reagan-esque piece through string, he's got the kind of Ron Paul non-interventionist thing going on too.
	See, so he's taking all these talking points and all these angles and denying them to the Democrats who at least used to possess and used to run on some of those things.
	So Trump, he's not trying to be all things to all people, but he's a shrewd negotiator and he's a sharp thinker.
	He doesn't drink.
	He doesn't smoke.
	He keeps his mind healthy.
	You can tell.
	He's very energetic.
	He's done six or eight rallies lately in the last 10 days.
	He's doing one tonight?
	Yeah, Pittsburgh tonight, September 22nd.
	He was just in Michigan.
	He was just in North Carolina.
	He was just in Ohio.
	Yeah, Ohio, Nevada, I believe Arizona.
	The last Trump rally I covered in person was in February in Las Vegas.
	I managed to get press credentials and the guy is just a ball of energy and he keeps at least most of his promises and so he's just got this kind of solid, dependable, I'm going to do what I say I'm going to do.
	You can count on me.
	And he's stolen all these talking points and all these initiatives that used to belong to the Democrats, at least in part.
	And so like a steamroller, he's just kind of disintegrated the Democratic narrative, taken it for himself, and he's moving forward.
	And quite frankly, he's accomplishing a lot.
	I don't wear rose-colored glasses.
	I could find things that I'm critical about about him.
	I really wish he'd toned down about the vaccine thing.
	I think he's promising too much, and if he promises too much, he'll be obligated to deliver.
	I hope he understands that any vaccine would probably be very experimental, largely unnecessary, probably dangerous, and at the very raw minimum, should be purely voluntary.
	Well, Mark, he's made that clear.
	He and Scott Atlas announced there's no mandatory vaccines.
	None.
	And you know, his son, Barron, appears to have been affected by vaccines to have a mild form of autism.
	So I think Trump is actually not fooled, but I think he's having to deal with widespread beliefs fostered by fake medical authorities like Anthony, Tony the Rat Fauci, and Bill Gates.
	Yeah, where Fauci is a capo in the Gates medical mafia.
	I mean, it's outrageous.
	I have a former attorney who's had the brilliant idea of bringing legal charges against Gates for the unlawful practice of medicine.
	He's not a doctor.
	He's not a PhD.
	He's not a virologist.
	He's not an epidemiologist.
	He's traveled all over the world to promote these vaccines.
	He's done a lot of hands-on activities.
	She was struck by this when there was an unusual character who actually has a PhD in biophysics who was being charged with the unlawful practice of medicine.
	She thought, well, my goodness, if they're going to charge this guy with his background, take a look at Bill Gates.
	And she's already filed in one state.
	She's about to file in another.
	My most recent blog at jamesfetzer.org is about this very proposition, Mark.
	It's fascinating.
	Yeah, Dr. Bill Gates, you know, Dr. Strangelove, more like, right?
	Allegedly and reportedly, his vaccine experiments in Africa have caused misery and death over a quite large scale.
	And so he's got a rap sheet, you might say.
	500,000 children paralyzed in India.
	I've heard that.
	I haven't independently verified that.
	Oh, that is the fact.
	They actually kicked Gates out of India when they discovered the ingredients he had in his vaccine.
	You know, I believe, by the way, they include Bill Gates' own DNA.
	I think his, you know, the guy, his Completely nuts, in my opinion.
	And megalomaniac, a narcissist.
	He wants to vaccinate the whole world.
	For him, vaccines are a business.
	And if he can get 150 a pop, you know, for the billions of citizens of the world, approximately seven.
	I mean, just think of the staggering sum.
	It's all a total sham.
	It's just disgusting.
	Mark, this is the greatest hoax since the moon landing.
	Oh, the moon landing.
	Oh, yeah, there's another deep rabbit hole.
	We won't go there probably in the interest of time and covering other subjects that need to be covered.
	But yeah, it's a good analogy there.
	Bill Gates started attending Bilderberg about when I started covering him.
	I was trained by the late, great Jim Tucker, of course.
	And Jim Tucker was a gritty old school reporter.
	That had the old ethos, the old point of view that, you know, trust but verify, verify, verify, verify, verify, never stop until you get the story.
