All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
58:44
Counter Speech (22 January 2022) with Deana Pollard Sacks
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The blinders are off.
Are we in the endgame?
Or are we simply living a replay of a time that's already happened, with no choices?
Different people have different points of view.
When it comes to creation versus evolution, my point of view?
We were created to evolve.
The Red Pill every Sunday night at 8 p.m.
at 3pm Eastern in Studio B.
www.freedomslips.com and revolution.radio
Check it out!
www.freedomslips.com www.freedomslips.com
Join me and the Brian Ruse Show on Revolution Radio, Eastern Standard Time, every Tuesday night from 6 to 8.
We talk about the four most vital things in my view affecting all of humanity.
Number one is UFOs and aliens and their agenda for the advancement of humanity.
Number two is The Jewish establishment's control over all aspects of human civilization.
Number three, the truth about Adolf Hitler, how he was the opposite of what we've been told.
Number four is advanced ancient global civilizations.
Join me on the Brian Rue Show, Tuesday nights from 6 to 8 on Studio B on Revolution Radio.
The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable
logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line
with a panametric fan.
The lineup consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzle vanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar wane shaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented.
Thank you for listening to Revolution Radio, taking the confusion out of transmutated lunar girdle springs for four years and running.
Emibolloid slots of the stator every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the
differential girdle spring on the up end of the gram meters, thank you for listening to revolution radio taking
the confusion out a Transmutated lunar girdle springs for four years and
running revolution radio the number one listener supported alternative media radio on the planet
Thank you for listening to revolution radio at freedom slips calm in
Any commercial advertising you may hear in this program is of the sole discretion and benefit of the host of whose program you are listening to.
Revolution Radio does not endorse any commercial products, nor does it accept monetary compensation for on-air advertising of commercial products, nor will it ever.
We are and shall remain 100% listener-supported.
Any product advertising on this program are considered used at higher risk.
And Revolution Radio shall not be held liable for any claims or damages received from any product advertised within this program.
Revolution Radio, where information never sleeps.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio, and now we
return you to your host.
Hi, this is Dena Saxe, and you're listening to Counter Speech on Revolution Radio.
I have Professor James Ketzer who is also a friend of mine on with me today and we're going to be talking about the vaccine mandates and some of the Uproar around the world with the public coming out and refusing to submit to the mandates and Boris Johnson's recent decision to scale back and to release the mask mandates and the vaccine mandates moving forward.
I think they're calling it Plan B and it's partly because the Omicron variant has declined, but I think there's more to it than that based on what he said.
So Jim, thank you so much for joining me today last minute.
I'm simply delighted any time it would be my pleasure, and it's remarkable given these international developments that Watching television here, you wouldn't think anything had happened in the UK or elsewhere because they're pushing the VAX.
They've got all these pseudo experts on saying that you're better off if you have the booster.
I mean, it's just a 100 percent bullshit we've been hearing for two years now, Dina.
I'm really rather floored, but I suppose I should not be surprised.
Right.
Well, it's kind of more of the same.
And one of the things we talked about on a prior show Is how much the television, media, video games, even songs can program your brain to process information in a certain way.
And there's also research I'm not really familiar with, but a little bit familiar with concerning how Facebook and some of the other big platforms, you have to choose basically certain routes to get to what you want.
And that alone can program you in a certain way.
And I started this research years ago at Berkeley, actually.
I had a professor, a fabulous professor, Linda Krieger, who was teaching us about implicit bias as part of the employment discrimination class.
And implicit bias is where it's at to a large degree.
Most people don't mean to discriminate.
They don't know they're doing it.
But what we learned, it actually is traced back to cognitive learning theory.
So in learning about bias and gender bias, racial bias, all kinds of biases, you have to go back to cognitive learning theory to understand how the brain processes information, intakes information, Assimilates information and how that ends up influencing you without you even knowing it.
So when it comes to the whole vaccine thing, it's the same body of research concerning how the mind processes information that is at play.
And that is why the media is so, so powerful.
And, you know, something called the Availability Heuristic says that basically whatever you're exposed to the most, you're going to think is, you know, is the truth.
It's going to start making you think, oh, I've heard that a lot of times.
It must be true.
And you've heard people say that.
But it's even more problematic because implicitly, unconsciously, you'll process certain information and start to assume it's accurate implicitly.
It's a cognitive association.
So it's not even a judgment call.
It just happens.
And so that's what's really dangerous to me right now is that the media not being fair, not really telling us both sides of the story and most people just not knowing and choosing to take the vaccine, for example, before they even are told that the CDC changed the definition of vaccine in order to accommodate this medical treatment And to call it a vaccine that taps into most people's cognitive associations between vaccines and good health, vaccines and safeguarding people from being crippled like with polio or dying like from smallpox.
So they definitely, I think, had an interest in calling it a vaccine to trigger all those positive associations we've all grown up with for so many years.
And so, I don't think most people realize this would not have fit the definition of vaccine, this, you know, the mRNA vaccines, mRNA treatments, whatever you want to call them, that would not have fit the definition of vaccine until August of 2021, when the CDC changed the definition to incorporate this substance.
