Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 11, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:55

The Raw Deal (10 October 2022)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody.
	Not just anybody.
	You know I need someone.
	I was young, but so much younger than today.
	I never needed anybody's help in any way.
	But now these days are gone and I'm not so self-assured.
	Now I find I've changed my mind, I'll open up the doors.
	Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
	Today, some of our discussion is going to have more of a philosophical aspect than normal.
	But it's very important to understand how we're being played by the media over and over again.
	Remember, the Rothschilds own both the AP and Reuters, and virtually all international news comes directly from the AP and Reuters.
	It's only really local news that you get on your local paper and television reports and so forth, and that tends to be highly reliable.
	But what we get from the international press can be massively biased and defective.
	Here's an illustration.
	Before the Ukraine crisis, before Russia's intervention, The Guardian was writing, Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe.
	Reuters, Ukraine's neo-Nazi problem.
	Vox.
	A Ukrainian comedian-turned-president is embroiled in Trump's impeachment mess.
	New Europe.
	Ukrainian president's rule becomes increasingly corrupt and authoritarian.
	After the intervention.
	The Guardian.
	The fight for Ukraine is a fight for liberal ideals.
	Reuters.
	For foreign fighters, Ukraine offers purpose, camaraderie, and a cause.
	CNN.
	Ukrainians are giving two lessons in democracy that Americans have forgotten.
	The Washington Post.
	Zelensky, the TV president turned war hero.
	It's enough to make a gag.
	Meanwhile, Mark Morgan, the Newsmax.
	The border crisis threatens national security.
	Democrats wrongly frame The southern border crisis is a problem with illegal immigration rather than with border security.
	Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, Mark Morgan, said Monday.
	Now, framing is extremely important.
	That's how you set up the problem, the slant you're giving, the impression you want to convey.
	This is therefore highly telling.
	In an interview on Newsmax Wake Up America, Morgan decried the threat posed by the flow of migrants across the border.
	This isn't just about illegal immigration.
	That's what the Democrat wants it to be about.
	And then they just remove the illegal part and just talk about immigration.
	This is border security.
	Illegal immigration drives our borders to be more open because it pulls resources off from security along the southern border.
	Drugs are coming in, criminals are coming in, calling it a national security threat.
	Notice, by the way, he's not even talking about the fact that a very high percentage of those coming across the border are young and military age and potentially Could either be conscripted into our military, because as foreigners, they would be willing to fire on Americans, whereas most Americans would not.
	And they can be promised citizenship as an inducement, or they could function to bring about guerrilla warfare here in the United States.
	In any case, this is not something that can Or should we dismiss as a serious threat to the national security of the United States?
	And the Democrats are promoting it.
	Absolutely.
	They want more and more and more.
	Now, Morgan took particular aim at Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.
	For dodging the real issue until now, as he faces an election college challenge.
	I think what you've seen with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the virtue signaling that's done.
	You just had Mark Kelly say it's an embattled Senate race.
	He's calling it a crisis all of a sudden.
	So he's coming out of the shadow of the past 20 months.
	He's done nothing.
	Now he's coming out of the shadows and calling it a crisis because that's exactly what it is.
	Morgan praised Democrat Texas Representative Henry Seller saying he's actually on the border.
	He's been a fairly honest broker saying the same thing about the need for a secure border.
	So, exactly what is this all about?
	I may or may not have discussed this already, but it bears repeating.
	Wayne Allyn Root has done a brilliant job of dissecting what's going on.
	Biden's not in charge.
	Here's exactly what's happening.
	This is a wonderful thumbnail sketch of what's going on.
	There was a time when I thought depictions of the Democrat Party, as he does here, would be exaggerated, and perhaps in the past they were.
	I go back a lot of years.
	But today I think this is spot on.
	Here's what he writes.
	And by the way, you can find this on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
	Our country is being destroyed.
	It's clearly a purposeful communist attack upon America from a thousand different directions.
	But the president isn't Biden.
	He's just a figurehead puppet.
	The real president is Obama.
	This is clearly the third term of Obama.
	His fingerprints are everywhere.
	No president can legally serve three terms, hence the need for a figurehead.
	Biden is just a DDD, a dummy with dementia and diapers.
	He says whatever is written on cue cards, signs, whatever paper is put in front of him.
	That allows Obama to run the country from the shadows.
	Let me add, by the way, two remarks Barack Obama made before Biden became president through this grossly stolen election.
	He said, number one, never estimate Joe's ability to F things up.
	Never underestimate Joe's ability to F things up.
	Another, he was asked, would he like to serve another term?
	He said, well, Not officially, but if he could operate behind the scenes and manipulate what was going on, yeah, he'd like that.
	Well, he got his wish.
	As long as they feed Biden his baby food, change his diapers, and allow him to sniff little girl's hair, Biden does whatever his handlers tell him to do.
	But Obama isn't the brains of the operation.
	Obama is just a communist tool.
	Obama takes his orders from a team of communist suicide bombers—Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and, of course, the possible bosses, the Campo dei Tutti, China, and the Chinese Communist Party.
	Obama is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the deep state, United Nations, World Economic Forum, and China.
	The reason it's important that Obama is the real president is because Obama was my college classmate at Columbia University, class of 1983, where we learned the plan to destroy America.
	By the way, I have a scan of his college ID at Columbia, which identifies him as a foreign student, which, of course, is confirmation consistent with previous research I've done on the matter.
	When his nationality and place of origin became controversial, that he appears to have been born in Kenya.
	Well, I have two Kenyan birth certificates for Obama.
	One is clearly fraudulent.
	It has signatures of officials who weren't in office at the time it was issued.
	The second, however, appears to be authentic.
	It even has a footprint of the little boy.
	Now I believe they created the second, the fake birth certificate, so if someone talked about Obama's Kenya birth certificate, they could say, oh yeah, well that's been debunked, trading on the ambiguity between the fake and what appears, in my opinion, to be the authentic.
	There's even a monument in Kenya to the first Kenyan president of the United States, not realizing there cannot be a Kenyan president of the United States.
	That plan now, Root continues, was called Cloward-Preven.
	These are two faculty members who were at Columbia at the time.
	Obama learned it well.
	It's happening today.
	Look around.
	The powers that be have just given it a different name—the Great Reset.
	But the goals are the same—destroy America, make us into a socialist nation, make everyone poor and dependent on government to survive, make us into a one-party country—of course, Democrat Party with no opposition or dissent.
	They are following the Cloward-Piven game plan to a T.
	The end goal of the cowardly strategy is the creation of a political crisis leading to a guaranteed annual income.
	Essentially, it would lead to the complete control of citizens through socialism, communism, by making everyone dependent on the government even for their, you know, in order to live by virtue of the guaranteed income from the state.
	Even Bernie Sanders, bless his heart.
	And I'm far from thinking Bernie Sanders is a bad guy.
	He can be wrong without being a bad guy.
	That has to do with intent or motivation.
	It's talked about a guaranteed annual income.
	But what's going on here with Cloward Briven is completely different.
	As a background, Frances Fox Briven, A professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, now the Lake Richard Cloud, was a sociologist and liberal activist and Piven's spouse.
	Their strategy to implement political crisis to achieve a guaranteed annual income was published to May 1966 in The Nation, a leading liberal political and cultural magazine.
	In this publication, their main goal to achieve the crisis was described as a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.
	A federal program to administer these massive welfare programs would be needed.
	This is because if administered locally, there'd be lower enrollment because the poor are most visible and proximate in the local community, antagonism toward them As always, therefore, have been more intense locally than at the federal level.
	The solution of a guaranteed income to end poverty must also be free from any sort of conditions such as work requirements.
	Conditional benefits result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation and in a pervasive oppression of the poor.
	So, according to them, Not only are people entitled to other people's money and property, I add, there can be no conditions on that under this logic.
	They are entitled to the coercive taking of others' money and property because they exist.
	Let me add, we have in Illinois, as of 1 January 2023, the police will not have the Authority to remove trespassers from your property, so if you should go on a trip, maybe an overnight.
