Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 25, 2021 - Jim Fetzer

02:01:04

"What's Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?" Jim Fetzer on the Goldfish Report, April 24, 2021

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Let's get this start recording here.
	Hi, everyone.
	Welcome to the Goldfish Report.
	I'm your host and researcher Louisa.
	Happy Saturday night to everybody.
	We are not going to be doing, sorry to disappoint some people in some ways, because we're not going to be doing our live stream broadcast, our POTUS report tonight, but we will do it.
	I will do it tomorrow.
	So you can get it tomorrow.
	It will be published tomorrow.
	Because tonight we have a really important and a very special guest with us to talk about something really important, a taboo subject that we don't get to talk about.
	And it's high time we start talking about this.
	The topic is, What's Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?
	And my guest tonight is someone you know as my co-host of the Political Theater Reports and the Most Dangerous Mind in America, Professor Jim Fetzer, who is also, by the way, everyone should know, a former Marine Corps officer.
	He's a McKnight Professor Emeritus of the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota and has published over 24 academic books.
	And over 12 in conspiracy research.
	And tonight's topic was so important, Jim sent me this article, and I felt it was so important to start talking about what's wrong with conspiracy theories.
	So Jim, hey, welcome back to the Goldfish Report and on Ascension Radio, Saturday night.
	Thanks for being here.
	Well, Louisa, I think you had a great idea in doing this.
	Just a little bit of background for this article, because of course I had a 35-year career as a professor of philosophy, offering principally courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	Where I have continued to apply those principles to the investigation of these complex and controversial events, JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, Las Vegas, and more, I felt that it was very important philosophers Get engaged with these issues.
	So years and years ago, I had the idea of authoring a piece about what's wrong with conspiracy theories and explaining there is a really straightforward way of analyzing them, namely by comparing them to scientific theories for publication in a philosophical journal.
	So that this army of teachers of critical thinking might implement those principles to develop the ability of their students to engage, because Students love to talk about these things.
	I found the greatest interaction with my students when I'd offer them in a critical thinking course about why going into Iraq was a bad idea, why 9-11 appeared to have been completely different than we're told, what we know now about JFK.
	You know, I was using those examples, and the response from my students was palpable.
	So I submit it to the Journal of Philosophy.
	It's a very mainstaying journal.
	It's published out at Columbia University.
	I actually did a year, my third year graduate work at Columbia as my outside minor when I was earning my PhD in the history and the philosophy of science.
	But they had no interest in it.
	I was very surprised because it's very straightforward from a philosophical point of view.
	So I even resubmitted a couple of years later.
	But then it occurred to me by and by that actually If philosophers are going to look with disdain upon research on conspiracies, then perhaps I needed to approach the public more directly.
	And it just happens that one of the most distinguished websites out there is the UNS Review.
	Since Kevin Barrett had published a brilliant piece about my Sandy Hook lawsuit entitled The Legal Lynching of a Truth Seeker, Jim Fetzer's Stalinist Show Trial, I had great affection for Ron Unz as the editor.
	So I sent it to him.
	He liked it.
	And now we have it.
	And so far, we've got like 79 comments, most of which have revolved around 9-11, because there are those who really want to defeat what we've learned about 9-11.
	Some have their pet theory.
	Others really don't want 9-11 to be investigated.
	And when you hear The whole story, as I elaborate it, you'll get an explanation for why conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories have been demonized by the government, the mainstream media, and the agencies, especially the CIA.
	Well, absolutely, Jim.
	You have this article.
	I'm going to pull it up right now, and I'd be really grateful if you could read this, because we're broadcasting live right now on the radio, although we're also recording this, so this could be uploaded and published on social media.
	But we are on the radio.
	I want to thank Ascension Radio, too.
	Sorry I didn't do that at the top of the hour.
	Thank Ascension Radio for broadcasting and all the listeners. We published this
	promo for this far and wide because this is such an important topic and this
	this article right here is the one we're talking about. So this is the photo. Jim,
	you might even want to explain the photo before you start reading. Of course I will Louisa.
	Yeah.
	So I entitle it, What's Wrong with Conspiracy Theories.
	We're told so many things are wrong about conspiracy theories.
	It was published a week ago on the 17th of April, last Saturday, and now they're showing 78 comments with 10 new.
	Now there's a photograph of a piece of debris that was on the Pentagon lawn.
	What's important is it was not there initially.
	In fact, the Pentagon lawn was perfectly clear and clean and bereft of any debris for at least 45 minutes until debris began to show up.
	My opinion, by the way, is that the debris was dropped from a C-10 that was circling This is a cargo plane circling the Pentagon because it would have been too embarrassing to have officers and enlisted men carry these pieces of debris out onto the field in any case.
	This is a single piece that has been most often cited in the news.
	And it is a piece of fuselage from a Boeing 757.
	But if you look at it, it doesn't look quite like you might expect from a violent collision of a plane having exploded and then had an intense fire.
	And indeed, interestingly, it turns out there's a piece of vine entwined in this Piece of fuselage, it becomes significant.
	So, with that background, yes, I'm pleased to present what I wrote, and then we can talk about it, and I'm glad to go forward, Louisa.
	Thank you.
	Wonderful, and I think how this picture actually depicts what's wrong with conspiracy theories, but we'll, I'll let you elaborate, we will get to that.
	So, what's... Absolutely.
	Yeah, what's wrong with conspiracy theories?
	Thank you, Louisa.
	The public has been fed an endless stream of attacks upon conspiracy theories which, we are told, are supposed to be very bad for human beings and other living things.
	But precisely why is almost never explained.
	And when you consider that our political parties and the mainstream media indulge themselves in conspiracy theories, Such as the claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.
	Otherwise, Donald Trump could never have been elected.
	Or alternatively, that Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election of 2020 and otherwise could not have been defeated, or in the first instance, promoted by the media in spite of virtually no evidence at all.
	And in the second, Denied thereby, in spite of massing supporting proof.
	Both are conspiracy theories where one appears to be true and the other appears to be false.
	Since at least some conspiracy theories thus appear to be true, we need to be able to tell the difference.
	Even university professors have shown a decided aversion to conspiracy theories, buying into the stereotypical conception that the key characteristic of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable.
	A tip shoot for one college, for example, makes a declaration that, quote, the main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong, but that it's inarguable, not that it's false, but that it's unfalsifiable.
	Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable, end quote.
	If that were true, it would certainly count against them, making them akin to theoretical affirmations about the existence of God, as the classic case, or the existence of a universal force, a la Star Wars, more contemporary.
	But is it actually true?
	A study published in Frontiers of Psychology, what about Building 7, a social-psychological study of online discussion of 9-11 conspiracy theories, for example, suggests that those often characterized as conspiracy theorists are more skeptical of what they are told by the government of official accounts than they are enamored of specific alternatives and are more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence.
	They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and more inclined to look at the evidence, which even hits that the study of alternative theories of events like 9-11 might be an effective method to teach critical thinking.
	Since conspiracies only require two or more persons acting in concert to bring about an illegal end, and turns out to be the most widely prosecuted criminal offense in America, Why should conspiracy theories be all but banned from public discourse?
	We know the criteria to employ in the evaluation of scientific theories.
	Why should they not be evaluated by the same standards or criteria of adequacy, which classically include Condition of adequacy 1.
	The clarity and precision of the language in which they are expressed.
	2.
	Their scope of application for the purpose of explanation and prediction.
	3.
	Their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence.
	4.
	The economy, elegance, or simplicity with which they satisfy conditions of adequacy 1 through 3.
	Since conspiracy theories are theories, why should they not be evaluated by the same criteria where the testability of a theory depends right off the bat on the specificity of its language?
	When Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, made the observation, some people did some thing in relation to 9-11, for example, her remark qualifies as true, but trivial.
	It cannot satisfy conditions 1 or 2, much less 3 or 4.
	When the 9-11 Commission, by contrast, concludes that 19 Islamic terrorists commandeered four commercial carriers and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, however, the content and thereby the testability of what has been asserted increases substantially.
	The government, however, has not been disposed to revise its official narrative, even though a half dozen or more of the 19 suicide hijackers turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with media in the UK, as David Ray Griffin observes, by making his first argument in his magisterial study of the 9-11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions.
	Even though we know the theory advanced by the Commission, therefore, cannot be true, the government has remained unmoved.
	And when consideration is given to Building 7, WTC 7, for example, a 47-story building in the World Trade Center complex, which was not hit by any plane, but came down to what has been characterized as a classic controlled demolition, It raises the specter of a conspiracy theory, even though its collapse has the characteristics of having been a controlled demolition.
	Abrupt, complete, symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, leaving a debris pile equal to about 12% of the height of the original.
	Where even the owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, confirmed to PBS that WTC7 had been pulled.
	Nothing about this account violates any of the conditions of adequacy 1 through 4.
	There are many videos and expert studies of the collapse of WTC7 available online, which means that the recorded sequence of events can be reviewed again and again.
	It leaves no doubt that, contrary to the NIST final report on WTC7, which attributes its
	collapse to the modest fires in the building and the loss of a major support column, this
	was a controlled demolition that fits a pattern of controlled demolitions around the world,
	indeed, on 9-11, as it took place.
	And rather, was, perfectly accurately, reporting it as reminiscent of pictures we've seen,
	where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.
	But if WTC7, which was not hit by any airplane, was brought down by a controlled demolition, then what about WTC1 and WTC2, the North and South Twin Towers?
	According to the 9-11 Commission Report, which is the official government account of 9-11, the World Trade Center was destroyed as part of an elaborate plot by 19 Islamic terrorists who commandeered four commercial carriers which were used to attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
	But since a conspiracy only requires two or more participants collaborating in the attempt to commit a crime, The official account of 9-11 itself obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory.
	Once we look at the evidence, we find that we are confronted with alternative theories that differ in the causal mechanisms they posit, but where both alternatives qualify as conspiracy theories.
	Once we acknowledge the obvious, that the official account of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory, we are no longer able to avoid dealing with conspiracy theories unless we avoid 9-11 altogether.
	That, indeed, appears to be the attitude of most philosophers of my acquaintance, who have no interest in evaluating alternatives or in assessing the adequacy of the 9-11 Commission Report itself.