And so, I thought today maybe we'll talk a little bit about, you know, what, how so many people have accepted the vaccine.
I know that the new news is sort of about you know, how people are rising up and rejecting the
vaccine, it's actually starting to have some effect, you know, on the government, certainly in the
United Kingdom. But I'm still curious about what you think in terms of how did so many people just run
and take this substance without really looking into it or investigating even on a broad
scale, for example, Merck, or Pfizer and other big pharma companies that have been
caught lying to the public, caught falsifying vaccine research as in the HPV research and Merck after Merck
had just paid 4.8 billion, I think it was, for the Vioxx debacle. And
And some of the people around Merck were calling the HPV vaccine the help pay for Vioxx vaccine to recoup some of those losses.
But my first question, Jim, is why do you think so many people just ran out and got vaccinated against a disease that only kills approximately one tenth of one percent of people?
How do you explain that?
Well, I think you're on the right track, Dina, with the power of Television is a form of propaganda.
It's been described as the most successful brainwashing mechanism ever designed by the hand of man, and they are playing a lot of semantic games with us.
As you observe, these mRNA are not medicine.
They don't qualify as vaccines.
Historically, a vaccine has introduced a weaker diluted version of the threat so that the body can develop natural antibodies These vaccines actually are having the opposite effect.
They're destroying the antibodies of human beings and making them more vulnerable to future attacks, which may thereby bring about their death, but because it's not immediate from the Vax, although there is a fair percentage for whom there are immediate responses, which is why the CDC has decided that For the first several weeks after you have the vaccination, you're still classified as unvaccinated, so they can take all those numbers of people who died with a more or less immediate reaction from the vax and claim that they are simply more of the unvaxed who have suffered these debilitating effects.
It's completely outrageous.
I'm afraid that most Americans have so much trouble getting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads, Dina, that when they hear Similar or the same, because so many are scripted reports from a couple of different sources, say NBC and CNN, and then they tend to assume it must be true, just as you're observing the availability impact.
And because there's a prior bias in favor of the health organizations, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, the FDA, For having in the past looked out for the welfare of the American people, at least to a far higher degree than is taking place now, that the idea they would abdicate and become tools of big pharma or of a global genocide, frankly, that boggles the minds of most Americans, Dina.
They just can't wrap their minds around it.
Well, and part of that too goes to, first of all, I don't know about all the facts you just gave.
I, you know, as a lawyer, I'm very, very skeptical, so I don't know for sure.
I mean, I'm not adopting everything you just said, but I know a lot of what you said comports with a lot of what I've been reading for a year and a half now.
You know, and certainly in terms of people not being aware of what this vaccine really was.
And I just want to point out, I was thinking about you know Moderna and two people, well one person in my
family I never actually ever met her, she was 83 and she took the first dose of Moderna against
her daughter's you know strenuous wishes to the contrary.
And she died three days later, she was 84.
And she's not well known, of course.
So I would I only knew because my mom died 96 days after the second dose of Pfizer.
And at her memorial, I saw my second cousin, Katie.
And Katie was telling me about my other cut her cousin, who's sort of, like I said, distant relative to me who died three days after Moderna.
But then I thought about Hank Aaron, too.
And Hank Aaron was, you know, so hardy, so fit, such a he was 86.
I think he was 86.
But I mean, this is a very strong man.
And he died 17 days after the first dose of Moderna.
And they called it a natural death.
But I mean, the time to me seems to create at least a case of that should be investigated.
And of course, they call it natural causes how he died.
But I know that with my mom and with joy, it was a massive, you know, blood clot in the brain and aneurysm and there's just no way of surviving that and I would venture to guess without knowing based on all of the reports of people dying.
By these massive, you know, brain clots after getting the vaccine, that that's probably how Hank Aaron died.
I can't prove that because the media isn't reporting it.
But keep in mind, the same media that called it natural causes never reported, by the way, he just got the vaccine.
They kept it out of the media.
Now, the black news sources did report it.
I did find it, but I had to dig.
And they did mention it.
And of course, blacks have a history with being treated as, you know, test subjects without being told.
And I don't know if you're familiar with the, I think it was a 1931 study where black men who had syphilis were just left untreated to see what would happen to them.
And they had penicillin and they could have, you know, helped these men, but they wanted to see what would happen to them.
And they didn't tell them and they were tested.
At least that's what I saw when I researched this earlier today to prepare for this show.
And so Hank Aaron got on in part to help the black community see that it's safe to get vaccinated and you don't have to worry.
It's not the government.
going after black people to hurt them.
And the irony, you know, that he died 17 days after this televised event,
where he and some other black men got their first dose of Moderna
to show the black community, it's okay, you can go out and do this.
And the irony to me is just overwhelming that it isn't even reported fully.
Well, of course, they're gonna do everything they can to obfuscate, they're gonna change the definitions.
They're going to suppress the statistics.
They're going to pretend individuals who died because of the Vax died from other causes.
Absolutely right.
I mean, consider their agenda is to kill people and to not reveal the mechanism they're doing to accomplish that goal.
Their ambitions are quite lofty.
If you take the Georgia Guidestones, for example, as their aim and objective, it specifies the ideal population of
Earth is 500 million.
