All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
56:39
Truth Jihad Radio (24 June 2022) with Kevin Barrett
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, thanks for listening.
Why don't we take that short break here at Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com.
And now we're going to get back to your host.
Welcome back.
This is the second hour of tonight's live version of Truth Jihad Radio.
This is the first time I've been doing this show by telephone in many a year.
I'm Kevin Barrett.
My website is normally TruthJihad.com.
It's been down for a while.
The webmaster has disappeared.
And we're working on restoring it.
Meanwhile, you can find my stuff at heresycentral.is.
If you go there, you can find your way to my rubric.
And then my Substack page is kevinbarrett.substack.com.
And all of these broadcasts get archived there.
You get early access, free downloads, and exclusive access to some of my writings as well.
All right, let's get going with the second hour.
Jeremy Rothkuschel isn't the only friend who I respect and enjoy debating with.
Jim Pencer is another such friend.
I've been talking about all sorts of things with Jim over the years, agreeing sometimes, disagreeing other times, and I do admire Jim's insistence on calling it the way he sees it.
I don't know how the heck he got through his pretty illustrious academic career, but he did, and he's now emeritus.
And he's using his status as a retired professor who benefits from whatever free speech is still available for such people in the United States by calling it the way he sees it, even when it's extremely unpopular, sometimes maybe even a little too unpopular, which is the case with the whole Sandy Hook thing, which Jim has spearheaded, the view that nobody died at Sandy Hook, the name of his book, and he got involved in a big court case with Lenny Posner,
Who says his son Noah died and that Jim's claim is quite offensive to him.
And their case transpired in the Dane County Circuit Court here in Madison, Wisconsin.
I got to watch it, and I didn't think Jim got a fair hearing.
Jim didn't think so either.
He appealed, and it's gone to the Supreme Court.
And now there's a new case in Dane County Circuit Court where Posner is suing Jim Fetzer, trying to gain control of Jim's book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
So I guess that means that Lenny Posner is planning to make millions of dollars as the new publisher of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Hey, Jim Fetzer, how you doing?
Oh, Kevin, yeah, thanks.
In fact, we just had the oral hearing on the attempt to take the book, and Judge Remington went right with the agenda and designated all of my interest in the book to Lenny Posner.
Kevin, it's really outrageous.
He gave the book to Lenny Posner.
Well, it's very interesting, Kevin, because I pointed out that they were going after four different domain names and four different versions of the book, but I don't own any of them.
I mean, the whole thing was really quite preposterous, and the judge circumvented all of that by just saying, well, Whatever interest Dr. Fetzer has in these books now belongs to Lenny Posner.
Zero interest in the first place, so your complete lack of ownership of those books has been transferred to Lenny, so your zero stock shares is now his zero stock shares.
Kevin, it's a peculiar situation.
I was pointing out that the book, when it cannot be marketed, has zero value.
I mean, what's the value of having a book that can't be published?
And in fact, Posner doesn't want a book to market it.
He wants a book to kill it.
I mean, his whole objective is to get it off the market so people can't read it and make up their mind for themselves.
And I believe This was inspired by my going to the United States Supreme Court.
They've read my petition, and frankly, it is so solid.
It doesn't revolve around Sandy Hook.
It revolves around summary judgment methodology as practiced in Wisconsin, which is quite bizarre and at odds with that practiced in other states, where I use Texas as my contrast case, because in Wisconsin, Instead of, you know, applying the law when there are no disputed facts, Wisconsin allows the judge to decide whether disputed facts are really disputed or not.
So while Posner was claiming he had a death certificate for a kid who died at Sandy Hook, I was insisting nobody had died at Sandy Hook.
How could we be more in opposition?
I was offering all kinds of evidence—the FEMA manual for the drill, that it was actually a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control, the FBI consolidated crime report for 2012, which shows that the number of deaths, of murders, and non-negligent Homicides in Newtown that year was zero, non-negligent manslaughter.
It was zero.
And that the official report on Sandy Hook by the state's attorney, Stephen Sedinsky III, was an abject failure because it didn't tie together the weapons that were reportedly used with the victims who were allegedly killed in the shooter.
In other words, it was a complete forensic failure.
The judge just said, all that aside, we focus solely on the death certificate.
And even though I and my co-defendant at the time, Dave Gehry, the publisher, introduced four different death certificates
The one that I'd originally published which had no file number, no town certification, no state certification in the book, but where they'd attached a completely different death certificate that had a handwritten file number, it had both town and state certification, and absurdly claimed in the complaint that they were not materially different, when material differences affect legal aspects of the case, were obviously
Having a file number, state and town certification are legally relevant.
Claiming they were not materially different was an absurdity, but that was a sign that what I was getting into was not going to be played according to Hoyle.
And indeed, where I introduced the reports of two, not one, but two forensic document experts, Kevin, both of whom concluded all four of the death certificates that had been introduced were fabrications or fake.
The judge just set that aside.
It turns out, unbelievably, that summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin allows a judge to make up his own mind about the facts Just based on his subjective opinion and indeed he made it very clear in the post of his response to the post verdict motions where he just said it was unreasonable for me to deny that was unreasonable for me to dispute and the appellate the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District said the same thing Kevin.
They had a paragraph that said, it is reasonable to believe that Adam Lanza killed 20 kids and six adults at Sandy Hook, blah, blah, blah.
