All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
33:39
Trad Cat Knight (23 April 2021) with Eric Gajewski
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Of a trad cat night, special guest video interview right here on the track at night.org website folks.
Today is April 23rd, 2021.
I hope you all are having a very wonderful and blessed day.
As always, we continue to keep the programming moving along Monday through Saturday, typically three or four guests on every day folks.
That's right.
Over a hundred podcasts a month.
And we continue to keep the programming moving along today.
We're going to have a fantastic day of programming as a leader on in the show we have.
John Kitson, one of the leading anti 5G activists out in Europe, going to be joining the program.
We also have one of the top preppers, Jason Charles, the angry prepper will be joining
us.
Also Dr. Kendra Becker, who's been on the Red Pill Expo with G. Edward Griffith in times
before.
But as you can see on the screen here, someone who's been joining us now for many years.
So Dr. Jim Fetzer.
And listen, he's done radio shows with us.
He's done podcasts He's done it all and he's back to discuss the Chauvin trial We want to discuss how the Democrats are responding the future of the nation if we got time We'll dive into a few other areas.
But before we hand it over to Jim here folks so we do have to briefly make mention of our sponsors because they keep me in part with the ability to do this work on a full-time basis a gift to light and We've got 247rosary.com, gloryandshine.com.
We've got johndeansjacksbury.com.
If you're interested in picking up a Turbulent Time Kit, you can contact Kathleen Loney, KathleenLLoney at gmail.com.
And last but not least, Chris Gagne is inviting Catholics and all those like-minded to remember those who have gone before us.
Having said that, we are ready to go.
Jim, always looking forward to your presentation and the breakdown of some of the latest, so take it away.
Appreciate you joining us again.
Well, Eric, it's a privilege for me to join you.
As a friend of mine observed not long ago in relation to my own case, there's the truth and then there's the law, and they do not necessarily converge.
It would appear to be more infrequent than anyone could ever have imagined, well illustrated by the conviction of Derek Chauvin.
He had three charges against him.
Second-degree murder, which is the unintentional killing while committing a felony.
Third-degree murder, perpetrating an eminently dangerous act and evincing a depraved mind.
Second-degree manslaughter, culpable negligent creating unreasonable risk.
It might be debatable whether or not he could have committed second-degree manslaughter.
There's no question that he could not have committed second-degree murder or even third-degree murder.
Officer Chauvin was acting in accordance with his training as a Minnesota Police officer.
They had been instructed to use this technique where the judge even reprimanded the prosecution from continuing to say his knee was on his neck.
It was actually on his shoulder.
Even had his knee been on his neck, there's a carotid artery on both sides of the neck and had the knee on the neck succeeded in suppressing The carotid on the right would not have thereby suppressed the carotid on the left, meaning blood and oxygen would have continued to flow to his brain.
Thus, even under the most charitable interpretation of the prosecution case, it seems to me preposterous to assume that he had committed either second degree or third degree murder.
Indeed, Brett Favre has been massively ravaged in the social media for making the simple observation that he didn't believe Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.
And yet, that perfectly consistent with his being found guilty of second degree murder because it's unintentional killing.
So the idea that Brett Favre is being you know, savage on the social media for making an
observation consistent with the findings of the court shows the absurdity to which politics has
interfered with the administration of justice in this case. More importantly, in order to arrive at a
conclusion of guilt on any of those three charges, the jury vote had to be unanimous. In order to
find a person guilty on any of these charges, the prosecution had to establish a case that was
beyond reasonable doubt.
That standard, however, was not satisfied here.
We know from the sequence of videos George Floyd was in his vehicle, actually with his drug dealer.
George Floyd was apparently a minor drug distributor or at the very least a drug user.
It appears that he had a couple of doses of methamphetamine and he ate the drugs.
He consumed them to conceal them as evidence.
Eric, this is rather analogous to Situation with heroin mules who bring doses of heroin in prophylactics usually in their intestines.
They've been stuffed up their rectum.
Sometimes they swallow, but if any of those break, the mules die from a massive drug overdose.
That appears to have been what happened here with George Floyd.
We actually have video that the defense played where I could hear him clearly say, I ate too many drugs.
We have an autopsy report and a toxicology report showing that he had a massive dose of fentanyl in his system, methamphetamines, even cannabis.
So what we have here is an alternative explanation that is, if anything, even more reasonable And the defense case that he died from suffocation by the knee on the neck, in spite of the fact that the knee was not on the neck.
