Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 9, 2021 - Jim Fetzer

01:58:46

The Event [Raw Deal + Wisdom Circle] 09 June 21 - Guest Dr Mark Crispin Miller

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, where I'm delighted to be joined with David Scorpio and Giuseppe Vaffangulo from the Wisdom Circle for the event today.
	Our featured guest is a fellow I've long admired, Mark Crispin Miller.
	He's been doing brilliant work on a wide variety of subjects.
	In a role of an investigative journalist, even as a faculty member at NYU, and I was struck when the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is published for faculty at colleges and universities across the country, Did a hit piece on Mark, describing him as a professor of paranoia, parallel to a hit piece they had done on me a few years back as a professor of doom.
	I thought therefore Mark would be a natural for our event.
	I can't thank you enough for joining us today, Mark, here on the event.
	Well, I thank you for having me on.
	And we do comprise a kind of exclusive club, not that small a club of targets for that kind of defamation.
	But you know, Mark, what's distinctive about you and me is so few faculty are willing to touch the controversial, the politically explosive issues of our day.
	I was fascinated when you were being attacked by the Chronicle as a conspiracy theorist, and you asked them, have you read Fetzer's book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook?
	It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
	It's rather compelling.
	It's troubling compelling.
	And the author wrote, is he unaware, I wonder, that Leonard Posner, Noah's father, was awarded $450,000 in a defamation lawsuit against Fetzer, in which the court ruled that Noah's death certificate was not fabricated?
	But the fact of the matter is that's untrue.
	The court found me guilty of defamation but never ruled on the authenticity of the death certificate.
	And just to illustrate the enormity of what I consider to be the abuse of the defendant in this case, which occurred on multiple grounds that are now before The Wisconsin Supreme Court, if they will review my petition, that the circuit court at the outset narrowly limited the focus, advising me whether Sandy Hook occurred was beyond the scope of this action.
	Here's what he said.
	Whether or not Sandy Hook ever happened or not is not relevant to this.
	The truthfulness or the accuracy of the death certificate.
	Now, I understand the defendant's overall theory in believing that it never happened, and I'm not going to take the bait and let this case go down that rabbit hole.
	That was the court's position.
	I was not allowed to present the mountain of evidence I had that Sandy Hook was, in fact, a FEMA drill And yet, if you look at the death certificate, it states right on the death certificate that the decedent died in a public school at 12 Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, Connecticut County of Fairfield on the 12th, the 14th of December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
	I mean, listen, this illustrates the absurdity of the situation here and the abuse of the law.
	For those of us who are seeking to expose the charades perpetrated by the government, the death certificate states that he died during the Sandy Hook shooting, and yet the judge claims that my evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was a FEMA exercise, technically a mass casualty exercise involving children, where we even had discovered the manual and included in Appendix A, was not relevant.
	That I think about as mind-blowing and clear-cut a case of judicial impropriety as one could possibly imagine.
	I'm so glad you spoke up for the bookmark, but, you know, they're using the Chronicle as a propaganda device to attempt to discredit individuals like you and me who, because of our academic background, Well, there's no doubt about that.
	Maybe I should tell your audience a little bit about the case against me at NYU, which I think led to the conflict piece.
	I mean, should I tell that story?
	Absolutely.
	Well, there's no doubt about that. I want to, maybe I should tell your audience a little bit
	about the case against me at NYU, which I think led to the Chronicle piece. I mean, should I tell
	that story? Absolutely. Yes, Mark. 100%. Okay. The Chronicle piece, the Professor of Paranoia
	was the work of actually a former faculty member at NYU named Mark Derry.
	And this is a guy whom I knew when he was an assistant professor in the journalism department here in the first decade of the century.
	And we were actually sort of friendly.
	He even invited me to guest lecturer in one of his classes, and he did not get tenure.
	I was sad about that at the time.
	Well, he turned up in February, he emailed me out of the blue, proposing to do an article about the trajectory of my career.
	And I could read between the lines sufficiently to see that what that meant was A piece lamenting what had happened to me.
	I don't think that that's the way they cast you, Jim, but it is the way they write about Naomi Wolf.
	It's the way they write about Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	It's the way they wrote about Peter Duesberg, you know, an AIDS dissident, HIV-AIDS dissident.
	It's a genre of defamation that pretends to lament The decline of a once fine mind into madness, okay?
	So that's the template for the piece that this guy did about me, and I could sort of see it coming.
	But he made clear that he was gonna write something in any case, so I could either, you know, talk to him or not.
	So I decided I would do it.
	And the good news is, and this is very interesting, He promised to provide me with the videos of our two Zoom conversations, which he did, although he tried to pull out of it at the last minute.
	And we had an extensive email correspondence, okay?
	Maybe you feel the same, Jim.
	I always regard these things as teaching moments, you know?
	So anyone who reads this article, the Professor of Paranoia, Which I encourage people to do, in the Chronicle of Higher, actually in the Chronicle Review, which is the sort of op-ed section of the Chronicle of Higher Education.
	Read that piece, and then go to consult the raw materials for the piece.
	I think our conversations are very interesting in their own right, and they're especially interesting, as is the email correspondence, for showing what this guy cherry-picked How he deliberately ignored certain things that, if he were an honest journalist, he would have highlighted because they're kind of shocking, you know, but in my favor.
	And since this article, like the one about you, was intended as a takedown, he was not interested In any, you know, genuine scoops or interesting news about my predicament.
	So he ignored stuff that a real reporter would have seized.
	And I guess I'll tell the story of my predicament, okay?
	And I'll try to make it succinct.
	The reason why this guy turned up and asked for my cooperation in writing his hatchet job about me was that I have been involved since September In a really shocking attempt to destroy me, basically, at NYU.
	And I think it's a very instructive case.
	I see my plight and my fight back against it as exemplary of what's going on more generally and what has been going on for quite a long time.
	That has now reached the kind of crisis point since the beginning of the COVID era.
	Last September, in the first week of class, I told the students in my propaganda course, it's a course I've been teaching for about 20 years at NYU, basically told them what I always tell my students at the beginning of the term, the only difference This time was we were meeting like this.
	We were meeting by zoom.
	Okay, so I pointed out to them that I don't teach propaganda as a remote historical subject.
	I don't think it's academic.
	I think it's urgent in a civic sense that people learn how to perceive how to spot propaganda and how to analyze it.
	I made the point as I always do.
	It's a cautionary point.
	That this kind of study, although it can be really exhilarating, tremendously interesting, can also be quite difficult.
	Not necessarily intellectually difficult, but difficult socially and psychologically.
	Because if you start to examine the facts behind any Given propaganda narrative, and that includes the many facts that such narratives black out.
	If you ignore the bias of the propaganda and study the issue concerned as impartially and thoroughly as possible, you will often find that something you've believed for a long time and believed fervently turns out to be false.
	Or half true.
	I mean, I continue to have this experience.
	I think anybody with an open mind will have this experience time and time again.
	You know, I'm not an oracle.
	I'm not infallible.
	And I have often come to believe things that I kind of heard and didn't think about too much.
	I say all this at the beginning of every class.
	I said it this time.
	But then I said, While we're going to be looking at the historical background of, you know, propaganda, World War One, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, we'll study all that.
	But that study is kind of preparation for our attempts to examine propaganda in real time or To look at propaganda drives that are so recent, you all remember that.
	So I want, I want the narratives we study to be narratives that actually affect the students' lives.
	I said, now we have a lot of examples, a lot of possible examples, uh, right now.
	I mean, look at the way we're meeting, right?
	We're meeting by Zoom.
	I mean, you hate that.
	I hate that.
	Why are we doing it?
	Well, obviously we're doing it because of the COVID crisis.
	And the COVID crisis has entailed a number of very powerful propaganda themes.
	And I said, that doesn't mean they're necessarily false, because propaganda can be accurate.
	Propaganda can be benign, you know, I mean, an ad campaign to get people to not to smoke cigarettes, that's propaganda, getting people to wear their seatbelts when they drive, that kind of thing.
	So propaganda in itself is not insidious.
	But it tends to be one sided and over simple.
	So there's a lot of aspects of the COVID crisis that we could look at.
	And I picked as an example.
	This was not an assignment.
	I said, for example, there's the mask mandates.
	I said, it may interest you to know.
	That every randomized controlled trial of masks in hospitals, you know, masks as a way to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses, that all those very rigorous studies have found that masks don't work.
	Okay.
	I said, I would encourage you to read those.
	They're all in reputable medical journals and I also encourage you to read the more recent studies finding otherwise, because of course a lot of them had been rushed out last summer.
	Not randomized controlled trials, but less rigorous studies.
	I said you should read those, and I gave them some tips on how a non-scientist might be able to assess the soundness of a new study.
	I suggested looking at the scientific comments and reviews, And crucially, I told them to take note of which school the study was conducted at, and then see if that school has any financial ties to Big Pharma or the Gates Foundation.
	I said all this the first day, and then the last thing I said was, as I always say, and I say it throughout the semester when I teach this course, I say, I'm going to be bringing up evidence of counter-narratives that you may find shocking.
	This kind of addresses the point you made at the beginning, Jim.
	When I mention things like that, okay, and you're immediately charred and incredulous, I want you to remember something, and that is not to believe a single word I say, okay?
	Don't believe me.
	If you find my claims outrageous, go and look into it yourself.
	Do the reading.
	Do the study.
	If I'm wrong, Come into class and tell me, because I like to have disagreement in class.
	It's always fruitful.
	If I'm right, you've learned something, okay?
	But I repeat, don't believe me.
	That was the spiel I gave at the beginning of that semester.
	The following week, I got an email from a student asking to join the class late.
	And I said, of course, as I always do.