	Visit friends in Wisconsin, for example.
	Come back and find your home has been occupied by homeless people who are no longer.
	You cannot call the police to evict them.
	You're on your own.
	This is in Illinois.
	Cloward and Brevin also stress the importance of marketing these benefits to the masses, and that any removal of benefits should require stringent legal review.
	The benefits should require administrative hearings with additional court hearings to place barriers to the removal of benefits once received.
	Get this.
	What has Biden most recently done?
	He's given a whole lot of money for lawyers to defend the illegal migrants who are in the United States to tie things up in the court, following exactly what's being described here.
	They hypothesize that lawyers could be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights.
	Enter the ACLU.
	The liberal strategy calls for a climate of militancy that would overcome attitudes of being on welfare.
	They state that as the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare.
	The liberal infestation of mainstream media, of course, has long since taken place.
	Really, it's a Rothschild dominating.
	Well, as I've mentioned many times, I have a panel of a hundred officials from CNN, all of whom, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	A hundred executives from CNN, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	Another hundred executives from the New York Times, every one a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	Their ultimate aim of their strategy is a new program for direct income distribution, also known throughout history as socialism communism, which has led to the death, despair and depravity of hundreds of millions.
	Thus, the four steps of the Cloward-Piven strategy.
	Overload and break the welfare system.
	Have chaos ensue.
	Take control of the chaos.
	Implement socialism and communism through government force.
	How can you create chaos in the street?
	Well, a great way to do it is to defund the police, put criminals out on the street.
	A great way to do it is allow the homeless to simply accumulate, to urinate and defecate on the streets.
	We're creating chaos.
	Another is to open the borders and allow millions of illegals to come in and then give lawyers money to defend them so you can't get them out.
	As Milton Friedman famously said, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.
	This is because government sets out to fix a program with a new program.
	However, that program never seems to go away.
	Does this mean government never fixes a problem or that government will never shrink unless forced to do so by receiving less money?
	Why budgets are so terribly important, so terribly important, and why the Democrats have become profligate.
	They're just giving money hand over fist, especially to Ukraine.
	It's death by a thousand paper cuts.
	Under eight years of Obama, they boiled the frog slowly.
	They attacked in slow motion, hoping you wouldn't notice.
	Like cooking a frog, they set the temperature so low, it doesn't realize it's being boiled until it's dead.
	But now, with Biden taking the heat, and by the way, they had to have someone with no conscience, no competence, who had no idea what he was doing, to be occupying the highest office of the land, and nevertheless undertaking the deliberate destruction, the demolition of America.
	They needed someone who had no idea what he was doing or the role he was playing.
	Obama is free to accelerate the process.
	Now he's throwing caution to the wind.
	He's at the heat as high as it goes.
	This is the final communist takeover of America.
	The biggest scams in world history are all being carried out right now, all at once, right in front of your eyes.
	They're hitting you from so many directions.
	You're a combination of dizzy and punch drunk.
	But here are the two biggest scams of all time.
	These two scams are the foundation of this communist attack.
	It all started with a stolen election.
	That was number one.
	They had to remove Trump.
	They spied on his campaign.
	They spied on his actual presidency, which is treason.
	They trumped up charges to frame him.
	They spewed propaganda like the Third Reich, and they tried to impeach him multiple times over, nothing.
	When they failed at all of that, they simply stole the 2020 election.
	Now they have weaponized a DOJ and the FBI to raid the former president's home, ruin him, demonize him, bankrupt him, frame him, indict him for crimes he didn't commit to prevent him from ever running again.
	Trump scares them that much.
	With Trump out of the way, there's no one to stop them.
	Now they're coming for you and me.
	Second, it's all built around open borders.
	That's the most deadly weapon in their toolbox.
	Open borders is a swift army knife.
	It accomplishes everything it wants.
	It's simple.
	Just open the borders, invite the whole world in, fill America with tens of millions of illegal aliens, the poorest people in the world who require welfare from cradle to grave, sick people with third-world diseases who want free health care, and violent criminals.
	That's how you sink the economy.
	That's how you explode the debt.
	That's how you overwhelm the system and cause it to collapse.
	That's how you turn America into a foreign nation as a bonus.
	That's how you outvote the legitimate citizens of America.
	Yes, today's migrants are tomorrow's Democrats.
	In the meantime, understand.
	The people in control of our nation are pure evil, and they won't rest until they've destroyed the greatest country in world history and turned you and me into serfs and slaves.
	Wayne Allen Root.
	I think he's got it exactly right.
	So today, in the Wisconsin State Journal, I found an article headed, GOP Senator Dems Want Crime.
	That was his heading.
	In the Wisconsin State Journal, fellow Republicans struggled to defend Toomberville's remarks.
	Well, what did he have to say?
	Republican Senator Tommy Toomberville asserted that Democrats support preparations for the descendants of enslaved people because they think the people that do the crime are owed that.
	The first-term Alabama Republican spoke at a Saturday evening rally in Nevada, featuring former President Donald Trump, a political ally.
	His comments were part of a broader critique in the final weeks before the November 8th election, when control of Congress is at stake, about how Democrats have responded to rising crime rates.
	But two pervils remarks about reparation played into racist stereotypes about black people committing crimes now.
	Stereotype play a role when you have usually a bit of a caricature, an exaggerated version of a position.
	And especially when you treat individual cases as instances or examples of the stereotype or exaggerated version that is.
	An elementary fallacy there.
	It's really a variation on what's known as a straw man.
	They're not soft on crime, Tuberville said, on Democrats.
	They're pro-crime.
	They want crime.
	They want crime because they want to take over what you've got.
	They want to control what you have.
	They want reparations because they think the people that do the crime are owed that.
	He ended his appearance with a profanity as a crowd-cheer.
	Now listen to this.
	Tuber Bill is falsely suggesting that Democrats promote crime and that only blacks are the perpetrator.
	In fact, crime has slowed in the last year and most crimes are committed by whites, according to FBI data.
	Now, there was a time when you could use the Internet to find, easily access information about Crimes and their distribution by race.
	And when I've done that in the past, doing research, for example, on the Second Amendment and the politics of gun control, I have found the overwhelming majority of crimes in virtually every category are committed by blacks.
	I mean, overwhelmingly, proportionately committed by black.
	Overwhelmingly.
	The category in which they are not the primary and overwhelming committers of crime are liquor related because they're Native Americans who have a genetic incapacity to absorb alcohol, take the lead.
	So I was rather stunned by this claim.
	Most crimes are committed by wives.
	And I'm going to tell you my latest exploration to look into the statistics just this morning and preparing for having this conversation with you.
	The Democrat Party has not taken a stance on reparation for black Americans to compensate for years of unpaid slave labor by their ancestors, though some leading Democrats, including President Joe Biden, backed the creation of a national commission to study the issue.
	Remember, This is another aspect of the Democrats' use of the concept of equity, which really entails taking from whites and giving to blacks to compensate for crimes or abuse committed by whites against blacks in the past.
	Not by contemporary individuals who would thereby suffer the financial or other loss, no.
	But by precursors, you know, earlier generations, way back when, they even go so far as to want to trash Washington and Jefferson for having had slaves.
	I mean, even though that was the common practice of the time, even though they were among the greatest Americans of all, They do.
	They commit another fallacy known as special pleading by only focusing on what they don't like and ignoring all the rest.
	The fact that Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most astute political thinker in world history, certainly American, and he had a major role with regard to the Declaration of Independence, a constitution founded at the University of Virginia, Which was at the time I was there as a visiting associate and subsequently visiting full professor.
	Number number one among all public universities in the United States, number one.
	And.
	George Washington, my goodness.
	Some some he's committing a commission.
	This is part of equity.
	This is a new move, really.
	To get toward a uniform national income, it's going to have all kinds of consequences.
	I mean, when you look at what's happening in Illinois about no longer allowing the police to remove trespassers, And taking money from from those who have earned it to give it to those who have not.
	I mean, we're talking about major differences between capitalism and communism.
	Under communism, there is no private property.
	And.