	And Jim was not only a great guy with a great sense of humor, but a sterling reporter that taught me a lot about journalism and about covering Bilderberg.
	And he and I agreed that whatever one might say about the Bilderberg group, there's one salient, undeniable thing that they're about.
	And that is that Okay, you have your individual think tanks like the CFR, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
	Under the World Affairs Councils of America or WACA, believe it or not Jim, there are about 90 World Affairs Councils in the United States.
	Your community probably has a little mini CFR of its own in any city or region of reasonable population.
	Grand Rapids, Cincinnati, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Los Angeles, all of these have CFR satellite groups.
	There's about 90 of them in the United States.
	And what Bilderberg is, is an amalgamation of those kind of groups into a smaller, more exclusive group.
	And then they bring along the former and current finance ministers and treasury heads and bankers, mainly central bankers, select military brass, select reporters that won't report anything.
	And they basically are designed to meet and network And privatize government.
	We've all seen privatization, like privatization of a city water supply, privatization of the sewer system, privatization of electrical grids that used to be municipal, right?
	Things like that.
	Well, Bilderberg is to privatize government itself.
	To literally make government a completely private affair.
	So, Bill Gates starts going to Bilderberg, oh, around 2009-2010, when I covered them in Sitges, Spain near Barcelona.
	And the next thing you know, Bill Gates is no longer mainly a Microsoft guy.
	Suddenly, he takes on a new persona.
	And while I cannot prove it conclusively, with his case, that's kind of common with Bilderberg, is that the people that attend year after year after year after year, tend to all kind of outgrow their former function and take on this kind of new function.
	And they're strategically placed around the world.
	And Bill Gates, you'll notice, he acts like he's some kind of head of state.
	But no one elected him.
	No one even appointed him.
	He just takes on this kind of unofficial head of state sort of stature.
	And that's common with Bilderberg, to privatize government and put people in certain positions that begin to try and govern the world completely divorced from the electorate.
	Fascinating.
	Fascinating.
	That's kind of how it works.
	And there's been a pattern there.
	Of course, Bill Clinton went to Bilderberg in Baden-Baden, Germany in 91.
	That kind of helped him transition from Arkansas governor to president of the United States.
	And then Bill Clinton helps, he signs NAFTA into law, and he helps tear down the Oh, the Glass-Steagall Act.
	He was the death knell of the Glass-Steagall Act that put a firewall between regular banking and highly speculative banking practices.
	So as soon as he goes to Bilderberg, he's president, he sticks the knife in Glass-Steagall, he passes NAFTA, and the 1994 GATT Treaty that even Newt Gingrich, a neocon, had to admit was a serious blow against United States sovereignty, national sovereignty.
	And so you see how the Bilderberg thing kind of fits in to put people into official and unofficial positions to privatize and alienate the government from the American people.
	And step by step, year by year, that's what happens.
	Ironically though, and this is an interesting side story, you'll enjoy this, John Hickenlooper, the former Colorado governor, went to Bilderberg in 2018 in Italy Got caught by the Independent Ethics Commission of the state of Colorado, which was created by a ballot issue and approved by the voters.
	And under that ballot issue, under that policy initiated by the voters, it created the IEC, the Independent Ethics Commission, and they censored or penalized John Hickenlooper for going to Bilderberg and made Bilderberg, for a short time this past summer, a kind of household name in Colorado.
	And Hickenlooper was cited and partially penalized for other junkets that he took.
	But I watched 15 hours of Zoom virtual deliberations by the IEC about Hickenlooper, and I would say more than half of it was about his trip to Bilderberg, and the Independent Ethics Commission was the first public body to censor an American politician for Bilderberg, probably in American history.
	And I'm the only reporter that I know of that wrote about this, and I'm not tooting my own horn, that's just the way the cookie crumbled, that's the way it crunched out, but It's very important, and when I wrote Bilderberg's media people about this, they were pretty miffed about it.
	Their media people, by the way, are just an email address.
	You get no names, you get no phone number, you get no P.O.
	box, you get no physical address, no country of origin, nothing.