	This stunning lack of intellectual curiosity might be rooted in the desire not to fall down the rabbit hole, since there are disconcerting revelations upon revelations once you take the bait and begin to scrutinize what we have been told.
	One fascinating tidbit, for example, is that Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9-11 Commission, had his area of academic specialization before entering government, a creation and maintenance of public myths.
	Yes, M-Y-T-H-S.
	Another reason the study of 9-11 turns out to be philosophically interesting is that so much of the official account entails violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics.
	At Shanksville, Pennsylvania, for example, where flight 93 is alleged to have crashed,
	there's a hole about 10 by 20, but no signs of any crash having taken place. By a Boeing 757
	weighing over 100 tons with 125-foot wingspan and a tail standing 44 feet above the ground.
	As both the reporters first on the scene observed, the eerie aspect of the crash site was that,
	unlike other crash sites, there were no signs that any plane had crashed there,
	which invites an inference to the best explanation.
	Which hypothesis is better supported?
	That a Boeing 757 really crashed there, or that it did not?
	The situation at the Pentagon is even more intriguing, since not only is there no massive pile of aluminum debris, no bodies, no luggage, no wings, no tail, not even the engines, which are practically indestructible, were recovered at the time.
	But the official trajectory of a Boeing 757 traveling over 400 miles an hour skimming the ground and taking out a series of lampposts turns out to be aerodynamically impossible.
	Because of the phenomenon known as downdraft or ground effect, such a plane at that speed could not have come closer than 60 feet or even 80 feet of the ground, which is higher than the Pentagon at 71 feet is tall.
	Since violations of laws of nature are physically impossible, something must be wrong.
	How could the official account possibly be true?
	Various accounts of scientific reasoning posit a series of stages of inquiry, beginning with one of puzzlement, where something doesn't fit into our background knowledge and invites attention, speculation, during which alternative possible explanations are articulated for consideration, adaptation, where the strength of the relationship between those hypotheses and the available evidence is evaluated, and explanation, where When the evidence has settled down, the best supporter of the alternatives may be accepted in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.
	It ought to be apparent already that the official account cannot be reconciled with available evidence where serious thinkers, I surmise, can excuse themselves only by ignoring 9-11 entirely.
	And here we have the key to why some prominent conspiracy theorists are relatively easy targets of public attack.
	Alex Jones, the paradigm of the category, often does excellent work in drawing attention to puzzling cases, while what we are learning does not fit into our background knowledge and understanding.
	And he's equally good at speculating about possible alternative explanations.
	But he does not have the aptitude or the ability to carry their investigation further.
	We're sorting out the difference between authentic and fabricated evidence can play a crucial role.
	At the Pentagon, for example, a key piece of fuselage from a Boeing 757, which the media has frequently cited, did not come from Flight 77.
	But from an earlier crash near Cali, Colombia in 1995, where the salvage was done by an Israeli firm and then planted on the lawn that day as proof, a plane had crashed there.
	Lest it be thought that 9-11 may be the exception, let's consider another familiar case, that of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, as a second.
	If it turns out that conspiracy theories here are unfalsifiable, then perhaps the admonition against taking them seriously has some foundation in fact.
	But that does not appear to be true here either.
	In criminal investigations, homicide detectives apply multiple criteria of motive, means, and opportunity to identify and narrow the list of suspects.
	Among the most familiar theories about the assassination of JFK, for example, are alternative hypotheses positing H1, that it was done by Fidel Castro, H2, that it was done by the Mafia, H3, that it was done by the KGB, and H4, alas, that it was done by the CIA.
	Are these theories testable?
	Are they unfalsifiable?
	On the official account, Lee Oswald fired three lucky shots and killed JFK while wounding John Connally, the governor of Texas.
	Suppose the alleged assassin had been an expert shot, the man liquor Carcano is said to have used was an appropriate choice for the purpose, the backyard photos showing Oswald holding a rifle, wearing a belt and holster with a revolver which with he is said to have shot officer J.D.
	Tippett, and holding two communist newspapers was authentic.
	And the lone assassin theory just might have merit.
	In a single package, the version published on the cover of Life magazine subtly conveys that this guy had the motive as a communist, the means, rifle and handgun, and presumably, opportunity by working in the Texas School Book Depository and encountering Officer Tippett while he made his escape.
	But what if it turns out that Oswald was a mediocre shot, that the weapon he's alleged to have used was a World War II carbine known as the humanitarian rifle for never harming anyone on purpose, that there were four versions of the backyard photographs where his face and expression remain exactly the same across different poses taken at different times, that the chin on the subject in the photos is a blocked chin, not Oswald's tapered chin, And that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip, that the fingers of his right hand are cut off, and that the shell casings found at the site of the Tippett shooting by the first officer on the scene have been ejected from one or more automatics, not from a revolver such as he possessed.
	Although most philosophers might not know, Oswald was a mediocre shot, the weapon was a ridiculous choice for an assassination, the shell casings found at the scene by the first officer to arrive had been ejected by one or more automatics, and the backyard photos were staged.
	Where experts even appear to have identified the standing for Oswald, who was Roscoe White, a Dallas police officer with ties to the CIA.
	One student, Jack White, used the newspapers and the photos, the dimensions of which are known, as an internal measure of the height of the man in the photos, who it turns out is either too short, at 5'6", to be the 5'10", Oswald, or Which is more likely.
	The photos were introduced a bit too large.
	The newspapers were introduced a bit too large when the photos were manufactured.
	From a philosophical point of view, the facts matter less than that the hypothesis that Oswald was framed as a lone gunman appears to be empirically testable.
	Indeed, recent research has confirmed the opinion of Harold Weisberg and of Jim Garrison that a figure in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository was not his co-worker, Billy Lovelady, as the government proclaims.
	But Lee Oswald himself, just as he had explained to Will Fritz, the homicide detective who interrogated him, when asked where he had been during the shooting, namely, quote, out with Bill Shelley in front, end quote, where Bill Shelley was one of his supervisors in the Book Depository.
	And this has been confirmed not only by studies of the height, weight, build, and clothing of the two alternatives, but by recent superposition of their images in the famous Alton 6 photograph.
	You do not have to be familiar with the extensive conspiracy literature by authors, including,
	to cite only some of the most famous. Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, 1996. Josiah Thompson,
	Six Seconds in Dallas, 1967. David S. Lifton, Best Evidence, 1980. Jim Morris, Crossfire, 1989.
	Robert J. Grody, The Killing of a President, 1994. And The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald, 1990.
	Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, 1997, and Douglas Horn, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Fine Volumes, 2009, On the Conspiracy Side of the Ledger, and others such as Vince Mugliosi, Reclaiming History, 2007, Which runs around 1,500 pages in Defending the Warren Commission Report 1964, which was said to have been supported by 26 volumes of evidence, until you take a closer look, as Sylvia Moore Accessories After the Fact 1992 did, demonstrating that the contents of those 26 volumes contradicts the 888-page summary.
	It turns out that conspiracy to commit burglary, to commit fraud, to commit murder, and so on, is the most widely prosecuted crime in the United States.
	Conspiracies only require two or more individuals to act in concert to commit a crime.
	Once you know that JFK was hit at least four times, once in the back from behind, once in the throat from in front, and at least twice in the head from behind and from the right front, after the driver William Greer had brought the limousine to a halt to make sure he would be killed, and the case for conspiracy is beyond doubt, See, for example, the studies of the medical evidence by David W. Mantic, MD, PhD, who is board-certified in radiation oncology, and discovered the autopsy x-rays were altered to patch a fist-sized blowout at the back of the head, which had been widely reported by physicians at Parkland Hospital, where the body was taken, and the leading JFK medical expert in the world.
	C. David W. Manick, John F. Kennedy's head wounds, a final synthesis, and a new analysis of the Harper Fragment, 2015.
	Most philosophers are not even aware that, on the day of the assassination, two wounds were repeatedly reported over the national networks.
	A shot to the throat, which Malcolm Perry M.D.
	explained to the press during a conference following the announcement of death, was a wound of entrance, where the bullet was coming at him, and a shot to the right temple, which blew out the back of his head, a report attributed to Admiral George D. Berkeley, the president's personal physician, and reported by Malcolm Kilduff, acting press secretary.
	Who said it was a simple matter of a bullet through the head while pointing to his right temple while announcing his death.
	Indeed, Frank McGee, who was a keen analyst that day on NBC, when reports that the shooter had been above and behind began to surface, astutely remarked, quote, this is in Congress.
	How can the man have been shot from in front?
	From behind?
	End quote.
	That, of course, was a conundrum that the Warren Commission had to resolve—how to make the case for a lone assassin when there was evidence in the public domain that JFK had been shot from several directions in a brief span of time.
	It was a gargantuan challenge where they were not entirely successful, since wide swaths of the public to this day doubt that Lee Oswald acted alone.
	Many, myself among them, believe that distrust in the American government dates from the deception perpetrated on the American public about the assassination of JFK, where so many were listening to their radios and glued to their television and learned with their own ears and eyes that he'd been shot in the throat from in front and that he had been shot in the right temple from the right front.
	Frank McGee had it right.
	How can the man have been shot from in front?
	From behind?
	Yet the government insists on the lone gunman to this day.
	During the past two decades, the scientific studies of the assassination have been undertaken by experts in different fields, including a world authority on the human brain, who is also an expert on wound ballistics, several PhDs, one of whom is also an MD, and a physician who is present in Trauma Room No. 1 When JFK's morbid body was brought to Parkland Hospital and who, two days later, was responsible for the care and treatment of his alleged assassin.
	Assassination Science, 1998, Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, 2003, for example, have been described by Vincent Mugliosi.
	Reclaiming History 2007 as the only exclusively scientific volumes ever published on the assassination, where Douglas Horn, inside the Assassination Records Review Board 2005, extends that tradition with five more.
	The discovery of more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit, that the body was altered and the autopsy x-rays were changed, and that the whole movies of the assassination were massively edited, To conceal the true causes of death, provide evidence that falsifies H1, that it was done by Fidel Castro, H2, that it was done by the Mafia, and H3, that it was done by the KGB.
	None of them could have exerted control over the Secret Service, the autopsy at Bethesda, or the home movies, including the Zapruder film, which was in the custody of the Secret Service.