	You know, profits are denigrated and individual entrepreneurship, you know, making money out of business ventures.
	Very much discouraged or abolished altogether.
	Capitalism quite the opposite.
	Indeed, there's good reason to believe the reason the United States have been so prosperous in the times when it has been prosperous has been directly related to private property and capitalism.
	Remember, it's part of the Great Reset that you'll own nothing and you'll be happier than you've ever been, which I've diagnosed.
	I mean, literally you owe nothing because they're going to take everything and be happier than you'll ever be because your thoughts are no longer your own.
	They've got this graphene oxide interface that affects your brain that can be controlled by 5G remotely and induce feelings and thoughts that did not originate with you.
	They're artificially induced.
	So they talk about you'll own nothing and you'll be happier than you've ever been.
	How many of us would be happy if we don't own our homes or didn't own our car or have computers and televisions and the like?
	How many of us would be happier if we had none of those things?
	The answer?
	Not one of us.
	So something's going on here that's pretty damn bizarre, and the Democrats are pushing this!
	Absolutely stunning!
	Some Republicans struggled to defend Tuberville's comments.
	Representative Don Bacon from Nebraska said he wouldn't say it the same way, describing the remarks as impolite.
	That's not the way I present things, Bacon said on Meet the Press.
	But gotta be honest that we have a crime problem in our country.
	FBI data released last week showed violent and robbery crimes generally remain consistent between 2020 and 2021 with a slight decrease in the overall violent crime rate and a 4.3% rise in the murder rate.
	That's an improvement over 2020 when the murder rate jumped by 29%.
	Think about it.
	What was going on in the summer of 2020?
	We had the George Floyd event.
	We had the summer of love.
	We had the rioting, the looting, the arson.
	We had defund the police.
	Now, societies are relatively fragile in the sense that they require a certain amount of fine tuning and sometimes What might seem superficially to be relatively minor differences can have a major impact.
	The idea of defunding the police is so absurd on its face that even Biden now is claiming he's all for funding the police, not defunding the police.
	But that wasn't the view of Nancy Pelosi or even Joe Biden or Maxine Waters or any other prominent Democrat.
	They were all egging it on.
	They wanted more rioting, more looting, more arson.
	More lawlessness!
	The report presents an incomplete picture because it does include some of the nation's largest police departments, and I suspect that's exactly right.
	What better way to bias outcomes or reporting than by simply excluding some of the most important data?
	Because most of the crimes are going on in cities that are large and therefore have the nation's largest police department.
	Does that mean they didn't include L.A.
	or Chicago or Baltimore?
	More broadly, rates of violent crime and killing have increased around the U.S.
	since the pandemic.
	In some places, spiking after hitting historic lows.
	Nonviolent crime decreased during the pandemic, but the murder rate grew nearly 30% in 2020, rising in cities and rural areas alike.
	According to an analysis of crime data by the Brennan Center for Justice, the assault rates went up 10%.
	The rise Defies easy explanation, according to the Associated Press.
	Experts have pointed to a number of potential causes for worries about the economy and historically high inflation rate to intense stress during the pandemic that has killed more than a million people in the United States.
	Why don't they talk about defunding the police?
	Why don't they talk about the Democrats urging lawless activity, looting, arson?
	Rioting.
	Why don't they talk about George Soros-funded DAs turning criminals back on the street?
	A revolving door.
	Why don't they talk about making shoplifting up to nearly $1,000 a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
	Virtually, they're making it a non-prosecutable crime.
	Why don't they talk about that?
	Why aren't they talking about that?
	Meanwhile, I thought I'd take a look at what Wikipedia has to say, as we all know Wikipedia, or as I know, and let me share with you.
	Wikipedia is a Zionist op.
	It's a political entity.
	It's a propaganda operation.
	It gains its credibility by being reliable on most politically uncontroversial issues.
	There you can find a superabundance of information, but that means it roughly stacks up with the classic formula for disinformation—80% truth to deliver a 20% payload of false information.
	That's the classic formula.
	Some things Alex Jones is in that category.
	Alex, for the most part, seems to me to do a pretty good job of drawing attention to controversial issues and inviting speculation, but he won't talk about Israel.
	He won't get to the bottom of the issues.
	He never carries it far enough to actually be able to sort out what really happened and what didn't.
	He's not good at sorting out the fabricated from the real evidence.
	And of course, this latest extravaganza, the show trial, Went on just up to the point where my petition before the Supreme Court was denied, and then Alex has gone back to Austin, Texas?
	Is that a coincidence?
	So I took a look.
	Rhyme Statistics in Wikipedia.
	Scholars have found that some racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports, which are used to compile crime rate statistics in the United States.
	The data from 2008 reveals that black Americans are overrepresented in terms of arrests made in virtually all types of crimes.
	With the exception of driving under the influence, liquor laws, and hate crime.
	Overall, Black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per capita rate of all other Americans, and this ratio is even higher for murder, 6.3 times, and robbery, 8.1 times.
	Homicide.
	According to the FBI, African-Americans account for 39.6% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 29.1% and other 3.0% in cases where the race was known.
	Among homicide victims in 2019, where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races.
	where the race was known.
	54.7 were black or African American, 42.3 were white, and 3.1 were of other races.
	Their per capita offending rate for African Americans was roughly eight times higher than that of whites, and their victim rate was similar.
	About half of homicides are known to be single offender, single victim.
	Most of those were intra-racial, meaning same race.
	And those where the perpetrator and victims' races were known Eighty-one percent of white victims were killed by whites.
	Ninety-one percent of black or African-American victims were killed by black or African-Americans.
	And think about it.
	Doesn't that make sense?
	Think about black gang warfare.
	Most murders in America are being committed by black gangs in gang warfare, killing each other, killing each other.
	Chicago, super abundance.
	And very rarely, by the way, are rifles ever involved.
	All this focus on AR-15s is completely fabricated by staging fake events, especially at schools, that are intended to, by special pleading, by only citing the evidence favorable to your case and not sorting out the authentic from the real, from the fabricated or faked, to create an impression of
	Gun violence using rifles, it is completely disproportionate.
	95% of crimes using guns involve handguns.
	95%.
	And when it comes to rifles, very few occur with AR-15s.
	On the other hand, you never hear about the defensive use of guns, how Americans use guns, and again, principally handguns, to defend themselves.
	Millions of times every year.
	Millions of times every year.
	Where the latest estimates I have is that 200,000 American lives are saved every year that would have been lost had they not had guns to defend themselves.
	200,000.
	Now that the total who die Gun violence is around 70,000, so think what's happened.
	If you got around 70,000 dying, but you'd have 200,000 more, but for the defensive use of guns, is that a good reason to take guns away from law-abiding people?
	Remember, the criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law.
	So what's the idea of having more guns on the books that take weapons away from law-abiding citizens who are using them to defend themselves from criminals millions of times every year and saving, and I now believe this is a man, a minimum of 200,000 lives every year, which is about three times as many as are killed by gun violence.
	That would quadruple the number of deaths.
	Is that the desired outcome?
	So I thought I'd take a look online what I'm going to find.
	And here was one article by a Wendy Sawyer that was published in July 27th of 2020.
	Racial inequality is evident in every stage of the criminal justice system.
	Here are key statistics compiled into a series of court.
	Race inequality.
	Race inequality.
	There's a presumption here that crimes are committed equally by all citizens, regardless of your race, and yet the ones who are punished are the black ones.
	That's where they come up with this racial discrimination.
	But it's absurd that the evidence contradicts a majority of crimes are committed by blacks, which is why The majority of the occupants of prisons are black.
	They're committing most of the crimes, so they represent most of the population.
	It turns out to be an issue of frequency versus propensity.
	Blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes than whites.
	And that propensity to commit crimes is greater, shows itself in a greater frequency of crimes.
	I mean, that's the relationship.
	Now, we could argue about Why blacks have a greater propensity to commit crimes, and most sociologists and demographers believe it's got something to do with socioeconomic status, limited resources, lack of education, you know.