That's only half a billion.
Well, we have around 8 billion residents of Earth these days, so that's a dramatic reduction
of 7.5 billion souls being eliminated from the face of Earth.
We have the deagle.com projection that the US population is going to diminish from 330 million in 2020 to only 65 in 2025.
That's a reduction of $265 million.
And in order to accomplish that goal, they have to use a variety of techniques to suppress
it, including delays in the records, changing these definitions, false attribution of causation,
all of the above, which they're doing in spades.
And because the administration is in on it, because the agencies that would normally be tracking this data, such as the CDC and the FDA and the WHO, Are you not it means that we're not getting accurate reliable statistics instead they're covering it up and in this case because the scheme was so diabolical.
We got the immune system so that we'd be affected by and die from causes that in the past when our immune system was robust wouldn't have affected us at all.
Or only to a slight degree, is completely ingenious because then there are a whole host of different ways we can die that are actually a consequence of weakening the immune system but won't be directly attributed thereto by virtue of citing the pneumonia or the blood clots or the whatever, even though they were in fact effects of having been vaccinated.
Right.
And I know that Reiner, who was on my first show back in December, believes this is genocide.
And I haven't really concluded that.
Remember, I have two law degrees from, I would say, conservative law schools insofar as they teach you to be very, very careful to dark conclusions.
Berkeley is one of the most liberal law schools, but Well, any good law school is going to teach you to be very careful and discriminating and looking at evidence.
So I'm not yet convinced it's genocide.
I am convinced it was greed, though, and I am convinced it was a power grab.
And I'm partly convinced about that because of the massive shift of wealth from all of our 401ks between March and probably June.
I can't remember exactly when it hit.
It might have been April of 2020.
Um, we lost, you know, anywhere from, gosh, 10 to 40% of our 401ks.
I mean, everyone lost huge amounts.
And yet the billionaires, you know, Gates, Bezos, um, Elon Musk, they, they gained net wealth of something anywhere from 20 to like 40% net wealth.
So from 25 billion to like 66 billion, the same, here's a massive, massive shift of wealth.
So that's what tells me, I know there was Greek Gates, Is the biggest vaccine investor.
Wow.
Isn't that amazing?
This coronavirus hits and now the biggest vaccine investor, you know, basically goes from something like 80 or 90 billion to something like 120 or 130 billion.
That is massive, massive.
You know, gain in wealth.
And so the genocide thing, again, I'm not sure.
That's certainly a more sinister view of it.
I don't know about all this depopulation.
This is all new to me.
And the Gates connection to what's it called?
Planned Parenthood.
Again, that's new to me, so I don't really know yet about that.
But just looking at the number of false studies And if you haven't read the book, The Real Anthony Fauci, it is a true masterpiece, a compilation of so much data.
And a lot of people don't like to read that.
It's very slow reading.
It's extremely dense information, very concise.
It's not a story.
It's not a tale.
It's a compilation of enormous amounts of evidence through peer-reviewed medical journals, CDC releases, FDA releases, Fauci's own statements, things like that.
And so I think it's extremely important for our people to be aware of all this because they can listen to us and say, well, gosh, I heard that.
But then on CNN, I heard something else.
Well, look at the studies yourself.
That's where we are.
We have to do it.
And thankfully, you know, one person wrote a book putting it all together.
So I think it's amazing.
But what we know for sure is there was fraud.
There was dishonesty.
There was falsification of data.
There was a test used, a PCR test that didn't really prove infection.
Lots of false positives.
It just didn't prove what they said it proved.
And so a lot of people had a lot of misinformation running into these vaccine clinics out of fear, thinking, oh my gosh, there's so many cases out there when we're not even sure there were that many cases now in reflection.
But I know my mom ran out and got it out of fear.
She was 79.
She was afraid.
and that's what a lot of the older people are doing or were doing because they were so afraid of getting this horrific
virus.
It's everywhere, but I mean realistically, you know, my research on coronavirus,
coronaviruses is that they kind of stick to everything anyway.
I mean, they're on doorknobs always, all the time.
They're common colds, they're flus.
So really the idea that, you know, oh my gosh, this could get out.
Well, you know, if it's out, it's going to be out.
If it's transmissible as an airborne virus, if it's something that can live on a doorknob for four days.
That's back when even I was scared, because I didn't know what it was, and I'd just gotten over something horrible, terrible, three-month-long flu.
I now know that was the coronavirus, but at the time I was like, oh my gosh, I just got over something, this thing will kill me.
So I was, you know, staying inside.
But I think it's terrible the way that our government and Big Pharma and the billionaires, certain billionaires, gained combined forces To scare our people through false information concerning the statistics, false information about what kind of treatment this was, calling it a vaccine when it really couldn't be called a vaccine in 2020, because remember the CDC didn't change its definition until August of 2021, so it's like, you know, it's like a, you know, after the fact, you know, 11th hour, oh let's change the definition now, but people have already taken it after they were calling it a vaccine when they had no right to call it a vaccine.
I still don't think they have the right to call it a vaccine because it's not a traditional vaccine.
But back then in 2020, they certainly should not have been calling it that.