	Which means not only are JFK conspiracy theories empirically testable, but multiple among them have already been falsified.
	H4, of course, remains under consideration in all of its manifestations, including the indispensable collusion of LBJ and the FBI.
	What matters here, however, is not the specifics of whodunit, but that the situation with regard to conspiracy theories is not at all as popular belief would have it.
	Not only are they not unfalsifiable, but the application of scientific reasoning has produced significant results which have led to the identification of the probable perps.
	Philosophy, through teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, has much to contribute to the public good.
	There is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories that warrants their neglect by philosophers.
	On the contrary, because most students have a keen interest in knowing the truth about JFK, 9-11, and a host of other politically significant but controversial events, There's a wealth of material to work with if faculty, philosophers especially, would come down from their ivory tower and engage with real-world events.
	A striking illustration of the difference it makes for public affairs may be found in the attacks upon Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, whom the Democrats, as the majority party, removed from her committee assignments because she was raising too many issues they did not want to address about Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas, California wildfires, and more.
	Having done research on all of these, I composed an assessment.
	What turns out that, on every one of the issues about which she was being attacked, Marjorie Taylor Greene was either clearly in the right or supported by the weight of the evidence.
	Most of her assertions, of course, qualified, in the mind of her critics, as conspiracy theories.
	But if they had paused to consider the evidence with regard to each of them, they would have been impressed, provided only they had an open mind.
	And there's the rub.
	As James Files, who may or may not have been behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, informed me, when the government commits a lie, it's stuck with it.
	which of course resonates with a failure of the government to change its position about the 19 Islamic hijackers on 9-11,
	or Lee Oswald as a lone demented gunman on 22 November 1963, which means in turn that the government is not
	operating on the basis of principles of science or of rationality, where the discovery of new evidence
	or alternative hypotheses may require that we reject hypotheses we previously accepted,
	accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
	The government operates as an authoritarian source of politically infallible knowledge, where to admit mistakes would weaken its grip on the body politic that it governs.
	Reflecting upon the treatment of Marjorie Taylor Greene, it struck me like a silver bullet.
	Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes.
	No wonder they want to silence us.
	The government was involved in the assassination of JFK.
	The government was involved in 9-11.
	The government was involved in Sandy Hook Parkland in Las Vegas, too.
	Think of the genius of it all.
	The perps themselves are in the position of dictating to the public who is credible and who is not when it comes to investigating crimes in which the government itself is complicit.
	It turns out, therefore, the answer to the question we ask, what's wrong with conspiracy theories, could not be more obvious once they are properly understood.
	We should all be conspiracy theorists.
	The nation can only benefit from sorting out true conspiracy theories from false.
	Wow, Jim, I have to tell you, I want to kind of give you a standing ovation for that, because that is Pulitzer material, my friend.
	You ought to be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for that, because that was an amazing piece of empirical research.
	It was an analysis.
	It was a discourse analysis.
	It was a way to understand the process of scientific reasoning can and will falsify, can falsify these conspiracy theories.
	Or prove that they are unfalsifiable.
	This is about critical thinking.
	It's about examining this.
	It's about saying, well, there is a relationship between this, you know, X and Y. So, you know, we have to look deeper into this.
	And I think the most important thing that you were talking about here, this issue of This proverbial rabbit hole and the fact that people, you know, need to have an open mind when they start looking at this.
	But, you know, just yesterday I saw a clip from Rachel Maddow who was with regard to this, you know, ballot recount in Maricopa County.
	and she had to preface it, she had to go bias people, you know, in her audience saying,
	well, you know, the people who are doing the recount are, you know, Trump supporter,
	QAnon conspiracy theorists, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So, you know, she wanted to, she knew that they were going to find fraud, so they're out in the
	front kind of control the narrative of it.
	But as you've pointed out, Jim, they've lost control of the narrative.
	And when you have the government itself, some factions within the government who are responsible for these crimes, there's crimes here, then that's what the problem with conspiracy theories actually really are.
	It's that they're covering up crimes.
	Well, figures like Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid and Lawrence O'Donnell, these are masters, well-trained experts in propaganda and disinformation.
	I have no doubt about it.
	They have received very high-level training.
	And I assure you, after 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, and Since 2006, but beginning really in 1992.
	What?
	Three decades of research on conspiracies?
	I can guarantee you that is their role.
	CNN is, if anything, even more blatant, but also more transparent.
	It's easier to tell that CNN is shoveling than it is in the case of MSNBC.
	And of course, some of my dearest parties in my life, including my wife, is addicted to MSNBC.
	So that we have actually had the most strenuous arguments of our marriage.
	And we married in 1977, Louisa.
	Oh, gee.
	The most strenuous arguments of our marriage over Donald Trump and politics in the recent era here.
	And where she, like most of the rest of my family, buys into the coronavirus phenomenon,
	where I have done too much research, I've learned too much to take it seriously,
	and why I entreat everyone to...
	To avoid taking the vaccination, believe me, the risk, the harms that you are going to run from the vaccination are overwhelmingly greater than the risk from the exposure to the alleged virus.
	Where it turns out, if you look at the empirical data, A study came through the cracks from Johns Hopkins showing that in all age groups, there'd been no increase in the deaths in 2020 during the pandemic from deaths in 2019.
	Since this is a respiratory infection, if there actually had been a vast number of hospitalizations, the sale of oxygen tanks And IV stands and drips would have increased, but there's been no increase in oxygen tanks or IV stands and drips.
	And here Ben Swan did a marvelous job of presenting an expert in life insurance, a fellow who is an authority on mathematical modeling and statistics, who explained that Because the life insurance industry rises or falls based upon its ability to anticipate deaths in various categories, there's been no change, no change in life insurance premiums during the alleged pandemic, which is, from a completely different point of view, another proof that this is not a real phenomenon.
	It's a political pandemic, not a medical emergency.
	Yes.
	I'm gonna show you right here.
	This is, remember those, that huge demand of ventilators?
	Never used and thrown away.
	And the winner for this deal is Beijing Aerospace, Changfeng Company Limited.
	So here it is.
	You could see the video.
	I know our listeners on Ascension Radio can't see this, but we're looking at images here.
	We're looking at images of cases, you know, pallets of ventilators, brand new ventilators that are packaged and then wrapped with, you know, shipping wrapping in a landfill.
	Jim, these are all... Yeah, they're just being dumped because they have no use for them, no place to store them.
	Exactly.
	They certainly didn't have the patience who needed them.
	In fact, it turns out ventilators were actually death-inducing.
	If you were put on a ventilator, your expiration That had arrived.
	It was a very bad thing.
	Of course, it was Senator Scott Johnson of Minnesota, who's also an MD, who first revealed what was going on when he was pressured to identify a patient who'd never been tested as having died from HIV.
	He explained that the hospitals were being given What, $19,000 for every patient they claim to be HIV and $39,000 for every patient they put on a ventilator?
	It's a scam, Louisa!
	And they're using taxpayer money to facilitate.
	I mean, the horrors are simply unbelievable.
	I have lots and lots of articles about the coronavirus on my blog at jamesfetzer.org, and I have many videos and presentations on my BitChute channel.
	BitChute channel, Jim underscore Fetzer will get you there.
	I'm doing weekly, actually daily reports five days a week on a program called Need to Know, where each day I have two other commentators, one of whom is an expert in the area of medical science, The others, all of diverse backgrounds, where we go through the latest developments every single day, need to know, which is also posted on my BitChute channel and also on my Telegram account at t.me slash Jim Fetzer News.
	Jim, I'm going to just go back to your article here for a minute and point out a few things because I really loved the way you started out this article.
	The public has been fed an endless stream of attacks upon conspiracy theories, which we are told are supposed to be very bad for human beings and other living things.
	Boom!
	I mean, right off the top, exactly.
	You know, it's a taboo.
	You're not supposed to believe conspiracy theories.
	It's bad for you.
	It's bad for you.
	Something bad's going to happen, but they never say what.
	They never say, you know, They're trying to control the narrative, but they never say why.
	As you pointed out, they never point out any evidence that it is bad.
	They just say that it's bad.
	Basically, people ridicule each other over this label of conspiracy theory.
	They've actually gotten us, Jim, to really kind of attack each other.
	It's amazing, but that's how they're doing it.
	Well, I very much appreciate your assessment of the style and character of the piece.
	And of course, something like this is never going to be considered, much less nominated for a Pulitzer.
	They reserve that for propaganda.
	And what I have here is anti-propaganda.
	So just as there's a publication out there, in case you don't know about the anti-New York Times, Which gives really devastating accounts of what's actually going on versus the New York Times, which, sad to say, is the United States newspaper of record, meaning what is published in the United States is supposed to be the official history of America.
	Sad to say, just has so wandered off the deep end.
	It's really not fit to line your garbage can to tell the truth.
	Now, Louisa, what I'd like you're picking up on the first sentence and what I...
	I mean, looking back upon it and assessing it objectively.
	How I just happened to find this college, you know, these notes about conspiracy theories that are all unfalsifiable, perfect for my theme.
	And then that, in Frontiers of Psychology, they had a piece saying that actually conspiracy theorists are more open-minded and willing to look at the evidence than those who are not.
	And that's exactly right, Louisa.
	It turns out that conspiracy theorists actually have a higher critical thinking IQ than those who are opposed to them.
	And it's a good thing because they're pretty smart when they try to pull these things off.
	But as we discover, in many cases, they're not rocket scientists and they can commit blunders.
	But it does require a special background and ability to sort out, for example, the fabricated evidence from The Authentic.
	Just for example, it was David W. Mantic, who's got both a PhD in physics and an MD and is board qualified in radiation oncology, which is a treatment of cancer using x-ray therapy.
	Who entered the National Archives back in 1992 with the permission of Burke Marshall, a professor of law emeritus at Yale, the Kennedy family attorney, to study the autopsy x-rays and applied a technique called optical densitometry, which he knew of because of his background in physics.
	That allows you to calculate, based upon the amount of light that passes through an x-ray, the relative density of the objects whose exposure to radiation created the images.
	He told me going in that he thought he was going to discover that the x-rays had been altered, and also that he'd find evidence of a second shot to the head.