	So she joined us.
	And the second day she was there, she had missed the first talk.
	Second day she was there, the subject of masks came up again.
	There was like a 20 minute digression.
	And she was very quiet during this discussion.
	That was a Thursday.
	On the following Monday, I got a phone call from my department chair, asking me in kind of an accusatory tone, If I had told my students not to wear masks, okay?
	And I said, no, as a matter of fact, I said pointedly to them, I am not telling you not to wear masks.
	And there's a very strict rule at NYU.
	We all have to follow it.
	This is an intellectual exercise.
	I told them this.
	I said, I did ask them.
	I did encourage them to read these randomized studies, blah, blah, blah.
	So he said, well, I'm going to have to tell the COVID Task Force, or whatever it is called, about this.
	I said, OK.
	And I believe it was he who told me that a student was on Twitter complaining about the class.
	I think it was he I heard it from.
	I know I heard it from somebody that day.
	So I went online, and sure enough, that student was tweeting furiously that NYU should fire me for putting the students at risk.
	OK?
	She had grabbed screenshots of my website, News From Underground, which is at markchrispinmiller.com.
	All these pieces I had posted, as if they were all self-evidently false, and she said, all this material comes from far-right or conspiracy websites, okay?
	None of them were far right.
	Conspiracy, that just means, you know, looking into inconvenient, troubling evidence of various crimes and so on.
	Okay, this was a little surprising to me, and I didn't like it.
	I wish she had spoken up in class.
	It would have been much more fruitful.
	But it's her First Amendment right to say what she thinks, so that in itself was not a problem for me.
	What was a problem, and still is, is that NYU immediately took her side.
	My chair tweeted his thanks to her and said, we as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.
	So this was a kind of formal public statement on behalf of my department that they were going to make my termination a priority.
	This is really shocking to me.
	I spoke to him briefly.
	I asked him why he did that.
	I said, you're basically saying you're making my firing a priority.
	And he hedged and said, no, no, I didn't.
	All I wanted to do was make her feel that she'd been heard.
	Well, there are ways to say that.
	I'd like you to take that tweet down.
	He refused, and it was up until about six weeks ago, I think.
	At any rate, that was the first... If I might just interject with a few preliminary observations.
	A student who misses a first class is not a responsible student.
	A student who shows up at the second class and then goes on a Twitter binge like this, in my opinion, appears to be a plant.
	Someone who's actually a provocateur.
	Individuals like you and me and James Tracy, who had a course on conspiracies in the media at Florida Atlantic, can be targets.
	Because, for example, in my critical thinking courses, which I taught for 35 years, I bring in examples about the Iraq War, about 9-11, about the assassination of JFK, and offer evidence that poked holes in the official narrative of all of the above.
	If one's going to criticize about masks, I have six or eight blogs, all from highly authoritative sources, including even the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, explaining why masks are ineffective and actually harmful to you, Those who wear them, and of course it's just trivial to observe that the masks that are being used by the public cannot filter anything out unless it's three microns or larger, and that these particles are only one micron or 0.3 and 0.1.
	There's no way they can even filter the virus.
	So you're clearly being used as a target of opportunity here.
	I think that much is obvious already from what you've said.
	And Leonard Posner is one of the Sandy Hook, you know, alleged Sandy Hook parents, the very same who brought the lawsuit against me, the very same who'd shared the copy of the death certificate with my research colleague, Kelly Watt, that had no file number, no town certification, no state certification, bereft of all of the indications that it was actually an official document.
	He's set That to her himself, which I then published in the book, went after James Tracy and cited the Jewish community in South Florida against him as though this were somehow some anti-Jewish op.
	It's very curious.
	I was asked about my criticism of Sandy Hook being anti-Semitic, and I just replied and said, Well, what's the anti-submitting part about it?
	Because, you know, I'm just interested in the truth, and it's quite obvious when you have evidence of a two-day FEMA exercise where nobody was killed, where one of my contributors, who himself had supervised active shooter drills, Paul Preston, who has his own radio show, was so troubled by what he saw 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.
	They went after Tracy and the university folded, just as NYU and your department seemed to fold, when they ought to be standing up for their faculty, for the independence of their research, and their right to arrive at their own conclusions.
	I mean, you were clearly, clearly targeted, as I see it, based on what you've already described.
	Well, let me respond to that, because you raise a very interesting point, and others have made the same observation or have speculated similarly.
	Having studied, well, there are a lot of documents on my website pertaining to my libel lawsuit against my colleagues, and I'll explain how that How I how and why I mounted that legal action.
	I don't believe the student was a plant.
	I believe though, that her grievance was immediately seized upon by my department colleagues, who, it turns out have been maligning me to each other for several years.
	And variously working to take me down.
	These are my department colleagues.
	And I think that in doing this on social justice grounds, okay, so it's a kind of cancel culture thing, as I'll explain.
	They are actually unconsciously doing the bidding of the university as a corporation.
	Because NYU is very, very heavily invested in the whole vaccine juggernaut They are deeply committed to the COVID narrative, to masking and all that stuff.
	As a corporation, with a board of trustees that has a direct financial interest in the impending financial reset that is going to take place, you know, while we're all getting vaccinated and wearing masks and all this.
	So I do think that this young woman, although I think sincere, From the evidence I've been able to see was a very, very convenient tool for my colleagues to use and move against me.
	I'm going to be very quick in finishing my story of what happened.
	I already said the department chair tweeted his thanks, spoke on behalf of the department.
	The next day, incredibly enough, the dean of my school And this doctor who advises NYU on its COVID rules, which are incredibly draconian and have led to several lawsuits.
	These two administrators emailed my other students directly, telling them that I had given them dangerous misinformation or intimating that I'd done so.
	Presenting a list of links to the more recent studies and telling them essentially to believe those, right?
	I never tell my students what to believe, okay?
	I urge them to look at the evidence themselves, right?
	And in a couple of classes, I have suggested that they read your book and then make up their own minds.
	You know, that's what I think higher education is supposed to be about, right?
	So that happened.
	And then I was pressured to cancel the propaganda course for this spring semester.
	And it was on the pretext that if I taught I were to teach two sections of my film course, that being very popular, the numbers would be good for the department.
	Fact is, both those classes have the same limit of 24 students.
	That was transparent as a pretext.
	But I had no choice.
	And I said, I have to do this.
	You're the chair, but I'm doing it under protest.
	Okay, so I could not swallow this.
	I could not take this.
	This is outrageous.
	So with the help of some friends, I wrote a petition that people can find up at change.org.
	Basically telling NYU that I would like them to respect my academic freedom and thereby set a good example for other schools in this COVID panic, you know.
	And I did it in the name of all professors like you, you know, Tracy, others, all journalists, all doctors, all scientists, all whistleblowers, all activists, you know, everyone who has been Somehow gagged or persecuted for their dissidence, really for decades.
	I mean, going back at least to the Kennedy assassination, we could probably extend it back throughout the Cold War.
	But this last year and a half has been a real crisis for free speech and academic freedom.
	I said all this in the petition, all right?
	It's up at change.org.
	People can sign it.
	It has about 40,000 signatures on it, and includes some pretty eminent figures.
	Well, this is what happened next, and this is why I'm on your show.
	My colleagues were incensed by this petition.
	They called it an attack on the department, and it doesn't even mention the department, okay?
	So, what they did was, a month after the student came after me, they sent a letter to the dean, which he sent me.
	informing me out of the blue, this is in late October, that he had ordered a review of my conduct at the request of my colleagues in the attached letter.
	Okay, nobody from the department had talked to me.
	I didn't know this was coming.
	The letter and all the stuff is up at markchrispinmiller.com.
	The letter is, is really, I think, clinically insane.
	Okay, starts out by saying that I had discouraged students from wearing masks, In violation of NYU policy and New York State law.
	Okay, there's no such law.
	I didn't discourage the students from wearing masks, but that was only their jumping off point.
	Okay, you'll recognize some of these other bludgeons that they used against me.
	They charged me with explicit hate speech.
	They accused me of advocating for an unsafe learning environment.
	They accused me of mounting attacks on students and others in our community.
	They accused me of assailing my students with non-evidence-based arguments.
	That's conspiracy theory.
	And they accused me of microaggressions and aggressions, okay?
	All right, this was breathtaking to me.
	The dean hadn't talked to me first.
	I asked for a meeting with him.
	And he told me, Jim, this is an important clue.
	He told me that he did order the review as requested because the university's lawyers told him he had to.
	That is not true.
	Legally and constitutionally speaking, the review is groundless.
	And the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Fire, you know?
	They wrote a detailed letter to the university president, Andrew Hamilton, this is in like November, laying out all the case law and demonstrating to him that he should step in and quash the review.
	He never answered that letter.
	They put it up on their blog, still no response, okay?
	So, what the lawyers told the Dane is false, and this to me indicates a kind of higher interest in this whole controversy.
	At any rate, the Dean said this review, which would entail talking to students, would end with the semester.
	So it should have ended in mid-December.
	As far as I know, it's still going on, although I don't think there is a review.
	I think that was just a charade.
	Now, why is it still going on?
	Because of what I did next.
	OK, this is the crux of my narrative.
	I went through this letter with a fine-tooth comb.
	I wrote a rebuttal, point by point.
	I urged my colleagues to retract it and issue an apology.
	They ignored that request.
	I waited a week.
	I sent it again.
	They ignored that too.
	This seems to be the NYU way.
	Radio silence on the part of the attackers.
	So, I decided to sue my colleagues for libel.
	Okay, because there are two reasons.
	First of all, this was a patent attempt to do me serious injury.
	I mean, to get me fired.
	They tried to tarnish my reputation, certainly within the institution.