	Just an email address, and that's their anonymous media people.
	I wrote them about that.
	I said, what do you think about this?
	One of your attendees is being censored and punished and fined and penalized, you know, not seriously fined and not, you know, whipped aboard the clipper ship.
	I mean, he wasn't flogged or anything, he wasn't severely punished, but he did get, you know, reprimanded pretty seriously.
	I said, what do you think about that?
	And they just, you know, in a kind of huffy email said, you know, we don't want to discuss that, you know, you should know that we wouldn't discuss things like that.
	So you know this is and then for 2020 Bilderberg for they claim for COVID-19 reasons elected not to have an in-person meeting.
	They probably met through through interactive media like we're doing right now and had maybe maybe had a series of meetings.
	I'm trying to find that out right now but 2020 just as a footnote was the first time Bilderberg has not met since 1976 when they had to skip a year Due to the Lockheed scandal involving the Bilderberg co-founder Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
	So 2020 became the first time since 1976 that Bilderberg did not meet.
	And yet it's the first time also in the year 2020 when they had one of their attendees reprimanded by a government body for attending Bilderberg.
	So that's a very precedent-setting thing.
	And a lot of people in alternative media still haven't heard about it.
	Although I wrote about it And I probably should do more on my blog about it, which is TheTruthHound.com.
	I've got it right now on one of my news sites, which is WorldImpactNews.net.
	I've got some stories on there about it.
	And also at AmericanFreePress.net, you can find it.
	But it was a precedent-setting thing and something very unexpected and unusual.
	To happen on Bilderberg's year off, the year that they skipped, to have one of their own put under the microscope.
	So it was kind of gratifying in that sense to see that happen.
	So that's been one of the more interesting things this year in terms of my journalistic work.
	Well, Mark, you're going to be the fourth of my keynote speakers at the Question Everything
	conference in Austin on the 7th and 8th, the first being Dr.
	Catherine Horton, who's going to be talking about the use of directed energy weapons to
	target individuals, to harass them, where she's led the legal fight against it.
	The second being Dina Pollard-Sacks, who's published two volumes about the godfathers of sex abuse, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, about which We're all learning a great deal more than we ever wanted to know.
	I must say I've been especially acutely disappointed that Bill Cosby should turn out to be such a sexual predator after the role he had played in American society heretofore.
	The third being Rebecca Karnes of Newtown, who's a Newtown mom who's been speaking out about Sandy Hook.
	Mark, it seems to me you really need to address the emergence of the New World Order through Bilderberger and the other events about which you know so very much to make the capstone to the conference.
	I think that would be perfect.
	Yeah, I'd like to get into Sutherland Springs a little, I might, but I think you're right.
	I've been kind of toying with what the topic might be and I want to keep it Malleable, because I might hear things at the actual event that would make me think, well, maybe I better change it a little.
	So I'll keep it kind of semi-prepared until I see how things go, and then I can make little modifications.
	Yeah, what we've been discussing in the last 15 or 20 minutes is sensational stuff.
	The public needs to know.
	I think it would fit perfectly into the conference.
	As my final speaker, I really entreat you To pursue that path.
	I think you're eminently positioned to do this, and there's so many of us who are still bewildered over the very idea of a New World Order, or in the language of Anthony Tony the Rat, The new normal, which I think is completely absurd.
	They're trying to change human behavior worldwide in terms of normal practices.
	They're even, of course, seeking to promote perversions because they themselves are perverse and they want to make that normal too, so they won't be the outliers.
	I mean, this is a very rich and fertile area for you to address, it seems to me.
	Yeah, and a good thing to bring into it would be the Global Cities Movement, which is based on, as far as I can discern, it's based on the template of Richard Gardner, who wrote the seminal kind of bellwether article in the Foreign Affairs Journal of the Council on Foreign Relations in April of 1974, called The Hard Road to World Order.
	And to paraphrase it, he said, the framers of the Constitution have been a little too clever for us.
	We need to do an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.
	And an end run like that will be much more effective than a full frontal assault.
	These are the actual words, these subversive, seditious words in the Seditious Journal of the Seditious Council on Foreign Relations in April of 74.
