Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 10, 2024 - Jim Fetzer

01:49:46

The Raw Deal (10 May 2924) with Michael Ivey

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Professor, you're a host on The Raw Deal right out here on RBN, right here on Revolution Radio this 10th day of May, where I apologize for the late.
	I was distracted last and they had a project going that I overlooked a time loss.
	Here we go.
	Douglas MacGregor.
	Russia's angry because the U.S.
	is conducting drills that are too close to its border.
	Very serious escalation coming from the truth seeker.
	The Ukrainian army is actually in worse condition today than, let us say, the British Expeditionary Force in 1940 on the beaches of Dunkirk.
	Some of your viewers will understand what I'm talking about.
	The war is lost.
	It's not a question of it's losing.
	It's been lost for a long time.
	The Russians have chosen to exercise restraint in the hope that wiser heads would prevail in the West and there would be some sort of discussion leading to a ceasefire and then eventually a settlement that would be signed on by at least the states in Eastern Europe In other words, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, and perhaps Washington.
	That has not materialized, and so the Russians have now finally said, after a long and muddy and cold winter, seeing the Ukrainians in complete disarray, they are now moving west.
	And we know that they are very definitely going to roll up the territory From where they are now to the Dnieper River.
	I don't think they have much choice because we made it very clear we will not negotiate.
	We will not discuss anything.
	We will not talk with them.
	That means that they've got to make provisions to accomplish all of their original goals, which was to consolidate control of the territory, which is historically Russian.
	That means from Kharkov to Odessa.
	But now they have to consider the very high probability that they'll have to go into Kiev and root out whatever is left of the Criminal regime in Kiev that has been our puppet throughout this operation.
	Now, having said all of that, there's something else at play now, and that is that imagine if the British had taken whatever forces it had left and thrown all of them into the fight While their army was standing on the beaches at Dunkirk.
	Well, it wouldn't have changed anything.
	The Germans would have simply rolled up and killed everybody or taken the prisoner.
	Wouldn't have worked.
	Well, we're in a same picture position right now with regard to the Ukrainians.
	We're now throwing in everything in a last ditch effort based more on hope than reality.
	That somehow or another, it's going to make a difference.
	And the difference it's going to make is as follows.
	If these long range strike weapons, remember, we've talked about the Taurus, we've talked about the shadow strike, there are all sorts of different weapon systems out there belonging to the British, the French and the Germans.
	If those are actually used against Russian targets on Russian territory, and they kill Russian citizens, whether or not they're in uniform, Russia has stated very clearly they reserve the right to treat France, Germany, Britain, anybody else who contributes to this as a co-belligerent.
	Now, you asked the question, what can the Russians do?
	Well, I think you have to understand that the Iskander missile and other systems like it have the capability of striking targets from, I would say, Spitsbergen, up near the Arctic Circle, all the way to southern Portugal.
	So, they have a rich target set for which to choose.
	They have no shortage of missiles.
	Now, their preference would be not to do that.
	But the British have made it very clear that they are resisting reality.
	Sometimes I think the British and the French are both lost in a world that doesn't exist.
	They fancy that this is 1854, and they're dealing with a crisis in the Crimea, and that Russia is backward and incapable of really responding, which was almost true in 1854.
	And the Russians ultimately Abandoned their efforts to move further west and gave up on the war in Crimea, largely because they had no means of supplying Crimea and their forces that were there.
	Well, that's not true anymore.
	Russia is a modern scientific industrial power with an abundance of resources and endless production capability when it comes to military equipment.
	It now has the largest and arguably the best battle-hardened army Anywhere in the world.
	And to this must be added their rocket forces, their strategic forces, their aircraft, manned and unmanned.
	All of these are in a very high state of readiness.
	And the final point is this.
	The Russians have always said that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but the Russians are watching us.
	And they have slowly but surely begun to convince themselves that we're serious about invading Ukraine.
	They see forces gathering in places like Poland and Lithuania, as well as down in Romania and in Moldova.
	They say, these people are crazy.
	What do we do?
	How do we warn them off?
	How do we persuade them that we are indeed serious?