It's not reasonable to believe that nobody died at Sandy Hook, that it was a FEMA exercise, no matter what the supporting evidence, which means Summary judgment in Wisconsin is a manifest absurdity and what I have done... Jim, can I get a clarification here?
So what you're saying is that the rule about how summary judgment may be used in Wisconsin in general, not only applied to your case, but in general is essentially agreed upon to allow judges to use their discretion and to impose their opinion and say, oh, these facts are not under dispute.
No, no, no.
You're right, Kevin.
It's a standard methodology in Wisconsin.
really are under dispute.
Is that the case or is it rather that the normal summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin was subverted by this particular judge?
No, no, no.
You're right, Kevin.
It's a standard methodology in Wisconsin.
I mean, unbelievable as that is.
I mean, look, in Texas, they've got a three-step method.
You have to determine if there are any disputed facts.
You have to ask the movement, the plaintiff, the person bringing the case, whether they agree with the non-movement on all of the facts.
Now, the non-movement in this case, meaning me, the defendant, was maintaining nobody died at San Diego.
It was a FEMA drill.
There were no kids there.
The school had been closed by 2008.
No EMTs, no string of ambulances.
It was a charade to promote gun control.
Obviously, while in Texas, Posner would have been asked whether he agreed, and if he didn't agree, it would have automatically gone to a jury trial.
In Wisconsin, they do it the other way around.
They ask, does a movement, in this case a plaintiff, a Posner, have a prima facie case?
And then they ask, well, does the non-movement have any reason to dispute the Brian Mufasa case?
And then the judge has allowed the liberty to decide for himself whether the facts that are being asserted by, in this case, the defendant, me, are or are not reasonable.
It sounds like Alex Jones should have gone to court and fought the way you did.
Instead, Alex caved and you're the one who's fighting this all the way to the Supreme Court.
And yet in Texas, Alex could have avoided that kind of summary judgment ruling, it sounds like, and forced a ruling on the actual facts of the case.
Yes, yes.
No case other than mine has actually been focused on whether anybody died at Sandy Hook, Kevin.
In fact, the Court of Appeals cited two other cases, but both of them were decided on procedural grounds.
And even Alex, even the 73 million Remington suit, believe it or not, never addressed the question of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
In other words, all these cases are predicated on the proposition kids died at Sandy Hook, but it's never been established in a court of law.
And this is why I think they had to deal with me so severely.
If you look at it from the point of view of the big picture, this is what are called a slap suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, where a suit is brought to punish an individual for exposing something the government does not want to be exposed.
You drag him into court, you cost him a lot of expenses.
Now they drag me into court again over the book, claiming that he has the right to take the book.
Even though each of the authors, Kevin, individually owns their own chapters, I simply gave them an honorarium of $100 and a copy of the book for the right to republish their article, but they retained their copyright.
Wrongs Without Remedies owns these books, I don't own these books.
Wait a minute, who's Wrongs Without Remedies?
That is the overarching legal entity with which Moonrock Books exists.
Moonrock Books, you know, which is technically... That's Dave Gehary's company, right?
Yes, that's correct.
That's correct.
I thought Dave basically came to some agreement with Lenny Posner already.
I know Dave came on my show and said he actually believes Lenny lost a child at Sandy Hook, although He's not 100% sure what the circumstances may have been or whether there might be something strange going on, but he actually was convinced that Lenny really had lost a child anyway.
So for whatever it's worth, Dave, then it sounds like he would be the owner of this book, and he already made some kind of settlement with Lenny.
So why is Lenny coming after you?
It doesn't make any sense.
And it was part of his agreement that Moonrock Books could not continue to sell the book.
So, you know, look, listen, they were doing this taking to satisfy a financial judgment against me, right?
The four hundred and fifty thou, and then that was compounded by when I persisted in trying to expose Lenny as not the person he claims to be, where I'm convinced he's a completely different person by the name of Reuben Vabner.
And that, in fact, Noah Posner was a fiction who was made out of photographs of his son Michael Vabner when he was a child, or Michael Vabner has long since been an adult.
At the time of the trial, he was a student at the University of Connecticut at Soars, as I recall.
He's still around, isn't he, Jim?
I mean, he's out there somewhere, yeah.
He's performing stand-up comedy in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Oh, no!
Is he using this kind of material in his act?
I've not heard his act, but he's doing it under his real name, Michael Vavner.
So when I tried to get an impeachment witness, I was actually asking Wolfgang Halberg to take a look at this.
Wolfgang was so incensed, he wrote to four different branches of the FBI about what are the consequences of impersonating Leonard Posner during a video deposition in Madison.
In other words, Wolfgang was outraged.
But the court came down on me like a hammer and added the legal fees, even though ostensibly, according to Bosner, he didn't have any because the lawyers were doing this pro bono out of the goodness of their heart, $650,000 more.
So I wound up with a totaling of $1.1 million plus another $7,000 for having got some images of him actually into the record.
I mean, I'm telling you, Kevin, this has just been a monstrous attempt to keep the truth.
If these suits keep piling up on you, Jim, you know, a million dollars here, a million dollars there, pretty soon we could be talking about real money.
I know, I know, I know.
Who's that?
Who's that senator?
He used to make that, you know, a billion here, a billion there.
Very soon we're talking about real money.
Seriously, Jim, you know, this Ruben Vabner's kid, Michael Vabner, who's doing stand-up comedy, really makes me wonder what would happen if you went to one of his comedy shows.