	And the Global Cities Movement is perfectly suited for that, because what they try to do as they make government more of a private, non-public affair, they try and devolve power to the local level.
	And to give just a thumbnail sketch of it very briefly, how are we doing on time?
	Fine, we got 30 minutes.
	Yeah, Ivo Daalder, the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February of 2018, went to the Chatham House The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, which is near where the Queen lives, and they discussed, should mayors, mayors, get this, have their own foreign policy?
	Should cities have their own foreign policy?
	How ridiculous!
	Right, and there's a lot of constitutional and structural questions about that, right?
	Well, if you think that's interesting, Um, this past February when I went to cover CPAC and Congress and some other matters in D.C.
	and renew my credentials, I was staying with a friend and he showed me a video of the former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, who used to be chief of staff for Barack Obama, as many of you know.
	He's a real chameleon in his own way.
	Well, prior to which they had a torrid affair in the bathhouses of Chicago.
	I mean, it's really revolting when you get into it.
	Well, he gets on, I believe, C-SPAN, one of the C-SPAN outlets, and he comes out with a book called The Nation City, How Mayors Will Rule the World.
	Ludicrous!
	We moved from, should cities have their foreign policies of their own, Then we move, all of a sudden we take this quantum leap to the nation-city, how mayors should or will rule the world by Rahm Emanuel.
	And so I did a story on that talk that he gave, and they have this belief that the city mayors and probably some of these governors, and that includes a lot of these dems in the blue states and blue cities, would form their own network and would affect kind of mutiny out of the country that they live in.
	In other words, they'd consider themselves not really an integral part of the United States of America, but a network onto themselves.
	And they would call it the Nation City or the Global Cities Movement.
	And so every year, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has the Forum on Global Cities.
	They changed it to the Pritzker Forum on Global Cities.
	Which is named after the Jewish family that runs much of Chicago and now the governor of Illinois is Pritzker, one of the Pritzkers.
	So this comes out of that power center in Chicago.
	And so every year the Chicago Council has been having this forum on global cities and The idea is they're carving out a new a new kind of governance for the for the future where cities would be much more dominant and they challenge federal power on climate change.
	They try and do an end run around federal power on border security.
	They try and do an end run around federal power on law enforcement.
	An example is the new mayor of Chicago Lightfoot, Lori Lightfoot, tries to prevent Immigrations and Customs Enforcement from going into Chicago and arresting illegal immigrants.
	So they try and work against the interests of the nation state.
	And then again, coupling that with trying to have their own foreign policy.
	And now you have mayors and governors taking foreign junkets and making trade deals with national and subnational leaders in other countries.
	It is totally unconstitutional for a state governor or an American mayor to go make a trade deal with Bulgaria.
	It's completely nutty.
	I'm so glad you're talking about this.
	It's bizarre.
	It's obviously subversive.
	It's clearly a form of treason.
	As you observe already, it's unconstitutional.
	This has to be put down, wiped out, extinguished.
	I mean, Trump ought to take a very severe stand against this after his re-election.
	Yeah, maybe he will.
	And he could, if he's thinking along these lines, he could use his opposition to sanctuary cities as an avenue for that.
	Because most of these global cities, mayors with their own foreign policy, mayors and governors doing their trade deals, most of them are believers in sanctuary cities.
	Not all, but most.
	And so that would be one avenue where he could get at it, you know, and access that.
	And, you know, maybe he'll follow that advice in some, excuse me, in some way, shape or form.
	But a lot goes on that, you know, the press is never going to tell the people about these things.
	And it's just sad.
	Right.
	Jefferson was once asked whether he'd prefer a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, and he said he'd prefer the latter over the former.
	But he never imagined the degree of corruption to which newspapers in this day and age have sunk.
	Oh, it's awful.
	The New York Times is particularly strange.
	Even when they try and tell the truth, it's a real mind-bending thing.
	Just for example, They brought out an article the other day that I've done some radio and video work with, and I'm going to be writing about it, where they admitted that the common PCR test for COVID-19 was so sensitive that, assuming you're getting an accurate reading to begin with, keep that in mind, assuming you're not getting a false positive, that when it did get a positive, it would detect such a small viral load because of its sensitivity,
	that people with viral loads way too low would come up as positive and be counted as a case,
	but their viral load would be so small that they could never get sick themselves
	and they could not be contagious to other people.