	And it did me, you know, not only emotional, but literal physical harm, because as I've been, you know, very candid in pointing out, I have chronic Lyme disease, which I've been fighting for 10 years.
	And this very stressful experience had a, you know, dramatic effect on my health.
	And I ended up in the ER at NYU in late January.
	I'm much better now.
	But I have personal reasons for suing them.
	But my real motivation is not personal.
	My real motivation is sincere outrage and disgust at this kind of persecution This attempted censorship, this, you know, gross denial of academic freedom on no grounds whatsoever.
	I'm not the only one going through this, Jim, as you pointed out at the very beginning of this conversation.
	This has been going on for a long time, and now it's reached a kind of crisis phase.
	And what my colleagues did, this is very interesting, they hit me with all three of the cudgels widely used to shut people up and to shut down inconvenient inquiry, okay?
	They accused me of conspiracy theory, you know, non-evidence-based arguments.
	And one of the things they accused me of was saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax in class.
	I never said that in class.
	I never said that.
	When the subject of school shootings has come up in some classes, I have noted, you know, that there's a very troubling book about Sandy Hook that raises a number of important questions and that students should read it if they're interested.
	So I never came in and announced that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
	I never came in and announced the moon landing was staged.
	I never said any of these things because that's not my role.
	I don't do propaganda in class.
	I urge students to study propaganda narratives, okay?
	So, conspiracy theory.
	Secondly, they accused me of hate speech, okay?
	Specifically, they're referring to what they allege to be my transphobia, because online I have raised questions about two things that are, you know, connected to transgender ideology.
	It's not about transgender persons.
	One is transgender medicine, radical medical intervention in the sexual development of children.
	This is widespread, especially here and in the UK.
	I am opposed to conversion therapy for gay people.
	I think that's a form of psychological torture.
	And I am equally opposed or even more opposed to transgender medicine practiced on children because that is irreversible.
	Okay.
	That violates all the canons of informed consent.
	I'm against that.
	And I'm, you know, unapologetic about that opposition.
	And I think it is grossly unfair to allow biological males to compete in girls and women's athletic events.
	You know, where they invariably rack up all kinds of victories because of their physical advantages.
	I am unapologetic about that.
	There is not a trace element of transphobia in those positions, but that is a cancel culture tactic, right?
	So I'm a conspiracy theorist and I engage in hate speech, okay?
	Thirdly, and you know, most relevantly, There is the COVID narrative that if you raise questions about any aspect of the official narrative, you are denying this this viral Holocaust and putting people at risk by getting them to question mask wearing, for example, by getting them to line up, you know, to refuse to line up and get injected.
	OK, so.
	you know, I have to ask, who's the one who's putting people at risk here? You know, I'm the
	one who's, well, at any rate, I know I don't mean to defend myself. The point is... Mark, you've
	done a brilliant job. And let me just offer a couple comments before I bring in Giuseppe,
	who I'm certain has a lot of thoughts about all of this.
	But what most ordinary citizens have no idea is that academic departments are shark tanks.
	I mean, I'm telling you, there's so many petty grievances that sometimes said that academic disputes are so ferocious because the stakes are so small.
	Persons like you giving a course on propaganda, me on critical thinking, James Tracy on conspiracy in the media, are the tip of the spear in seeking to develop the intellectual capability of our students to deal with these issues.
	I cannot think of a single course more important Offered by NYU, then your course on propaganda.
	That is the single most important course being offered by NYU now.
	And I dare say that James Tracy, you and I, are among the best, if not the best, faculty at our respective institutions they've ever had.
	We thereby generate certain resentments and concerns on political grounds, especially from left-wing-oriented faculty members who are resentful because they can't marshal arguments to defeat those that we have advanced, because we're simply objectively reasoning things through, which they're incapable of doing because of their ideological commitments which override their functional rationality.
	Let me give you another illustration.
	My first appointment was at the University of Kentucky.
	When I came up for tenure, I had more publications in better journals than any candidate they'd ever had for associate.
	I had given a dozen talks at eight different departments, unprecedented, in part because my background was in the history of science and the philosophy of science, and I was dealing with so many issues.
	And I received the first Distinguished Teaching Award awarded by the student government to one out of 135 assistant professors.
	Nevertheless, The faculty divided three to three, the tenured faculty, which was not enough to deny me reappointment year to year, but was enough to deny me tenure.
	It would later emerge that one voted against me because I was living with my girlfriend without the benefit of marriage.
	Another voted against me because they'd put me in charge of the logic program.
	And my graduate students were just so enthusiastic.
	I'd had so much difficulty getting a handle on logic.
	I knew how to teach it, how to get around the obstacles.
	And the fellow who had been teaching it before me had made his career of apologizing that he couldn't get good course evaluations because of the subject.
	Here I was getting astronomical.
	The teaching award was even largely based upon it.
	And the third was the guy, the head of the department, who misrepresented his credentials.
	He actually had a PhD in religion.
	And falsely appeared to be a professor of philosophy of religion.
	He wanted a PhD program at Kentucky, which I thought was a really bad idea.
	We had an MA program that was very successful in taking underprepared students and beefing them up so they could enter PhD programs.
	Around the country.
	After he got rid of me, they went forward with a Ph.D.
	program I had opposed.
	The last I looked, they had a survey of 98 programs, Ph.D.
	in Philosophy.
	Number 98 was the University of Kentucky.
	When I disputed my tenure case, they had the argument against me by the General Counsel to the University of Kentucky, Otis Singletary.
	And get this, the board, the panel, was so divided This general counsel actually went in and met with them privately without my knowledge that I inadvertently stumbled upon to corrupt.
	In other words, they're willing to go this far.
	So I think they're a classic case of what happens in high institutions of higher learning that the public is totally oblivious, has no idea whatsoever.
	I'll bet a lot of this is even coming as news and shocking to Giuseppe.
	Giuseppe, let's invite your thoughts and commentary before we return to Mark.
	Well, Mark, first off, I'm a tremendous fan of your work.
	I've read several of your books, especially your early ones, boxed in and seen through movies, and then I thought when you wrote in Fooled Again how the right stole the 2004 election was absolutely, lucidly revealing.
	And I've admired your work.
	My own history is my first degree was a joint degree journalism and mass communication from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and that was in the early 1980s.
	I wrote for the largest morning daily in the state back then, the Milwaukee Sentinel.
	I have over 500 byline articles back in the day when I was a working journalist and then moved on to long-form articles and magazines and things and then I got out of the profession because I was running into early types of corporate censorship.
	I never thought what we see now would manifest. I just thought it would end
	at a more of like a certain level of corporate propaganda ruling the day. But
	my first question for you is, well the other thing you need to know is in my midlife
	career change I went back to school and became a doctor of oriental
	medicine. I graduated summa cum laude from one of the top five oriental medicine
	universities in the United States and have had a private practice for 15 years
	until last year I I shut it down because I refused to wear a mask and gloves.
	You can't do oriental medicine touching people with gloves.
	You have to feel their cheer, their energy, right?
	So anyway, my question, number one, I'm a big admirer of you.
	I didn't know you had a petition.
	I just went and signed it.
	So I'll spread the word to the people I know to get to sign it so we get you over 50,000.
	My question to you, looking back when you were sounding the alarm of the powerful effect of television and movies and pointing out early on that elections are easily stolen, Maybe you also thought, well, this will level out at a certain level of plutocratic transnational power, but what I see happening now is we have gone beyond propaganda to out-and-out gaslighting, where they are literally Orwellianly, that's a clumsy word,
	Telling you that you can't believe Del Bigtree.
	You can't believe the decades of mask studies that prove that they're not effective to deal with any type of airborne virus and the benefit you get from perhaps stopping A sputum particle is not worth what you're doing to the toxins you're inhaling into your own lungs and the carbon dioxide heavy fog you're inhaling.
	So my question is, do you see this now as gaslighting, as out-and-out totalitarian hegemony?
	The short answer to that question is yes, okay?
	I think that what we're going through now is an incremental and inexplicit version of what the Germans went through in the 30s, you know, and I used to think that kind of comparison was tasteless and hysterical.
	I no longer do.
	I think that this whole experiment, if you want to call it that, is driven by a eugenicist agenda that has been almost candidly admitted by Bill Gates
	You know, it may sound outrageous to some people, but I think the evidence is quite clear by now in as much as every single prescription, every single rule, every single way in which the health agencies and politicians and the media have proposed to help us flatten the curve, every single thing is is unhealthy to the point of deadliness.
	Okay, as you note, masking all the time, healthy populations wearing masks, children wearing masks, Okay, this is grotesque, okay?
	Masking, and now I'm speaking in my own voice.
	This is not the way I teach, okay?
	As I made clear, I'm very careful to encourage my students to make their own discoveries.
	My own view is that masking is a way to weaken people's immune systems.
	It is a way to make them more susceptible to bacterial pneumonia.
	It is a way to dull their wits through hypoxia, you know, deoxygenation.
	Yes, it is patently and demonstrably bad for you.
	And it has never happened in the history of epidemics that whole healthy populations have been required to mask a few cities in the west of this country did have mask ordinances during the so-called Spanish flu epidemic.
	But in 1920, Dr. W.H.
	Kellogg wrote an article noting that the masks had no effect whatsoever.
	You know, they were gauze back then.
	So they were, you know, they looked less effective than paper masks and cloth masks, but none of them work.
	And even Dr. Fauci has now made this clear inadvertently with the release of his emails.
	So this is just one example.
	The deliberate suppression of the truth about vitamin D, right?
	For building up one's immunity.
	The particular necessity of people of color boosting their vitamin D intake because they tend to be more vitamin deficient.
	And the deficiency in that vitamin makes one patently susceptible to respiratory viruses.