And you might want to, you know, disguise yourself a little bit, you know, sit in the back row anyway.
And then after the show, assuming you don't want to heckle him during the show, which you probably shouldn't during the show or after the show, then, you know, go talk to him and, you know, ask him about his dad and stuff.
Because like, if he says, well, yeah, I'm, my name is Michael Vatner.
I have a dad named Ruben and, uh, I don't know what this Lenny Posner business is because here's, here's a picture of my dad.
It doesn't look like Lenny.
Oh, I don't think you'd want to talk about it at all, Kevin.
I mean, this is really loaded stuff.
"And so Jim, you're wrong." I mean, I assume that's probably what would happen, wouldn't it?
And if not, what do you think would happen? - Oh, I don't think you'd wanna talk about it at all, Kevin.
I mean, this is really loaded stuff.
I'm convinced people are still being taken out over Sandy Hook.
And the fact is I've been able to prove, and it was in the evidence I submitted to the court, I have no doubt that there was no Leonard Posner, that he was the fiction made out of photographs of Michael Vabner when he was a child.
I even had Larry Breuer do brilliant work on proving that Lee Oswald is in the doorway of the Book Depository when the JFK motorcade passed by, by superimposing images.
I find that convincing, by the way.
I think you're right.
I'm very pleased to hear that, Kevin, because I think it's incredibly powerful proof.
And by the way, I've elicited the assistance of others.
There's a fellow by the way, a private investigator in Texas by the name of Brian Davidson.
And I did an interview with him a couple of months ago.
It's on my channel, Jim Fetzer, about the use of Internet tools for research.
In other words, he's mastered the tools of research on the Internet, including the study of photographs.
So I just thought to myself after we did the interview, I'll just flip him a photograph and see what he can do with it.
So I gave him a photograph without any identifying information.
Before I knew it, he was back to me.
He identified they had been taken in the parking lot of Sandy Hook Elementary.
It was a crime scene vehicle already present on the scene that you had crime scene tape up for a crime that apparently had not even been committed because a string of windows in classroom 10 that were damaged after the event were undamaged.
So I had believed that this was taken on the 13th, the evening of the 13th.
He did shadow analysis to establish the time, but he's convinced it was actually taken on the evening of the 14th.
I mean, even after they'd officially had the shooting, they still hadn't broken out the windows in Classroom 10.
And what they did was actually take a drill and drill through the aluminum, create fake bullet holes where you can see pink rods, all of which are exactly parallel at 90 degree angles to the paint.
I mean, Kevin, this is so insulting.
And get this.
He found the magazine, but then the original source, which was from the photo archives of the Connecticut State Police.
And get this, Kevin, he found a bonanza of photographs in the archives of the Connecticut State Police, including photographs on the hallway where there were supposed to be bodies.
There's no bodies.
Photographs inside Classroom 10.
There was supposed to be a lot of kids killed there.
No blood, no signs.
There's even one, a marking on a wall there that was reminiscent of the C-ring at the Pentagon, where it said, punch out, and this marking said, you know, something like, break down, you're supposed to break in the doorway to simulate.
And guess what, Kevin, not only were all these photographs in the Connecticut State Police files, which confirmed what I'd already concluded to wit that the Connecticut State Police were running the whole scam behind the scene, they had removed the metadata from all of the photographs, so they couldn't be introduced as evidence into court.
But I say this one that shows that the windows at Classroom 10 are unbroken, and I also have photographs where you can see the difference between the broken and unbroken is damning.
I think it's probably the single most incriminating photograph we have.
Yeah, I looked at that photograph, and I wish that Lenny Posner would put a fraction of the effort that he puts into these lawsuits into fixing up his debunking website, which I haven't looked at that for a while.
But the last time I looked at it, it was really not very well organized, it could easily be brushed up in and it could become more comprehensive.
And it could you know, it could address the most important of the points that you've made.
And kind of, you know, line it up with the most seemingly convincing points at the beginning, you know, down through the less convincing ones at the end, you know, organize it in that way and make it succinct and convincing.
You know, he obviously has enough money and enough people willing to volunteer for him that one would think that he could put out really the most totally thorough and competent and detailed debunking of the points that you raise.
And yet, when I looked at what he had up for his debunking a couple of years ago, which is the most recent time I looked at it, I thought they were successful in raising questions about some of the points that you raised at that time, and maybe not so much with others.
But overall, it was not that impressive of an effort as debunking attempts go.
Of course, it's kind of pathetic how bad so many attempts to debunk so-called conspiracy theories are.
You know, with 9-11, popular mechanics is still the go-to.
And that is just such total garbage.
And, you know, Michael Shermer's book, it's like nothing that's, you know, these people who put so much effort into pushing back against alternative interpretation of these events without bothering to do thorough, comprehensive, detailed, convincing debunkings of the points made by the so-called conspiracy theorists.
It really makes you wonder.
In the case of 9-11, I don't really have to wonder because I know the reason that they haven't tried to honestly debunk 9-11 truth is because they can't.
Whether that's the case with Sandy Hook, I'm not so sure, but it does seem odd to me that Lenny Posner has gone to this kind of extreme effort and put so much money into trying to shut you up and harass you and take your money and terrorize everybody and go after Alex Jones and all of that.
When with a fraction of that amount of money, he could have hired some writers and a couple of professors and experts to really go over all the points that you've raised in that book and elsewhere and line up a really good, succinct, detailed, fully detailed debunking so easy to do with Internet technology.