And it's very difficult to see how the alleged sequence of death could have been induced by the actions of Officer Chauvin.
On the other hand, when someone's drawing from a drug overdose, it shuts down their respiratory system and they can't breathe.
So when George Floyd was saying, even before he was put into the squad car, but most certainly while he was in the squad car, I can't breathe.
This was separate from an independent, any knee on his shoulder or knee on his neck.
He could not breathe because his respiratory system was shutting down from the massive drug overdose.
You're welcome to pick and choose which conclusion you prefer.
My point is the following.
There was a reasonable alternative explanation to that he died from Officer Chauvin having his knee on his neck.
And indeed, it not only appears to be a reasonable alternative, but far more reasonable than the conclusion the jury reached.
Now, there are a number of questions as to whether the judge did not make a fateful decision by not sequestering the jury.
There are multiple reasons for believing, as Alan Dershowitz has suggested, that this conviction is going to be overturned on appeal precisely because there were outside interferences that affected the jurors.
Where it would have been a good idea for them to have been polled in the immediate aftermath as to whether, for example, the $27 million award made by the city of Minneapolis to the George Floyd family, which occurred while they were impaneling the jurors, didn't impress them as an indication or admission of guilt on the part of the city of Minneapolis.
I cannot imagine any other way of construing that.
Except, of course, for those of us who suspect it might also qualify as hush money to keep the family quiet.
But just at the time in which the jury was, the prosecution was completing its case, the presentation of its case.
We had the shooting in the nearby community of Brooklyn Center.
Of a young man, which appears, based upon my review of the evidence, to have been completely contrived.
This is a case where he is supposed to have been shot by a police officer, a woman with 26 years of experience, who mistook her taser, her handgun, for her taser.
Let me explain why this is completely ridiculous.
The standard procedure is to put your handgun on your handed side, so if you're right handed, your handgun is on your right side, if you're left, on the left.
Your taser is on the opposite side.
Typically, the taser is either orange or yellow in color.
A taser has a different heft and a different feel than a handgun.
A handgun is heavier.
It has a more solid sense than a taser, many of which are made out of plastic.
So it's very, very difficult to imagine that this officer could possibly have mistaken her handgun for her taser.
Number two, a very large police officer apprehended the suspect initially, took him out of the door, was attempting to handcuff him.
In a situation like this, it would be standard procedure to close the door to the vehicle.
He not only was clumsy and unable to handcuff, but he allowed the suspect to get back in the car because he'd left the door open.
This is already by itself a ridiculous sequence of events.
Then we have the officer stepping up, calling out, Taser!
Taser!
Taser!
And then, purportedly or so we're told, firing a shot.
The suspect drives off.
Let me explain why this makes no sense whatsoever.
I've watched the video numerous times.
There is no sound of any shot.
There is no recoil.
The weapon does not automatically reload, which of course is standard for any semi-automatic.
She steps back and says, shit, I shot him.
Fellow officers are in disbelief.
What do you mean?
What are you saying?
And they're doing that precisely because there was no sound of any shot.
Had she actually shot him, there would have been the sound of a shot.
Everyone would have known what happened.
Moreover, the angle at which he fired from such a short range would have done devastating internal damage.
To the suspect, he would have been unable to drive off.
This is therefore a completely contrived event that they allowed to the jury to learn about because they were not sequestered or cut off from television, newspapers, magazines.
The judge really did commit a gross blunder.
Then, in addition, we had Maxine Waters showing up and leading a protest about it, threatening that there'd be massive riots and looting if there were no conviction in this case.
And even the man who pretends to be President of the United States went on national television to say he was praying for the right verdict, which of course would be a conviction.
Well, they got a conviction.
I have no doubt, by the way, that having received a conviction meant that the Democrats had no cause to promote rioting and looting in the street.
In other words, it turns out that the conviction of Derek Chauvin actually was a defeat for the Democrats because it suggested to the nation that the system actually works.
This was the outcome they wanted, that they had promoted, and they got it.
But in fact, it was only the feigned rationale.
They didn't really want a conviction.
They really wanted either an acquittal or a mistrial.
Let me explain how the Democrats' real agenda has been revealed by their reactions.
Not justice, AOC says, of Chauvin's guilty verdict.
This is not resolution.
This isn't justice, AOC says in an Instagram Live.