	One of those ways is to make it abundantly clear that the warheads can go very quickly from conventional warheads to nuclear warheads.
	Now, we say a tactical nuclear weapon, we usually are referring to something that's five kilotons or less.
	Russia has made it clear this is our territory.
	In other words, the territory in East Ukraine they control right now is part of Russia.
	And oh, by the way, we will not tolerate anything.
	And so you get these very straightforward statements by Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as by Medvedev and others, Making it abundantly clear, you are now on very dangerous ground.
	If this continues, we will begin probably, begin with NATO bases, that is British and French concentrations on the continent, but we will not stop there.
	We will actually consider striking positions in the British Isles as well as in metropolitan France.
	So you had better figure this out and get out of the way or we're going to attack.
	Now, you know, The French have already lost seven soldiers, they announced that.
	President Xi visited recently with Macron.
	After the meeting, Macron began to walk back some of his more ridiculous statements about what France was ready to do in Ukraine.
	I think the truth is seeping in, but there are two places where the truth is not fully grasped right now that are dangerously out of touch with reality.
	One is London, and the other is Washington.
	And the statesmen, or the politicians rather, that control matters in both of those places, are not taking the Russians as seriously as they should.
	Because, you know, it's one thing for us to abandon our so-called red lines.
	Practically every red line that Biden ever mentioned, ATACA missiles, F-16 aircraft, any number of things, have all been abandoned.
	The Russians have not abandoned their red lines, and they've just given you a very good picture of what they consider the red lines to be.
	US, British, French, or other NATO combat forces and long-range weapon systems on the soil of Ukraine.
	That's it.
	Get them out, and get out soon, because if this continues, you will end up at war with us.
	And the Russians are prepared to fight.
	We are not.
	Yeah, I saw that Macron was walking back.
	Let me just say, Douglas MacGregor is simply sensational and I think he's got it exactly right.
	Let me report, we have even the blaze how he attacked and sent the U.S.
	instantly into the Stone Age.
	No phones, no computers, no cars.
	I mean, it could be done effortlessly.
	Most technology that would be knocked offline by the MP is supplied by China.
	The effects of an electromagnetic pulse are far worse than most Americans can imagine, a leading space policy expert has warned.
	But foreign adversaries like Russia and China are officially classifying the MPs outside the purview of nuclear arms treaties.
	Infrastructure, shattering weapons could be used against Western nation with little or no direct casualties, but they would be catastrophic.
	Base policy efforts and former Trump admin advisor Greg Autry told Blaze ZMP technology and its effects have been known for over 50 years.
	Here's an aside.
	Gen X is going to learn how to make a fire and sharpen spears.
	EMP is an electronic magnetic pulse weapon and it's usually initiated with a large nuclear blast, typically at high altitude outside the atmosphere in space.
	You basically detonate a nuclear bomb, it ionizes or charges atoms in the atmosphere and creates a large electrical field on the ground that can basically destroy all the electronics in a city or a wider area.
	We know this works.
	Because the Russians and the United States both actually detonated a lot of nuclear weapons in space, actually detonated a lot of nuclear weapons in space in the early 1960s, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis, to kind of show each other we could do it.
	A disturbing history of EMPs includes testing the nuclear arms off the southwest coast of Hawaii.
	This caused immeasurable effects in Honolulu, auroras in the sky, disabling portions of the electric grid, disabling radio systems in the city.
	The real worry for modern society is our vast reliance upon electronics.
	If somebody did one of these today, your phone would be a brick.
	Anyone with a pacemaker would drop dead instantly.
	Every piece of your electronic, your laptop, your internet, your router would be gone.
	Most of the relays in our power grid would be gone.
	There'd be no power.
	What makes that threat even more dire is the likely inability to replace some of the serviceable parts that would be destroyed during such an attack.
	Guess what?
	Autreyes rhetorically The people most likely to have sent that EMP to us are the Chinese, and they're not sending you any more iPhones or letting anybody ship them.
	Guess what?
	They make all our electrical transformers, or if they don't, they make the steel required to make the electrical transformers.
	There's only one U.S.
	company left that can make that steel.