So I think that our people are starting to really wake up with, in part because of this book that came out called The Real Anthony Fauci.
I think a lot of people are talking about it and it's really scary to see the studies back to back organized in this book because it's mind-blowing.
But I want to also talk about, I know you wanted to talk about This international criminal court.
I don't know if you can see this if I hold this up or not, because Zoom doesn't anyway.
I mean, Skype doesn't do the best job of this, but I watch it.
It's an international criminal court filing from December 6, 2021, naming first Prime Minister for the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson.
But also naming William Gates III, Melinda Gates, and just a host of other people from around the world, and alleging violations of the Nuremberg Code, Article 6 of the Rome Statute, Article 7 of the Rome Statute, and various other Rome statutes, and talking about crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom and also in limited, I'm
sorry, not limited to individuals in these countries. And so this was actually filed, the victim,
the victims are called the peoples of the United Kingdom. That's how they put the peoples of
the United Kingdom. So what do you know about this complaint? Well, Dina, before we get there, let
me just add a few observations that explain to me how we know this is a deliberate genocide.
And I certainly respect your caution, your prudence in not having reached the point of finding that a conclusion that satisfies your standards as yet.
I have been reporting on this phenomenon since March of 2020.
I've done over 500 reports on the coronavirus and the pandemic.
I can guarantee you that the pandemic is fake, but that the vax is real and deadly.
Sherry Tenpenny has described it as a perfectly designed killing machine.
Now, the way they induced the panic was relatively simple.
38 million cases of the flu in 2020 and re-describe them as cases of COVID.
So that in one year we went from 38 million cases of the flu to less than 2000.
So do we really think 37,998,000 cases of the flu simply disappeared.
No, not a chance.
They simply redescribe where John Rappaport and Edward Hendry have been especially good about this.
Minnesota State Senator Scott Jensen, who's also a physician, began to notice something was odd when the hospital administrator wanted him to designate a patient as having died from COVID when he had not even been tested.
Scott Jensen was the first to blow the whistle and explain that any patient who is admitted or diagnosed as having COVID yielded the hospital a benefit of $13,000.
Any who are put on a ventilator, $39,000.
The hospitals are being paid premiums to turn out Patients who die from cold bed regardless of the facts of the matter and because hospitals run as a business, they've been gear shifted into high gear to bring that outcome about.
There are other aspects to this, of course, about the fake PCR test, as you observe.
You may remember way back when this first came out, Hillary was talking about tests, tests, tests.
She wanted more tests because she knew the tests were giving false positives.
She knew the tests would therefore induce fear in the population and motivate them To get a jab they really did not need and that was going to do them tremendous harm.
And what we're finding here is that the contents of the jab are bizarre assortment.
There are parasites in there, microprocessors, graphene oxide is a component.
We have a laboratory experts and physicians in Spain who have been studying the contents of various vials of Pfizer in this case.
And it's horrific what they have discovered, where I am troubled especially by the graphene oxide, which turns out to be like the flimsiest substance known to man.
It can enter your body and then self-multiply.
It is a self-replicating entity.
Great.
Brain 5G interface so that you can actually have your thoughts and your feelings affected by 5G remotely.
More and more studies are reflecting on this where I believe what we saw in Astroworld in Houston recently where they had just turned on 5G Was a beta test just to see whether they could control the feelings and attitudes of the mob to make them surge forward when there was no need to do so and trample a lot of people to death, which is exactly the outcome they obtained.
I'm terribly worried about this aspect of it, Dina, among many other points.
Okay, I did not know that about the Houston Astrodome.
I remember hearing, you know, I've been working so hard on some publications and some cases.
I heard about the Astrodome.
Houston's my residence.
I stay in California a lot, but Houston's technically my state of residence.
So I heard about it, but I did not know that that trampling had to do with the 5G.
So will you tell the listeners what that's about?
You went mute.
You're muted.
I can't hear you.
Yeah, I'm giving an inference to the best explanation in which I have published extensively about the nature of scientific reasoning.
You know, you mentioned your caution.
Will I?
Offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, Dina.
So, I have a pretty good sense of how to relate premises and conclusions and to do so scientifically, where I specialize in applying the principles of scientific reasoning to politically controversial cases, whether it be the assassination of JFK or the atrocities of 9-11 or the death of Paul Wellstone or The events at Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing and more.
I bring together groups of experts Who are qualified in areas where I myself am not, and then publish our collaborative research.
So my books might have 10 or 20 different contributors, Sandy Hook 13, including six PhDs, where we established a school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there.
And then it was a two day FEMA drill, technically a mass casualty exercise involving children presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
I make no assertions that I cannot substantiate with evidence.
That is my characteristic and style.
A lot of scuttlebutt about that.
I know that Alex Jones also faced a bunch of lawsuits for statements made by NCIS, which when I looked at some of those things, I didn't see a basis for liability because of the way the statements were made.
But I wasn't an attorney on the case directly.
I just was looking at the looking at the pleadings and helping out some of the people involved.
But I do know that I drove there.
I was in, where was I?
Maine.
And I drove down to see my friend in near Philadelphia and I stopped in Newton because I wanted to just I just wanted to see what it was like and I met a lady there.