	He wound up Finding both.
	And that was, of course, a major part of my very first of that trilogy, Assassination, Science, Murder, and Dealey Plaza, and the great Zapruder film hoax.
	What I have done ever since, Louisa, is bring together groups of experts Especially those in areas where I am not, in order to take apart what really happened, which, as I say, can require, you know, backgrounds and abilities that are not available among ordinary civilians, you know, who are, of course, targets of propaganda because they come home and they hear from two or three sources on television or read it in the paper or hear it on CNN.
	They take for granted because they are hearing it from these different sources that those are independent confirmations, when in fact they're not.
	They're simply purveyors of the same propaganda, in many cases off the very same text or reports they're required to deliver.
	What you just described, Jim, is exactly, and not surprising, and I would expect nothing less from a professor of reason and logic here, but this is exactly What you just outlined is how critical thinking works.
	It's an intellectual discipline process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, and analyzing, synthesizing, and or evaluating information gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as the guide to belief and action.
	In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend Subject matter divisions.
	Clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reason, depth, breadth, and fairness.
	But it entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning.
	The purpose, the problem, or the question at issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding, reasoning, Leading to conclusions.
	But what's most important is that it takes what you just said, this multidisciplinary, you know, to look at it from multiple, I would say, disciplines, to look at it from different perspectives, which is what you just said that you do for your books.
	You take people who would have a different and maybe unique perspective and opinion, you know, area of expertise where they would weigh in.
	And that's how you really kind of put the pieces of the puzzle together.
	And, you know, examine it as a whole, not just from one lens, but through many lenses.
	And that's how you come to these conclusions.
	And your mind, my friend, is very dangerous.
	I'm not surprised.
	I'm sorry that you're in this legal lynching.
	I really am sorry for that, truly, because you are a threat, obviously, to the powers that be who want to conceal.
	What's fascinating about my case is that the court wouldn't allow me to present my defense.
	I mean, the reason I responded to get into court was I had this massive evidence in the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	Well, I brought together 13 experts, some of whom had published extensively on Sandy Hook before I edited the book.
	One, Dr. Ewan, for example, had already published 80 articles, 80 articles about Sandy Hook.
	I, myself, had already published 30.
	So I felt we had this massive evidence that would be very appropriate to present to the public through a court process, because court records are all public records.
	But then in the midst of the trial, after I outlined exactly what I wanted to present, it was actually during the scheduling conference, the judge ruled it out.
	He said we weren't going to go down that rabbit hole.
	He wasn't going to let me present my defense.
	Now, what's very interesting is, you know, he wound up rendering a summary judgment ruling, which is very inappropriate in the case of defamation because that can be so subjective to evaluate.
	He ruled against me even though I had two expert document examiners who supported my
	position on the legal issues, which meant there was a disputed issue of fact in this
	case, namely the authenticity of a death certificate that I'd been sued over.
	It had to be sent to a jury for resolution, Louisa, and nevertheless, he went ahead and
	ruled by a summary judgment.
	Now the reason I'm mentioning this is that I am now in the process of appealing to the
	Wisconsin Supreme Court, and we have found a United States Supreme Court decision where
	a pro se defendant appealed his case because the court would not allow him to present his
	defense, which is precisely what happened to me, and the Supreme Court reversed.
	So that if we don't win at the Wisconsin Supreme Court level, I will carry this to the United States Supreme Court.
	And I just say, you know, I think this is a case that is so important.
	Because you have this monster scam perpetrated on the American people by the American government and let there be no doubt about it.
	This was a Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Governor Daniel Malloy, Connecticut State Police, Newtown A board of education operation and where those who participated and feigned having children or relatives who died at Sandy Hook benefited enormously financially were by my calculations the public
	You know, sympathetic, but naive, gullible, contributed between $27 and $130 million in donations, which divided by 26 families is between $1 and $5 million apiece, for having feigned to have lost a child at Sandy Hook, where we discovered, Louisa, get this, that the way they faked the kids was by using photographs of older kids when they were children.
	One of my colleagues in research, Mona Lexis Presley, even surmised that some of the parents cynically use photographs of themselves as children to be the deceased children at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, it's that bad.
	It's that blatant.
	It's that monstrous.
	Jim, I'm telling you, a lot of people are going to have a hard time believing this.
	And I'm going to, there's a few points that I want to make.
	The first one is that, as you know, All truths go through three stages, right?
	First, it's ridiculed.
	Second, it's violently opposed.
	And third, it's accepted as being self-evident.
	I don't know what the time frame is between each and every one of them.
	Could be decades.
	I hope not in this case.
	But yes, when it comes to conspiracies now, we can talk a little bit.
	We can go off of that.
	We're talking about conspiracy, though.
	The problem is that it's so big, people can't really get their minds around it.
	When you're talking about the government, Jim.
	Let me just add a few more words about Sandy Hook, and then we can leave it to the side.
	In my answer, in my initial response to the court, I outlined the massive proof I had that we had even discovered the FEMA manual for a two-day mass casualty exercise involving children, which was to be presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	We found the manual.
	I published it as Appendix A in the book.
	I demonstrated how events on the ground conformed to the requirements of the manual.
	For example, the manual says everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival, and there was a portable sign right there.
	Everyone must check in!
	And I asked, you know, I asked the detective police, I said, you know, have you ever heard of a sign, everyone must check in at a crime scene?
	It was ridiculous, right?
	They had porta-potties, they had porta-potties already in place.
	There was pizza in bottled water at the firehouse.
	I, again, I asked law enforcement, have you ever heard of porta-potties set up at a crime scene?
	Goodness.
	So many were wearing name tags on lanyards.
	Well, that just turns out to be standard operating procedure for a female exercise.
	They identify everyone by color-coded name tags on lanyards.
	You had parents bringing children to the scene.
	Louisa, no parent is going to be a child in the scene of a child shooting massacre.
	But this was an event.
	They were treating it as a festification.
	And that's already on the 13th, the day before the event officially took place on the 14th.
	And guess what?
	On the 14th, no surge of EMTs into the building.
	No string of ambulances to rush the little bodies off to hospitals where they could be pronounced dead or alive.
	No medevac helicopter was called in.
	They even do that for drills.
	They put out triage tarps, but no bodies that are wounded were ever placed upon them.
	And there was no evacuation of the other 369 students who were allegedly present there.
	No evacuation whatsoever.
	I mean, it goes on and on, Louisa.
	And let me just add this, which is going to be startling.
	See, most Americans never get to the point of looking at the evidence.
	They never hear the details that I'm sketching here that they can appraise that they realize, oh my God, he's right.
	It really was a scam.
	One of my contributors, Paul Preston, who actually is fairly well known nationwide because he has a show called Agenda 21.
	Was himself a former school administrator.
	He supervised active shooter drills.
	And he was so troubled by what he saw, a broadcast from Newtown that day, that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education.
	All of whom confirmed to him it had been a drill, no children had been harmed, and it was done to promote gun control.
	That was from the Obama Department of Education.
	They knew what was going on.
	They knew it was a drill.
	They knew no one was being harmed.
	They knew what was done to promote gun control, and they told him, and that's in the book too.
	Was that Wolfgang Helbig?
	No, no, no, Paul Preston.
	Oh, Paul Preston, I'm sorry.
	But Wolfgang has also been, I mean, and he is an expert in, you know, Wolfgang is a school safety expert.
	He's a former Florida State Trooper.
	He's a former U.S.
	Customs agent.
	Those are very responsible positions.
	He's a former school administrator, too.
	And he is also a national leading school safety expert who began making inquiries About what happened at Sandy Hook.
	He made FOIA request phone calls, but noticed he wasn't getting replies.
	They weren't returning his calls.
	And before he knew it, there were two homicide detectives from the local precinct on his porch in a gated community where he resides in Florida telling him they were there on behalf of the Connecticut State Police.
	And if he didn't stop asking questions about Sandy Hook, he would be prosecuted.
	Well, Louisa, he just wanted to find out what happened so he could warn other school systems to make sure it didn't happen to them.
	His motives were pure!
	But boy, that set him, he's like a bulldog.
	In fact, he even got the Patricia LaLorda, who is the first select man of Newtown, a position equivalent to mayor, during a legal hearing under oath in pursuit of his, you know, the failure of Connecticut to respond to his FOIA request to acknowledge That the sign, everyone must check in, was put there by FEMA.
	When Louisa, FEMA wasn't supposed to have anything to do with this.
	What was FEMA having to do with a school shooting in Connecticut?
	Unless it was actually a mass casualty drill under the auspices of FEMA, which indeed was what we discovered in our collaborative research.
	So they banned the book, Louisa.
	It was too good.
	It blew the whole case apart.
	At the time, Amazon had 20 books on Sandy Hook, 19 of which were supportive of the official account, some of which were literally absurd.
	One about a teacher who was supposed to have saved 15 first graders by cramming them into a 3x4 bathroom with a door that swung inward.
	15 teenagers.
	I said, well, let's assume they weigh 50 pounds apiece.
	That's 750 pounds of squirming, you know, sixth graders.
	Right.
	I mean, six-year-olds.
	And then you got the teacher.
	Let's give another 100 pounds to her.
	750 pounds into a three-by-four bathroom with a door that swings in.
	A single NFL tackle or guard who weighs about 350 would have filled it up.
	I mean, that's just an absurd story.
	Amazon had no problem selling an absurd story like that, but when you have one book that was contesting the official account, that was one book too many, so they banned it.
	What they didn't anticipate was I would release it for free as a PDF.
	And a friend of mine who's followed these matters has told me by his calculation, the PDF
	was downloaded over 10 million times, Louisa.
	So really, they were going after me so they could claim there was something in the book
	that they would tell anyone who was releasing the PDF for free
	that if they were now to release it, they'd be committing a defamation because they
	had a court judgment against me.
	That was what they were doing.
	As well, of course, as dragging me in, causing me a lot of expense, having to hire an attorney,
	and then setting an example that if you go against the official narrative,
	this is what's going to happen to you.
	That's the story.
	And they did it similarly to Wolfgang, and they did it similarly to James Tracy.
	And I mean, this is the pattern.
	It is, unfortunately.
	And that, you know, I just want to.