	Yes.
	I've been harping on that and writing to the Wisconsin State Journal
	about the ambiguity of the word case.
	And now, of course, we have the acknowledgement that 90% of the positive results are false positives.
	And the CDC has even acknowledged that the total number of deaths that are actually attributable to the coronavirus is fewer than 10,000.
	That virtually all the others had serious core morbidities, which meant they were likely to have died anyway, but nevertheless are added to the massive statistics.
	So we have MSNBC, CNN, NBC talking about a potential already 200,000 deaths, a potentially 390,000 deaths, and they want to blame it all on Trump when he was simply given false information.
	He acted in the belief that it was true, and contrary to his own personal interests
	by shutting down the country, knowing full well that the robust economy and surging stock market
	were his greatest assets going into re-election, nevertheless he forfeited them in the false belief
	that as many as 2.2 million Americans, 500,000 Brits might die if the economy were not locked down.
	And who now?
	I say, Marg, it's going to be better to rebuild the economy now than the man who brought us this best economy, strongest in American history.
	Obviously, we'd want to reelect Donald Trump under any scenario.
	So the Democrats, it seems to me, have really done a great job of self-immolation as though they were Buddhist monks protesting the Vietnam War.
	Yeah, lighting themselves on fire.
	Yeah, interesting.
	Yeah, there's not much I can say to best that.
	Kudos, exactly.
	It's a situation whereby we're being told that we have this plague.
	And the thing is, though, Jim, is that even Fox News, again, once you get away from their Commentators that do a pretty good job, like Tucker Carlson, repeats the same numbers.
	And like you say, the meaning of the word case, what's a case?
	A common question that any reporter worth his salt would ask, right?
	Is a case someone who tests positive and doesn't have symptoms?
	Or is a case someone who tests positive and does have symptoms?
	The media never says.
	And then they act like all cases are born equal, assuming they're accurate to begin with.
	What I just said, viral loads can be so small, and the test can be so sensitive, that you've got people that have basically almost no viral material in them at all, and they're going to be treated as the same level of a case as someone who has much more of a viral load.
	They make no differentiation.
	The press asks no questions.
	They don't ask how the CDC arrives at these numbers.
	I mean, when it comes to sports, they're all full of questions.
	Was the football player's foot on the line?
	Was he out of bounds?
	They want to see an instant replay.
	When it comes to sports, we demand accuracy.
	But when it comes to life or death situations, we don't ask what a case is.
	We don't ask how they know that's a COVID death.
	How do they know it's not the regular flu, which is caused by another type of coronavirus?
	How do they differentiate between the regular flu and the so-called COVID flu, let alone differentiating between a directly caused COVID death and something with comorbidities?
	There's just all sorts of nuance there, and the press just says cases and deaths and cases and deaths, making no context, no differentiation.
	And it got so bad when I was in California recently, I went behind enemy lines to investigate there, and among some personal matters too, there was a reporter, his name is Peter Daut, D-A-U-T.
	I jokingly said I got my doubts about Peter Daut.
	He's with KESQ near Palm Desert, California.
	It was so bad that he was going around with a camera crew scolding people for not wearing their masks and asking them point blank, coming up to them and accosting them, getting in their face and asking them where their mask was when the high temperatures at that time were at 110 degrees Fahrenheit and sometimes higher.
	There's this parody of the Twilight Zone where Rod Serling is asking, imagine a virus so virulent you have to be tested to know you have it.
	The whole thing is so effing absurd, Mark.
	We're being played on such a massive scale.
	Yeah, I mean, if it's, you know, if it's the bubonic plague and, you know, It's a really serious virulent disease, like you say, and it's just, you know, devastating.
	It would be obvious in most instances, you know, maybe your arm would fall off or you'd grow a third eye.
	Or you'd bleed out of your ears, your nose, and your mouth.
	Right, right.
	You start screaming.
	Every aperture!
	Yeah, and exactly.