	I'm not saying that if everything else were the same in society, That there would not be a reduction in the percentage of crimes committed by blacks, but there may in fact be reason why even that would be untrue.
	I mean, how many projects have there been?
	How much affirmative action?
	How much anti-discrimination?
	How much social welfare?
	How many programs have they been to help the disadvantaged elements of American society?
	Well, here's what Wendy tells us.
	Recent protests calling for radical change to American policing, defund the police, have brought much-needed attention to the systemic racism within our criminal justice system.
	It's only systemic if, in fact, blacks aren't committing more crimes than whites.
	If they're all committing crimes at an equal rate, then you could argue there was systemic racism.
	So there's a presupposition involved in the argument.
	This extends beyond policing, of course.
	Systemic racism is evident at every stage of the system, from policing to prosecutorial decision, pretrial release process, sentencing, correctional discipline, and even re-entry.
	The racism inherent in mass incarceration affects children as well as adults, is often especially punishing for people of color who are marginalized, along other lines such as gender and class.
	Really, Democrat orthodoxy.
	Democrat orthodoxy.
	Because racial disparity data is often frustratingly hard to locate, we've compiled the key data available into a series of charts, ranging from five slideshows focused on policing, juvenile justice, jails, prisons, and reentry.
	They provide a fuller picture of racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
	And notice, If crimes among blacks are happening more frequently, then the fact that blacks are being incarcerated at a higher rate doesn't mean there's any racial inequity.
	It's simply the normal operation of a judicial system objectively going after the criminals regardless of their race or ethnicity.
	If you view it as, in fact, not the case, then it's an absurd premise.
	To assume that all subpopulations have an equal propensity to commit crime.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	But that's what the Democrats do.
	This is their interpretation of all men are created equal or all them are created equal or all what?
	Because we even go after our pronouns now.
	I mean, this is just absurd in trying to obfuscate clear thinking about even the most basic issue as to whether there are Two and only two sexes for Maverdites notwithstanding.
	Racial inequity.
	Make clear a broad transformation will be needed to uproot the racial injustice of mass incarceration.
	Again, I say that's all premised on presupposition about an equal propensity to commit crime, which is clearly not true.
	This is ideology.
	This is Politics trumping science.
	This is not responsive to the data.
	There are racial disparities or differences in the arrest and confinement of youth.
	Black youth are arrested out of proportion to their share of all youth.
	See, out of proportion to their share of all youth.
	So you got a percentage of blacks in the population, somewhere 12-13%.
	Of the population, but it's showing blacks being arrested youth at the rate of 35%.
	Well, even if blacks are around 12% of population and they're being arrested at rate 35% that does not mean this is racial or systemic inequity or injustice.
	If the blacks are committing.
	35% of the crimes.
	Then they're going to be arrested at 35% if you just assume we're arresting on an objective basis criminals who commit crimes regardless of their race.
	Here are in local jail and pretrial detention.
	The number incarcerated per 100,000, they're showing a higher percentage of blacks when of course blacks are committing disproportionate crimes and they ought to be there.
	Racial disparities.
	Blacks are disproportionately stopped on the street by police, while whites are more likely to call the police for help.
	Now, I believe that's true.
	If blacks are disproportionately, they should only be stopped on the street in proportion to their percentage in the population.
	But if it's in proportion to the occurrence of crimes they commit, then it may be not Not at all systemic racism, but simply objective policing.
	I was astonished when I went to crime and race statistics.
	This is on a Google search.
	Crime and race statistics.
	Here are the first four or five.
	Race and criminal justice, 17 key charts, prisonpolicy.org.
	U.S.
	crime statistics, get the facts, brennancenter.org.
	Here is Urban Institute Research on Crime and Justice, urban.org.
	Here's what the data say, the causes of rising crime.
	Now, you might go there and click on one and think you're getting objective data.
	But if you look, every one of these is an ad!
	Google is taking ads!
	Everyone has the word A.D.
	A.D.
	These are paid for.
	This is a form of propaganda.
	You have to look around to get something that's more objective.
	Here's a bullet conspiracy, mostly law professors and some contrarians, often libertarian, always independent.
	Race and Violent Crime.
	Eugene Wolcott authored.
	Do black and white people routinely commit crimes at similar rates?
	If we focus on crime, is black on black crime a myth?
	An article by criminal law professor Thursday in the Columbus Dispatch—and this is from April 24th of 2021, so this is more current—included this assertion.
	The reality is that black-on-black crime is a myth and that black and white people routinely commit crimes at similar rates, but black people are overwhelmingly targeted for arrest.
	I'll tell you flat out, this is bullshit.
	This is just complete bullshit.
	This is standard Democrat talking point.
	However, they believe it and it's bullshit.
	Yeah, I think this is not the reality, right?
	At least that's the violent crimes of the sort that are usually labeled black on black when committed by black criminals against black victims.
	Blacks and whites do seem to commit drug possession and drug distribution crimes at relatively similar rates.
	But in this post, I focus on violent crimes, as best we can tell.
	Blacks appear to commit violent crimes at substantially higher rates per capita than do whites.
	That means given the comparison of the population per 100,000 blacks compared to 100,000 whites, Blacks are committing crimes at substantially higher rates.
	There seems to be little aggregate disparity between the rate at which blacks commit violent crimes, especially when one focuses on crimes where the victims say they reported the crimes to the police, and the rate at which blacks are arrested for crimes.
	In other words, they appear to be arrested in proportion to the rate at which they're committing the crime, and black on black crime The rate is especially high.
	I mean, just think of gang wars.
	These aren't white gangs that are shooting each other up in Chicago, for example.
	These are black gangs.
	Of course, it's always hard to measure what the actual crime rate is for any group, whether for purposes of claiming that the rates are similar or that they are different.
	The most reliable data to my knowledge is generally the National Crime Victimization Survey and the U.S.
	Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that are based on that survey.
	Indeed, the link in the quoted sentence from the article goes to a source that relies on such data.
	Here's the more specific data.
	This was a 2019 crime in the United States Department of Justice expanded homicide.
	Age, total, 16,245.
	This is homicide data.
	Sex, male, 10,335.
	Female, 1,408.
	So men are roughly committing murders at five times the rate of women, though unknown at 4,502.
	Sex, male, 10,335.
	Female, 1,408.
	So men are roughly committing murders at five times the rate of women, though unknown at 4,502.
	Race, white, 4,728.
	Black or black American, 6,425.
	Other 340, unknown 4,000.
	The data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Trustees with regard to rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault Race or ethnicity of offenders?
	White, 52.2% Black, 28.9% Hispanic, 14.2%.
	Others much less.
	Here's the data for non-fatal violent crime.
	Hispanic 14.2%, others much less.
	Here's the data for non-fatal violent crime.
	White 43.8%, black 35.9%, Hispanic 15.5%.
	Blacks, which here means non-Hispanic, were 12.5% of the U.S.
	population, and non-Hispanic whites were 60.4%.
	It thus appears from this data that the black per capita violent crime rate is roughly 2.3 to 2.8 times the rate for the country as a whole, while the white per capita violent crime rate is roughly 7 tenths to 9 tenths times the rate for the country as a whole.
	Meaning white is below the average, while for blacks is more than double.
	It's also appear arrest rates for violent crime are roughly comparable to the rate of offending, especially if one takes into account those offenses reported to the police, which is a choice of the victims, not of the police department.
	The great bulk of such violent crime is intra-racial, meaning blacks killing blacks, whites killing whites.
	The disparity is even more striking for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, which this chart doesn't measure since a crime victim can't respond to the survey, right?
	And as you can't get a report from a victim who's dead.
	When the race of the offender was known, 55.9% were black or African-American, 41.1% were white, 3.0% were other races.
	Many homicides are unsolved, of course.
	And there is the risk of race-based investigation and enforcement.
	But again, this is the best data we have.
	It's consistent with victim demographics.
	It's clear that blacks are disproportionately likely to be murder victims.
	And the broadly accepted view that the overwhelming majority of homicide is intra-racial within race, black on black.
	Naturally, this reflects aggregated statistics.