We're not going to use her name for her own privacy, but she knows you and you actually introduced me to her and I met her and we sat down in Newton and this was just a couple months ago.
And she said, you know, Dina, I was here.
I was living here during this event.
And the night before the Sandy Hook massacre, everyone just came into town.
I said, what do you mean?
And she said to all these famous people.
And I said, well, why would they come to Newton?
And she said, well, they all have houses here.
I said, why would people have houses in Newton?
I mean, it's okay, but there's certainly no skiing, surfing, anything really hiking.
I didn't see anything worthy of a vacation home paradise for the rich and connected and famous people.
So she said, yeah, they all came into town the night before and it seemed odd.
Then the next day there's this big report on the shooting.
And then she told me something else which struck me as really weird.
She told me about the fact that the Church of Satan has its headquarters Newton Connecticut and one more piece of trivia is the scene from Fargo when this man puts his wife in the chipper machine and you know what you used to put wood in and make it that actually happened in Newton Connecticut that Fargo scene is sort of a replication of what happened in Newton Connecticut so Newton has kind of a weird history
And this bunch of ladies made a documentary about the Church of Satan in their headquarters and kind of went through the woods that were owned by the Church of Satan in Newton.
And it just all struck me as very odd and somewhat supportive of your theory because Newton's just got a lot of weird history.
Turn your mic on.
Yeah, let me just add that none of the lawsuits involving what did or did not happen at Sandy Hook actually address the question of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
They've all been resolved on procedural other grounds.
In my own case, where Completely phony lawsuit was brought against me by one of the purported parents who actually was presented here by an impersonator.
Someone I'm convinced was not the real guy who was supposed to be the parent, but someone who is feigning to be him.
The judge would not allow me to introduce a massive evidence that I had.
That no one had died at Sandy Hook, that it had been a two-day FEMA exercise for which we even had the manual, which I included in the book as Appendix A, on the ground that whether or not anybody died there, my theory of the case had nothing to do with the accuracy or the truthfulness of the death certificate, even that was in question over which I was being sued for having asserted it was fake.
Even though the death certificate says that a decedent, one Noah Bosner, had died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
Dina, this is just preposterous, which may be why sitting before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they don't want to admit that a circuit judge in Wisconsin made such a blatantly absurd ruling denying the defendant the opportunity to present his defense.
And then when we focus solely on the death certificate, Dina, I obtained other copies of the death certificate, in contrast to the one that was attached to the complaint, where the copy that I'd published had no file number, no town certification, no state certification.
Attached to the complaint was a copy of a death certificate that was certified.
It had a file number, town certification, state certification, and in the complaint it asserted there was no material difference between the copy attached to the complaint and the copy published in the book, which was, again, completely absurd.
So I had those two death certificates, obtained two others, one from the state and one from the town.
All four of the death certificates were different.
I obtained the reports of two forensic document examiners, Dina.
Both of them concluded, not just one, not just two, not just three, all four of the death certificates were fake.
And yet the judge just set them aside.
In fact, I'll never forget, The conversation between him and the plaintiff's attorney during the summary judgment, which of course was being grossly abused here because the authenticity of the death certificate was at stake and you're only allowed to do a summary judgment if there's no question of fact at stake.
He said, well, you know, if I exempt or leave out or deny this evidence, then it could be a basis for appeal.
So I'm just going to set it aside as someone else's opinion.
And you know, when it comes to expert opinions, that the experts have the same level of authority as the judge.
And this was before I was even allowed to testify.
Let me just correct that.
An expert witness can be accepted or rejected by the jury like any other witness.
They're not above other witnesses, but here's the key.
When you have expert testimony that's critical to the case and it's disputed, you can't grant a motion for summary judgment.
Motions for summary judgment are in cases where there's no disputed facts at all.
And it's basically a question of the application of legal standards.
If there's any question of fact, a summary judgment motion cannot be granted unless the facts are so inconsequential that had nothing to do with, you know, whether, for example, whether it was a Sunday or Monday when the accident occurred, that's irrelevant if everything else is consistent.
So little facts like that, no big deal.
But critical facts that are Considered necessary to determine the outcome of the case.
If there are any factual disputes, the judge cannot grant summary judgment.
But we're seeing the same thing in other federal courts.
I've seen it around the country.
I saw it in the Washington state courts.
I believe the Washington state court system is among the most corrupt in the country.
Certainly the trial courts atrocious.
I haven't had as bad experiences in many places, but Texas has hit and miss.
There are some really good judges in Texas and there's some horrific judges in Texas who cannot apply the law or don't want to apply the law and dismiss cases all the time.
Federal courts have become known for dismissing cases on 12b6 motions, which is the motion to dismiss.
The defendants can bring, you know, in the very beginning of the proceeding before there's any discovery, saying basically that even if everything stated in the complaint is true, it still doesn't constitute a cause of action.
Now, those motions are supposed to be reserved for something like, you know, the date of the accident was 10 years ago.
The limitation says you can't bring the case, motion to dismiss granted.
Or, for example, you bring a case of negligence in most states where you must show property damage or personal injury, and you don't allege any property damage or personal injury.
Say, well, he scared me.
He almost hit me.