	Every orifice would be compromised.
	That's right!
	But, you know, but instead it's like, oh, you know, I don't know, you go in like a casino or a big department store
	and they put a probe at your head to check your temperature.
	And now they say they can take your temperature from eight feet away, you know?
	And who knows if that data is even legitimate one way or the other.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Mark, I wanna turn to the conference which is being produced by your former videographer
	in the Sutherland Springs, Ron Avery, and where I am the program chair.
	I want your thoughts about how it's shaping up, and is there a place for a conference that seeks to get to the heart of the matter about dozens of crucial issues in America today?
	There should be.
	Back in the day, as they say, among alternative media individuals and outlets and different publishers, there used to be some really good conferences.
	Payman Matahede had his Tax Freedom conferences out near Irvine, California.
	I went to some of those.
	American Free Press used to put on some pretty big ones, and those have kind of went down just in general, even before COVID-19.
	And let's hope that we can revive the very idea of a Patriotic, freedom-loving, freedom-seeking, truth-seeking conference, you know, just in general, let alone the challenges posed by the COVID-19 culture, this government response under the COVID-19 rubric.
	Hopefully they won't make us wear masks too much at the conference, I don't think so, but November 7th and 8th at the Built a garden in, I think it is, near Bergstrom Airport, Austin, Texas.
	I'm just saying it, you know.
	Be there, be square, ladies and gentlemen.
	Try to come in person.
	Go to mixnstream.com.
	Learn how to be there in person.
	If you want to watch it live stream instead and have a video link that lasts for one year, you have that option, which is a little less expensive, but it's reasonably priced across the board.
	We've got to fight this COVID-19 crackdown.
	We got to bring back these truth-seeking conferences and get them to the level they used to be.
	So why not use this event, Jim, November 7th and 8th in Austin to do just that.
	Oh, Mark, you're exactly right.
	Just to mention some of the topics, we have excellent, highly qualified speakers on every one of these.
	Sandy Hook, Freedom of the Press, Satanic Pedophilia in Elite Society, Judicial Corruption, the London 7-7 Subway Bombings, the Coronavirus, Staging Hate Crimes, Smollett, Floyd and Wallace, The targeted individuals I've mentioned, godfathers of sex abuse, Boston Strong, Las Vegas.
	We have the moon landing.
	We have experts on JFK.
	Did Ruby shoot Lee?
	That will surprise most everyone.
	How often was JFK hit another with David W. Mannich, the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world?
	Where was Lee?
	Where did the Towers go?
	America nuked on 9-11.
	Then back to Newtown Mom speaks out about Sandy Hook and your talk about the new world order markets.
	Quite an impressive assortment.
	We have two dozen speakers.
	It's a fabulous event.
	And I just encourage everyone to contemplate, as you observe, go to Mixed In Streams.
	Go to Mixed In Stream.
	You don't have to be there physically.
	We have a comment from the chat room.
	I wish I could go, but they say I would die of COVID.
	I'm saying you don't have to go.
	You don't have to be physically present.
	You don't have to be in Austin.
	It's going to be live stream, so you can watch the whole thing from the comfort of your home.
	You don't even have to go out at doors.
	Yes, and that video link will last one year.
	And the video link will be for a whole year.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Mark, I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed this conversation.
	You're a very impressive guy with a wide-ranging background in an area where America needs more real investigative journalists just like you.
	And they've all gone over to the other side.
	Even Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have betrayed They're pro-fashion.
	They're nothing but propagandists to this day now.
	And it's shocking.
	It's embarrassing.
	Beyond disappointing, Mark.
	It is.
	There's those levels of societal truth that they just can't Under their boss's tutelage, and under their paychecks, and under their control, they just can't go there.
	There are probably some that would like to go there, and I understand that you get into so-called conspiracy reporting, if you want to call it that.
	Maybe that's a little crude.
	I don't know, but it is a leap, and it's not going to earn you more income.
	You're going to make less money.
	I'll just tell you that right now, but you know, you got to have a clean conscience.
	I believe that Ben Franklin said, you know, A man with a clear conscience will live a long time.
	I don't remember the exact quote, but he referred to a clear conscience.