Why hasn't he done that?
Because he doesn't have to bother.
The media is all under control.
The courts are all under control.
I mean, look what happened to me in Wisconsin.
But what's happened to Alex Jones in Connecticut and in Texas?
And by the way, I've sought to intervene in any number of these cases, including the Remington bankruptcy.
And ironically, both sides were opposed to my intervening in the Remington case to invite attention to the fact that nobody had died.
Remington!
Even Remington was opposed to Kevin.
They'd rather shell out 73 mil than actually expose this fraud?
God!
Yeah, well, they're afraid of being tarred with the brush.
And that leads me to, you know, to ask you about whether you agree with me that the work you've been doing on Sandy Hook, setting aside its merits in terms of its accuracy, has Tended to be used by the propaganda machine as a weapon against the truth movement in general, right?
We have a truth movement that really picked up steam after 9-11 and has been going after all of these different kinds of cases of fake false flag, Boston bombing is, of course, one of them.
And, you know, looking back at JFK and all these other issues that the mainstream media have lied about.
And that truth movement has grown and was becoming quite powerful right up through maybe 2010 to 2015.
And during that period, I think the Cast Sunstein strategy to push back and try to neutralize the truth movement really went into full force.
And I think the Sandy Hook truth movement has actually been weaponized against the larger truth movement, because what they've done is that they have managed to cast you, And Alex Jones and others as very heartless, mean, nasty people who have been tormenting these poor, grieving parents who lost their children with Lenny Klosner as the poster boy for that.
And so they made you and Jim Tracy is another one, of course, out to be the bad guys.
And then they've used that image of the heartless, tormenting conspiracy theorists who don't care about the poor, grieving parents.
They kind of morphed that with other issues like, you know, with 9-11, if we want the truth about that, we don't care about the poor, grieving survivors and so on.
And that, you know, they used that to start censoring the internet.
The first thing they censored was Sandy Hook using Posner's work.
And then they used that as a precedent, where now they are just censoring all sorts of things.
And basically, it's all been driven By this sort of emotional message that these evil heartless conspiracy theorists are tormenting the poor survivors and causing all sorts of trouble and getting crazy people like Trump elected.
And so obviously we can't allow free speech on the Internet anymore.
And I'm wondering about your you think is that accurate?
And then if so, if this is really how it's gone down, how can we most effectively push back against it?
Oh, I think you've done a wonderful job of characterizing, and you know, I mean, these trials to which I'm being subjective are very parallel to January 6th, where they're all one-sided and they control the media and everyone's supposed to be aghast, fortunately in that case.
They're falling short because most Americans see it as a Stalinist-style show trial, just as you described my trial for damages.
You did a brilliant job with that, Kevin.
I don't think anyone has ever captured the spirit of what I went through in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin better than you, and for anyone who wants to Excuse me, to get the background.
I have a donation website for defending the 7th and the 14th Amendment.
I thought originally it was the 1st and the 2nd, but I'll explain how I came to the realization.
Well, I guess I already have.
The 7th and the 14th, the 7th is your entitlement to a trial before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
And in essence, the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin deprived me of the trial to which I was entitled.
The amendment says anything of value of greater $20.
Well, I think we could say $450,000 greater than $20.
So I was entitled to a trial, which I did not get.
What they did was to conduct a non-jury trial where the judge had the right to make up his own facts, basically decide which facts to accept and which not.
Which is why it's led me up to the U.S.
Supreme Court after exhausting all my remedies in Wisconsin, because what I'm doing in essence is pointing out by the 14th Amendment, there's supposed to be equal justice, equal justice under law, equal application of the law in all 50 states.
But because Wisconsin is this grappling from Texas, I'm not getting the same result I would have had in Texas, which actually has a reasonable summary judgment methodology, unlike the perverse methodology in Wisconsin.
You know what you should have done?
You should have a few years ago, you and Alex Jones should have swapped houses and you would have got a much bigger house with a swimming pool, of course.
And Alex would get your very modest but nice place in Oregon.
And, and then, you know, you could have done this case in Texas, and not only would you have had a much better situation with regard to the summary judgment rules that you've described, but I'll bet you would have had a better judge, as it couldn't have been worse.
And you certainly would have had a better jury, because the jury in, you know, Madison, Wisconsin is, it's, you know, the water is fluoridated.
It's been, you know, dumbed down into an increasingly sort of, you know, fake liberal left kind of mentality that's totally run by corporate oligarchs.
I mean, the people are basically the, you know, walking dead zombies, and they got a bunch of very emotional but not very critical thinking females.
And I don't mean that as a sexist remark, because there are a lot of critical thinking females.
Cat McGuire is going to be on me real soon if I keep talking like this.
Anyway, your jury was no good either.
So you had a judge who obviously was not open to anything you were saying.
You had a jury that was all ready to resonate with these huge images of the adorable little Noah Posner, who had been so savagely murdered, and then his poor grieving parents were tormented by you, and the tears were coming to their eyes, right?
But in Texas, you would have had a chance of getting a couple of quote-unquote conspiracy people on the jury, because Hey, you know, do this trial in Austin like Alex could have.
If you had Alex's house in Austin and you were living there and you did your trial there, I'll bet you could have, you know, if you had a good lawyer who knew how to check out prospective jurors, you would have got a couple of open-minded red pill people on that jury.
I love it.
and things might have gone totally different.
So I think your big mistake, Jim, was not talking Alex Jones into switching houses with you. - I love it.