	Before we address that in the second hour, I want to ask if you want to take a five-minute break as we begin our second hour, just a little transition.
	Would you like to take a break, Jim, or do you want to keep moving?
	Sure, I'll just get some ice water, Louise.
	I'll be right back.
	Okay, I'm going to play a little bit of music while we have a little break, and then we'll be right back, folks.
	So stay with us.
	Don't go anywhere.
	Thank you. Thanks.
	Hi, everyone.
	Thank you.
	Tell me, will the stars align?
	Will heaven stand, be it will it save us from our sin?
	Will it?
	Does this house of mine stand strong?
	That's the price you pay Leave me on your heart and cast away
	Just another product of today Rather be the halter than the prey
	And you're standing on the edge face up Cause you're a natural
	Up in and out You gotta be so strong
	To make it this work Yeah you're a natural
	Live in your life bro You gotta be so strong
	Yeah you're a natural Well somebody
	Let me see the light within the dark trees Shadowing what's happening
	Looking through the glass Find the wrong within the past
	Knowing we are these Caught up to the beast
	Out of words without the beat Facing a bit of the truth
	The truth That's the price you pay.
	Leave behind your heart and cast away.
	Just admit the product of today.
	Rather be the hunter than the prey.
	to the dance, to party.
	And you're standing on the edge facing up because you're a natural.
	I'm sitting on the moon.
	You've got to be so cold to make it worth it.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Living your life on the moon.
	Oh, you got it, bitch, so cool.
	You've got to be so cold.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Deep inside me, I'm fading.
	Deep inside me, I'm fading like I'm fading.
	Took an oath by the blood of my hand.
	Took an oath by the blood of my hand.
	I'm breaking.
	I'm breaking.
	I can taste it.
	I can taste it.
	The end is upon us.
	The end is upon us, I swear.
	I swear I'm gonna make it.
	I'm gonna make it!
	I'm sitting on the moon.
	You've got to be so cold to make it worth it.
	Gonna make it.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Living your life on the moon.
	I'm gonna make it!
	You've got to be so cold.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Deep inside me, I'm fading.
	I'm breaking.
	I can taste it.
	The end is upon us.
	I'm getting wild.
	I swear I'm gonna make it.
	You got it, bitch, so cool.
	To make it, it's worth it.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Living your life, so cool.
	You got it, bitch, so cool.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	Natural.
	Bro.
	Yeah, you're a natural.
	OK, we are back.
	And let me just continue the recording here.
	Yes, we're back recording now on our second hour on Ascension Radio with the Goldfish Report with Well, my co-host of Political Theatre, my friend Jim Fetzer, and we're talking about why our conspiracy theory, what's wrong with conspiracy theories.
	In the first hour, we went through an article that Jim published, in case you're just joining us right now, and it was called, What's Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?
	And we found out, according to Jim's research and his empirical, I would say, analysis and examination, The second hour here, we're going to continue the conversation because there's a lot to talk about when it comes to conspiracies, and I want to just play a quick clip, Jim, if that's okay with you, of Yuri, let's see, what's his name here, Bezmenov, because I think what's happened here, why people have such a hard time believing conspiracies, unfortunately, this psychological warfare
	has been very successful.
	Let's just listen to what he has to say.
	And let's see how we tie this in.
	Because I, I think that very much this is, this is very, this is very much related to the topic of conversation, because he said that even when, especially, there's this process called, it's called ideological subversion.
	And It's basically psychological warfare.
	And it's to change the perception of reality to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions.
	In the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community.
	It's a brainwashing process that goes very slow, so it's very incremental.
	And there's four stages to it.
	He says the first stage is demoralization, which takes 15 to 20 years, which is the minimum number of years required to educate a generation of people in the ideology of the enemy, which is Marxism-Leninism, as he had stated it.
	Without there being a counter counterbalance of American values.
	So in other words, like all the people who were like professors or graduated, I would say, like in the 60s, they had their they had like this communist influence in their education system.
	And maybe Jim, you can, you know, comment on that.
	But they said that that once this process was complete, it was irreversible and that they were Really unable to assess true information, even when presented with facts, you cannot change their mind.
	Let's just listen to what he has to say about that for one minute, because this is part of the problem, I think, that we have today, is that there definitely has been an infiltration, and I think that this is, as you said, there's a gun control agenda behind some of it, right?
	Let's listen to what he has to say.
	He will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.
	When the military boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that.
	That's the tragic of the situation of demoralization.
	So basically, America is stuck with demoralization.
	And unless, even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating your generation of Americans, it will still take you 15 to 20 years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.
	The next stage is destabilization.
	Let me go back to the first one.
	White is white and black is black.
	You still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
	In other words, these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.
	To get rid of society of these people, you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interest of the United States society.
	And yet these people who've been programmed, and as you say, in place, and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept, these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country.
	Most of them, yes.
	Simply because the psychological shock, when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt.
	They will be very unhappy, frustrated people.
	And the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people.
	Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents.
	Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America.
	Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being dissident or criticizing your Squashed like cockroaches.
	Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality.
	This they don't understand, and it will be a greatest shock for them, of course.
	The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last 25 years.
	Actually, it's overfulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success.
	Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.
	As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore.
	A person who was demoralized He's unable to assess true information.
	The facts tell nothing to him.
	Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it.
	Okay, so Jim, this is pretty significant because I have, you know, I do believe this is related as he pointed out many interesting, I'm sorry, I just have to re-plug in my headset, very many interesting points.
	This is a very long-term psychological warfare.
	It's a very long-term process of demoralization and he's right.
	We're seeing this right before our eyes right now, aren't we?
	Well, it's a good question.
	Certainly whatever is going on here is bizarre in the extreme from the point of view of reason and rationality, and also from the point of view of everyday morality in civil society.
	I mean, you got a group, you got a major political party supporting Aggressive groups violating the law in American cities on a large scale with impunity.
	I'm talking about Antifa and Black Lives Matter being egged on and supported by the Democratic Party in blatant violations of the law, and the mayors and the governors of the states are doing nothing to control it, which is, of course, creating a tremendous sense of alarm among the The American people looking upon this, particularly when they're advocating defunding the police or even abolishing law enforcement, in my opinion, Louisa, there has never been a dumber political platform than defunding the police.
	And the very idea that Americans could accept there being no law enforcement.
	I mean, what then is to protect each of us from the mob?
	And we've seen the mob at work.
	We have seen the mob looting and rioting, committing arson, even murder, Louisa.
	So in my opinion, you know, when the Democrats, on the one hand, promote defunding the police, and on the other, want to take our guns, They have just devastated their own political objectives.
	Americans are not going to give up their guns because they know if they don't have their guns, they're going to be victims of the mob that the rabble will rule.
	Mind-numbing to me that this should be taking place, and yet Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, they're all eager to have us, have everyone, their people, the Black Lives Matter Antifa out there in the streets, rioting, looting.
	They're promoting lawlessness.
	They are grossly exaggerating what's going on here.
	Look, In terms of racial statistics, there are 55 times more black-on-black murders than there are blacks killed by whites.
	That's actually the least category.
	But whites killed by blacks are about 10 per million.
	Whites killed by whites about 10 per million.
	But blacks killed by whites less than one per million, and yet that's what Black Lives Matter and the Democrats focus on.
	Black-on-black crime 55 times plus more frequent.
	And yet, and yet, and yet, Louisa, you do polls, and these people, the public is so ignorant, they think, oh, thousands and thousands of innocent blacks are being killed by the police.
	Last year, I believe the total number was 18.
	Eighteen.
	They believe thousands.
	They think there's a genocide going out there.
	Okay, I've seen numbers that indicate that the numbers are higher for whites killed by police than blacks killed by police.
	Have you seen that?
	That's true too, yeah.
	I expect that's true too, yeah.
	Right, so what's happening is, you know, as you're talking about Antifa, you're talking about all these mobs in the cities, you're talking about the governors who are allowing this to happen. It looks
	like there's what he was talking about, what Yuri, I have to remember, Besmanov was talking about, even
	though that was, what was that, back in the 80s or 90s he did that interview, it's playing out
	because it is a long-term, you know, 15 to 20 year plan to demoralize a society.
	And this is what they're doing.
	This is the process of demoralization.
	Are these not socialist, communist, you know, policies?
	Right.
	readily accessible information.
	George Soros has vowed that before he ends his life, he wants to destroy America.
	And he has been financing district attorneys in cities all over the world
	to create a revolving door of justice.
	So they commit criminal offenses one day and they're out on the street the next.
	And you have this going on in California, New York.
	Do you know that since they began defunding the police in New York, rape have gone up by 400% in New York City, rape alone.
	And the vast majority of crimes of violence, arrests in New York City were by blacks and Latinos.
	A percentage caused by whites is miniscule.
	Blacks and Latinos.
	You know, you think some of these people, members of the squad, believe everyone has an equal propensity for committing crimes.
	And if everyone had an equal propensity for committing crimes, regardless of your race or your background, your education, your socioeconomic status, then it would be bizarre that so many blacks are in prison.
	But the fact is blacks overwhelmingly commit the most crimes in the United States.
	I mean, this is a fact.
	This is not a theory.
	This is a fact.
	And they appear to be pretending it's not the case.
	I mean, it's just absurd what we're getting from some of those in the Democratic Party because it's utterly irresponsible.
	It's false.
	If they did any research they would know it's false.
	I think they're so driven ideologically, Louisa, that the facts don't matter.
	Their minds are made up and the, you know, facts don't matter.
	Right, but that's what this ideological subversion has achieved.
	I'm trying to say that in modern day times we're seeing the effects of it.
	This is the This is the success of that program, is what we're seeing right now, because those people whose names you just mentioned, they're following a socialist communist agenda.
	In fact, let's take a look at Maxine Waters and who she... let's take a look at Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and who they're working for, who they're getting money from.
	Let's take a look at Joe Biden and his relationship with China.
	Now, this is communism and they're trying to, little by little by little, And, of course, these conspiracy theories are exposing that there's something going on, and until we look at the whole relation, how they're all interrelated, and figure it out, you know, this is what we're trying to do with this kind of program, is to look at the relationship between all of them.
	The Republicans, in this case Bush and Cheney, had to steal the election of 2000 in order to bring us 9-11.