	It's important to get right with God, to honor the concept of truth, and to have integrity.
	It's no easy task to try and tell the truth.
	Sometimes you make mistakes, but you own up to them.
	You publish corrections.
	You do follow-ups.
	And the journalistic enterprise can be rescued, but again, it's not going to be done through the Medill School of Journalism or the Columbia School of Journalism.
	I don't know where the journalism professors are.
	I need to read more of the trade magazines out of these schools to see if they see the crisis in journalism that you and I so clearly see, Jim.
	And it's beyond a crisis.
	It's terminal.
	They are literally against finding the truth.
	They're not passively avoiding the truth.
	They're actively working against it.
	Absolutely.
	About 10 years ago I was headed for Dallas when I received a phone call from a big TV station in Minneapolis interviewing me because I was heading for a conference on JFK and they wanted to know how they should refer to me as a conspiracy theorist and I said well actually I prefer conspiracy analyst or conspiracy realist because conspiracies are As American as apple pie.
	They're ubiquitous.
	My first article about this, my first scholarly article, was entitled Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, 9-11 and JFK, where I use JFK as an intro to scientific research on 9-11.
	I explain the steps of scientific reasoning, how it works, And as an illustration of the ubiquity of conspiracies, I went through a then current issue of the New York Times, which, believe it or not, was still then a semi-reliable newspaper, but to which I've been referring now for years and years as the Langley Newsletter.
	And on every single page, Mark, there was a story that you could not understand if you didn't recognize it was talking about a conspiracy.
	Yeah.
	Well, like, just for example, Anthony Fauci, or Falsi as some call him, obviously has conflicts of interest in terms of his personal history and his investments.
	And, you know, even something as simple as Journalism 101, explore whether Fauci has, you know, owned stocks in pharmaceutical companies.
	Even that would probably result in most journalists just giving it a thumbs down, probably calling you a conspiracy theorist, even for something as basic as looking into the investments of a leading medical figure like that.
	Even that's too much for the modern journalists these days.
	Mark, it isn't rocket science to recognize that if Anthony Fauci in 2017 is predicting that Trump is going to be confronted with a surprise pandemic Then it can't be a surprise.
	And if Anthony Fauci is the guy who's supposed to prepare us for dealing with a pandemic, why didn't he prepare us for a pandemic?
	Then it turns out we have a photograph from 2015 of none other than Barack Obama with Anthony Fauci and Melinda Gates In a bio lab in, I believe, at NIH or maybe Fort Detrick, from which it appears the whole coronavirus was originally geo-engineered.
	Then they transferred to North Carolina Chapel here, where I taught a year myself.
	And then when that collapsed, they sent it over to Wuhan with millions of American taxpayer dollars in order that Wuhan, the Chinese, should continue the research.
	They have patents on this, Mark, and you cannot patent a naturally occurring phenomenon any more than you can patent laws of nature.
	They can only patent it if it's bioengineered.
	And of course, I mean, the whole scandal involved here is just enormous beyond description.
	Yeah, that'd be like you and me patenting an acorn or patenting a blueberry.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	That's right.
	Or a maple leaf.
	Yeah, yeah, the situation is such where the modern journalist, with painfully few exceptions, doesn't even look into good old-fashioned conflicts of interest.
	Years ago, in the 40s and 30s, that was Journalism 101, but a somewhat more progressive writer, Ferdinand Lundberg, he wrote some great books.
	One of them was America's 60 Families, another was The Rich and the Super Rich, and he was a progressive, but he was an astute writer.
	And he pointed out that even in the 30s, even in the 1930s, even then, most newspapers, most of the time, and that's when newspapers were much more dominant, radio was young and we didn't have TV yet, and the origins of TV, that's a whole other ball of wax, but he pointed out that so many topics were taboo for newspapers, even at that time, That what results in terms of what they can report, in terms of what they do report, is almost like a neurosis.
	It sounds neurotic because there's so many avenues closed to them by their overlords and by their owners that what's left for them, once they start getting into it, automatically sounds suspect and skewed and distorted because there's so many things off limits.
	There's so many taboos that they cannot touch.