	This is practically illegal, pointing this out.
	Dr. Joe Mercola actually had to scrub his website of all his writings on the benefits of vitamin D. This is breathtaking, right?
	The truth about hydroxychloroquine, the truth about ivermectin, these things have been blacked out.
	In India, the use of ivermectin has radically lowered The fatality rate, at least in Delhi, the fatality rate from COVID-19.
	Now an Indian bureaucrat has been somehow persuaded to take ivermectin out of the COVID-19 protocol, and the World Health Organization is exultant over this.
	Okay?
	I could go on.
	The worst aspect of all this is the so-called vaccination program.
	They are not vaccines.
	They are something else entirely.
	They don't use a weakened version of the pathogen to boost immunity as vaccines do.
	This is something else.
	This is a technology whose effects are completely unpredictable, and we've already had over 5,000 reported deaths post-vaccination, right?
	And that's like 1% of the total, right?
	5,000 deaths.
	of the total, right? 5,000 deaths. In 1976, when they rolled out their disastrous swine flu,
	I think the number of people who died was less than 80, right, if I remember correctly.
	That's correct.
	That was sufficient grounds to stop the program.
	What is going on now that the program just continues?
	What is going on now that Jill Biden and Dr. Fauci are visiting, you know, African American neighborhoods for photo ops encouraging people to get vaccinated, when so many have died, and so many more have come down with incurable and Incapacitating neurological afflictions, serious heart disease.
	You feel like you're going nuts, right?
	Yes.
	The truth is that this whole regimen is exterminationist.
	It is a kind of inexplicit, sanctimonious version of the trains going to, you know, the death camps.
	But the genius of this version is that it has people clamoring to board the train.
	I'm serious about this.
	I agree wholeheartedly.
	Go back, as I've done, okay, and trace the history of the eugenics movement, right?
	You trace it from the beginning of the 20th century, when, you know, it was extremely popular with the elites in general.
	The pseudoscience was embraced by Woodrow Wilson, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, you know, by George Bernard Shaw, by H.G.
	Wells, of course, by Margaret Sanger, right?
	By W.E.B.
	Du Bois, even some, you know, notable African Americans, We're eugenicists, right?
	And when Hitler came to power, they were thrilled.
	They said, at long last, a head of state who understands our our science and we'll put it into practice as Hitler did.
	He started, you know, getting rid of the disabled.
	Right.
	They started to hasten the demise of the old.
	You know, they were doing this.
	There was some outcry about it.
	OK, so that, you know, they disguised it in various ways.
	However, the point is here that when the Holocaust came to light,
	the eugenics movement decided it was time to rebrand.
	So they stopped talking about this stuff, you know?
	They stopped praising Hitler.
	It was too embarrassing.
	So they went underground, right?
	And then they reemerged in the early 50s, as the population control movement.
	And this was another Rockefeller project.
	Population Council was formed in 1952.
	Okay.
	By the 60s and the 70s, eugenics had been kind of woven into the fabric of environmentalism.
	Because you started getting the sense that the biggest pollutant on the planet is humanity itself.
	And this is something that Greta Thunberg sort of implies.
	This is something that Extinction Rebellion suggests.
	That we really need for people to stop procreating.
	You know, it's the population is the problem.
	And Bill Gates has been saying this for like 12 years, you know, explicitly.
	And he even said in 2010, in a TED talk, that vaccines are one way to lower the global population by 10 to 15%.
	Okay, I can go on in this vein.
	The point is, That the same powerful interests that funded the eugenics movement and that welcomed the rise of Hitler are still at work, you know, the Rockefellers are still there, you know, they're still promoting their agenda.
	And I think that the, you know, the COVID crisis, which is also serving, of course, to completely alter, fundamentally alter human society and the economy,
	okay, that's going to happen if we don't fight against it, is also being used to finish off as many
	of the unfit as possible. So I am, you know, just like Jim, I am adamant about the need to
	talk back, fight back against these attempts to silence us when there are things going on that
	are urgent.
	It is crucial that people be told the truth and they have an increasingly hard time finding it as the media, as you note, has become you know, a univocal boombox of just outright psychotic
	lies.
	I mean, it's like the Nazi press and the New York Times, by the way,
	reporting on September 2nd, 1939, that Poland had invaded Germany.
	Okay. I mean, what do you say to that, right?
	So you go back and you read William Shirer's Berlin Diary, and he, you know, having been traveling all over Europe, could see that all the headlines in Goebbels's daily newspapers were pathological.
	They were psychotic lies.
	They turned the truth completely upside down.
	That's what we have going on now.
	The New York Times is breathtaking in its mendacity, you know?
	So we have to talk about what, let me just say, I want to make clear to the audience, Giuseppe, thank you so much for signing the petition.
	There's something else that's up, that is my GoFundMe page to cover the costs of this litigation.
	Any donation goes into an escrow account that my lawyer manages.
	I want to raise $100,000.
	I want to be able, To keep this fight going, let me just inform the audience.
	I'm suing 19 of the 25 colleagues who signed the letter.
	I'm not suing the six junior faculty because I reckon they felt pressured or don't know the whole story.
	So I'm suing 19 colleagues who signed the letter and who refused to retract it.
	They have filed a motion to dismiss, okay?
	All the documents are up on my website and I strongly urge people to read the exhibits that my colleagues presented as evidence that they were not lying about me.
	And you'll see that most of their evidence is their own internal email exchanges about me going back to 2016.
	Okay?
	That's their evidence.
	A student told me this, what do we do about this, etc.
	Okay?
	They filed a motion to dismiss.
	We responded, and then they replied to our response.
	That's the process stops there.
	Now the judge is going to rule, okay?
	He could rule any minute.
	He could grant the motion to dismiss, in which case we will appeal immediately.
	He could deny the motion to dismiss, in which case we will proceed.
	I hope to discovery, right?
	So, um, If people go to my GoFundMe page, just search my name and the word libel and GoFundMe, they'll find it.
	We're almost at $100,000.
	I'd be delighted if it goes over that.
	But that's how people can help.
	Mark, that's all absolutely sensational now.
	I'm willing to open the lines to callers if they understand that we may be discussing a lot of this and we may not take as much time with the callers as normal.
	But with that understanding, call in to speak to Mark Christman Miller, Giuseppe, and me.
	The number is 540-352-4452.
	Don't forget Scorpio.
	540-352-4452.
	If Scorpio is able to join us, obviously we're going to elicit his thoughts about all of these matters, but so far he has been detained.
	And Mark, we have so much to discuss because I've just gone through all this business about the courts and appeals and everything else, so there's much, much, much going on here.
	But I want to tell you how much we admire what you have been doing and standing up against this onslaught, and we are 100% kindred spirits.
	In virtually every single issue you are addressing, there's one that Giuseppe and I and Scorpio and others here on Revolution Radio have been addressing again and again and again.
	I've been doing daily news updates.
	With Giuseppe and with Scorpio, with a couple of other commentators every single day about the coronavirus pandemic for over a year, where now we've taken off the weekends.
	But I'm telling you, we are on top of it, and so are you.
	We agree with everything you've been saying here.
	Would you not concur, Giuseppe?
	Oh no doubt.
	Mark Crispin Miller is an amazing man and he's fighting a vital effort that is a must win for freedom, basic freedoms in this society.
	So donate please to his GoFundMe.
	So we're heading into the break.
	We're heading into the break.
	And when we come back, you can call in 540-352-4452.
	Mitchell will handle your call.
	We're just delighted to have Mark here.
	He's been doing sensational work for quite a long time.
	And I reiterate, the kind of work he's doing on propaganda is what the American people need most.
	And no doubt, that's the reason why he's been so massively censored and suppressed.
	Outrageous.
	But there it is.
	Okay, I'm gonna move to another room I
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly,
	you are lying to yourselves!
	Because we know who they are, and what they do.
	This is what they do, and we must fight back!
	You can torture us, and bomb us, fire is catching.
	I'm going to go get a drink.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy
	But did you know that it was an inside job and that Osama had nothing to do with it?
	The Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes.
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read America Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, FredEclipse.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we
	return you to your host.
	We're hoping David Scorfield may join us.
	I'm here, Jim.
	I'm here.
	Oh, you are here.
	I didn't get a chance to explain.
	I had to turn my camera off because we're doing construction here, but I'm here.
	Okay, well terrific.
	See, I saw no image of you and I saw your mic shut off, so I'm very pleased you are here.
	We're with Mark Crispin Miller, who's quite a brilliant academician doing research and And I'm simply delighted to have Scorpio here to offer his comments and thoughts, and I did not intend to neglect you, my friend.
	Go for it.
	Okay, well, first of all, Mark, it's very nice to meet you.
	And, you know, you're a true intellectual because you're teaching your students how to think, not what to think.
	That's supposed to be the whole point of college, not having some kind of ideology shoved down your throat as the absolute truth.
	And so I appreciate that.
	You know, I grew up in academia.
	Both of my parents were academics, so I'm well aware of the game that's going on here.
	You know, it's interesting that they call you a professor of paranoia, and Jim has been called the most dangerous mind in America, and it's interesting how they just resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issues and having an adult conversation and sort of letting the ideas fall into the marketplace of ideas and see what comes out to be the most accurate conclusion.
	And, you know, I'd just like you to comment on this.
	You know, it seems, you know, we really do have a lapdog media that really all they do now is push the official state narrative and anyone who contradicts the state narrative is to be punished.
	And of course the role of the media is to challenge the state narrative and to investigate the facts and come to conclusions outside of the agenda of the politicians.
	Yet here we are with a media that is 100% behind The state narrative of everything, especially coronavirus, has been the magic virus that can morph into anything they want in order to silence people and to stop discussion.