	And Bush and Harris had to steal the election in 2020 to bring us defunding the police and the Green New Deal.
	I mean, they have preposterous programs that actually have no foundation in actual science They're claiming they're following the science when they're absolutely not.
	Anthony Fauci, whom I refer to as Tony the Rat, is going to go down as the greatest mass murderer in all of history.
	He's ringing about the deaths of tens of millions, even hundreds.
	Would you believe deagle.com?
	This is a big website that makes projections about future populations of various nations.
	It has in the past projected that between 2020, when the U.S.
	has 330 million, it's going to drop to fewer than 100 million in 2025.
	They've just revised their projection and it's no longer Fewer than 100 million.
	I think it's now down to 87 million.
	They've taken off another 12 million because Americans are so gullible.
	Wearing masks is very damaging to your health.
	All the accumulated crud you'd normally exhale and get out of your system is now being recycled into your system.
	Fauci himself did a study of the Spanish flu with colleagues and they discovered the overwhelming majority didn't die from the flu.
	They died from bacterial pneumonia.
	And guess what promotes bacterial pneumonia?
	Wearing masks.
	So what they're doing is using this mask method to bring about the death of Americans slowly.
	They're using the injections.
	Look, one of the real brilliant experts in this field is Judy Mikovits.
	Well, two weeks ago, she was on a show where I had the opportunity to ask her the opening question.
	And I said, Judy, look, My understanding is these injections, which these are not vaccines, Louisa.
	Vaccines introduce a mild variant of a disease, so your body will build up antibodies.
	That's not what's going on here.
	They've never isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	And since they've never isolated the virus, they cannot, they can't possibly have developed a vaccine.
	What they're giving you are injectables.
	Catherine Austin Fitts says, you know, don't mistake this for a vaccine.
	They're trying to call it a vaccine because under the law, they get certain immunity from liability if they can qualify as a vaccine.
	It isn't a vaccine.
	It's got a whole lot of weird stuff in it, including mRNA technology that actually affects gene splicing.
	Honest to God, before I got into this, I didn't even know it was possible.
	And I published a lot on evolution, genetic evolution versus cultural evolution.
	I had no idea you could actually change a person's DNA.
	That has always been, in my mind, a permanent property.
	Once your DNA, always your DNA.
	Well, now it turns out they can make alterations to your DNA
	by this mRNA process that affects a kind of gene splicing.
	So I said to Judy, my understanding, Judy, is that this gene splicing, this mRNA, actually
	weakens your immune system.
	So the next time around when you're hit with some threat from the environment,
	whether it's viral, fungal, or bacterial, that in the past you would have effortlessly sloughed off,
	it actually causes your body to attack your own body, and you die a very painful death.
	Or, alternatively, That these are turning your body into a protein factory which is producing prions which cause mad cow disease.
	These prions eat holes in your brain and she confirmed both.
	She said both of those are the case.
	Right.
	So I'm telling you, you want to avoid these vaccines at all costs and it just is dreadful to me.
	I already have five relatives and my closest friend right here in Madison who have taken the shot.
	And my best efforts to dissuade them have been unavailing.
	It's happening on a delayed basis.
	It also turns out there's an infertility ingredient there.
	So if you get the shot, don't count on ever having the opportunity
	to produce children.
	You won't have that opportunity.
	It's gonna be cut off.
	Right.
	This is driven by a depopulation agenda in the first instance, and there are a lot of other very bad motives that are also driving it from an economic and political point of view.
	Right, and this is, we are talking about conspiracy theories, and we're talking about... We're talking about a conspiracy, yeah!
	Yeah, a conspiracy, and the theory is pretty provable at this point.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So what it does is it's like a little, as Catherine mentioned,
	Catherine Austin Fitz mentioned that.
	She says it's an operating system because it contains nanotechnology in it.
	She's quite brilliant.
	I highly recommend.
	Love her.
	Love her.
	Catherine Austin Fitz.
	Absolutely.
	Judy Mekovitz.
	Definitely.
	Sherry Tinpenny.
	Oh, yeah.
	And the Hostie Brothers.
	And if you want to get the scoop on the mass and all that on my blog at jamesfetzer.org, I have a whole lot.
	And when I created the website called Jim the Conspiracy Guy,
	my very first broadcast was on the coronavirus phenomenon.
	And I just went through and illustrated how, say, in terms of the European mortality tables, there was no variation in European mortality tables.
	That meant people weren't actually dying from some pandemic.
	And as I believe I may have already explained, we have this brilliant Guy Ben Swan had an expert in mathematical modeling and statistics representing the insurance industry, whose profit margin depends on being able to project changes in life expectancy, and the premiums they charge for life insurance policies today are the same they charged a year ago, or the same they charged a year before that.
	There's been no variation, which means there is no actual bona fide pandemic we're being played.
	Edward Hendry and John Rappaport have been quite brilliant in pointing out there's an ambiguity in the word case.
	They're talking about increasing the number of cases, but for the most part they're talking about positive results of the PCR test, which was not designed as a diagnostic instrument and where the PCR test gives like 97% false positives
	versus cases have actually been infected. So we have turned our country inside out. We
	canceled, you know, at college football games, basketball, all this kind of stuff because of cases
	that weren't actually for people who are People weren't actually sick.
	They just had a positive test on a method that actually produces 97% false positives.
	So, I mean, it's all outrageous what's going on because it's killing America economically.
	It's been devastating.
	This has been wiping out the middle class and small businesses.
	The problem with this vaccine also, and I'm sure Judy Majkovic talked about it, and I have been trying to reach Judy unsuccessfully in order to invite her on Goldfish Report so we could have a discussion.
	There's other questions I have because my other co-host for our Food for the Soul series that I do is with Dr. Scott Werner, who is an OBGYN and he's a geneticist, and he had a lot to say about this as well.
	This is shedding pathogens, as you said correctly, And as Catherine Austin Fitz also mentioned that this is a, this is a code that's injected into the body that causes the, the body to actually manufacture a pathogen.
	So it may or may not make you sick initially but it certainly will make you sick as soon as you get the
	actual virus that because your your body will start to create an immune it'll be an autoimmune
	disease basically because it will attack itself and that sounds like a really horrible death
	and the other thing to consider the other thing to consider is whether it's shedding
	whether they're shedding that pathogen and if so in what capacity are they shedding it
	Is that the actual COVID?
	And that I would like to ask Judy Mikevitz more details about, and I have a friend that you referred me to as well.
	But let me just screen share.
	Let me just screen share this video that Dr. Werner had said that as an OB-GYN, there's a protein that is also produced.
	And Jim, you and I reported on this right away, very upfront.
	And of course, I see they haven't really been circulating.
	They've been removed off social media.
	But there were two doctors that came out and said that this causes infertility.
	And let me give you an example.
	I cannot independently confirm that this is exactly what we are looking at.
	But these people had the shot and they started shedding.
	Tremendous!
	I know this is a little graphic and I know our listeners on Ascension Radio can't see this, but on the recording which will circulate, which you can see, this is huge, tremendous, not just blood clots.
	This is not a normal menstruation.
	These are, this looks like the lining of the uterus here.
	And in fact, this, they're claiming may even see a uterus because there's ridges and whatever this is.
	Is this- Well, I just ran across a report that a young woman after
	being shot began having two periods a month instead of one.
	I mean, there are all kinds of weird effects.
	And you have women, if you're pregnant, by God, do not get the shot.
	It's bringing about abortions, you know, miscarriages.
	I mean, this is just terrible.
	And the idea, they're actually doing studies now, testing out the vaccines on children.
	Children are virtually immune to this.
	I mean, there's a zero death rate among children, but giving them the shot, that's Going to jack up the death rate among children dramatically.
	In other words, far more are going to die from the vaccines than would die from the alleged coronavirus, which appears to be having no discernible empirical impact statistically.
	Exactly.
	And what Dr. Werner had said was that what it's doing is it's causing the body, it causes an autoimmune reaction.
	And so immediately it will, immediately it's, it's, Causing the body to attack the development of the placenta and of the lining of the uterus.
	So that's why they're ending up with these spontaneous miscarriages.
	I do believe that.
	First and foremost, they want to reduce the population of Earth.
	And they don't care about us.
	They don't care about human beings.
	Particularly, they don't care on an individual scale.
	They just want to dramatically... Ted Turner, who's among the elite behind this, has said the world's population should be reduced by 95%.
	Well, you got about 8 billion people in the world.
	Take a 95% of 8 billion, that's over 7 billion.
	That's like 7.5 billion people.
	Because they want to get it down to 500 million, which is a half a billion.
	So if you take half a billion remainder from eight billion, they want to get rid of a seven and a half billion, billion people.
	Those are human beings, Louisa.
	I know.
	Well, let me just, I know we're going out on a limb here, but we are talking conspiracies tonight, so we might as well.
	Uh, is this the article I want to share?
	Hold on.
	I want to make sure.
	Yeah, it should be.
	I don't think we're going out on any limbs, Louise.
	Well, wait until you see what I'm going to show you next, okay?
	Back in 2014, Forbes published this article saying, Iran says tall white space aliens control America.
	Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden conclusively prove that the United States has been ruled by a race of tall white Space Aliens, who also assisted the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
	These revelations about our alien overlords might not cost you any sleep, but the part that should concern you a tad is that the UFO story was just published by the Fars News Agency, the English-language news service of Iran, a nation that may be very close to acquiring nuclear weapons.
	This was back in 2014, remember.
	This being a crazy conspiracy theory, even back then in 2014, Naturally, the Russians are behind it.
	So, I mean, there is some evidence, and I did just have an interview, just so I can make a comment on it.
	I did just do a dragon update with Ben Fulford and the White Dragon Society and the Red Dragon Ambassador, and they did confirm that, you know, that it's very, very likely true.
	So, these are people who do feel that the Earth is overpopulated.
	And I'm not saying the Dragon family is, I'm saying that they believe that there are these tall whites that are interfering with humanity, and that really would be... Well, let me just express skepticism, okay?
	I'd want to see some evidence, right?
	Okay, that to me is a bit out there.
	Yes, I agree, Louisa.
	So it is true that some conspiracy theories Maybe a stretch.
	And for me personally, that would fall in that category, but perhaps for you not.