	A great majority in all racial groups don't commit violent crimes.
	Even the aggregate data may differ from place to place.
	This doesn't tell us about property crimes other than robbery, which is classified as a violent crime because it involved person-to-person confrontation, because it's so hard to approximate the true rate of offense commissioned there.
	Most such property crimes are unwitnessed, so it's hard to gather survey data.
	Again, I'd love to hear other data.
	Still, the best data I know suggests that.
	Black-on-black violent crime is not a myth.
	Blacks and whites generally commit violent crimes at substantially disparate rates, and for homicides, sharply disparate rates.
	And, as best we can tell, The disparity in arrest rates for violent crimes is pretty close to the disparity in crimes that are committed, and especially crimes that the victims report to the police.
	The disparity in arrest rates for violent crimes is pretty close to the police.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	- Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, "This is a drill, this is a drill," on bull hoards during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - I love you.
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	and we must fight back.
	You can torture us and bomb us Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us! - Good evening.
	- Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution.
	Radio.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns and pose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Well, here's where things...
	Go ahead.
	Here's where things get a bit more philosophical.
	For those of you who have not downloaded and read it, I really encourage you to check out my thinking about conspiracy theories, 9-11 and JFK.
	I use really JFK as an introduction to 9-11.
	Here's the abstract.
	Again, you can download this from the Internet for free.
	Thinking about conspiracy theories.
	The phrase conspiracy theory harbors an ambiguity since conspiracies are widespread and theories about them need not be mere speculations.
	The application of scientific reasoning in the form of inference to the best explanation applied to the relevant evidence Establishes that the official account of the events of 9-11 cannot be sustained.
	Likelihood measures of evidential support establish that the WTC was brought down through the use of controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757.
	Since these hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to null, Because they are not even physically possible.
	Assuming that sufficient evidence has become available and settled down.
	These conclusions not only provide better explanations for the data, but are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
	It begins with conspiracy theories.
	We need to come to grips with conspiracies.
	Conspiracies are as American as apple pie.
	All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends.
	When two guys knock off a 7-Eleven store, they are engaged in a conspiracy.
	Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton, as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq.
	Insider trading is a simple example.
	Since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information, ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as conspiracies.
	The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9-11.
	One fascinating aspect of 9-11 Is that the official story involves collaboration between some 19 persons in order to bring about illegal ends, and this obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory.
	When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9-11, that obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory, too.
	But what matters now Is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9-11, both of which qualify as conspiracy theories.
	It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a conspiracy theory in favor of the other.
	The question becomes.
	Which of two conspiracy theories is more defensible?
	There are lots of important aspects of this article.
	And I really encourage you all To download and read it.
	Study this.
	You will greatly strengthen your ability to deal with issues involving conspiracy theories and to rebut, if not outright refute, attacks on conspiracy theorizing.
	Because, frankly, you can't figure out what's going on in this day and age if you don't engage in theorizing about the alternative possibilities.
	And since they almost always involve collaboration between two or more individuals, they almost always involve conspiracies.
	In composing this article, which was, of course, authored a few years ago, I went through at that current edition of the New York Times.
	And on every single page there was an article that could not be understood if you didn't appreciate it was dealing with a conspiracy.
	Now it also involves a bit of technical language.
	The measure of likelihoods really is a.
	A likelihood is the word for the probability of evidence if an hypothesis were true.
	So you want to look at that.
	What's the probability of the evidence that?
	19 Islamic terrorists.
	Of the evidence that half a dozen or more of these guys turned up alive and well the following day and make contact with the British media if the official narrative.
	Is true.
	And that's where you get to this probability versus null.
	Probability of zero is still consistent with happening incredibly rarely.
	Probability of null means it can't possibly happen.
	What can't possibly happen?
	That 19 Islamic terrorists turned up alive and well and made contact with the British media if they died in suicide attacks, crashing airplanes into the Twin Towers of the Pentagon or at Shakespeare.
	Null!
	It's like the approach of the Boeing 757 to the Pentagon.
	It turns out that At the speed of 400 miles plus, that aircraft, because of what's known as downdraft or ground effect, could not have got closer than 60 or even 80 feet to the ground, meaning it's not even aerodynamically possible that the official account should be true.
	So if the question becomes, you know, given That it's aerodynamically impossible for a Boeing 757 to skim the ground at over 400 miles an hour.
	What's the probability of the official narrative of the account on the Pentagon?
	No!
	Zilch!
	It's preposterous!
	This is where this article of mine will help you to think things through more precisely.
	Look, it's going to be a bit of an effort.
	Read it through and absorb as much as you can.
	I don't expect.
	Everyone's gonna get it all first read, but I'm telling you, it'll be a great asset now.
	You wouldn't have any reason to know.
	But I'm an expert in the meaning of the word probability and its various interpretations.
	Uh.
	I'm among the very few who, at an undergraduate level, wrote an undergraduate thesis because that was an expectation at the time of Princeton when I graduated in 1962.
	I served four years in the Marine Corps, returned to undergraduate school at Indiana in the history and the philosophy of science, wrote my master's degree on the meaning of probability, differentiating between two different interpretations of
	Propensity, the interpretation of probabilities as propensities or as causal tendencies, and whether the causal tendency was a tendency to bring about a relative frequency or a tendency to bring about an outcome on a single trial.
	And I explained why the propensity to bring about on a single trial Is the right view, although there's ambiguity in the original author of the theory, Karl Popper, whom I admire beyond words.
	But that once you have a propensity for a single trial.
	Clearly understood conceptually, then all the apparatus that traditional statistical reasoning applies because traditional statistics.
	Is based upon the concept of.
	Independently identically distributed random variables, IIDRV.
	Now that's one maybe most of you have never even heard of.
	That is the basic concept of statistics.
	Independent identically distributed random variables.
	But the point is, we're talking about single cases.
	If you can properly analyze single cases, then you can understand short runs or finite sequences as repetitions of single cases and long runs, which are viewed as infinite.
	A lot of modeling and statistics is based upon a relative frequency theory or a limiting frequency theory of finite or infinite sequences of outcomes.
	I'm talking about Flip some coins and getting heads, determining sex, getting male or female.
	This day, the Democrats would have a hard time with that, as absurd as it becomes.
	Plane crashes with, you know, survivors, blah, blah, blah.
	You got relative frequency.
	Well, the question becomes, what were the Relevant conditions that determine the outcome on each single case.
	So that's an area where I've done massive research.
	So there are several paragraphs here in my piece on thinking about conspiracy theories that deal with this very important point.
	A better grasp of probabilistic reasoning falls from distinguishing between two kinds of probabilities as properties of the world.
	The first is relative frequencies, which simply represent how often things of one kind occur in relation to things of another kind.
	This includes averages of many different varieties, such as the average grade on a philosophy exam in a course on critical thinking.
	The second is causal propensities.
	Which reflect how strong the tendency are for outcomes of certain kind to be brought about under specific conditions.
	Frequencies are brought about by propensities, which may differ from one case to another.
	When the class averages 85 on the first exam, that does not mean every student scored 85 on the exam.
	It might even be the case that no student actually had that score.
	But each student's own score was an effect of his propensity to score on that exam, to win.
	His propensity to give certain answers to certain questions.
	And by the way, I didn't quite complete.
	So I not only did an undergraduate thesis, but I did a master's thesis on the meaning of probability.
	Then my dissertation in 1970 was on the relationship between probability and explanation, where I explained to have an adequate theory of scientific explanation.
	It has to be based upon the single case propensity theory of probability.
	It can be easy to confuse how often with how strong, but some example for its home.
	Canoeing on the Brule River in Wisconsin is not a hazardous pastime, but.
	A 76 year old woman was killed on 15 July 1993.
	Which, when a tree that had been gnawed by a beaver fell and landed on her.
	The tree fell and hit the woman on the head, and she and her daughters paddled past it.
	The tree was about 18 inches in diameter and 30 to 40 feet tall, and stood about 10 to 20 feet up the riverbank.