	So what's your take on where the media is now and how dangerous that is for a free society?
	Oh yeah, well it's something I was warning about at the top of my lungs for several years in the 90s.
	When I come to realize that while it can be very enlightening to closely analyze bits of TV or political rhetoric, as I did in the articles collected in my book, Boxed In, I started to notice that one can't really get anywhere with a media system that's becoming increasingly concentrated in its ownership.
	And, you know, there's just no chance of any kind of dissident expression.
	You know, I sensed the onset of the current moment way back then, and, you know, edited several issues of The Nation magazine about what they called the national entertainment state.
	And we did four issues of the magazine, and each one had a glossy fold-out chart.
	Of the ownership of it was the TV news was the first one.
	We also did the music business.
	We did the book publishing industry.
	And we did another one.
	I can't remember exactly what it was.
	Those are very useful.
	But by now, the process of concentration has intensified, you know, really astonishing efficiency.
	So that I think five multinational corporations completely control some 90% of what people take in.
	And that corporate process, you know, with its kind of economic imperatives, its bottom line imperatives, which obviate the possibility of investigative journalism, for example, which is too expensive, and which, you know, for efficiency's sake, basically have everybody follow the same script.
	That kind of economic process has been accompanied by, you know, this close relationship between those corporations and what we call the deep state now.
	You know, I mean, the CIA has been involved with the media in this country really since its founding.
	Everybody's heard of Operation Mockingbird, but even, you know, informally, outside of that program proper, you know, intelligence agencies have been, you know, Very chummy with the media and have increasingly infiltrated the media.
	So what we have is indeed a kind of, you know, a mighty Wurlitzer that has the entire media playing the same song.
	And this includes, this is something fairly new, this includes the left press.
	You've arrived at a moment when Amy Goodman sounds like Rachel Maddow, you know, there's really no difference between them.
	Amy is a stalwart champion of the vaccination program.
	It is staggering to me.
	It is breathtaking.
	But that's what happens when you lose sight of the necessity for a genuinely free press.
	That's what happens when you don't study the history of what our intelligence agencies have done.
	What all intelligence agencies do, whether it's Russia or Israel or Britain, they do this.
	They have always done this.
	They've done it here.
	Now, here's a historical aside.
	Back in the mid 70s, when there was a moment of great promise, when the press, you know, to some extent began to reveal what the CIA and the FBI had been doing to American citizens here on American soil.
	Seymour Hersh broke a very important front page piece in the New York Times, which has always been CIA connected.
	But what he found was so egregious, You know, and I think elements of the CIA wanted it to come out, that it forced Congress's hand.
	There was tremendous public pressure.
	People, average people, knew that this was wrong.
	They didn't like it, you know.
	So we got the church committee hearings in the Senate.
	And the Pike Committee hearings in the House, the Pike Committee was more combative than the Church Committee.
	They kept demanding more documents than the CIA and FBI wanted to give them.
	So their experience was very much like the 9-11 Commission's experience.
	And if you can get hold of the Pike Committee report, which Congress classified as soon as it was finished, if you get a copy from Britain, you can get a used copy from Amazon UK.
	With a preface by Philip Agee, you can see the first third of their report is an account of all the stonewalling and resistance and deception that they encountered, okay?
	Now, Church Committee, okay?
	They were more cooperative.
	They accepted the fact that they weren't going to get any documents that the CIA and FBI didn't want to give them.
	And at a certain point, this was, you know, a serious PR crisis for the CIA.
	So what happened?
	George H.W.
	Bush was appointed CIA director for a year, okay?
	And I think that his job was to steer the agency through this crisis, you know, which really didn't do them any harm.
	And he did.
	And one of the things he did, and this relates to your question, Scorpio, he got church to agree not to look too deeply into two areas, okay?
	The first was the CIA's involvement with the media.
	He persuaded them to go easy on that issue, right?
	And indeed, there's only about, I don't know, 12 or so pages in the report on that subject, and it's very general.
	The other subject that he urged them not to discuss, and which they therefore did not discuss at all, was the CIA's involvement in academia, okay?
	So there was never any kind of a light shown on that partnership, I mean, that represents to me what's most troubling about the CIA is that it has steadily and increasingly infiltrated higher education for quite a while.
	No one ever really looked into it.
	We don't know what professors are actually connected.
	We don't know what professors are spooks themselves, you know?
	Yes.
	Same is true of journalism as well.
	I, you know, there are a lot of people in journalism who interned at the CIA.
	Marcos Malitsas, who started Daily Kos, you know, which is supposedly a leftish, you know, website that's tightly affiliated with the DNC.
	Malitsos was outed as having been a CIA intern and he proudly admitted it and said it was a very liberal organization.
	These are the kinds of things that people should be well aware of.
	I'll say one last thing about this and then I'll let you continue.
	The student who attacked me, as I said before, took screenshots from my website, News From Underground, and tweeted them as self-evidently false.
	One of them that outraged her was a chart from 2013 showing who funds the left press.
	Okay?
	A really good job they did.
	It showed that Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, The Nation magazine, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, They were all funded in one way or another by the Ford Foundation and or the Rockefeller Foundation and or the Open Society Institute, George Soros' outfit.
	Those were all CIA pass-throughs, you know, so that our so-called left press is, you know, compromised.
	They're compromised by their funding.
	Now, I know a lot of those people.
	I used to be very friendly with them and I wrote for their publications.
	I don't think they're evil.
	I think that, you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
	That's just a fact of life.
	That's why Big Pharma has such a clout with the media.
	That's why the media doesn't report any of the truth about these so-called vaccines.
	Or, you know, the truth about hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
	So we've got a really seriously corrupt media landscape and a similarly corrupt academic establishment.
	The Chronicle of Higher Education is sort of a voice of the academic establishment, like the New York Times of Academia.
	The only good news here is that more and more Americans are understanding that they can't believe anything they get from the press.
	You know, that's happening and it is not just right-wingers who feel that way.
	I've met many, many people like ourselves who used to identify as leftists of one kind or another who now feel politically marooned or politically stranded.
	People use those terms often and there are quite a few of us.
	If Donald Trump had done nothing more than to make America aware of the fake news, that would have been a tremendous contribution for which I think we're all eternally in his debt.
	Jim, can I just jump in real quick?
	I want to add one further thing.
	Mark, you know, you mentioned the amount of intelligence operatives, CIA people, etc., within academia, and I can tell you a first-hand story.
	My eldest uncle was a Navy SEAL underwater demolition team.
	And after he got out of the military, he went into military intelligence and then he got his PhD and became a professor.
	And he was amazed by the number of people that he knew within the intelligence communities that were now professors at the universities and the people he met up with at conferences, etc.
	The overlap was absolutely shocking to him.
	And he told me flat out that he believed that academia was deeply infiltrated by intelligence.
	And that's a firsthand story.
	What universities did he teach at?
	He taught at Florida State University.
	Wow.
	That's really remarkable.
	So he didn't approve of this it sounds like.
	No, absolutely not.
	He got into psychology and he was involved in psychology in the military intelligence and somewhere along the line he realized what a dark conclusion this is all going to come to and when he saw the number of people that he knew for certain that were military intelligence connected or CIA It absolutely shocked him, and it really changed his entire life once he realized that.
	Wow, that's incredible.
	That's amazing.
	Is he still with us?
	No, no.
	He passed away about a decade ago.
	Wow.
	Well, you know, I tried to dig into this myself, and there's very little written on it.
	There's Robin Winks' book, Cloak and Gown, which is mainly about Yale.
	And it's pretty good, but it tends to be a bit CIA friendly.
	And maybe there's one or two other books that get into this.
	You guys remember Ramparts in the 60s?
	Ramparts Magazine?
	That was a great, great adventure.
	And they're the ones who broke the story about the CIA's funding of the National Student Association.
	And they also broke the story of how Ohio State, no, sorry, Michigan State, was heavily involved in the training of police in South Vietnam, training them in interrogation tactics, and so on.
	These were agency people working as faculty.
	And these these scandals were, you know, hot enough that the New York Times would actually pick them up.
	You know, it's unimaginable that they would do anything like that now.
	The Times is just shocking to me.
	And I wrote four or five op-eds myself in the Times back in the day, you know.
	But they would never let me write anything now.
	It's pure propaganda today, Mark.
	That's exactly what you're exposing on the right and left.
	We have four callers standing by.
	We're going to take 707 first, then the mechanic, then Paul, then 214.
	Area code 707.
	Please join the conversation with Mark Crisman, Miller, Giuseppe, Scorpio and me.
	Thanks, Seth.
	Professor Miller, it's great to have this opportunity to visit with you for a moment.
	I think it doesn't reflect well on academia when you have a student complaining about having her propaganda challenged in a propaganda class.
	It's as if she's never heard of irony.
	When you see this kind of stuff, it makes you wonder, like, what's the purpose of college anymore?
	Uh, it just seems like this is turning into a forced indoctrination camp.
	I mean, I got a PhD in engineering, and so I've been through this ringer, and I've done really well in it.
	But, um, you know, when I work with other people who are coming out of the system these days, who are young and brand new, uh, it's amazing to me, like, just how unbelievably uniform these really, like, on paper, extremely intelligent, high IQ people are.
	And so, you know, like, nobody should really see the same, the world in the same way, because we all have different experiences, and No, I think you're absolutely right.
	a certain sense that if you have freedom, especially intellectual freedom,
	it's gonna absolutely mean that there is disagreement.
	I mean, like there is no freedom if everybody's agreeing on everything.
	That's obviously exactly the opposite.
	And so I'm just wondering, where is the independence of thought?
	And I mean, do you get the sense that this pendulum has swung about as far as it can go,
	or do you see it continuing in this direction?