Well, I suspect this is one of the reasons they sued me in Wisconsin, was because they knew the summary judgment methodology was amenable to what they wanted to do.
I think you make a very astute observation Had I had this in Texas, it would have gone right to the jury.
There's no way they would have accepted summary judgment when the basic facts were in dispute.
After all, the normal way in which the authenticity of documents is determined is by the reports of experts.
And here I have two, not one, but two document experts who were reporting that all four of the death certificates that have been introduced into evidence prior to the oral hearing were fabricated and fake, two of them.
But in Wisconsin, he could simply, the judge could simply set that aside as someone else's opinion and say he didn't find it reasonable or persuasive, which is exactly what he did.
So you make a very good point, Kevin.
And as to the jury, I couldn't agree more.
The 12 jurors, one man, 11 women, all 30 years or younger, every one of whom swore they'd never even heard of Alex Jones.
Yeah, well, you wouldn't get that in Austin.
You probably couldn't get that from one juror who's never heard of Alex Jones in Austin.
So, yeah, it's too bad Alex didn't fight harder.
Why do you think he caved so quickly?
Oh, Kevin, I don't know.
I reached out to him repeatedly.
Video deposition in Connecticut said he'd never even read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
And I say, how could anyone take a stand on Sandy Hook without reading the one objective scientific study of Sandy Hook?
What happened?
Thirteen contributors, including six PhD professors.
You think we couldn't figure out whether the school was still open after 2008?
You think we couldn't figure out whether anybody died?
I mean, it was just outrageous that he hadn't done that.
I wish James Tracy, by the way, had put more reliance on the book because I think he would have been much better off.
He only mentioned once when he was being pursued to his door.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
I wish he had made more of it.
But all my sympathy go out to James Tracy because he was royally screwed.
Yeah, you know, I haven't heard from Jim for a while.
I hope he's doing OK.
Maybe I'll try and get him back on the show and figure out what he's up to these days.
I think it's homeschooling, Kevin.
I think it's homeschooling.
He's got, like, five kids.
Oh, wow.
Well, that's great.
They're going to have a pretty good education getting homeschooled by Jim Tracy, that's for sure.
Well, Jim, I had a first-hour conversation on this show with Jeremy Roth Kushel, and he accused me of being misled by my sort of religious and philosophical groundings, which, of course, are very different from yours.
I'm a practicing Muslim and accept the claims of the Quran to be the most accurate and well-preserved and last divine revelation.
And I also largely accept much of Rene Guénon's traditionalist philosophy, according to which the modern world is essentially diabolical, perverse, Rule by extremely corrupt, satanic, esoteric groups, and that ultimately we need to get back to the old-fashioned religion.
Give me some old-time religion!
Anyway, Jeremy thinks that my views, you know, my philosophical and religious groundings have led me to become too pro-Russia in terms of the war in Ukraine.
To pro-Trump in terms of not being sufficiently antagonistic to Trump and to the January 6th protesters and so on.
And it occurs to me that you have basically, you're basically a classical liberal in terms of your philosophy, last I heard, and you're agnostic.
Probably not, you know, maybe closer to Jeremy than to me, certainly.
So your philosophy is very different from me.
Jeremy thinks my antagonism to classical liberalism, your very philosophy, has led me to make these errors.
And yet, I notice that you make what Jeremy would see to be even greater errors.
That is, you are at least as pro-Russia as I am in terms of the Ukraine war.
And you are actually considerably more sympathetic to Trump and his supporters and the January 6th protesters than I am.
So I'm wondering if you can explain how, like, do you think that Jeremy could have, you know, could he be partly right that you have been duped by some sort of cabal of authoritarian, anti-liberal democracy people, people like Alexander Dugan,
Steve Bannon, Bibi Netanyahu, etc., and that you've betrayed your liberal, secular philosophy by accepting these kinds of positions.
Look, Evan, I've known you for a long time, and you and I are very much on the same track here, and the fact that we have such divergent philosophical or theological outlooks indicates that we are both nevertheless operating as rational minds in relation to the available evidence.
That he could be anti-Russia.
Bro, Ukraine is ridiculous.
That he could be vehemently anti-Trump when Trump did so much good for the nation, made us economically robust, gave us energy independent.
The lowest wage earners were seeing their wages rise at the highest rate because he clamped down on the borders.
He called out the fake news.
Trump has so many virtues, particularly in comparison with the president imposter.
The fact is that the 2020 election was massively stolen.
The 2000 mules is only the latest, but it happens to be a highly convincing mode of proof.
The January 6 Commission is a stacked deck.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
I mentioned how in the first place they don't have any opposition.
They took out the two Jims, including Jim Jordan, who had ripped him a new one.
I mean, this whole thing is fake and fabricated.
There was no incitement.
There was no insurrection.
They're just trying to use this obscure provision of the 14th Amendment that says if you participated in an insurrection that you cannot run for office.
They already tried to pull it on a candidate in Ohio and the courts rejected it.
But the Federalists had a brilliant paper shortly after January 6th when they were first floating this idea of debunking the whole thing.
And the January 6th is just a massive campaign ad for the Democrats But it's falling flat because Trump isn't the principal figure on the stage anymore.
People have had too much of Biden.
They're very, very sick of Biden.
He has the worst poll ratings of any president in history.
If we actually have a midterm election, the Democrats are going to go down to a catastrophic defeat greater than any other party in any midterm in the history of the United States.