	So while hundreds and hundreds of canoers have paddled down the Brule River before, And escape completely unscathed.
	This woman had the misfortune to be killed during a freak accident.
	It was improbable in terms of its relative frequency of occurrence yet, given those particular conditions, the causal propensity for death as a result of that specific event was great.
	When the same causally relevant conditions are subject to replication, then the relative frequencies of the result tend to be reliable evidence of the strength of the causal propensity that produced them.
	But when those conditions can vary, how often an outcome occurs may not indicate the strength of that tendency on any specific trial.
	We commonly assume smoking diminishes lifespans, which is usually true.
	But a 21-year-old man was confronted by three thugs who, when he failed to respond quickly enough, shot him.
	He might have been killed, but a metal cigarette lighter deflected the .25 caliber bullet and he lived.
	Once you appreciate the difference, three principles that relate Probabilities of these kind become apparent, namely that propensities cause frequencies, that frequencies are evidence for propensities, and that propensities can explain frequencies.
	But it depends on the constancy of the relevant conditions from one trial to another.
	Now, I'd encourage you all to check out Something I did back on 14 June of 2020 on a show I had then called The Conspiracy Guy.
	It began, as I recall, in May, but it might have begun in March and ended in November, in between March or May of 2020 and November 2020 on this show called The Conspiracy Guy.
	I did 65 shows, 65 shows.
	And one of those shows was the Second Amendment and the Politics of Gun Control.
	And if you go on to my blog at jameshfetzer.org and search for jimtheconspiracyguy.com, the 65 shows, you'll find I archived all of them there.
	You can find the link.
	Well, this one I highly recommend.
	Now, it includes data based upon, for example, The 2013 FBI Crime Report expanded data table 6.
	Murder of blacks and whites in the U.S., 2013, per million members of the murderers race.
	Whites killed by blacks, 9.83 per million.
	Blacks killed by whites, 0.77, and it was 77th of 1%.
	Whites killed by whites, 10.22 per million.
	Blacks killed by blacks, 53.94.
	So roughly speaking, blacks are killing blacks at a rate 10 times greater than whites are, than whites are killed by whites.
	Five times greater are blacks killing blacks than whites are killing whites.
	Five times greater are blacks killing blacks than whites are killed by blacks when blacks are killing whites.
	About ten times more often than blacks are killed by whites.
	And Black Lives Matter was protesting blacks killed by whites.
	Where, roughly speaking, blacks are killing blacks 55 times more than blacks were killed by whites.
	I mean, This is such a clear case of special pleading, of only citing the evidence favorable to your side and ignoring the rest.
	And this is a kind of data obfuscation, misleading, deliberate deception that is driving the Democrat agenda, that was behind defunding the police, that continues with all this effort to ensure Equity.
	They're claiming the disparity in the number of blacks who are incarcerated in relation to their population, which is because they have a higher propensity to commit crimes than the rest of the population.
	There's nothing anomalous about it.
	It is not inequity.
	And the idea of defunding the police is absurd.
	Here's another graph.
	Number of offenses proclamated by race.
	I mean, in every single category, the black number of offenses is overwhelmingly greater than the white, with the sole exception of liquor-related offenses.
	That includes property crime, drug abuse, larceny, theft.
	Other assaults, disorderly conduct, violent crime, aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, weapon carrying, possession, fraud, robbery, stolen property, buying, receiving, curfew, loitering laws, prostitution, and commercialized vice.
	In all of those categories, blacks are overwhelmingly committing more offenses per capita than whites.
	The only categories in which they're not the leaders are drunkenness, liquor laws, driving under the influence, where the greater number is committed by Native Americans because, as I mentioned before, Native Americans have a genetic incapacity to absorb alcohol.
	Here are more statistics.
	These were come from The New York Police Department, New Century Foundation published New York crime statistics for 2014.
	2014.
	Arrests for violent crime by percentage and race.
	Arrests for violent crime, shooting 75% black, 22% Latino.
	That's 97% of the arrests for shooting were black or Latino.
	Murder, 62% black, 32% Latino.
	That's again, 94% of the arrests for murder were black or Latino.
	Rape, Latino 46, black 43.
	89% of the arrests for rape were Latino or black.
	If New York City were all white, Rapes would drop by 83%, murder 91%, shooting 96%.
	Stunning, stunning, stunning!
	My brilliant colleague, Dr. Iwan, had the inspiration to superimpose a 2016 electoral map over a 2014 murder distribution map, and guess what?
	The murders are all clustered.
	In areas that are controlled by the Democrats.
	Why does that make sense?
	Because the Democrats are imposing gun laws.
	They're taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.
	They're creating free-fire zones for the criminals.
	I mean, this is so stupid.
	This is so dumb.
	We're having all these absurd policies foisted off on us that are harming us, harming us.
	So, when you have this Alabama senator saying that the Democrats are promoting crime, they are promoting crime in the name of equity.
	They're promoting crime in the name of gun control.
	They're taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.
	Why in God's name would you want to take a gun away from a law-abiding citizen?
	They're law-abiding!
	You want to take the guns away from the criminals!
	God!
	I mean, it's just insulting beyond belief.
	Meanwhile, this whole thing was initiated wrongly.
	Check it out.
	go all the back to George Floyd.
	Thank you.
	Let me just say that was the mayor of Minneapolis doing his best Robbie Parker imitation.
	That is so fraudulent, so fake, I can't believe it.
	I've done a lot of research on George Floyd, and the whole thing appears to have been staged.
	It appears to be phony.
	It appears to be fake.
	Here we have George Floyd being arrested.
	He's got a full head of hair.
	He's been arrested with his hands behind his back.
	Yep, when he's lying there on the ground with a knee on his neck, he doesn't have any hair.
	Suddenly, he doesn't have any hair!
	Here's a video when he's being lifted to be put onto a stretcher.
	You'll only be able to see this in the video version.
	But when you put him on the stretcher, he has no legs.
	He has no legs.
	How is that even possible?
	How is that even possible?
	Because they appear to have been using An African-American wind torso training dummy.
	I mean, it's just embarrassingly bad.
	An airway trainer, a torso airway trainer manufactured by Seven Sigma.
	Realistic facial features and skin tone.
	Realistic biomechanism of the jaw, neck, tongue.
	Supports 4,360.
	All fake.
	All fake.
	After this break, I'll take your calls.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, freedomsubs.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution. Revolution. Revolution.
	Revolution.
	Revolution. Revolution. Revolution. Revolution. Revolution. Revolution. Revolution.
	You are the only one who is here.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio.
	and now we return you to your host.
	Bruce, go ahead.
	Join the conversation.
	Hey, how are you doing, Jim?
	Good.
	Good.
	Yeah.
	That's good.
	Sorry about the Green Bay Packers.
	I kind of like them and Rogers.
	They came up a little short there.
	They'll be in it.
	They're in the playoffs.
	I'm quite sure.
	Well, we'll see.
	I'm more happy about the Badgers beating Northwestern handily when we have our new coach in place, Jim Leonard.
	Paul Chris got the boot after he allowed the Illinois to trounce us.
	It was our former coach Belima coming back and we only had two yards rushing.
	That was embarrassing beyond belief.
	Meanwhile, rush.
	Yeah, yeah, you got you got.
	Yeah, when you were on the Deceptive Show Saturday.
	Russ Winter said something that I found pretty interesting.
	He said that.
	Lewis Farrakhan was approached by the CIA or somebody to make basically become a gatekeeper and if they would leave him alone, if he'd only not touch on two topics.
	Do you recall that?
	I remember us saying that.
	Yes, I do.
	Yeah, and he turned them down and kudos to him.
	I mean, you know, Farrakhan may not be aligned with us on certain political matters, And he is aligned with us on most of them, including, you know, the JQ.
	But this is the first thing I look for is someone that they have, do they have integrity or not?
	Intellectual integrity.
	And so I've sent to you in your email, a picture from the 1950s of a nuclear weapon that was developed for the U.S.
	Army to use in the field.
	And it was shot out of a 120 millimeter recoilless rifle mounted on a jeep.