Justice is George Floyd going home to his family tonight.
I don't want this to be framed as a system working because it's not working.
It's really important this verdict is not used as a replacement for policy change.
Well, Justice?
George Floyd going home to his family tonight?
George Floyd was being arrested for passing a fake $20 bill, a counterfeit.
George Floyd had drugs in his possession.
George Floyd had a long list of arrests and conviction and served a lot of time in jails in the past.
George Floyd had, among his other offenses, participated in a home invasion and stuck a gun in the stomach of a pregnant woman.
George Floyd is an actor in porn movies.
It is absolutely stunning that Nancy Pelosi has gone on national television talking about what a fine
man this was, what a fine husband, a fine father, other sorts of really disgusting misdescriptions
and absurd characterizations as though they were going to elevate
George Floyd to the level of a saint.
The Democrats did not want this verdict to be regarded as justice because it contravenes their
whole program of defunding the police. Frankly, I don't even think we call it full accountability
because there are multiple officers who were there at AOC as though the three other officers
were not also going to be put on trial.
Meanwhile, we have a very, very thoughtful report about this that appeared on American Thinker by Sally Kalakofsky, Why Maxine Waters Wanted a Mistrial for Derek Chauvin.
Let me share parts of it.
When Maxine Waters called for people in the streets of Minnesota to be more active and confrontational if Derek Chauvin were to be acquitted, like many, I thought she had handed a gift to the defense on appeal.
In some ways, she did.
We all heard Judge Cahill describe her behavior as abhorrent.
And while he didn't think her remarks mattered in terms of the evidence and jury deliberations, He was unequivocal that her actions likely provided the defense with a basis for a mistrial at the appellate level and could well result in the case being thrown out.
Why, if that's what he thought, didn't the judge declare a mistrial himself?
Some might say it's because he didn't want to try the case again, but I think he didn't want to be that guy responsible for letting Chauvin off the hook and reaping the wrath of a good part of the country, long promising to burn it all down.
Why bear the burden himself and potentially subject his family to violence when it's so much easier to pass the buck to the appellate court?
We have to ask why someone as politically experienced as Maxine Waters would so brazenly deliver a message of incitement, knowing the optics and, more importantly, that her words and conduct would only serve the interest of the defense, and claiming this was textbook intimidation of both judge and jury.
Why would a ruthless, calculating, lifelong, professional left-wing shitkicker like Waters knowingly cross state lines to, if not in sight, certainly agitate for continued unrest on America's streets?
Because without an acquittal or a mistrial, either of which would have unquestionably given rise to increased violence, Representative Waters and most of the Democrats actually want the bedlam to continue.
After all, racializing everything by pointing fingers at the straw men of white supremacy, white privilege, and the conveniently invisible and unmeasurable systemic, structural, and internalized variants of racism is the bread and butter of the Democrats.
Without it, they lack a raison d'etre.
They have no reason to even exist.
Let me give you another report, fairly astonishing development.
A George Floyd autonomous zone has now issued rules for white people.
The George Floyd autonomous zone in Minneapolis has issued a list of rules for white people they have to abide by to enter the zone.
As though this zone were not public property, as though this zone weren't the result of taxpayers, as though this zone were not a place where anyone who so desired ought to be able to go.
The zone has popped up around the area where Floyd died and has come to resemble something akin to a religious cult encampment.
Apparently, baptisms, miracles, and other spiritual events can be witnessed on a regular basis.
However, Entering the area as a white person comes with potential risks if you make the mistake of behaving in a problematic manner.
All visitors are asked to wear face masks and act with humility, but a lengthier list of rules for white people explains how they will be treated differently.
Whites are asked to de-center yourself, a euphemism for a mandate to behave like a second-class citizen and keep quiet.
Be mindful of whether your volume, pace, and movements are supporting or undermining your efforts to de-center yourself, states the advisory.
The patronizing tone continues with a demand to contribute to the energy of the space rather than drain it.
The rules also state that white people should seriously consider whether taking photos is appropriate and to seek consent from anyone they photograph, despite the whole area being public.
The rules also encourage whites to intervene if they witness white folks doing problematic things, which presumably includes doing anything other than engaging in slavish worship for the 21st century deity, that is, George Floyd.
Black Lives Matter groups routinely issue demands of white people for their events, some of which enforce outright segregation.