So they're desperately trying to circumvent that.
They're already floating the idea of a second pandemic so they can lock down.
They're going out of their way to provoke a war with Russia, the outcome of which they would not like, because it's going to be devastating for the West.
Russia is well prepared to fight a war they do not want.
Whereas the United States and its allies are unprepared to fight a war they do want.
I mean, it's all absurd, Kevin, but if you watch the developments in Lithuania with a blockade and all that, these are classic historical elements that have led to world wars in the past.
And I dare say it appears to me they're going to lead to another world war.
Oh, I have great confidence in Vladimir Putin.
If there's a way of manipulating, making the outcome come out right without a world war, he will find it.
I believe he'll be cutting off energy to Lithuania.
His spokesman implied that it would hurt the Lithuanian people by virtue of doing this.
They try to excuse themselves on the ground.
They're just acting in accordance with the EU.
But this is a hostile action.
This is an act of war.
Just as they are sending all these weapons to Ukraine, that's an act of war.
That makes us cold belligerent.
When the nukes start going off for the USA, you can remember it was Joe Biden and the other numbskulls who were aiding and abetting him that brought this about.
And then in the third place, there's so many more pressing issues, inflation, gas prices, food shortages.
Just keeping a roof over your head, food on your table.
The American people aren't impressed, frankly, with this January 6th business, especially when it's such an obviously manufactured event as to be affected.
So that's falling flat.
But that's also the reason why you're seeing a massive turnout regarding now the Roe v. Wade rejection, personally.
What do you think of that, Jim?
Because I know last I had heard, I remember you got kicked off of RBN By John Stattmiller because he figured out that you were quote-unquote a liberal.
He asked you directly, are you a liberal, Jim?
And you shamefacedly admitted that you were.
So I assume you're probably still pro-choice and which kind of would go with your basic liberal philosophy.
And so I'm wondering how you reconcile that and your support for Trump with The fact that Trump proudly appointed the justices who just overturned Roe, which I don't have a problem with personally, but I'm just checking in with you about your take on that.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, I'm very unhappy about this.
I think Roe was one of the most wisely decided decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court.
But now the hysterical, these neoliberals, these progressives on MSNBC, say for example Joy Reid, she's saying now they're going to come after your contraceptives, now they're going to come after gay relationships, now they're going to come after gay sex marriage.
They're just trying to go full-blown hysterical in the hope of whipping up support for the midterm elections, if they are even allowed to have one.
But it's not going to work, Kevin.
It's four months until we have the midterm.
And while they're going to do a lot of rabble-rousing, it's going to dissipate by the time we get there.
Indeed, this decision was offset by the one the previous day, which extended the right to conceal carry throughout the nation.
I was very impressed with that decision.
That was very appropriate.
Those who have studied the relationship between guns and homicide know the more guns, the fewer homicides.
And this is true not only in the United States, but everywhere in the world.
John Lott's especially good about the relationship between Guns and how many are armed in a society and the rates of homicide.
I mean, look at Chicago.
Chicago is perhaps the most stringent gun laws in the country and also the highest gun violence.
Why?
Because the criminals don't give up their guns.
The criminals don't obey the law.
Remember, way back when, the NRA said when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Well, that's what Biden would like to have happen, but the American people aren't accepting it.
So what do you think about the claims that this is all part of some kind of divide-and-conquer operation?
Kevin, people got my guns.
I mean, for 10 months in a row, they've sold over a million guns a month for the last 10 months in a row, and it ain't going away.
Americans are not going to give up their guns.
So what do you think about the claims that this is all part of some kind of divide and conquer operation?
There are various theories about who's behind it and how it works, but there are folks out there who think that somebody really wants to destroy Western civilization in general and the U.S. in the United States.
in particular.
Now, views about who that is and how they're doing it seem to vary a bit, but the culture wars, whipping up anger among people, whether it's pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or pro-LGBTQ, anti-LGBTQ, they're pushing these bizarre agendas of changing the sex of preschoolers,
Based on their dressing up and things like that in order to piss off the people on the right and create all sorts of civil strife and getting everybody upset about gun control.
And, you know, one side afraid they're going to come and take your guns, the other side afraid of gun violence.
And all of this is leading to fractiousness and a kind of division of the country around these red-blue lines.
And this is happening at a time, as you say, when we're on the brink of World War III, on the brink of food crisis.
And so I can understand why there are folks out there who think that some nefarious entity is really trying to mess with us and maybe utterly destroy Western civilization.
To me, though, it almost looks more likely that the current leadership of so-called Western civilization is just incompetent.
And that part of the reason is that, as even Khaldun said, That civilizations rise and fall, and this one is falling.
And, you know, I think civilizations have the seeds of their own destruction, and I think that very liberal philosophy that you adhere to has within it the seeds of its own destruction, because if you have nothing, no reason for ethics and morality and asabiyah, or social solidarity, that all of life is about individual gratification, Then individual freedom, individual rights, then ultimately that's going to decay and fall apart.
We're going to end up where we are today.
So what do you think?
Well, I do think there's massive decay in Western civilization, but you misattribute to me.
I'm a very principled, I believe Kant's third version of his categorical imperative, namely always treat other persons as zans, as intrinsically valuable and never merely a means.
This is a most profound observation about morality.
You can have means-means relationships, employers-employees, the employee uses the employer to earn a living, the employer uses the employee to make profits.