Okay, in California, it's actionable if you have enough distress, but almost the rest of the entire country, other than Tennessee and D.C., other places, you have to have property damage or personal injury.
So, in other words, in those cases, sure, if you fail to allege something or it's way past the limitations, a motion to dismiss is appropriate.
But what we're seeing, my husband's a lawyer, a certified appellate lawyer, I'm a lawyer, we've been seeing courts dismiss things with facts and dispute or just ignoring the law, granting 11th Amendment immunity where there's a statute where Congress, you know, reversed the immunity.
Congress made a decision to waive the immunity for these particular kinds of occasions, like civil rights violations.
You see Congress routinely You know, say there is liability against state actors in certain federal employment laws, usually, or civil rights laws, and the judge is saying, well, I find there's immunity.
Well, you don't get to do that.
You don't get to just say, I don't like the law.
Judges have the separation of powers gives judges two options.
Either abide by the law and apply it based on what it says, or if you think it's unconstitutional, strike it down.
You can't just say, I don't like them and ignore it.
And we're seeing judges doing that.
So we've got some real problems in our judicial system and I feel for you what you're going through.
Well, Gina, I of course agree.
My point was in the context of a summary judgment.
He didn't have the option to not send it to the jury when the most basic fact was in dispute.
And he simply said, well, I find your explanation plausible.
He said that to the plaintiff's attorney and just went ahead and ruled, which was just making himself the finder of fact in a summary judgment.
Had you demanded a jury trial?
It was demanded in the original complaint.
Okay, just making sure because a lot of times people won't, you should always demand a jury trial at the time you file the pleading, the original pleading.
It doesn't have to be demanded at that time but sometimes plaintiff's lawyers forget and so you want to do that but you didn't do that.
To be specific, there were three co-defendants and the others demanded a jury trial.
I hadn't made it explicit for me but it applies to everyone and in fact the plaintiff The plaintiff himself had demanded a jury trial.
So, you know, this was just...
You're preaching to the choir.
I know how the courts have become.
In fact, I had a conversation with Rainer Fulmich, my friend from Germany, that we might consider creating something like a judicial blacklist.
I talk about the judicial blacklist, my concept of having something like the Robing Room.
The Robing Room was originally federal court ratings.
You can get online to therobingroom.com, I think it is, And look at the federal judges and what they've done and have other people look at how other people assess them and how they rule and whether they're fair.
The problem is they're all federal judges.
They're not subject to removal anyway.
But now you can find state court judges on that same roving room.
But I want to take it a step further.
I want to create a list of judges who are literally not following the law, who are dismissing
cases in violation of the statutes, and put them on a list to get out of office if they're
a state court judge because they come up for re-election every few years.
No one's ever done it.
We need a blacklist.
We need to get rid of these people.
And are people going to vote?
They don't know who to vote for.
So there's all these products I'm trying to start.
But back to this complaint, I want to ask you, do you think this complaint, and they're
basically saying that the vaccine is not really a vaccine, it's experimental, the people taking
it are technically, you know, they're lab rats.
I mean, they're being used for experimentation purposes.
They're not really understanding that fully.
They're not understanding.
So this is what I'm looking at the complaints, a 46 page complaint right now.
They're also claiming that COVID is a biological weapon based on gain of function research.
I know Fauci's come under fire.
I saw a Senate hearing where he was just being grilled.
about, well, our representatives were claiming that he had lied, that Fauci had lied about
the gain-of-research type testing or research.
So I know a little bit about this, but basically, this is everything you're talking about.
Let me make several points in response, Dina.
Number one, it's a virtual flatline for deaths from vaccines until they begin to administer
the COVID vax, which we know technically isn't a vaccine, but it's just like a hockey stick
on its side.
Once they start to admit it, the COVID vax, it just skyrockets the number of deaths.
The World Health Organization maintains an adverse reaction database.
It has, for the last year, over 2 million adverse effects over a huge range, you know, dozens of different kinds of physical maladies.
The year before, there were fewer than 2,000.
So what you had was a thousand-fold increase in adverse effects once they begin to administer the vax.
And before that, It had been like 89 in the year before that, two or one.
In other words, the evidence that something is going on here that's deliberately affecting the Vax is overwhelming.
Not only that, but in the past, if you had a handful of adverse effects, two or three deaths even, or other adverse effects, it would have been pulled off of the market altogether.
Instead, What they did was to give emergency use authorization, an aspect of which, Dina, is that the manufacturer does not have to identify the contents, which I believe merely specifying the contents would have led to its rejection, and it's only permissible to give emergency use if there are no available alternatives.
Well, HGQ and Ivermectin were available as alternatives, so they had to go on a demonization campaign of HGQ and Ivermectin.
If this were not a conspiracy, you wouldn't have seen that evidence of malice.
You would have seen an effort to save lives rather than take them.
Now, this complaint, which is before the International Criminal Court, was filed on 6 December, a special date to me because that's my birthday.
And it's very well, very well reasoned, where Dr. Michael Yerden, who was a vice president for Pfizer, was instrumental.
Yerden's been calling out Big Pharma for the abuse of its position, and he was instrumental in putting this together.