	Electrical vehicles can be turned into fireballs.
	Well, every internal combustion car on the road is going to be dead because they all run by computers and electronic ignition systems.
	We are instantly transported into the Stone Age.
	He, Autry, described before laughing that in his book, Red Moon Rising, he joked, Gen Z is going to learn how to make fire and sharpen spears without the help of YouTube.
	It's going to be a really bad day.
	The fact is he's got it right!
	He's got it right!
	And what's going on here?
	Well, Ukraine is using drones to hit Russian oil facilities, in this case a record 1,500 kilometers away.
	Very bad.
	There's a list of what Rand claims the weapons that Ukraine needs in terms of missile shells and troops to win.
	That's absurd.
	They can't win.
	They aren't going to win.
	They've lost.
	They've already lost.
	Colonel McGregor has explained it.
	Meanwhile, even though Biden is halting weapons in relation to the invasion of Rava, the Israeli military say they already have enough weapons for the job.
	The Israeli military said Thursday it had enough munition for its planned operation in Rava.
	The comments came a day after Biden said he would withhold the shipment of heavy bombs to Israel if it proceeds with a major attack on the city's population centers.
	Bear in mind, the master plan has always been concentrate more and more Palestinians in smaller and smaller areas so they can be more efficient in killing, which is just what Donald Trump encouraged them to do during this absurd, just disgraceful phone call.
	With Hannity.
	I mean, this has transformed my opinion about Donald Trump.
	Let me replay it for you in case you missed it.
	It is so bad.
	Listen to Donald Trump.
	This is a guy who's supposed to be putting America first.
	This is a guy who's supposed to be anti-war.
	This is a guy who should be supporting the protesters, not threatening them.
	Get this.
	When you look at the anti-Semitism, the hatred of Israel by so many people, you go back 10 years, I mean, Israel was protected by Congress, and now Congress is just doing numbers that are unbelievable with, I think, a very, very small group of people within Congress, and it's got to stop.
	But we have to go back to the roots.
	We have to protect.
	We have to stop the anti-Semitism that's just pervading our country right now, and Biden has to do something.
	You have to get the job done.
	It's a horrible job to do, but they have to respond when they do—when there's an attack.
	A sneak attack, like on October 7th, that's so violent and such hatred.
	You have to clean it out.
	You have to clean out the cancer, and you have to let them do their job.
	And frankly, it has to be done fast, because this is not sustainable for anybody.
	The job has to be done.
	It has to be done fast.
	The United States has to get courage, and the United States has to speak up.
	Nobody knows where the U.S.
	stands right now.
	I think Biden is not on the side of Israel.
	And he's making a tremendous mistake.
	You have to clean up the terror that we witnessed on October 7th.
	But the bottom line is they have to be able to finish the job.
	You have to let them finish the job.
	You have to support them.
	But they have to do it quickly.
	And you can't let scenes like this.
	The head of Columbia should be ashamed of herself.
	The job that she's done.
	She should no longer be there.
	She should be absolutely ashamed because she let this take place, Sean.
	That any American politician should make such statements is outrageous.
	That Donald Trump should be doing it is grotesque.
	Jimmy Dore got it right.
	Trump used to be an American first guy.
	He's not.
	He's an American first occasionally.
	He's Israel first.
	And so people who are peacefully protesting in the United States, and that's what they're doing, they're peacefully protesting, Donald Trump is siding with a foreign country over them.
	And he says, do you think that the radical left lunatics that are causing all of the chaos?
	So you think people who are who are carpet bombing Gaza right now, the occupiers, the Zionists, they're not lunatics.
	They're not the genociders.
	This is amazing.
	Right.
	So do you think, hey, there are radical left lunatics in the country right now?
	They don't have any power.
	You know who have all the power?
	The radical establishment lunatics.
	Like Joe Biden, the Democrats, and the Republicans, who all agree on the worst of things.
	Just like he agreed, he just got in bed with Mike Johnson, Joe Biden, to pass funding.
	He supported that.
	Remember when Donald Trump used to go around saying, I'm going to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours?
	Yeah.
	Now he's like, no, we're going to fund it.