A group of Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis, for example, were caught on camera telling a white liberal ally, you're white, you don't belong, before demanding that he leave the area.
Following the conviction of Derek Chauvin, BLM mobs also descended on diners in New York while telling white restaurant owners to get the F out of New York.
Here we have a former Minneapolis City Council candidate and former city employee encouraging This woman, whose name is Margarita Ortega, wrote on her personal Facebook page that, quote,
She also claims the wealthy neighborhoods have the insurance and means to rebuild.
needed, just a personal thought, just in case you all feel like burning shit down.
The poor community is not your oppressor.
For your information, Lake of the Isles has more than needed and won't be missed.
She also claims the wealthy neighborhoods have the insurance and means to rebuild.
Look at these provocative actions, and I've got to tell you, behind the scene is a shadowy
presence of the miscreant known as Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, who's declaring
in relation to the incident in Columbus, Ohio, just taken place, where a police officer
showed up just before a very large black young woman was about to stab another.
Another, but much smaller, black young woman attacking the cop for bringing a gun to a knife fight.
I mean, this is absurd beyond belief.
This is Valerie Jarrett.
Teenagers have been having fights, including fights involving knives for eons.
This is anti-police activist Nia Brisson.
On Twitter, after the incident, we do not need police to address a situation by showing up to the scene and using a weapon against one of the teenagers.
But I've looked at this, Eric.
They say, and this is another tweet from a Brittany Cooper.
A black girl is dead because the cops brought a gun to a damn knife fight.
If you don't know how to deescalate teen girls who are fighting, you should not be a police officer.
I watched the video.
The neighbor who's a military veteran has a whole video of it from his security camera.
The larger girl was about to stab the other girl.
He either acted or not.
There would have been a dead girl either way.
The officer acted appropriately and took out the bird.
What the Democrats are not telling you, by the way, is that blacks killed by whites is a tiny, tiny proportion of murders of blacks and whites in the US.
For example, in 2013, murder of blacks and whites, there were 55 per million of blacks killed by blacks, 55 per million.
Number of blacks killed by whites less than one per million.
So there are 55 more times blacks killed by blacks per million than blacks killed by whites.
Whites killed by blacks, roughly 10 per million or 10 times more than blacks killed by whites.
Whites killed by whites, slightly more than whites killed by blacks.
Again, around 10 per million.
The situation is that more blacks are arrested and imprisoned for crimes because more blacks are committing crimes.
It's a fact.
But what the Black Lives Matter is protesting this relatively incidental and very uncommon incident of blacks killed by whites to incite racial tensions in the United States.
I was simply appalled.
When LeBron James actually posted a photograph of the officer from the Columbus shooting who acted professionally in accordance with his duties and obligations, that this was the guy they should be targeting, LeBron James.
Here is one of the most beneficial, this richly rewarded and admired black athletes in America of all time.
And he's taking a completely absurd anti-white stance here about law enforcement.
And Eric, I have to ask, what happens to the country when we defund the police?
What happens to the country when we get rid of the police?
What happens when we have no law enforcement?
The Democrats are already promoting crime because of their efforts to deescalate.
Crime has been skyrocketing.
Rape in New York City is up 400%.
400% rape is up in New York City from the efforts there to defund the police by the complete crackpot mayor there, Bill de Blasio, whose wife is some kind of communist radical who's expended public funds to promote anti-democratic and un-American causes.
Eric, the Democrats have sold out the nation.
Anyone who continues to have any faith in the Democratic Party and its leadership is seriously misguided or completely uninformed, because the evidence is becoming increasingly blatant.
It's right there in front of our very eyes.
Pay attention and get the message.
Bear in mind, it takes the police around 20 minutes to show up even for an emergency call.
So, if you're calling the police to come with their guns to protect you because there are intruders invading your home when you don't have any, well, since the mayhem occurs in the first few minutes by the time they show up, your daughter may have been raped, your wife may have been murdered, you may have been mugged.
You must be able to defend yourself and appropriately gun sales are through the roof.
Many liberals and Democrats who've never owned guns before are getting the message being promulgated by their own party.
It's going to be every man for himself.
If you cannot defend your family, You cannot count on the police to do it on your behalf.
The Democrats want to take away this indispensable line, the men in blue, that maintains civilization.
They're promoting a lawless society.
God only knows what benefits they think it's going to bring, but I assure you, it's not going to benefit you or any other American who cares about his country.