It's very comprehensive, alleging violations of the Nuremberg Code, of Article 6 of the Rome Statute, Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
Article 8 of the Rome Statute.
Article 8, a special section of the Rome Statute.
All of this I think is very, very serious and it appears to be the reason why Just this past week, Boris Johnson has relieved all the COVID restrictions in England.
No more working at home, no more face mandates.
I believe it is because Boris Johnson is among the first named defendants here, where we have a list of 15 key players.
Anthony Fauci, Peter Dorzak, Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, Albert Burda, Titus, the Director General of WHO, Boris Johnson, Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, where Schwab has been pushing the Great Reset, the idea that what we need is to take advantage of the pandemic
In order to rethink society and where the World Economic Forum as a representative of the New World Order is willing to pay off all your credit card debt, your student loan, your home mortgages in return for which if you surrender all your assets and properties to them, They will give you a stipend and a place to live as long as you adhere to a vaccine regimen.
And if you go off of the regimen, they'll put you in a COVID camp.
And I'm quite certain, Dina, that if you continue to resist, they will separate your head from your body using guillotines made, guess where, China.
They're using China as a model.
They want a homogenized society.
They want this relatively modest number of a half a million.
To serve as slaves for those who remain.
So you're going to have a return to a form of feudalism, which David Icke brilliantly discerned right off the bat in the beginning.
They wanted a feudal society.
And because they always feel an obligation to tell in advance what they're planning to do in the belief that if you know what they plan to do and do nothing about it, then you're responsible for the consequences.
I believe they showed us.
I've said this to my students for years.
I said the Hunger Games is not entirely fictional.
I said maybe we're not running around looking for a squirrel to eat for dinner, but You know, our people can't afford dental care for their children and they can't afford the necessities of life.
They're starving in terms of not having sufficient funds.
Most of us.
And now it's getting even worse where they're trying to take basically the wealth away from all of us who aren't billionaires.
I mean, just seeing what's happened already.
I have a question for you.
Who is offering the system whereby if you give up your property and accept some kind of a feudal system, you will then be relieved of all your debt?
Who's offering that?
That's coming from the World Economic Forum.
Klaus Schwab even has a book about it called The Great Reset, and if you go on their website, they lay it all out in detail.
And this is where you hear this absurd slogan, it's 2035 and I own nothing and I'm happier than I've ever been.
Well, just ask yourself, if you own nothing, would that make you happier?
If you had no home, no automobiles, no furnishing, no entertainment center, what have you, would that make you happy?
Of course not.
It's absurd.
So what they're really saying, what they're saying, Dina, is the following.
You'll be happier than you ever would because you'll no longer have your capacity for independent thought, critical thinking, originality, creativity.
They're going to use this graphene oxide interface to homogenize the population that remains into acting as obedient servants and serfs.
That is the agenda.
And this is why the graphene oxide is in the VAX.
And why they're now, it's ironic, the day that Boris relieved all these restrictions is the same day 5G was turned on in the UK.
And we know the same thing happened in Wuhan when they turned on 5G in Wuhan.
Reportedly, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died.
And I believe we're going to have similar effects that there's a 5G interconnection here to the VAX that has Needs to be thoroughly explored.
Let me also add, by the way, that in my judgment, There's only one entity on earth that could have the complete reach and scope to affect all these multiple governments around the world, could control the news media, our big pharma, and even our government.
And that's the Rothschild banking empire.
I am convinced this is an effort by the Rothschilds, who already controlled like 95% of the world's wealth, to extend it to the full 100.
And in confirmation, let me add, And this is one of several articles recently published on my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
We've recently discovered that Rothschild had a patent in the Netherlands in 2015 for a COVID-19 testing apparatus, another patent in the United States in 2017 for a COVID-19 testing apparatus, where it was a condition of the patents that they not be announced publicly until 2020, Dina, until 2020.
I'll stop you for just a minute.
I want to point out a couple things to the listeners.
The Rome Statute we keep referring to involved in the International Criminal Court.
That is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court in 1998.
And it became, you know, it became in effect on In July of 2002.
So just to make that clear.
So the Nuremberg Code, of course, and the Rome Statute are very similar in basically protecting against, you know, basic human rights.
You know, the right not to be an experimental subject without knowing it, the right to be fully informed, the right not to be murdered, those kinds of things.
And so just to clarify for our listeners, it's not a statute from Italy.
It's called the Rome Statute, which may have been passed in Italy.
I'm not sure where they had the conference, but it isn't just an Italian law.
This is the law of the International Criminal Court.
And I want to say something else about what you said, because I don't believe that it's about owning property or not.
I don't believe people are happy Based on any particulars in their lives, except they want to be free.
And so to me, it's not about whether you own property or not.
The question is, are you able to do what you want to do day in and day out?
I know people who live on the beach in their vans and they actually came from money.
They had a trust fund ran out and they are happy people.
They surf every day.
So I don't think it's about their own anything.
I don't think it's about ownership of property.
It's about freedom.
And I think what people don't understand is if we start losing these rights one by one, we're going to lose control of all our rights.
And no one is happy like that.
That's why communist countries have such unhappy people.
Communism is where the government has ownership of all industry.