But as long as they're acting in a moral fashion, as long as the employer is paying the employee a disrespectable wage, not subjecting them to unsafe work conditions, Not treating them as slaves, where Walmart had the practice of calling people back after they were clocked out to do more work.
That's all grossly immoral, just as would be workers who are being paid for work they didn't perform, or stealing from their employer, or whatever.
Similarly with doctors and patients.
They can treat each other as means means.
A patient, the doctor, to, you know, cure what ails them, the doctor, To practice his profession, and as long as they're doing so in an ethical and upright and professional way.
But even the medical profession has gone astray here.
I mean, the Hippocratic Oath, after all, declares the first principle, do no harm.
And yet you've got the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, all promoting the vax, which is doing massive harm on an unprecedented scale.
Kevin, think back.
As you and I grew up, if there were a handful of adverse effects, a product would be taken off the market.
I mean four or five people.
We have millions, potentially billions.
Remember the swine flu?
Swine flu vaccine, yeah.
So Kevin, I agree with you overall.
You're just misattributing.
The liberalism I believe in is very principled, very much based on law and order, reason and rationality, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the whole bit.
Classic liberal in a form that no longer exists.
I mean, if you wanted to look to my political idols, it would be JFK, for example, FDR.
You can find a few scattered here and there that I also admire.
I was a huge fan of Bobby Kennedy and of Martin Luther King.
And you can identify me with them or with Muhammad Ali or with Bill Russell, all of whom are in my pantheon of the greatest heroes we've ever known.
But I agree with you in deploring what's going on, this rampant transsexuality, giving kids a choice to decide if they're boys or girls, a political practice gone amok, this business about pronouns, critical race theory, that's all garbage, that all deserves to be Dumped into the trash bin of history.
It was outrageous.
And I believe what happened in Virginia, when Young could beat Terry McAuliffe, who made his whole campaign revolve about abortion, is going to be replicated.
If we get to the midterm elections, if the Democrats allow us to actually have them, they're going to be dumped on their seat and the whole situation is going to change.
But remember, you got powerful factors like George Soros, who's devoting all of his billions to destroying America.
He's made no secret he wants to destroy America.
It was his son who picked Kamala Harris, a complete airhead, totally incompetent to be vice president.
Remember, Biden had three runs for the presidency and not won a single primary or a single caucus until South Carolina.
When James Clyburn came and spoke up for him in the media, the social media began affecting the outcome by altering the vote and all that.
Do you think they tweaked the algorithms for him?
Oh, sure.
Absolutely.
Without any question, Kevin.
Without any question.
And let me just throw this into the mix.
I try to enlighten the public about all these scams.
I mean, I brought together groups of experts, beginning with JFK, the best experts in the world, to sort out what really happened.
And after JFK, as you know, I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
You and I made many trips together.
I organized conferences.
You spoke at many of them, even moderated.
Then Whalestone, I did research, brought a brilliant guy up from Australia where we were dropping around in the snow in 35 below zero weather, picking up pieces of the charred wreckage.
And then after Obama modified the Smith-Mudd Act, essentially vitiated it by making it no longer apply.
Well, the Smith-Mudd Act included the use of the same techniques of disinformation and propaganda within the United States that heretofore had only been allowed without by the Smith-Mudd Modernization Act of 2012, just in time to bring a Sandy Hook, and then the Boston bombing, and then Orlando and Dallas, and then Charlottesville, and then Parkland, and then Las Vegas.
Believe me, I've exposed every one of these are complete frauds, and I've even put together now a checklist.
I mentioned that brilliant guy, brilliant Brian Davidson, the PI, with whom, you know, he studied the SWAT team vehicle in the parking lot at Sandy Hook when the windows at Classroom 10 were undamaged.
He and I put together a law enforcement false flag staged event checklist, Kevin, and anyone can find it.
Yeah, they can go to my blog and download it.
Just go to jamesfetzer.org and look for the Law Enforcement False Flag Sandy Stage Event Checklist, and you'll find a dozen evidential indicators as to whether what you're dealing with is or is not real, such as, for example, No surge of EMTs, no string of ambulances, no medevac helicopter call.
That happened not only at Sandy Hook, it happened in Orlando, it happened in Charlottesville, it happened in Parkland, it happened in Las Vegas, because real medical facilities won't devote themselves to a drill.
There could be someone with a serious medical problem, a stroke or a heart attack who would die if they were involved in some Political, theatrical event.
So I encourage everyone to go there and check it out.
And I give lots of links to examples for illustration.
Brian Davidson did an absolutely sensational on the Buffalo shooting, going through it frame by frame.
It was modeled after the New Zealand false flag, which was virtually a cartoon.
It was like a video game, Kevin.
You had a fake gun.
There were no cartridges being emitted.
When they did a CGI to emit the cartridges, they never hit the ground.
You never heard the tinkle of metal.
When they shot people, there was no blood.
He walked into a room, the bodies were all stacked up.
We had similar events in Buffalo.
It was just as phony and just as fake.
Uvalde was modeled after Sandy Hook.
So instead of having the shooter kill his mom at home and then go to a school and shoot up 20 first graders and six adults, they've got him shooting his grandmother and then going to a school and shooting up 19 second, third, and fourth graders.
And would you believe this?
The one woman who's supposed to have died, who was supposed to be the wife of the guy who'd organized a drill there a couple months before, was recycling a woman from Sandy Hook, Victoria Soto, a teacher who's supposed to have died at Sandy Hook, was reprising her role.
in Uvalde.