	And it's got a whole lot to do with how much you're familiar with the relevant evidence, right?
	Most people can't imagine Sandy Hook could have been a hoax.
	In fact, it was a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, and I can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Expected I was going to have the chance to do that in a court of law, and then was denied the right to present my defense, which may ultimately lead to a reversal by the Wisconsin or the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	Well, Jim, I think I'm trying to expand the idea of conspiracy a little bit broader because Why and who would want to depopulate this earth?
	And so you really have to start asking the questions that might be a little bit more difficult for people to wrap their mind around.
	No, I think that we have a pretty good idea.
	It's these Illuminati families who want to control the whole world, and there's 6,000 associates.
	I've got a recent article about it, actually, on my blog.
	I think that fits the data better than a race of large white aliens, in my opinion.
	Of course, you could look at these Illuminati, and they may have the aspect of being large white aliens.
	I mean, you know, what I'm saying is...
	You know, a lot of these people might bear a certain resemblance.
	I think the conspiracy is even bigger.
	I'm going to go out on a greater limb and say that the nature of our world is very much a conspiracy.
	That the nature, that much in our world that we know, that we think we know, is not what we know.
	That it's a greater illusion for the purposes of controlling us and using us as not just slaves, but the human trafficking industry is a huge industry, but also as a food source.
	Now many people, many whistleblowers, have come out to say this.
	People who I know and I've interviewed on Goldfish Report, who have been involved in Area 51, who have Look, Phil Schneider, who revealed what was happening in the Dulce base, we do have to get ready to confront the fact that we're not alone.
	And that's been hidden from us.
	Because who would want to kill this many human beings?
	Who?
	Now, are you telling me?
	Are you telling me?
	You're underestimating the evil of the powerful families who want to control all Earth.
	I just think that's just not right.
	Listen, this is a question of the elegance, economy, and simplicity of a hypothesis.
	In my opinion, you're going further than necessary to explain what's going on here, because you don't have to have an E.T.
	presence in order to accommodate the evil that is displayed by these very vicious, powerful families, including the Rothschilds, who have a desire to reduce Earth's population.
	They want to return to a medieval society, Louisa, to put it in simplest language.
	David Icke was quite brilliant in outlining this from the beginning.
	We got the rich and powerful in their castles, call them gated communities, and the rest of us are out serfs and slaves toiling in the fields.
	That's really the model they want to impose on their new world order.
	Right, but even David Icke is the one who told and really kind of woke up the world to the fact that there's entities that exist beyond our visual spectrum that we can't see.
	They still exist nonetheless.
	I'm just saying we're cherry-picking now, but you know, I agree.
	I don't need to go beyond the Illuminati.
	I don't.
	Are being controlled by something or someone.
	They are working, you know, there's either psychopaths and we're allowing psychopaths to run the world or somebody's controlling them.
	Now the Dragon Family interviews that I do reveal that there are levels of control that people that are out of the sight of the public that we don't know about.
	People who ultimately control those background operations on the planet.
	Remember, given my background in the history of science and the philosophy of science, I mean, I'm going to look at this as a conspiracy theory, but ask, how is it testable?
	How can we get evidence for it or against it?
	How could we show this theory is false?
	And you know, that's going to be a standard you'll need to meet to convince me it ought to be taken seriously.
	Now that's just my explanation of where I stand regarding where you've gone now in our conversation.
	I get it, and I respect that.
	I'm most certainly not in the possession of evidence that would substantiate these claims.
	Look, I'm not making a claim.
	I'm reporting the research I've done, and I'm stating that we need to ask the question,
	and we need to further investigate.
	So I completely agree with you.
	I'm not making the claim that they exist.
	I haven't seen them.
	But if you want the evidence, then maybe they should step forward and start telling us who they are
	and what they want, if that's the case.
	I'm not opposed to the idea of having had extraterrestrial visitations.
	But I've even seen a video that looked pretty authentic to me
	of these small greys, and they look a whole lot like ET.
	in the film, by that name.
	I mean, I'm not in the position at this point to debunk it.
	It may have been a fabrication, because we get a lot of fabricated videos, and Hollywood has a genius for giving us impressions.
	Just to give a recent illustration, the whole inauguration of Joe and Kamala was pre-recorded.
	And it wasn't taking place in real time.
	In fact, I was paying attention to the clock, and it was happening too early.
	In the last 10 or 15 minutes of the Trump administration, which meant it wasn't legally valid, and a friend of mine was flipping channels and find different parts of the inauguration were being broadcast at the same time, which would have been impossible had it been a real event.
	Yeah, there was a woman in white and a woman in pink, and now you saw him here, and now you saw him there, but there was no opportunity for them to have changed their position.
	It ended with a spectacular fireworks display, but no one in Washington, D.C.
	witnessed this spectacular fireworks display.
	Copies of the inauguration showed up in Spain seven hours earlier.
	So Hollywood is deeply involved in American politics.
	I mean, this is a A very stunning illustration where it's provable, provable that this was not a not a real live event, but a pre-recorded.
	It was a fantasy.
	I agree.
	And I have a friend who's in D.C.
	and she said, no, there are no fireworks.
	So, I mean, I do have, you know, ways to verify that as well.
	And you're absolutely right.
	I just I'm not saying that I believe it.
	I'm not saying that I have first hand knowledge of it.
	I'm not saying that I've seen aliens.
	I'm just saying that We should be asking the questions.
	We should be asking the questions.
	I do have this video of the small greys.
	Now they're not tall white aliens.
	They're little and they look a lot like E.T.
	from the film.
	So Steven Spielberg may have been inspired And I'm not in a position to disprove it.
	I don't have enough evidence to confirm it either, however, so, you know.
	I understand.
	I'm open-minded about it, but some of these other claims go a bit further than I'm prepared at this moment, you know.
	No, look, I'm not saying that we... Louisa.
	I get it.
	No, it's like so many things.
	Look how many in our audience might be unable to believe that Sandy Hook was a female drill,
	but I tell you the evidence is overwhelming and that's why they had to ban the book.
	Exactly, and that's why they also had to kill Phil Schneider was because he was revealing the truth
	of what these grays were doing in these Dulce bases, underground deep military bases
	and how they were using humans for food sources.
	And the dream.
	adrenochrome. Now, the adrenochrome is a topic that's now being talked about by General Flynn,
	Mike Lindell at these faith-based conventions that they're holding. So the thing is,
	who's drinking the children's blood? Well, we're getting into some very gruesome stuff,
	but I agree it's all bona fide. It's all real. I did a presentation on Pizzagate as the American
	franchise of Pedogate because there's worldwide child trafficking, as you were implying previously.
	And if you go to jimtheconspiracyguy.com, you can find, if you scroll down, it was one of my early presentations because I felt it was so important to get it out.
	But brace yourself.
	You better have a strong stomach because parts of it are definitely going to be profoundly disturbing and may give you nightmares.
	Yeah, I mean, it might impact you psychologically that you may have psychological problems coping with.
	I agree.
	And in the end of the day, Jim, it doesn't matter whether, you know, there's tall whites running the country or not.
	If they've compromised or if they've been able to get humans to do their dirty work for them, it's still the fact that humans are selling out humans, whether ETs are behind it or not, it's kind of irrelevant.
	If you make that point, Louisa, that's like my argument.
	That means they're superfluous.
	You don't need to introduce them to explain.
	If the human beings are doing all the bad things, you could call them in the service of these white aliens.
	Or you could do it in the service of the devil!
	Another entity who, like God, is existence cannot be proven or disproven and therefore is a subject of mere speculation.
	This is not science, not testable.
	Therefore, basically, in a way, you confirm my point, namely that that's going further than you need to go.
	You're introducing unnecessary factors into the equation because you can explain it without them.
	Yeah, but some people still want to know.
	Are these Rothschilds hybrids?
	Are they hybrids?
	Who are they, really?
	and that's really, you know, are they hybrids? Do they have, you know, who are they really?
	And that's a good question. So the question is folks that are survival's at stake here.
	We obviously have some very insidious predators, I think, among us.
	And they're using ideological subversion.
	They're using psychological warfare against us.
	And when we try to go out and tell this program is about telling the truth, Ascension Radio is free speech radio.
	And we are doing our best to inform people.
	And at least you really open your mind and ask the questions and don't be close minded, because that's going to really be our undoing.
	If these concepts and conspiracies and these facts that we're discussing are scaring you, I'm going to tell you that if we're not all together, and what this guy did say though, Jim, Yuri, I don't know why I have to keep going back, Bezmanov, what he did say we could do about all of this, right, was two things.
	One was become an Uh, you know, become more patriotic, find ways to bring people more together and be more patriotic so that we have, we, we reject these socialist communist, um, uh, ideologies.
	And we can, uh, when we do that, we are stronger, right?
	We united, we stand divided, we fall.
	So that was, um, that was the first thing that he suggested doing.
	And also, uh, hold on, let me just see what the second one was, if I can.
	Yeah, real patriotism is what he said.
	And also explain the real danger of socialism.
	Explain it.
	Explain, give real examples of what your quality of life is going to be like and let people understand that.
	Yeah.
	Louisa, you don't even have to go that far.
	Just imagine United States without any police force, without any law enforcement, if that doesn't curl your hair, if that isn't sufficiently sobering and understand there's a major political party in the United States who would like to take away that thin blue line that divides a civilized world from the uncivilized, that keeps the mob from attacking your home, they're inviting it, they're promoting it, the Maxine Waters, the Kamala Harris, the Nancy Pelosi, the Hillary Clinton, they're not
	On your side.
	They are out to do you in.
	Everyone, listen.
	If you don't own guns, buy them.
	Get out there.
	There's been a huge surge in law enforcement.
	Yeah, a huge surge in self-defense.
	You know, individuals never owned a weapon before.
	You must do that to protect yourself because you've got a lunatic binge that is in charge in Washington, D.C.
	That wants to take your guns, that wants to take the police, that wants to leave you helpless to be subjected to the rage of the mob.
	We've got BLM activists who are talking about killing white people.
	And they're trying to put it nicely and say, well, I don't know that we really have to start killing white people.
	But you've got women there who are promoting.
	This is a woman who was a candidate for the city council of Minneapolis.