	And the thing is about the size of a watermelon.
	In fact, that's what they called it in the field, the atomic watermelon.
	Is that the Davy Crockett?
	Was that the Davy Crockett?
	That's the Davy Crockett.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah.
	And so when Richard Gage says, well, I don't even know if Michael Niepce even exists.
	And that's a direct quote from him on the last time he appeared on Michael Rivero's show.
	And Rivera himself said, well, if nuclear weapons were used, then we would have seen the flash and the whole of Manhattan would have been leveled.
	I mean, these are either the words of someone who has not even taken the time to look into it or they're intellectually dishonest.
	Well, well, yeah, you know, go ahead.
	My opinion, Richard Gage has been running a limited hangout.
	I mean, That's obviously a straw man argument because we're not talking about old style Nagasaki or Hiroshima moths.
	No, but see, they draw that picture in the mind of the listener, so they will discount the possibility, you know.
	So, you know, oh yeah, because you see the nukes on TV, they're massive, you know, tested in the Nevada desert.
	I mean, big, huge fireballs.
	And another thing, Gage also, he does point to the molten metal down in the basin under the dirt for weeks at a time after 9-11.
	Well, thermite is a chemical reactant, and so the mechanism doesn't exist for that.
	Now, if you had a slow fission going on, you know, like a China syndrome of nuclear material, now that will account for it.
	Especially if the steel has been radiated.
	You know, that's not something that's going to do.
	Absolutely right, Williams.
	Look, what you just said about Richard Gage is probably the single most discrediting statement he's ever made.
	Right there.
	Right there.
	That's just outrageous that Richard Gage would make that assertion.
	Well, he does.
	I mean, so have they responded to your offer for a debate?
	Oh, they're not going to respond.
	No.
	No, they're not.
	So no.
	Yeah, well, truth doesn't fear debate.
	You know, so if they're going to avoid it, well.
	Joe and I would Joe and I would rip him a new one.
	I mean, face it, Bruce.
	But look, you know, nanothermite can't cut it.
	I published three articles in 2011 with T. Mark Hightower, who is himself a chemical engineer.
	And we reviewed The properties of nanothermite, and it's a feeble as an explosive.
	It doesn't have the gas expansion properties that are characteristic of powerful explosives.
	And indeed, it has a very low detonation velocity where in order to destroy concrete, An explosive must have a detonation velocity of 3,200 meters per second or more.
	In order to destroy steel, a detonation velocity of 6,100 meters per second or more, whereas nanothermite only has a detonation—the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is 895 feet per second.
	And as I may or may not have mentioned on that occasion, Niels Herreth, who's an associate professor of chemistry emeritus from the University of Copenhagen, estimated that the amount of nanothermite required to blow apart a twin tower was 29,000 metric tons.
	I mean, this is so ridiculous on its face, how anyone could take seriously The nanothermite hypothesis, and this is where I became.
	I didn't know that fact at the time, but I had become disillusioned that nanothermite could do this so that on the Saturday.
	Of the Alex Jones American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in 2006, this is at the end of June.
	I asked Steve in the lobby of the, as I recall, was a Sheraton Hotel.
	Whether he still believed that nanothermite could do everything he was attributing to it, blowing the buildings apart in every direction from the top down, converting the building into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and when it was over, there'd be no residue, no stack of debris, as we had with Building 7, where we know from classic experiments, really experience with controlled demolition,
	That they leave a residue at 12% of the height of the original 47 floors, 12% 5 1⁄2 floors.
	That's just what we had with Building 7.
	But in the case of the Twin Towers at 110 floors, have they been controlled demolitions?
	And indeed, I use now the phrase demolition under control because these were not classic controlled demolitions, which had 13 1⁄2 floors of debris.
	Well, in fact, as Father Frank Morales observed, where he was from St.
	Mark's Episcopal Church and a first responder twice on different shows, I interviewed him.
	The buildings were actually destroyed, too, or even slightly below ground zero.
	And when Steve just said to me, oh, yeah.
	So, yes, he still believed it.
	I knew that he and I had parted ways.
	And the next.
	Yeah.
	Alex had invited me to give the keynote address, and the following day on Sunday, we had a panel discussion that was filmed by C-SPAN with four panelists and Alex moderating.
	We're all four panelists.
	We're members of Scholars.
	Steve is my co-chair and is a professor of physics from BYU.
	Bob Bauman, who had a PhD in nuclear engineering from Caltech and had been the Star Wars advisor to two presidents, Reagan and Ford.
	I'll have to go.
	Mr. Tarbley had published a brilliant book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA" and myself as founder of Scholars, where I talked about the top 10 reasons we know the hijackers are fake.
	Bruce, why don't you stand by while we bring in Paul and then I'll come back if you have further comments.
	Paul, join the conversation. - I'll have to go, I have to go.
	- Okay, Bruce, thank you, thank you, go ahead.
	Paul. - Well, I didn't want to chase Bruce off, so.
	Don't worry.
	So I would just say, judging by the comment section, and I know you may or may not care about the comment section, but people in general are kind of weary of the, you know, nanothermite and, you know, various other ideas of how the towers were brought down.
	But I was wanting to comment earlier what you're talking about with, you know, the state of Illinois and the idea that, you know, somebody, a trespasser could go in and they couldn't be removed by the police.
	And I think if you combine that with the, you know, universal basic income and maybe some, you know, also food stamps, I'm kind of liking that.
	That'll work for me.
	Can I also get maybe a set of car keys to go with that?
	I think they're onto something here.
	Yeah, and forgive your college debts and all that.
	I'm telling you, Paul, the Democrats are promoting such bullshit and they're lying about everything.
	I mean, it's just absolutely disgusting what's going on here today.
	So profoundly disillusioned and this is a guy who historically has regarded himself as a JFK FDR Democrat.
	I believe in the.
	Welfare state in so far as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation or programs that actually have benefited the American people.
	I at this stage of my life.
	Would not be able to make ends meet were it not for social security, so you know, I think those were well designed programs and.
	I do not believe this idea of a guaranteed income is a good idea.
	I certainly do not believe abolishing property right rights is even remotely appropriate, and it's really.
	Does represent an attempt to transform America into a socialist or communist state?
	I mean, I didn't used to believe that, but today I most certainly do.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, we're basically already there.
	I mean, when you look at what's going on here and in Europe for quite a while now, it's a deliberate design to displace us and replace us with You know, welfare dependent, uh, you know, nonwhite aliens.
	I mean, nothing could be more clear.
	I mean, there are some pockets, I mean, where I live, there's still a lot of economic activity and there's still a lot of job opportunities, but you know, the average job doesn't pay enough to, uh, to live anywhere on your own as a rule.
	I mean, there was a recent, uh, I don't know what you'd call it, a study or a conclusion, if you will.
	It was published right in the, in the newspaper that it would take about a $41 an hour job.
	To to live in a one bedroom apartment here in San Jose, and I guess I don't have to tell you that $41 an hour jobs are not that common.
	Scarcest hand state, yes.
	Yeah, so I mean like the raising the rents on purpose.
	The reason the price of food on purpose.
	Everything is it's it's war against us.
	We know who's making the war.
	And you know it's it's economic at the moment as well as of course the you know the the continual on onslaught of the.
	Of poison vaccines and, you know, poison from chemtrails and, you know, whatever they're putting in the water.
	You know, the bottom line is if you're not getting your water from a place that you know of, okay, and putting it through a filter that is pretty thoroughly vetted for what it can filter out, then you're taking a chance.
	I mean, this is the world that we live in, and they will, and they have, and they will continue to bring in these non-white third world people who are completely non-viable.
	I mean, I occasionally get glimpses of some of these people around here.
	Generally, where I'm at is a fairly expensive area, and you're not going to see a lot.
	But I do see foreigners all the time that I look at them.
	I can just go by looks.
	Sometimes when they talk, you know, it confirms the fact.
	But I can just look at them and say, what are you doing here?
	Literally, it's like, what are you doing here?
	Because they obviously do not belong.
	And so this is what we're faced with.