	No, I think you're absolutely right.
	Ironically, and I appreciate your perception of irony in my situation.
	I think these people tend to be sort of irony-challenged, you know, and humor-challenged.
	My situation is the result of precisely the process you're describing.
	Under, you know, wearing a mantle of diversity, right, there is absolute intellectual and ideological uniformity.
	And no tolerance for disagreement and a kind of pathological readiness to take offense.
	I had a Japanese student a few years ago who was in my program as an undergraduate.
	And I guess had been, you know, educated in a more traditional way in Japan.
	And he was appalled by the way teachers here taught, uh, how they kind of policed, uh, you know, the ideological, um, uh, uh, atmosphere.
	And he told me that he said something that I, that I often quote, it was very perceptive.
	He said, uh, higher education in America is teaching students how to take offense, you know?
	And he's right.
	That's absolutely true.
	So that we've come to this bizarre place where, as you note, challenging someone's preconceptions is taboo because you're making them uncomfortable.
	You know, the so-called social justice warriors are obsessed with people's feelings.
	They feel threatened.
	My colleagues accuse me of Advocating for an unsafe learning environment.
	Now, what does that mean?
	Does that mean that people are going to get punched in the mouth in my classes?
	No, it doesn't mean that there's going to be violence inflicted on anyone.
	It means that people's ideology is going to be challenged.
	You're going to be getting them to think things over and maybe come to a new conclusion.
	And that's actually a kind of thought crime now, you know?
	So it feels more, the atmosphere feels more and more Stalinist to me, you know, before I invoke the Nazis.
	And I think that that's going on generally.
	There's a kind of neo-Nazi racial hygiene depopulation program going on vigorously and a kind of totalitarianism lowering around us that is unprecedented in world history because it's global.
	This is a globalist movement.
	They want to dissolve boundaries between nations.
	They want to eliminate national sovereignty.
	They certainly want to eliminate states' rights.
	They want to centralize the economic system and give us all digital currency.
	You know, it's really like one of the dystopian novels of the past.
	Meanwhile, in the Academy, There's a kind of Stalinist atmosphere where you have to, you know, pay obeisances to the pieties of social justice, which tend to be, you know, inordinately racist themselves, which tend to be highly misogynistic themselves.
	But that's not up for discussion, you know, because, as you note, we cannot disagree.
	And so I think the crisis now is going to lead to some kind of schism.
	Some kind of breakaway movement.
	I, for one, would very much like to start a small college somewhere.
	That would also have, you know, video streaming capabilities, so a larger public could benefit from it, but that would also allow some students to learn in person, you know?
	There is no substitute for the college experience or the university experience as it has developed since the Middle Ages.
	You know, Giorgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, ...has noted that the main purpose of university education has, since the Middle Ages, been primarily about meeting students from other countries.
	It's been about that kind of cosmopolitan congregation, where you meet and befriend people from worlds that you know nothing about.
	That's what college is supposed to be.
	It is not supposed to be a place where you're obsessively sanitizing everything.
	And wiping down all surfaces and making people six feet apart, making them wear masks, making them come up with proof of non-infection to get into campus buildings.
	This is pure dystopia, okay?
	This is criminal.
	This whole thing is criminal.
	And I'm here and ready to argue about it with any of my colleagues, but while they profess to be these diehard progressives, they're actually enforcing the kind of totalitarian order that I've described, and it's pretty sick.
	Great question, 707.
	Stick around.
	Anything they listed, that fantastic answer is most welcome.
	We have The Mechanic on board, where he's also a host here at Revolution Radio.
	Mechanic, go ahead.
	Well, you know, the significance, first of all, thanks for having me on the show.
	The significance here of propaganda is not just in the media.
	It's not just in, you know, we can look at Hollywood, we can look at the music industry.
	Propaganda is inside your sixth grader's school book.
	Right.
	Propaganda is in the coloring book.
	Propaganda is throughout YouTube.
	It's throughout social media.
	There are specific players throughout the world right now that are hired by their own governments.
	To go out and spread disinformation and it's all part of a much bigger distraction going on against humanity.
	It's to rip the soul out of humanity.
	They do not want individuals thinking for themselves.
	They do not want any type of critical thinking.
	They completely lack the ability to handle or decipher Constructive criticism, okay?
	Right.
	It goes immediately against their ego.
	They have now been taught to bring their feelings into a conversation about facts.
	That's right.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, this is something that we've got to try to get out in front of and there's going to be a lot of feelings hurt in
	the process.
	But honestly, I could give a damn. I'll be right here.
	We're clearly talking about the manifestation of political correctness gone amok.
	I knew it was a problem from the beginning.
	Mark got it exactly right.
	If you hurt someone's feelings, it's supposed to be hate speech that has nothing to do with the truth or the importance of what you're saying.
	Which means we've just been compromised.
	The First Amendment becomes meaningless.
	Anyone who's dissenting is being suppressed and silenced, just as Mark is being suppressed in science in his once great institution of NYU.
	Scorpio, I have no doubt you have further thoughts.
	Go for it.
	Well, yeah, Mechanic brought up some great points, because this propaganda extends to every corner of our society.
	We have a society based on propaganda.
	I think that's part of why they might have seen, at the University, Mark's class as being something very dangerous, because you don't want the students to understand the system they're living under.
	And, you know, Mark, you made some interesting points about the left earlier, and I always thought one of the most important parts of, you know, the left in our society was first of all questioning authority not trusting the government and secondly
	This anti-war sentiment that was so strong throughout the left, that has completely disappeared and it seems like it's just been replaced by this pushing of the homosexual agenda.
	I don't have a problem with homosexuals, it's fine, but we don't need to be encouraging it and making you a hero somehow if you're transgender or homosexual.
	It's one thing to accept it, another thing to push it on children.
	And I just wonder, how do you think they've gotten rid of the anti-war left and this inherent distrust of government that the left used to embody?
	Well, amen to that.
	I mean, I still identify as leftist in a sense, harking back to those days when being on the left meant, as you say, anti-authoritarianism.
	It was in favor of free speech and freedom of assembly.
	You know, and other kinds of freedoms, you know, sexual freedom and so on.
	It was anti-war.
	It was kind of forged in the anti-war movement, or to put it more accurately, it was forged in the civil rights movement, which then began to become more sophisticated and incorporate an anti-war critique of the Vietnam adventure.
	into the civil rights program.
	Martin Luther King was the first American public figure to come out against the war.
	I think I can offer an answer to that really good question.
	What has happened to the anti-war component of leftism?
	How is it that we all sat still for Barack Obama not only maintaining The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but starting five new ones.
	That was evidently okay because he's, you know, African American and a Democrat and kind of cool, people thought.
	It would have been the same with Hillary Clinton.
	Being the first female president, she could start still more wars and nobody says anything about it.
	Well, I believe that the current state of the academy, as you guys have really perceptively described it, is due, ultimately, to the way in which identity politics was actually cultivated, starting in the late 60s, by the intelligence agencies again.
	The Ford Foundation, for example, as I noted earlier, is a pass-through for CIA funding, has given, I think, $100 million to BLM, you know, $100 million to BLM.
	If you go back to the 60s, and this is something I've only lately begun to dig into, and we need a couple of good books about it, you find that, you know, Afro-centrist activists We're being funded by the Ford Foundation, and they would go into the public school systems like Philadelphia and New York and elsewhere and, you know, serve as sort of divisive figures, create fissures between, you know, Jewish teachers who had been, you know, actively involved in civil rights and black teachers.
	You know, identity politics is all about division, right?
	It's the oldest tactic in the imperial playbook, right?
	Divide and conquer.
	Divide et impera.
	Divide and conquer.
	The Romans did it, the British did it, and the Empire's doing it now, right?
	Did they have people, you know, going after the Black Panther Party?
	Ron Karenga, the inventor of Kwanzaa, was actually on the federal payroll.
	I think he shot and killed a panther or two.
	You know, there was some kind of gunfight.
	He's now, you know, an emeritus professor somewhere in California.
	You know, the guy was an agent.
	He was an asset.
	And at the same time, starting around 1970, Daniel Brandt discovered this.
	The Ford and Rockefeller Foundation started to favor academic projects on race and gender, okay?
	To the exclusion of projects dealing with political economy and talking about class.
	That's two left wing.
	Identity politics is basically right wing.
	It's fervently right wing.
	It's racialist, right?
	And it is obsessed with gender.
	And now the trans movement, which never had a grassroots impetus.
	I mean, that's not a movement that arose from organic protest, as, you know, the feminist movement did, and as the civil rights movement did, and as the gay rights movement did.
	The trans movement is a top-down imposition.
	It's being enforced by corporations.
	It's being enforced by Hollywood.
	It's being enforced by city and state governments.
	It's very strange.
	Can I just agree real quick?
	I think the feminist movement was also a construct.
	Partly.
	Yeah, I think partly.
	Like Gloria Steinem, for example.
	Yeah, she admitted it.
	Yeah.
	You also said this was a right wing when it's clearly a left wing.
	You meant left wing.
	I mean, you know, all this identity politics and feminism and transgender is coming from the left.
	None of it's coming from the right.
	No, no.
	You misunderstand me.
	It is coming from the so-called left.
	Okay.
	I'm saying that ideologically, it is it is right wing in that it is tribalist and racialist.
	You know, it's about squaring off against each other, you know, so it's effect, you know, the obsession with race, okay.
	has more in common ideologically with Hitler than it does with Marx, okay?
	That's what I mean when I say that it's essentially or effectively right-wing.
	It is certainly coming from the so-called left.
	The so-called left is actually, in a sense, fascistic, and I consider that right-wing.
	But it does also, you know, it's also redolent of Stalinism, it's redolent of Maoism as well, you know?