	Saying, look, you don't need to burn the poor areas.
	Go into the wealthy areas.
	Go into the suburbs.
	Start burning up the wealthy, the rich people's homes because they have insurance.
	I mean, this is just disgusting.
	I'll tell you, Louisa, once they start doing that, it ain't going to last long because the wealthy have the resources to create private armies.
	They're going to put an end to it.
	And you know, if these people think they can keep looting and rioting and burning the buildings across America, there are over 130 million armed Americans who did not vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
	Good point, Jim.
	And just so you know, I'm trying to reach many different people who are on different levels of wokeness, okay?
	So I may come across, I may seem like I'm coming across with really bizarre or maybe fundamental or, you know, two fundamental issues or perspectives.
	But it's only because I'm really trying to help bridge that gap, that knowledge gap, for people and help them kind of assimilate this information on different levels.
	Everyone who's watching, all of our listeners on Ascension Radio, all of our viewers who will be viewing this afterwards, lots of people on different levels of this whole conspiracy issue.
	So it's important to really, you know, try to give everybody I mean, talk about the issue in a comprehensive way, but you're absolutely right, Jim.
	And I would say this is a threat to the United States.
	It's a threat to America right now that we have people who have been elected who do not represent us.
	And what our job is to do is to get them out.
	We're not going to give up our guns, Louisa.
	willing to represent we the people.
	Because as this guy also said, Yuri Bezmenov, he says, there's nowhere else to go to defect.
	Once it's here and it's taken over, once they have our guns, Jim,
	there's nowhere else left on this planet for us to go.
	We're not gonna give up our guns, Louisa.
	That's a dream.
	Believe me, you know, Dave Hodges years ago talked about how during the 20th century,
	there were 19 demo sides, which were the slaughters of whole societies by their own government.
	Every one of which was preceded by gun confiscations.
	We cannot let America become number 20.
	No, excellent point.
	I'm so glad you brought that up.
	It is a fact and You know, I know this might scare people, Jim, but they better get ready and get prepared because there's going to be a D-Class coming.
	Look, just think of the fact that they're talking about adrenochrome at these large faith-based gatherings.
	Stuff's, you know, we're going to get, we're going to get a lot of information coming out.
	In fact, the Seth Rich files were just released because an attorney, what's his name, Ty something or other, He's been vigorously trying to access Seth Rich's files.
	Do you know what they reveal?
	I haven't seen them yet.
	I did a lot of research on this and I can tell you what happened to Seth Rich and his role in all this.
	You know, from directly from the DNC servers where he was a Bernie Sanders supporter, disillusioned by the way that Debbie Wasserman Schultz sabotaged Bernie's campaign and gave 13 primaries that Bernie had won to Hillary to guarantee that she would be the party's nominee.
	And then she went into court and defended it and said the Democratic Party was an independent entity and didn't have any obligation to follow the caucuses or the primaries, meaning we're all being swindled.
	It's just that here you have the chairman of the DNC explaining in a public forum that the DNC is deceiving and manipulating the gullible public who believe there was anything Democratic about the Democratic Party.
	Turns out there is not.
	They'd be better renamed as the Undemocratic Party.
	I mean, I'm telling you, it's disgusting.
	And Louisa, I used to be one.
	I historically regard myself as a JFK, FDR Democrat.
	I believe in the social safety network, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
	I even voted for Bill Clinton twice and for Barack Obama twice.
	But when it came to Hillary versus Trump, I mean, it was a no brainer for me.
	Hillary is a monster and no one could support her if they knew as much about her as I have learned because it's a ghastly history.
	And if you follow up and watch my study on Pizzagate, you'll learn Hillary and Huma are despicable, despicable human beings.
	I mean, it's just disgusting.
	It's going to make you want to retch.
	Well, these were from the Wiener files, Anthony Wiener laptops.
	Is that correct, Jim?
	This is what made New York City... Let me tell you, New York City cops are the toughest cops on this, in this country.
	And to make New York City cops, you know, sick and in need psychologically... But they've seen everything, Jim, in New York City.
	Everything.
	And they need to get psychological counseling.
	And it's funny how some of them just, you know, how many of them are dead now?
	I think of the dozen, I think maybe 10 are dead already.
	Hillary, you know, there's a Clinton body count that is for real and everyone has to understand this is a ruthless, sadistic, vicious human, one of the most inhuman beings ever on the face of earth.
	And you know, believe me, this is a monster incarnate.
	Right, and those files... There's an allusion to me, Louise, is the whole Democratic Party has gone stark raving mad.
	They stole the election.
	They had a fake inauguration.
	My understanding is Biden's never actually been in the White House.
	What you've seen of him has all been on movie sets.
	We have a pharmacist who's used to comparing signatures who noticed That the signature of the guy signing these executive actions and executive orders is not the same as the signature of the senator from Delaware.
	I've confirmed it.
	During even the first and the second debates, I was convinced this was not Joe Biden.
	This was somebody who looked a lot like him.
	I understand he's not allowed onto the Pentagon property either.
	And yet they create subterfuges like a big automotive parade to go over there to visit The visitors center where everyone is allowed they have had him walk past marine sentries and because he's been fed everything to say he blurted out salute the marine instead of saluting the marine but what was significant was the marine did not salute him
	I talked about it.
	And in fact, they staged an event of him getting on what appears to be a mock-up of Air Force One in a small airport somewhere in New Jersey.
	And you had two guys in uniform who saluted him.
	But, Louisa, they were firemen.
	These were not American military.
	I believe that the U.S.
	military does not recognize Joe Biden as president.
	And of course, he's making a joke out of U.S.
	foreign policy.
	I'm telling you, the situation we're in is beyond belief.
	Beyond belief.
	Well, there is bombing going on on the border of Ukraine and Russia, although Russia did pull the troops back.
	There was an attack in Baghdad.
	They were trying to blame it on Iran.
	Biden has publicly stated his support for Ukraine.
	And so, you know, it looks like they're trying to drag us all into war.
	So, you know... Well, you've got to understand, the Israelis are the masters of false flag.
	The Israelis are trying to manipulate the U.S.
	into attacking Iran.
	The reason Israel, which controls our media, by the way, went all in for Biden and against Trump, is Trump would not bomb Iran.
	And they feel in Biden, they have the opportunity of somebody who is very malleable.
	He doesn't actually have a functioning mind.
	This guy is capable of reading words off a teleprompter, but he doesn't have a brain.
	He's not capable of reasoning or making decisions, Louisa.
	It's an embarrassment, and the whole world knows it.
	Yeah, he's not even fully capable of reading.
	He misreads things on the teleprompter as well.
	It's really that bad.
	You're correct.
	We've definitely talked about what's wrong with conspiracy theories, and I think we broke it open.
	I'm so glad we had this chance to have this conversation.
	I know that it went into some new current conspiracies, but that is the nature of what's happening.
	Well, the answer is there's nothing wrong with the conspiracy theories.
	Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes, and that's why they want to suppress us, because those crimes will lead back to the perps, which is the government itself, whether it's JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, you know.
	The government was involved, so they're in the brilliant, it's a brilliant plan, Louisa, where the government can pick and choose who's supposed to be credible and who's not, among all those who are investigating these crimes.
	So they pick out the people who are going to give the stock answers that exonerate the government and suppress those of us who are reporting what we've found that implicates the government.
	As James Files observed, when the government commits a lie, it's stuck with it.
	And that's why they've never revised 19 Islamic terrorists on 9-11, never revised lone demanded gunman killing on 22 November 1916.
	Even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against it, the government can't change By running the risk of weakening its hold on the body politic.
	It has to be a politically infallible source of knowledge, Louisa.
	And I'm so grateful to you for your appreciation for that, which I think has got to be one of the most important articles I ever authored and published.
	So I'm really, really pleased by your response.
	Oh, absolutely, Jim.
	I know great work and I know, you know, truth when I see it.
	And, um, you know, uh, that's just my own, you know, you have to sometimes go with your gut feeling and your gut reaction.
	Cause you're, that tells you something, it gives you a hunch.
	It tells you there's something more there, something you need to really look at deeper.
	And I felt it was time to have this conversation and really talk about conspiracies and conspiracy theories so that it's not this, it's not this, um, uh, What did I call it before?
	Not this... You know, you have to examine... Nebulous.
	Yes, not nebulous.
	Thank you, Jim.
	I'm sorry.
	It's a little bit late.
	I'm sleep-deprived with this new kitten in the house.
	I'm like not even thinking of... Let me say that... Taboo.
	Taboo is the word I use.
	The original is on Oon's Review, and there's one with a few typos corrected on my own blog at jamesfetzer.org.
	And I just was delighted to have the opportunity here to present my research on this extraordinarily important subject, Louise, where I guess I may have done more research on more conspiracies than any other figure on the face of Earth.
	I think you're right, Jim, and I'm so, so honored to know you and to be presenting this information with you.
	We're truth seekers, for sure, and we want the best for humanity.
	We want the best.
	We want our kids to have a future.
	We don't want them to inherit living in a gulag.
	And just to add, my success has been because I know what I do not know, and I bring together experts in fields where I'm not an expert.
	And the success we've achieved has been from a collaborative research effort.
	And that's how you critically think an issue.
	You don't get one person who thinks they know it all.
	You get one person who knows, who is smart enough to know that they need several people and several different perspectives and points of view to know that there's different points to weigh in on that.
	The keys to success could be knowing what you do not know and figuring out how to compensate for that by bringing in the experts who do.
	Well, Jim, thank you so much.
	Have a great weekend.
	This is a really wonderful opportunity to come on our Ascension Radio on the weekend on Saturday nights with me.
	So thank you.
	We're going to be back.
	You and I will be back on Monday with our political theater reports.
	Everybody come back and tune in on Monday morning at 10 a.m.
	Eastern time for our political theater, which will be reporting on the current events and current issues that in this political theater.
	That we are facing right now today.
	So everyone have a great weekend.
	Jim, thank you so much.
	It was a pleasure, my friend.
	My pleasure.
	Thanks to Ascension Radio.
	Thanks for inviting me.
	You're welcome.
	It's my pleasure.
	And thanks to Ascension Radio for broadcasting this.
	And so everyone have a great night and we'll see you Monday.

▲