And Kevin, this'll knock your socks off.
We even have a segment where you can see a figure who appears to be none other than Wayne Carver.
He's the same height, the same weight, the same build, the same facial features, the same glasses, right there in Uvalde.
Both of them are supposed to be among the deceased.
Well, they made appearances and seem to be very much alive and well in Uvalde.
What's the single best piece of evidence that the Uvalde shooting was fake?
Because I've looked at the stuff that came across my transom and I wasn't convinced by it.
So I'm definitely convinced there's something fishy about it.
But just like with Sandy Hook, I'm still not really bought in on this Nobody died model, everything is totally staged.
Even with the Boston bombing, I'm not really bought in on that model.
And also I think that they want us to buy in on that model because that's of course what allows them to demonize us as the heartless, evil conspiracy theorists who don't care about the poor survivors and victims and so on and so forth.
So anyway, what is the best evidence for your question?
Well, let me make two or three responses.
In Boston, They wouldn't even allow real MDs to approach the purported victims because it would have been exposed they were all amputee crisis actors.
I mean, Boston is so easy to debunk.
In Uvalde, they couldn't get ambulances, so what did they do?
They brought in hearses, Kevin.
Have you ever heard of a Mass shooting where they brought in horses.
Remember, horses are used to transport caskets to funerals.
Horses are not equipped with any medical facilities.
Horses can't do any good for those who are wounded or provide any medical attention.
They brought in horses.
You're going to like this.
I did an interview with Harrison Hanks, who did this brilliant send-up of crisis actors on my show on The Raw Deal recently, and you can find it at my Bitchute channel, Jim Fetzer.
We talked about Uvalde in some detail, but I also went into Uvalde with Brian Davidson and others, and you can find links to all of that in my Law Enforcement False Flag Scripted Event Checklist.
So I encourage everyone, track it down and take a look for yourself.
You're not going to have a hard time figuring out what happened.
But Kevin, they can't afford to kill some people and not kill others.
They can't do that.
It generates too much concern.
It's much easier to just pay everybody off.
They're all crisis actors.
They're all into it.
They're all making their chunk of change.
That's too many people to keep quiet.
I mean, isn't it just easier to have actual mass shootings?
I mean, there are mass shootings almost every day.
So why do they even have to bother to fake any?
And if they're actually going to stage a big one, why don't they just kill the people?
That way they don't have to worry about keeping anybody quiet.
Because actual killings lead to lawsuits and all kinds of messy stuff.
It's easier just to have everyone in on it.
They all sign non-disclosure agreements.
They all get a chunk of change for it, often a good chunk of change.
And it's easier to manage.
You got the whole state apparatus involved in Connecticut.
You got the state police even threatening to prosecute anyone who contradicts the official narrative.
And remember, the state police were in on it.
They're not going to murder people.
They found out after 9-11, Kevin, with the New Jersey girls, that they could bring too much political pressure.
Those were four widows.
When Cheney and Bush did not even want to have a 9-11 hearing, The four widows kept up the pressure, and after 441 days they had to accede, and they sought to appoint Henry Kissinger, but he didn't want to release all his financial entanglements, so their second choice, Philip Zelikow, they brought out of the academy where Philip Zelikow had as his area of specialization, the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S.
Philip Zelikow actually wrote the script for Sandy Hook, so who better to put in charge as the executive director where members of the staff complained that he'd completed a draft of the report a year before he'd shared it?
Wait a minute, Jim.
I agree that Philip Zelikow is a suspect as the scriptwriter for 9-11, because he published a piece in Foreign Affairs in 1998, along with Deutsch, speculating on the likely political-cultural effects of a massive Pearl Harbor-style event in the United States, such as the destruction of the World Trade Center.
So he saw that coming two years ahead of time because he wrote the script for it, and then he supervised maintaining the script afterwards when he was with the Commission.
So that part I agree with.
But he's a national security guy.
He's all, and he's of course an Israel loyalist and a neocon, and he cares about international relations.
What does a Sandy Hook school shooting have to do with international relations?
Why would he be involved with that?
I didn't say Zelikow had anything to do with Sandy Hook, Kevin.
You just misunderstood.
I was purely talking about 9-11.
Would you believe he's still on the faculty of the Department of History at the University of Virginia, where I taught twice?
This is insulting beyond belief.
No.
Zelikow had his hands full with 9-11.
He had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
That was a pure Obama-Biden-Eric Holder.
Eric Holder.
He wrote the script for Sandy Hook.
He did the rough outline for Sandy Hook.
That was then refined on the scene, Kevin.
Eric Holder.
OK, well, you know, we're on the same page with a lot of this and maybe not quite so much on some of it.
But I do appreciate your lucid and very courageous stance.
And you're not backing down.
Unlike Alex Jones, you can actually play that Tom Petty song, Won't Back Down, and it actually would be accurate in your case.
So good luck.
I'd love coming on with you, my dear friend.
We have been together on so many events for so long.
I just encourage anyone who wants more about my Supreme Court case, and it's really fascinating, visit givesendgo.com slash fundingfetzer and you can learn all you ever wanted to know about it.
Givesendgo.com slash fundingfetzer.
And I'd be very grateful if you thought I were worthy of your support.
Okay.
That sounds good, Jim.
Thanks so much.
Good talking with you.
Take care.
My pleasure.
▲
Export Selection