	And I think one way to understand The current our current situation and also a way to understand the system that's being imposed on all of us is that it's going to be like communism.
	At the ground level, okay?
	That's what the Great Reset is about.
	A kind of communism at the ground level, where everyone is equal, where no one can stand out, where nobody actually has anything, you know?
	And then, at the upper level, it's like fascism.
	You've got a kind of corporate-state merger, which is sort of the defining trait of fascism as Mussolini understood it.
	And these private interests will dominate completely through the state.
	So it's like the worst of both worlds is what we're facing.
	Let me just say this, Jim, this is very important because you talk about this is left wing, this is right wing.
	What we actually urgently need now and what I think is beginning to happen, and I hope it is beginning to happen, is solidarity.
	We need to forge alliances.
	People who genuinely represent the left at its best, principled people on the left who are anti-authoritarian and anti-war and in favor of strengthening the working class and in favor of reigning in corporate power, okay?
	Principled people on the left need to forge alliances with principled people on the right, with libertarians, with Christians, okay?
	This is what must happen.
	Let me just say one last thing, okay?
	The four key assassinations in the 60s, that is JFK, Malcolm, King, and Bobby, I believe all four of them were killed in large part because each one, in one way or another, represented the possibility of unity, okay?
	JFK would have sailed to re-election on a peace platform That the whole country had come to appreciate and to like, okay?
	Malcolm had transcended the racism of his Nation of Islam days, was now willing to work with white people, was also forging these connections to the heads of state of newly independent African nations, was going to put civil rights in the U.S.
	on the U.N.
	agenda, which would have been a big propaganda defeat for the U.S.
	He had to go, okay?
	King was planning a poor people's march on Washington.
	Okay, a poor people's march.
	This meant people of all colors, all the have-nots, would descend on Washington, and he was against the war.
	He had to go.
	And then Bobby, like the last man standing.
	Bobby was beloved by working class whites and by African Americans, okay?
	He had to go.
	And finally, a lesser figure, okay, more of a regional figure, was Fred Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.
	He was organizing Appalachian whites in uptown Chicago, poor whites, as well as Hispanic street gangs and black street gangs, along with the Panthers.
	This guy was truly radical, okay?
	And let me make a pitch for a movie, which I don't often do.
	Judas and the Black Messiah, okay?
	It was nominated for several Oscars.
	It won one Oscar.
	This is an astonishing feat.
	This movie actually is an accurate dramatization of Fred Hampton's radicalism, that he was going to unify the have-nots of Chicago.
	This infuriated and threatened J. Edgar Hoover, who personally ordered Hampton's execution, you know, which is what it was.
	He was unconscious when the police shot him.
	This movie is really an amazing achievement.
	For those who are interested in propaganda, I suggest you compare that movie with The Trial of the Chicago 7, the Aaron Sorkin film, which is basically imposing the age of BLM and all that kind of thing on that event in the 60s.
	And Fred Hampton appears in that movie.
	It's interesting to compare the portrayals.
	I think Edgar was involved in all of those.
	I was glad you brought in Malcolm X. I do think of the Great Reset as neo-feudalism because the elite are going to be in their castles and the rest of us, yes, will be equally serfs and slaves working in the field.
	Giuseppe, I want to bring back for your thoughts, my friend.
	Well, Jim, we've got three callers still and not much time.
	I know.
	I know the callers, Giuseppe.
	I want to get your thoughts, just if you have to add.
	Oh, I would just say that the observation of the shocking What would you call it?
	Metamorphosis of Democrats who were championing the working class, championing jobs, anti-war, metamorphosizing into this fascist, globalist megaphone.
	I never thought this would ever happen.
	It's just bizarre.
	We have Paul from California standing by, and then we'll go to 214, and then Scott from San Diego.
	Paul, join the conversation.
	Yes, thank you.
	It was a great show.
	It was an absolute honor and a pleasure to hear Mark in the first hour.
	And you remind me, Mark, and this is all complimentary, somewhat in delivery and tone of Noam Chomsky, but more than that, you remind me of something he said.
	And again, I believe this is complimentary.
	He was being questioned once about his appearances on mainstream media and interview shows.
	And that they were, you know, the problematic nature.
	And somebody asked him, what is, what was the main problem or issue with these appearances?
	And he said, they never let me talk long enough.
	I had that thought in my mind.
	The problem that you probably had, and I think Jim can relate to this, probably many people on this call can relate to it.
	And I can also.
	Is it you're at such a level you have such discernment and perception and clarity that you're just wherever you're going to deal with, you know, peers and colleagues and others.
	You're just going to be on a on a cushion of this of this cognitive ability that just places you above and people are in many ways just going to resent that just quickly.
	I'll mention one of the things you said that prompted me to call this is personal.
	You talked about running up against the COVID narrative, okay, the Corona narrative.
	Well, I hit him square in the face last night in the hospital.
	My dad was taken there from the home he's been residing in for about a year now with chest pains.
	And when I got there, my brother was already there.
	So picture a man who's going to be 94 years old in just a couple of weeks.
	And obviously he's frail and not in the greatest of health.
	And I walk into the room and he's got a mask on.
	Now, he's taken in for a possible cardiac event.
	I mean, look at the charge they have on their possible infarction.
	And, you know, the first thing I do when I get in there is I pull the mask right off.
	At the moment, there's no nurse in there.
	And I said, you've got to breathe.
	And my brother's got a mask on, too, but it's kind of slightly below his nose.
	And then in two different attempts while I was there, probably within an hour and a half to two hours, they came in to do a COVID test.
	And now my brother had already declined it previously and they came in again.
	And essentially we're trying to say, well, you know, if he doesn't do it, then, you know, we can't really house him with normal.
	We're going to have to put him in a COVID ward.
	Right.
	I said, well, that's fine because there's no such thing.
	The person is like, well, why do you say that?
	And I look and you know, when I, when I'm in a situation like this, I pretty much, I just take over the room because I can't help it.
	And none of these doctors or nurses so far have been a match for me.
	I had a history of dealing with my dad for a year.
	I took him five or six times.
	It was always for dehydration.
	They always gave him a saline solution and he always perked up.
	What's this?
	Okay.
	He's got high blood pressure.
	It's 199 when they brought him in.
	It was 179.
	He hasn't been given fluids yet.
	And I'm saying, Hey, we got to get him, you know, some saline solution here.
	He's got high blood pressure.
	Oh yeah, we know.
	And they want to give him like hydrazolazine or some, some, one of these other medications at the dilator.
	Right.
	Which is just completely ridiculous.
	Yeah.
	So I've already been through this so many times.
	The nurse actually said to me, well, no, we don't want to give him fluids because if we do, since he's got high blood pressure, that'll raise his pressure even more.
	I looked at her, I go, are you insane?
	I said, get a doctor.
	Well, I'll go talk to the doctor.
	Fast forward about a half hour later, she comes back and says, well, the doctor at this time says we shouldn't give him any fluids.
	I said, well, we need another doctor.
	And she walks out of the room in a huff.
	I'll quickly end it with this.
	I got into another discussion with a nurse.
	She's probably, uh, maybe early to mid thirties and she was actually open to some of the things I was trying to say.
	And I just, at one point, you know, because she wasn't really fully comprehending or believing the things I was telling her, I asked her right to her face and she's got an RN, a big RN on her tag, as opposed to a peon, which is what the others have.
	And I asked her, I said, can you tell me what a virus is?
	Have you ever looked up the definition of a virus?
	What would it be in your mind?
	She didn't have anything to say.
	She made some vague attempt about, well, it's kind of like a bacteria, but isn't it like a spore?
	Literally, this is what occurred.
	And I just looked at her and I said, you know, you got to do some work.
	And I pulled my phone up and I flipped through all the bit shoot and the other tabs I had open.
	And I just said, please, please, please do some research.
	These people literally are empty vessels, and they are indeed filled with the worst sort of propaganda.
	I hope your father survived this ordeal, Paul, because this is horrific.
	I'm assuming- Actually, I do too.
	And by the way, just a quick addendum.
	Last year, I was actually kicked- I wasn't kicked out of the doctor's office, but the doctor pulled me in and said that he would no longer be interested in seeing my dad or me as patients because- Are you ready for this?
	The nurses were intimidated by me, but it was only because of the fact that they suggested he get a flu shot at 93 years old when I took him.
	I'm trying to find him a general practitioner, because the bottom line is my dad was like so many men.
	He never went to go see the doctor on his own, and there came a point where he needed a regular doctor.
	Paul, this has been terrific.
	We got a couple other callers here.
	I'm really glad you called in.
	Let's go to area code 214.
	Area code 214, 214.
	214.
	Join the conversation 214.
	Well, I hope you don't mind if I mentioned the name of the elephant in the room, gentlemen.
	Thank you.
	The new system of governance that we're ruled by is called communitarianism.
	It's informed by acquis communautaire, or what is known as EU law, in English, communitarian law.
	It has affected and become part and parcel of all law enforcement in this country, and it has It has affected the courts.
	It has affected every field of human endeavor, every occupation.
	What's occurred with you, Professor Miller, is you've been swept up by social emotional learning, or SEL.
	And this is all part of the education monopoly that is emerging, not only at the grade school, And the elementary and the high school levels, but all the way through academia.
	It's called P-20.
	Preschool through graduate school.
	And unfortunately, this is a juggernaut that I don't think you can win with.
	I have no faith in the courts.
	I have no faith in the medical profession.
	Today, anybody that thinks these people speak with any kind of authority and with true science is out of their damn mind.
	Once you enter into a courtroom in this country, you've lost.
	And I'm going to say it one more time too, regarding Anthony Fauci's wife, Christine Grady.