Eric, I am appalled.
I am dismayed and let me close with a final observation.
When they come for your guns, the time has come to use them.
Yeah.
Wow.
I'm right there with you, James.
And one has to wonder, I just recently had on the show, not sure if you're familiar with Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, who trains a good number of police forces around the country.
His work has been cited by numerous presidents.
And when he came on the show the other day, he sees the same trends.
And one has to wonder.
As you mentioned, what will the country look like if we go down that path of defunding
the police?
And Lieutenant Colonel said it'll be worse than that movie, The Purge.
It's not just going to be like a one night event.
It's just it's just going to be any everything goes every day of the year.
So then one also has to wonder on another level, Jim, in regards to, you know, is there
a bigger plan in place to purposely kick forth this chaos in order to roll out the United
Nations as sort of a next step?
I don't know.
But, Jim, before and feel free, we've got just a few minutes left here.
You could maybe give us a brief answer in regards to that, but then also some shameless
self-promotion time we got to get into.
We thank you so much for joining us again.
Well, Eric, let's illustrate about crime statistics and the racial character.
in 2014 in New York City.
Arrests for violent crimes, shooting, 75% black, 22% Hispanic.
That is 97% of shooting arrests in New York City in 2014.
Murder, 62% black, 32% Latino.
That's already 94% black or Latino.
Rape, Latinos exceeded black in this category.
46% Latino, 43% black.
That's already 94% Black or Latino. Rape. Latinos exceeded Black in this category. 46%
Latino. 43% Black. That's already 89% of the rapes. If New York City were all white,
rapes would be down 83%. Murder, 91. Shooting, 96.
My dear colleague, Dr. Ewan, who maintains the fellowship of the Minds blog, superimposed
a 2016 electoral map over a 2014 murder distribution map and surprise, surprise, the murders were
concentrated in areas governed by the Democrats who have created gun-free zones where obviously
the criminals who violate the law are not going to obey the law.
Only law-abiding citizens are being required to give up their guns.
And as John Lott has demonstrated in his book, The War Against Guns, where Lott may be our nation's leading expert on the relationship between guns and crime.
When guns are bad, crime goes up.
They found this in the UK when they banned guns.
They had a knife epidemic.
Indeed, it was bizarre because then they banned knives.
And I said during a report about it, what next?
Are they going to ban potato peelers?
Virtually as the words were coming out of my mouth, they were banning potato peelers.
If we have now around, I'm going to guess, certainly in excess of 130 million armed Americans.
If they try to bring a UN force here to police the United States, I predict a bloodbath.
No patriotic American is going to allow the United Nations to come into the United States and take over law enforcement.
I guarantee you that.
As a former Marine Corps officer, with every fiber of my being, I would resist it.
Biden and Harris are only in office as a result of a completely illegitimate election.
Everyone who has looked at the evidence understands that to be the case.
Even their inauguration was a fraud.
It was pre-recorded.
I was puzzled when, at the time it was being broadcast, it was before noon Eastern time.
That minute was taking place during the final minutes of the Trump administration and was therefore legally invalid.
We had indications there were multiple takes.
You got a woman in blue and a woman in pink.
Now they're here.
Now they're there.
Jill's shoes turned from beige to blue to beige.
There's a spectacular fireworks display at the end, which no one in Washington witnessed.
I have a colleague who was switching channels and different parts of the inauguration were being shown on different channels at the same time, which would have been impossible had it been a live event.
We're being subjected to the greatest gross abuse and fraud in American history by a completely illegitimate administration that is moving as rapidly as it can to turn America inside out, to destroy our values and our heritage.
We cannot allow this to happen.
Protest to everyone you can, your mayors, your representatives, your senators.
Tell them you're outraged by what's going on here.
Do not stand for it.
And for God's sake and all else, don't let them take your guns.
Dave Hodges years ago observed that in the 20th century, there were 19 demo sides, slaughters of whole societies by their own government.
Every one of which was preceded by gun confiscation.
You can't let America become number 20.
Yeah, Dave's good guy.
I've been on his show.
He's been on my show in years past.
And Jimmy, thanks so much for joining the program.
And listen, folks, let's continue to fight back.
We know they're not going to stop pushing us.
So let's get out there, continue to educate, but continue also to be the resistance, to be the blowback.
So folks, we got to get ready for John Kitson now.
We thank Jim for joining the program.
▲
Export Selection