	I'm funding it.
	I still don't understand why they went to him at all with that.
	A guy who's not president that they have on trial.
	Hey, we need you to get on board with this.
	But they did!
	I guess to try to get some of the right-wing base to go along with it.
	Here's what he tweeted out on his Truth Social.
	By the way, he just got $2 billion more from Truth Social.
	I don't know anybody who goes on there.
	I had to go on there to get this though.
	Do you think that the radical left lunatics that are causing all the chaos at our colleges and universities Are doing so in order to take the focus away from our southern border?
	No!
	No.
	I don't think that's what they're doing.
	Wow!
	Talk about bending yourself into pretzel.
	Where millions of people, many from prisons and mental institutions, are pouring into our country, just asking.
	Well, I'll let you know.
	No, that's not why they're doing it.
	They're not doing that to take, so like he's trying to say they're running cover for Joe Biden.
	No, that's not what they're doing.
	They're actually telling Joe Biden they're not going to vote for him, and they're actually protesting Joe Biden's policies of supporting a genocide in Gaza, which would be your saying, Pop.
	So Donald Trump and Joe Biden now agree on all the most horrible things.
	And why is Ukraine getting more fucking money, too?
	I already knew he was all the way in Zionism, but Ukraine?
	And here's a Trumper who we've had on the show.
	This guy used to be MAGA, Jake Shields.
	I don't know, maybe he still is, but he says Trump wants to make protesting Israel illegal.
	They serve the same master.
	And he showed this.
	Stop the protests now.
	This is what Donald Trump tweeted out on his Truth Social or whatever.
	Stop the protests now.
	And he says they serve the same master.
	Now, there's nothing in there that says Donald Trump wants to make it illegal, except he does.
	Because he wants the cops to come in and crack their heads and arrest them.
	By the way, those students who are protesting over Gaza have nothing to gain.
	It's not going to help them in their business and their career.
	They're getting suspended now.
	They're getting arrested.
	They're getting arrest records.
	That makes it much harder to get a job.
	They have nothing to gain by doing this.
	I want to show you this.
	It's fun to watch Donald Trump piss off the filter class and stick his thumb in their eye from time to time.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	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.
	Freedom Substance dot com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio.
	Hey, everyone.
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	I'm calling in.
	I just missed.
	I'm calling in.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, The People Station.
	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. - Apologies for that late start and now we return you to your host. - Apologies for that late Apologies for that late start with live radio.
	This sort of thing does happen from time to time.
	Douglas McGregor is so good.
	I wanted to offer a substantial presentation he's made, which is, in my opinion, absolutely spot on.
	You know how serious the situation has become?
	Because it would be so easy to send the United States back to the Stone Age.
	Really effortless.
	Even a single duke exploded, just as was described there.
	The Blaze piece could do the job and render us really an inner society.
	We'd be devastated.
	There are even estimates 60 or more percent of the population would die as a consequence of an EMP.
	Not directly, But from starvation, another problem, because they wouldn't be able to cope with life.
	Now, I'd invited a dear friend and colleague to join today, Michael Ivey.
	He has a number of questions he's raised with me about philosophical issues, interestingly, some, of course, verging into theology.
	And I felt it would be very worthwhile for us to have that conversation.
	Before we proceed, however, Michael, if you heard the first part with Douglas MacGregor, that ought to be very sobering to every decent, morally responsible, rational human being on planet Earth.
	Yeah.
	Have you got my audio, Jim?
	I do.
	We can hear you, Michael.
	Yes, just fine.
	Okay.
	I haven't been able to activate my camera, so I guess we'll have to go without audio.
	- We're good, we're good. - Well, I didn't have any specific comments regarding McGregor.
	It is a very extraordinarily dangerous and heavy times that we live in, and I really liked all the things that Jimmy Dore said, too.
	I've heard you play that clip from that Donald Trump call-in quite a few times over the last few days, and things are just insane.
	That's the world we're living in right now.
	I guess they're allowing... Jimmy Dore is doing some really good truth-telling these days, and I guess they're allowing him to stay on YouTube because he does it in the context of a comedy show.