	Well, do you agree?
	Yeah, well, do you agree this is indeed the heaven strategy?
	You can put whatever name you want on it, but we know the Jews behind it, right?
	This is a Jewish war against us, and it's occurring in every country that they have control over, and they have control over most countries through this This banking system, right?
	And when you, and I know you don't spend the kind of time that I or other people do, but when you actually listen to some of the translated speeches of Hitler and some of the other National Socialists, I mean, you can, you can read what multiple people wrote about at the time, as well as now in retrospect, authors that have written books, you know, it's clear exactly what they were doing then and what they're continuing to do now.
	I mean, communism won the Second World War.
	You know, nationalism, self-determination for an ethnic group or racial group lost.
	Yeah, I think the idea of trying to denigrate nation states is ridiculous.
	And obviously it's gone on a pace with the formation of the European Union.
	I think that was a big mistake.
	You had all these individual, very distinctive nations with wonderful cultures and histories.
	that have all been subordinated into this larger unit for the sake of having a common currency.
	I mean, that's a banker's desideratum, to not have to translate one currency into another.
	And the bankers would like there to all be universal digital currency that would allow them to control every aspect of our lives.
	And Biden appears to be wanting to move forward with that.
	Now you know Biden.
	I said, you know Biden doesn't do or say anything of importance.
	I mean, I know it's a name we get to throw out there.
	Well, Paul, I spent the first part of the, you know, show talking about that.
	So yeah, of course I agree.
	Yeah.
	I know.
	I know it's hard.
	It's easy to, no, let's rephrase that.
	It's not easy to give up, you know, the terms that we're used to throwing around, such as the Democrats or, You know, these people like Biden and Pelosi, but as we know, they're nothing.
	But I'm oppressed to say it again, desideratum.
	I've heard it before.
	Desideratum, yeah, that which is desired, really criteria, you know, desideratum, singular, the primary objective or goal of something, you know, what you're trying to accomplish by a certain move.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Like Criterion versus Criteria, you know, the measure or standard for evaluating something and Criterion turned out to be all extremely important in assessing what's going on and how to sort it out.
	Okay, well, like I was going to say, I've seen the word in print, and I would have had to look it up for a precise definition, but okay, nicely done.
	Sure.
	The other quick correction is it's Tommy Tuberville.
	It's not Tuberville.
	Oh, Tuberville.
	Tuberville.
	Okay, good, good.
	Yeah, he used to be the head football coach at Auburn.
	Oh, did he?
	Auburn's been pretty good.
	Auburn's been pretty good.
	When he was there, they had some good teams, but then they had a couple of losing seasons or not up to performance, so they fired him.
	I actually remember at the time, because I used to keep up more with sports and so forth, and there was an article in one of the papers online talking about what it cost Auburn University to fire him.
	Because a lot of these coaches have contracts.
	I'm sure now it's way worse, but at the time I believe he was going to make $200,000 or $300,000 a month for a couple of years just to get fired.
	Paul, Chris's settlement was $11 million.
	We got Brian from Missouri.
	Brian, join the conversation with me and Paul.
	Right.
	First thing, yeah, can you hear me?
	Yes.
	Hello?
	Yeah, we hear you.
	Okay, no, I was gonna say I got on Raw Deal today, or, you know, I saw the picture of Zelensky in a song with his buddy, you know, I told you about that the other day, so it made me laugh.
	I thought to myself, I was gonna ask you if that's your new screensaver.
	You got onto my Bitchute channel, Jim Fetzer, where I did a show with Yeah, because I was the one that called you guys in and told you about it, and then you were looking at it on the Internet.
	So anyway, it made me laugh.
	For the cover, yeah.
	Yeah, because I was the one that called you guys in and told you about it, and then you were looking at it on the Internet.
	So anyway, it made me laugh.
	So anyway, what I wanted to point out is when you're talking about all this stuff with the bankers, if you look at Hitler's 25-point plan that was published February 24th, which was the same if you look at Hitler's 25-point plan that was published February 24th, which was the same day as the invasion in Ukraine about 100 years earlier, it's no coincidence I mean, it just blows your mind because
	If everything on that plan was put into place for us, there would be no problems.
	The problems would be over, and I found it interesting on that article from Veterans Today, of course, the Rothschild bankers finance the Nazi party and who they wanted They didn't want Hitler.
	They wanted Calgary as a Calgary plan to lead the Nazi party.
	So that was just to me fascinating.
	Just think of the mess that would have made of things in Germany back then.
	So that's all I had to say.
	Well, what's your take on how things are shaping up for the midterm, Brian, before you go?
	Well, I'm the one that is of the opinion that we're in this 26,000-year cycle relationship.
	We're coming into the age of Aquarius and it's always darkest before the dawn.
	And I think that no matter what the dark do, it's going to blow up in their face and that we're going to have our freedom.
	They're going to be overthrown.
	And we'll get into the next cosmic cycle of 26,000 years.
	They've prevented that.
	Jim, I think you're demigod level.
	You'll be a full-blooded god when that happens.
	So there you go.
	You've got something to look forward to.
	And if I knew Paul's last name, I would be able to figure out who he is.
	I suspect he's in the same category because His natural way of knowing the truth tells me that he's a pretty high being as far as his soul level.
	So anyway, that's what I have to say.
	Well, I'm sure he appreciates even if he may differ about what we have to come.
	Paul, you want to give your reflections on where things stand now?
	Well, no, thanks.
	Thanks for the compliment, Brian.
	And I don't know anything about I don't know anything about what you claim to know about with these cycles, but I don't have any, shall we say, false hopes for what may or may not come.
	I think it's ultimately going to be dependent upon the actions that men take in this realm, as it seems to have been in the past.
	All right, I think it's up to us.
	We have to figure it out.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	because we can't put our faith in so-called leaders, as I think everybody would agree.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	Brian, any further comment you'd like to make?
	No, I agree that we will overthrow these bad leaders and it'll be a ground-up thing.
	AND I THINK WE HAVE BEEN We will somehow get the job done.
	There's just too much light flowing in here now.
	That's why they've been exposed in so many ways.
	Think about it.
	Ten years ago, how many people knew the things that are out there now?
	So it just shows that there are things happening.
	But yeah, Paul, it won't happen from them.
	I want to mention before we part today, I'm undertaking a new endeavor.
	I've been encouraged to do this.
	It's called AllThingsReconsidered.tv.
	AllThingsReconsidered.tv.
	It's a series of discussions that are more personal.
	Here's a description given.
	All Things Reconsidered TV is James Fetzer's membership channel for those seeking more information about the events that are changing our world, from the most recent geopolitical to the real story behind those events in American history.
	As a member, you can also take advantage of member-only classes where Jim offers courses on recognizing false flag events like the 9-11 event, Logic and critical thinking.
	I will feature special guests, private member documents, and collections of articles as extras.
	Anyone who wants to check it out, visit allthingsreconsidered.tv.
	I'm doing a two-hour special.
	I call them blog fest, Sunday blog fest, discussing these issues.
	Stuff that may be, you know, going further than would be appropriate on so many of the other programs I do.
	I think if you check it out, you might find it a value.
	Paul, I want to say how much I do appreciate your coming on the show as such a regular.
	You invariably have valuable things to contribute, even when I disagree.
	I like having your contributions and value them greatly.
	Well, thanks.
	As I said many years ago, at this point, I guess one of the main reasons I like to come on is social, you know, just to maintain contact.
	I think I've pretty much said it all.
	Don't you feel like sometimes you've said it all already, Jim?
	Well, there seems to be always, always something new.
	You know, it's amazing.
	And it may be even more revolting than what we've dealt with in the past.
	And there are those who write and say how much they appreciate maintaining their sanity by discovering there are others who are looking at these matters in the same way as are they, even though their family and friends are bought into the official narratives with which we're surrounded.
	Meanwhile, let me encourage everyone, spend as much time as you can with your family, your friends, your loved one.
	Literally, we do not know how much time we have left.
	I'm following my own advice and I encourage you to do so too.

▲