	She is considered an authority in the field of bioethics along with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
	She also calls herself an epidemiologist and a communitarian.
	And this is provable.
	But it's never talked about.
	Why the hell not?
	Well, can you... I could add a whole lot more to that, but I'll let you all talk.
	But I'm just telling you, this is the facts, and I don't have any faith... I mean, if I had a child today, I would consider it child abuse to enroll that child in any university in this damn country.
	Well, it's hard to argue with that.
	As a communitarian, can you recommend some books about it?
	I can tell you right now.
	First of all, you can purchase a PDF on the internet.
	It's out of print.
	The book is called, They Own It All, Including You, by Mean Toxic Currency.
	Okay.
	We'll follow up on that.
	We're glad you called 214.
	Let's take Scott.
	Scott from San Diego.
	Scott, join the conversation.
	Scott.
	Scott, are you there?
	Are you there, Scott?
	He might have dropped off, Jim.
	I'm looking.
	Yeah, he dropped off.
	Okay, Scorpio, let me bring you in.
	Let me bring you in, Scorpio, for your thought.
	Okay, yeah.
	We're getting feedback.
	I think through 1.4, we're getting feedback.
	Drop to 1.4.
	Yeah, maybe you can mute or drop off, because that's when the feedback started.
	Yeah, this has been a fascinating conversation with Professor Miller and I just want to thank him for his time coming on.
	And, you know, I would just add as an addendum to my story about my eldest uncle.
	He was also persecuted by academia and the same exact tactics were used on him because he really saw the incredible influence that the CIA has over the academia And once that was known to people within his department and within the university, he became a target.
	And he almost was fired from his position, but he managed to not be after a long, protracted struggle.
	I see.
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, it's just common in the academy.
	We're trying to deal with it, Mark.
	Just persevere.
	I will.
	We're trying to deal with it, Mark, just persevere.
	I will.
	It's my middle name.
	Um, I want to address the kind of fatalist name, uh, was it Paul?
	Um, That there's no fiscal winning in the system.
	I actually think that I've already won.
	And I think Jim, you've already won.
	Because what we have to say about our respective scandals and what they represent is audible, it's out there.
	I think it's quite likely that I'll lose in court despite the strength of my case.
	I think my case is extremely strong and theirs is thin to almost non-existence.
	But NYU is extremely powerful, has a very strong influence on the, certainly on the state bench in New York through their law school.
	And I, you know, I've been involved in, you know, legal entanglements with them in the past.
	I spearheaded faculty resistance to this grotesque real estate expansion plan for Greenwich Village, which would have entailed jamming four gigantic eyesores onto two residential blocks just south of Washington Square.
	And it was a successful resistance, although we ultimately lost in court.
	We sued the city.
	For approving this plan, it made its way all the way up to the state Supreme Court, which then arbitrarily ruled against us.
	So that was disappointing, but it was a lesson in how much power NYU has.
	And despite that setback, the fact is that our delaying the project for three years and making it extremely unpopular through our own propaganda drive, which was based on the truth, Um, I think they, they've given up the idea of building any more than one eyesore that's going up across the street from me.
	It'll be the biggest and ugliest building in the village, but it's only one instead of four.
	Okay.
	So we kind of won there.
	And, um, there was another, uh, class action suit in which I was a named plaintiff.
	The point I'm making is just by speaking up and being heard by people whose minds are somewhat open.
	You have won a victory, and I am more concerned with winning in the court of public opinion, ultimately, than I am with any kind of legal settlement.
	Although I'm not going to quit.
	I'm not going to stop.
	Because in fact, sometimes judges do the right thing.
	Okay?
	That blanket statement about, you know, all the courts being completely corrupt I mean, there's a judge in Kentucky just yesterday issued a dynamite ruling invalidating all of Governor Bashir's COVID protocol features, all of them based on expert testimony to the effect that masks don't work.
	This is a really highly credentialed expert, like the experts Jim used to look at the Posner death certificate.
	This guy was a terrific expert.
	And he convinced the judge that the mask thing was absurd.
	It's all about compliance.
	It's bad for people's health.
	It doesn't stop transmission of respiratory viruses.
	And that was a victory.
	Now, maybe that judge will meet with a serious accident.
	I don't know what's going to happen to him.
	But it does happen.
	And there are professors who do speak up, you know?
	We have a federal judge in California, Mark, who just invalidated California's 30-year-old ban on assault rifles as a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.
	So I agree with you that we do have exceptional jurors who understand the Constitution and have the integrity to rule in accordance with the law.
	I'm hopeful that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will review my petition and appreciate that Finding me guilty while denying me offense and not even establishing I'd done anything wrong was preposterous, and that I don't deserve to have a $450,000 judgment against me, nor for my efforts to expose that the person who came to give the video deposition under the name of Leonard Posner does not appear to be the same guy whose image appeared millions of times around the world at the time of this Sandy Hook event,
	For which I wound up being saddled with an extra $650,000 for 1.1 mil.
	I hope this court, which is highly unusual in having seven members, six of whom are women, We'll come to grips with the issue.
	Fascinating, fascinating.
	And Mark, I hope you get fair-handed treatment, though.
	I mean, everything is stacked against those of us, like James Tracy, who are doing our best to expose the truth, and frequently on improper grounds, even violative of the statutes, in my case, for example, that govern summary judgment, because All the inferences were made against me in favor of the plaintiff when it was supposed to be precisely the opposite, to use a summary judgment which even first-year law students know is inappropriate for cases of defamation.
	We are 100% with you, Mark, and I want you to reiterate where we can go to sign your petition, where we can go to support your efforts, all of the above.
	Okay, thanks, Jim.
	I really appreciate that.
	You know, they will go to any lengths to protect the narrative, okay?
	That's why Julian Assange is rotting in prison.
	That's why you're facing this inordinately punitive penalty.
	And that's why they've gone after me.
	The propaganda narrative must be protected at all costs, okay?
	And, you know, we're now at a moment when so-called conspiracy theory is explicitly equated with domestic terrorism.
	So now, questioning the results of an election is cast as some kind of dangerous neo-Nazi sedition, okay?
	So this requires, I repeat, this requires all of us to stand together to cross racial, regional, partisan, Ideological lines to reaffirm the Bill of Rights, and that includes the Second Amendment, to stand with all people who are being persecuted for whatever reason, and that includes a lot of Christians, okay?
	We have to be principled, and on the basis of those principles, we have to form an alliance with the people.
	That has to mean something now, because, you know, we are many, they are few, you know, to quote Shelley, all right?
	As for my online documents, the petition change.org, you just do a search on my name, academic freedom and change.org.
	My GoFundMe page is there to raise funds for what I expect to be a protracted legal hustle, the very powerful corporate university And a band of really militantly woke colleagues.
	That is GoFundMe, search on my name and the word libel.
	Okay.
	And finally, there's my listener.
	It's called News From Underground.
	You can sign up at my website, markcrispinmiller.com.
	And you will receive my daily emails, a few of which are my own little essays, most of which are news items of importance.
	Jim, I ran afoul of my colleagues for sharing with my listener.
	Paul Craig Roberts' piece about the fact that your expert testimony about the death certificate was ignored by the judge.
	I shared that with my list.
	That's the basis that they're saying that I marked it in the past and said Sandy Hooks was a hoax, okay?
	The point is that I'm offering people yet another, there are many out there, yet another source of news supporting the counter-narratives of all time.
	Mark, this has been sensational.
	We can't thank you enough.
	And to all the callers, you were terrific.
	Regrets for 707 and Scaredy Cat, I couldn't get you in too.
	Mark, just fantastic.
	Thank you for joining us here on the event.
	Well, thanks for having me.
	I really appreciate it.
	Yeah, I hope you'll come back soon.
	I mean, really, really wonderful appearance.
	Yeah, I'm here, you know.
	The judge could rule at any moment, you know, and if he does, I'll come back and tell your audience all about it.
	Mark, that was just fantastic, and it's really great to talk to a true intellectual, a man who's not afraid of ideas, not afraid to embrace concepts that might challenge his own personal belief system.
	That's the very essence of being an intellectual.
	Thank you.
	I think so.
	Thanks.
	Mechanic, since you're back, did you want to ask another question of Mark during this few minutes we have?
	I've got to hit another show.
	Absolutely, Jim.
	Good to talk to you again.
	Yeah, Mark, real quick, man.
	Yeah, I'm a host here at Revolution Radio, and you know, as everybody else, I try to do this much confirming as possible and sometimes it's just it's such a bold-faced distinctive difference between the two for me anyways the right they push they puddle fascism they puddle that joint relationship between the corporation and the corporate world the left they push the division
	They pushed the divide between the sexes, the races, the economic levels of what schools you go to, what car you drive, the color of your hair.
	Beautification is now considered one of the seven deadly sins, probably, to them.
	Right?
	Narcissism, right?
	Right.
	And now the uglification starts, and they try to uglify themselves to fit in, to virtue signal that they don't see themselves any better looking.
	Than anybody else.
	And they cut their hair off, they turn it green, they put holes in their nose, they're walking around in jeans that don't fit, a belly that shouldn't be shown.
	You know, these types of things.
	That's where we are in society right now.
	I just wanted to, you know, there's never enough time on the air, Mr. Miller.
	No, no, you're right.
	I mean, you just opened up a whole nother half hour of conversation.
	Yeah, for sure.
	You know, but thanks for that.
	That's a fascinating observation, and I think there's really something to that, yeah.
	Well, we all have shows, and we'd sure welcome you on the platform any time.
	I mean, really, just brilliant, brilliant appearance, and thank you so much.
	Well, thank you.
	Thanks.
	I really had a good time and look forward to doing it again.
	Great.

▲