	Yeah, well, he's brilliant.
	It's like the Babylonia oven is more devastating and penetrating and it's assessment at what's going on gets deeper to the heart of the matter than the mainstream ever will.
	So I think those are very appropriate.
	Yes, I played it several times because it was a shattering experience for me to hear Donald Trump make those assertions supporting genocide.
	And given, of course, that he joined with Mike Johnson to abandon the brilliant strategy devised by the Freedom Caucus to withhold funding for Ukraine and for Israel until we had funding from the border, given how strong he's been at the border when he went with Mike Johnson to abandon that border condition, It was devastating for me, Michael.
	It's now clear.
	Trump's all in on genocide.
	He's all in on the Ukraine war, and he doesn't give a shit about America.
	I am distraught.
	Yeah, another one bites the dust.
	Another one of some pervasive hopes of something that might happen to pull us out of this situation.
	But yeah, it's better to expose that which is false Than it is to keep living with it in the hopes that it's not false.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Very nice.
	Nicely said, Michael.
	Continue.
	Further thoughts of yours about the situation we're in before we turn to these more philosophical issues.
	OK.
	The situation that we're in.
	Well, I guess everybody has made enough of the fact that the control structure Of what's happening in the world and what we've been calling the New World Order for the last 20 to 30 years is decidedly Jewish Zionist in character, and I think a whole lot of the world is waking up to that fact.
	Even in Jimmy Dore's show just then, that statement that he was making when he was talking about The lunatics in power.
	He stopped before he used the word Jewish or Zionist there, but kind of if you had ears to hear, that's what he meant when he said, I can't remember the word that he said, but something like the power structure.
	So that's a general comment I would have on our situation.
	I don't think it's as dire as it might appear at first, inasmuch as there are a whole lot of people out here who are of like mind and can see through all of this stuff.
	I think the COVID-19 pandemic had a big role in awakening a lot of people and With the first awakening, we saw it happen in 9-11, too.
	You know, there's everybody going along thinking things are fine, and then something like that happens, and a whole lot of it doesn't make sense, and so they start to try to figure things out.
	And I think a similar societal awakening type of thing is happening in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, although What it means is that this power structure who brought it to us is feeling more and more backed into a corner.
	And you know what happens when vicious animals are backed into a corner?
	They become desperate and do desperate things.
	Just as a little humorous aside, you know how you use Beatles music on your intros?
	Sure.
	For all your breaks and your shows?
	Yes.
	This morning, I was in my local large grocery store, and they started playing the song, Come Together, over the PS system.
	Here comes Full Flat Top, he come.
	And my first thought, I was looking at the butter or something, and my first thought was, are they going to play Fetzer's show in this?
	How nice.
	How nice, Michael.
	I love that.
	Yeah.
	You are a wise man.
	I've had many conversations with you and I've always been impressed with your thoughtful, intelligent response to issues.
	Today, I know we had some philosophical.
	I welcome your introduction of those.
	OK.
	Let me bring the audience up to speed a little bit with how we you decided to do this show in the first place.
	Everybody who follows you and who've heard lots of your shows know that you frequently refer to yourself as being agnostic or being an agnostic, you know, whenever other people's beliefs in God are mentioned.
	And the other day, this was about a week ago, I guess, I was listening to one of your shows and you, just off the cuff, made the statement, there is no God.
	And that immediately struck me as well.
	Wait a minute.
	That's not the agnostic position.
	That's the atheist position.
	So in the wake of that, we exchanged three or four emails about that and about those positions.
	And you asked me to come on today to discuss the topic.
	And with all the Heavy stuff you usually deal with.
	I really commend you for giving us all a break with this light and non-controversial topic.
	Wonderful, Michael.
	Wonderful.
	Thank God we get a chance to relax on your show.
	Yes, yes, there are many expressions that include, you know, the word God, like goddamn or, you know, for God's sake and whatever that don't actually imply one's belief in the existence of God.
	But it looks as though there I said something that would obviously seem to imply Believe in the non-existence of God.
	When I'm agnostic, it means I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I believe in the non-existence of God because neither are capable of proof.