	And that continues to this day.
	So much of what you read in terms of lying is omission.
	It's just stuff that just isn't covered at all.
	And, you know, a perfect example, like I said earlier, there's probably seven, eight, nine, ten presidential candidates and you'll only hear about two.
	And that's just a simple example that anyone can understand.
	Mark, how can they possibly come up with such an utter mediocrity who's so grossly flawed as Joe Biden?
	I mean, is this the best that Democrats can do?
	You know, frankly, I believe after the landslide, which I confidently predict is going to reelect Donald Trump, there's going to be nothing left of the Democratic Party.
	It's just going to be a mess of rubble.
	I think we may see the end of what was a once great political party finally come to pass.
	Well, back in the day, in the 19th century, there was a Democrat-Republican.
	It was one party.
	And there was the Whigs and the Federalists.
	The Whigs went down.
	They went the way of the Edsel.
	And there were other shifts around.
	Democrats and Republicans separated.
	Suddenly you had, under Lincoln, you had the Republican Party born under that name.
	Then the Democrats were just the Democrats.
	But I've been saying the same thing, Jim, mostly privately, but sometimes publicly as we wind up here, that First of all, you've got the press taking Biden seriously.
	And like he's some august statesman, when it's clear that he couldn't outwit a used teabag.
	And then you've got the fact that that the Democratic Party has lost so much credibility partially over Biden, that And the Democratic Party behaving more and more Marxist.
	It's no longer the Kennedy-style Democratic Party.
	That's gone, like I described earlier.
	The question now isn't what Democrat to vote for or whether to vote for Biden.
	The question is, is whether the Democratic Party can or should exist anymore.
	I see no reason for that party to even exist.
	I think the ideal thing would be for the Democratic Party to be dissolved.
	And literally go out of existence and the Constitution Party and libertarians could start filling some of the congressional seats and make for a much more interesting and robust legislature.
	And the Senate should be should be returned to being filled by the states under, you know, get rid of the 17th Amendment.
	Under that, under that change that was made, get rid of the popular elections for the US Senate, return that to appointments by the states.
	That's another form of electoral reform.
	You wouldn't even have to vote for senators.
	The states could do that because the senators were originally designed to represent the state's interests.
	The House of Representatives were designed to represent the people.
	The House could consist of these other parties that would fill the vacuum left by the dissolved Democratic Party.
	Again, return the election of senators to appointment by the states, and you would have a much more robust constitutional legislature according to the original framer design.
	And then the Republican Party, faced with the Constitution Party in the House, would become much more honest in its conservatism, in my opinion.
	So this is a future that we could have.
	Because the Democratic Party now is little more than a criminal syndicate.
	They literally are endorsing and encouraging the arson and mayhem in our cities, literally collaborating with criminals on the streets.
	How is the Democratic Party not a criminal syndicate?
	I ask the question.
	Oh, I agree completely.
	I think those are brilliant closing remarks.
	And I think for those who believe we're entering the end times, we may be for the Democratic Party.
	Yeah, I think it's well deserved.
	It's time.
	Other parties have had their day in the sun.
	They went out of existence.
	I wasn't saying this real fervently until I saw them actually collaborating in violence and arson and mayhem and excusing it and collaborating and encouraging it.
	And some of the mayors even going out on the streets and kowtowing to these Marxist radicals.
	Once that happened, That that was pretty much the death warrant for the for the legitimacy and integrity of the Democratic Party.
	JFK's Democratic Party is long gone.
	So that you know, that's that's really the handwriting is on the wall.
	It's only a matter of time now.
	So that even I, who regard myself as a JFK, FDR Democrat, feel comfortable with Donald Trump and completely antagonized by the modern Democratic Party, which, as you quite accurately described, has reduced itself to a level of a criminal syndicate, Mark.
	This has been just a joyful exchange.
	I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed it.
	Me too.
	Really, really, you are just superb.
	So this is Jim Fetzer on the Fetz Presents thanking Mark Anderson for being such a wonderful guest, a splendid source of information, lots of ideas bristling from the beginning to the end.
	I thank him for being my guest and all of you for watching.

▲