And that means they can pass a law to make you buy something or not bother supplying it if they don't, if they're not making enough profit, whatever it is, which is why people can't get things in communist countries.
People in communist countries are miserable because they don't have the freedoms.
They can't even get access to the goods and services they want.
necessarily at the level they want them. So it's not about taking, it's not about, even a feudal
system might work I suppose if the people were truly free to do what they want.
So, and of course, I'm against feudal systems completely.
Property ownership is really grounded in our constitution for a reason.
Property ownership is a doorway to wealth.
It's the way most people make most their wealth in America.
The average person makes most their wealth through their property ownership, their home or whatnot.
But I just want to point out, I don't think it's about, they're enticing people.
To do these things because the people I don't think understand it's a slippery slope to losing everything we cherish and those things that make us happy.
Dina, let me make a philosophical point.
Freedom can be viewed as an absence of compulsion or constraint, but absent the ability to accomplish your goals, you're not free to do them in that sense, which is known as effective freedom.
The rich are far more free than the poor because the rich can do what they want.
If they want to fly to Paris for lunch, they can do it.
The poor man can't.
You can say the rich are as free as the poor to sleep under a bridge in Brooklyn.
But of course, a rich also can get a suite at the Ritz, which the poor cannot.
So when you factor in the difference between, you know, just the absence of a restraint versus having the ability to actually pursue it, having property, having assets, having wealth makes an enormous difference to your effective freedom, which is icing.
And that's why wealth does impact, to some degree, happiness, because it buys you freedom.
not just freedom from, you know, criminal prosecutions.
We all know that from Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, many, many other cases,
but just freedom to do what you want.
I just want to remind the listeners right now that Revolution Radio depends on your donations,
so please, if you can, donate. It's very easy to do.
Go to revolution.radio, click on become a donor, or wait, no, become a patron, and follow the links.
It's very easy.
And if anyone out there has a question for me, or if you want me to address a particular issue in a future show, send me an email to counterspeechusa at gmail.com.
Counterspeechusa at gmail.com.
And I will do my best to answer your questions on future shows.
So anyway, do you think this international criminal complaint is a reason that Boris Johnson has turned around a little bit?
Yes, actually, I do believe he was affected thereby, because once he's made aware that he's acting in violation of international law, he'd have a reason to discontinue that.
So I do believe it made a difference.
There's a very fine article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who's been one of the outspoken physicians, who's been heavily censored also on my website, where he's asking the question, Will these people be charged with genocide?
And just a side a couple of the elements of his story at a glance.
One of the wonderful aspects is he gives a summary overview right at the beginning.
Seven applicants on behalf of the British population have filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court.
As accusing 16, I think actually 15 individuals of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes of aggression.
The defendants include Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Dozik, Will and Melinda Gates, and those I mentioned, the heads of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J.
According to the ICC complaint, the defendants have violated the Nuremberg Code in Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 21, and 53 of the Rome Statute, where the Nuremberg Code is a set of medical research ethics principles that grew out of the doctors' trial in Nuremberg following World War II.
The War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg established 10 standards to which doctors must conform when performing experiments on human subjects.
And what's important here, Dina, is that because these vaccines only have experimental use authorization, Anyone who takes them is participating in a human experiment.
They should only, under the Nuremberg Code, do so with informed consent, which means you have to spell out all the negatives, all the risks, as well as the benefits and the available alternatives They're doing none of the above.
There's a complete abdication of the responsibility of informed consent, not to mention the Hippocratic oath to which all medical professionals are obligated to wit first, do no harm.
They're doing massive harm.
They're killing hundreds of millions of people.
I believe before this is done, even if it were to end today, Dina, we'd have a billion fewer population on Earth as a consequence of the Vax.
Well, and consent has different layers.
In the textbook I was writing when I had to set it aside because I found the Cordero v. Epstein case and just got pulled off into the Epstein-Weinstein-Cosby cases and ended up writing two different books on that.
And by the way, my audio book on Jeffrey Epstein, I think, is available today for purchase.
I just finished that and I spoke it myself.
But anyway, you know, and I actually forgot what I was going to say.
The Jeffrey Epstein case, I can't remember what it was.
Informed consent.
I was doing a whole section on this textbook on informed consent and also a section on valid consent because informed consent, the question is whether or not you had sufficient information The same as an average person would want to know about whatever procedure you're consenting to before you consent.
But a different issue involves when consent is induced by some other means, for example, fraud.
And of course, the failure to disclose what these mRNA vaccines really are, if you call them vaccines at all, which I don't think you really can, that's a level of fraud.
But there's something else that's sort of emerging in the sexual context that I mentioned very briefly with Erwin Chemerinsky, When we did our show a couple weeks ago and that is that economic coercion historically has not vitiated consent to sex.
Fraud, same thing.
Unless someone literally impersonates your husband and yes there are a bunch of cases like this from many decades ago where a husband was at war and some other man in town knew that and came in at night when the wife was asleep and had sex with her and that In most states, they did recognize that, but not all, as consent that didn't count, because she didn't, I don't know how you wouldn't know.
But anyway, so that is a growing area, and I think what's going on is massive economic coercion.
▲
Export Selection