	Now, this is a function of what is known as the Ethics of belief there was a british philosopher by the name of william clifford in the nineteenth century who address the ethics of belief and maintain that everywhere on every occasion with regard to every issue no one should ever believe anything for which they lack sufficient evidence.
	And insofar as my commitments are to logic, inductive, deductive, abductive, scientific reasoning generally, recognizing that the existence or non-existence of God as a transcendent entity exceeds the scope of scientific investigation, I'm obligated by my commitment to the ethics of belief to be agnostic.
	About the existence of God or his non-existence as a transcendent entity, that is to say as outside of space-time, commonly thought to be the creator of the world, sometimes attributed with properties such as being all-knowing or omniscient and being all-powerful or omnipotent.
	Though we get quandaries, could God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
	If he can do all things, could he do something that would impose a limit on his capabilities when he's supposed to have no limits on his capabilities?
	I've dealt with many of these issues philosophically, but you're certainly right to call me out if I had a slip like that rather than saying, if God does not exist, blah, blah, blah, rather than asserting or saying God does not exist.
	So you are appropriately calling me out, Michael.
	Continue.
	Yeah, okay.
	I've made some notes here, so let me read some of them.
	The term agnostic should, for better understanding, should be pronounced a-gnostic, like we pronounce atheist.
	The term agnostic means a-gnostic.
	Gnostic spelled with G-N-O-S-T-I-C.
	That being no knowledge, or in this case, no knowledge of their being or not being God.
	The subject is intimately connected with the central question of epistemology, which is what it means to say that we know something.
	And you mentioned earlier how people throw around the term God all the time.
	There are lots of words in our language that are mixed up with Many, or at least more than one, meaning.
	And the term God is probably at the top of that list of conflated meanings.
	There's the common everyday usage, going back to what it means to know something, there's the common everyday usage of what it means to know something, which in our current world is synonymous with physical sense perceptions.
	Knowledge based on your actual personal experiences in the world.
	So you know, I agree with practically all of what you said within the structure that you outlined there.
	One.
	Anyone has got to agree that one's personal experience is a way to know something.
	You can't arbitrarily restrict the definition of what it means to know something to what can be objectively or scientifically proven if the scientific method does, with the scientific method.
	Because if you did, you'd be ruling out our common experiences, like knowing the content of your dreams, or knowing that you love someone, or knowing intuitively that something is happening.
	Do you want to react to any of that?
	Sure, sure.
	I'll interject a few comments.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I'm an expert at epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science.
	I mean, that's by every criterion you could have in terms of publications, essays, being on editorial boards.
	I was for long an associate editor of the journal Synthes, which is itself dedicated to epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science.
	That's why I and persons like me can make a difference if they enter into a domain such as public discussion about 911 or JFK because we bring a background of forms of expertise not available to the common person.
	I mean, I won't recount all my qualifications for having that standing.
	But I think anyone who has reviewed the work I've done collaborative research because I know my own limitations and when I'm dealing with issues where I'm not myself not expert I bring in other experts.
	So I pioneered collaborative research by bringing together the best experts to study, for example, the assassination of JFK, the attack of 9-11, what happened at Sandy Hook and the like, with remarkable success.
	That's because the more experts you bring in together, the greater you reduce the probability of making a mistake.
	You tend to reduce it pretty close the more you bring in.
	My work with David W. Manning, MD, PhD, for example, on JFK, where David is the leading expert on the medical evidence.
	In our initial collaboration, David was on the verge of entering the National Archives to examine the Kennedy X-ray materials with the permission of the Kennedy family, and he told me he thought he'd find evidence of a second shot to the head.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you're straying way off base.
	No, no, no.
	Here's the deal.
	Here's the deal.
	Michael, Michael, I'm going to give you plenty of time.
	With regard to the fixation of beliefs, you know, look, you're being pedantic about the pronunciation of the word Agnostic as atheist, one could be particular about it, but it's commonly in use.
	The word is pronounced as agnostic.
	So while you might be, in a technical sense, correct, you're not consistent with ordinary usage.
	And this matter of definition, of course, we need to know exactly what is our conception of God to ascertain whether or not it might or might not be empirically ascertainable or testable.
	On the basis of observation, measurement and experiment, if you identify God as an old man on a mountain, say in Nepal, then of course, obviously, we could investigate, undertake an expedition to Nepal to determine whether there were or were not such a person, but that's far removed from traditional conceptions of God.
	And by virtue of God in these more traditional conceptions mean external to space and time.
	Wow!
	The methods of scientific investigation are restricted to space and time.
	Clearly, it's not the case that scientific methods allow us to determine the existence or non-existence of a transcendental entity beyond the scope of scientific research.
	Now, you come to issues about personal subjective experience.
	And yes, absolutely.
	An individual can know they have genuine love and affection for another person.
	No outsiders might infer from their actions or attitude in their speech, but no one other than the person themselves can validate, meaning those experiences that are subjective are non transferable.
	They don't attain objectivity because they're not inter subjectively accessible.
	If you take a look and say, you know, one of the reasons quantitative methods are so important is because.
	You can use a quantitative measure to ascertain and get reliability among different observers Who are looking at the same phenomena, the same data, the same objects, but doing so, you know, using the same methods and the same range of hypotheses, no matter their differences, religious, social, personal, sexual, whatever, they're going to arrive at all and only the same results if the outcome is truly objective, such as
	You know, when we talk about individuals being tall, short, the same height and so forth, when you have the qualitative language, oh, he was a tall guy, that's different than comparative language.
	Well, he is taller.
	You know, John is taller than Bill versus quantitative language.
	John is six foot four.
	That's why when you introduce quantitative measures, you can get a higher degree of objectivity and reliability intersubjectively.
	So the cases you're talking about, Michael, which I do not deny to be authoritative for the individuals who have those experiences, are simply not transferable to other persons.
	That's my answer in general.
	Your response, of course, is welcome.
	Yeah, I could have stopped you after every sentence that you just said and commented on, but you went through about a dozen sentences there.
	So basically, you're choosing to define knowledge in a certain manner, specifically having to do with whether it's transferable And you're associating a certain kind of higher validity to transferable knowledge than what I mentioned earlier as subjective knowledge.
	But I don't think I don't agree with that, that it has a higher level of validity.
	The transfer of knowledge is another way of saying that which most people agree on.
	That's simply false, Michael.
	You ought to know better.
	Just because a belief is widely held doesn't make it true.
	There might have been at one point a belief that maybe Lee Oswald was a loner assassin.
	That didn't make it true.
	If there's now a widespread belief that there was a conspiracy, that doesn't make it true.
	What makes those statements true is whether or not Lee Oswald was the lone assassin or whether or not there were more individuals involved.
	I can assure you there were.
	But the point is, yes, you're right in talking about the difference between the subjective and the objective, David.
	What I'm qualifying as knowledge is objective, and the term itself can be defined as beliefs that are warranted, both warranted and true.
	Warranted meaning that are supported by appropriate evidence and true and you are welcome to adopt a subjective interpretation that says if a person believes something themselves and it's true here sometimes we get this idea of true for them which I think is not quite right because we want to maintain an objective conception of truth but it's certainly the case that the warrants.
	For some beliefs are subjective warrants that are non-transferable and therefore they do not qualify as objective knowledge where anyone could verify or confirm their truth or their falsity, but nevertheless they can be 100% valid for the individual.
	This gets into the area of religious experience, you know, being affected by the divine, having interaction with God.
	I mean, they're persons who claim, you know, they've had a divine experience.
	And I'm not here to tell them they're wrong.
	I'm only to say that this isn't objective because it's not transferable.
	Your turn.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	I'm just challenging the idea that objective knowledge is of a higher order than subjective experience.
	Going back to some of the notes I made, this gets back to the term God.
	You Using the term God is not conducive to the development of a conversation, and as you said earlier, one's concept of God is very much at the heart of any kind of consideration or hopefully some level of understanding of that which is probably beyond the human mind overall anyway.
	The term God has been so muddied and even looked down upon, I find it more helpful to talk in terms of states of consciousness and a progression from illusion to reality, with God being defined as the ultimate or final reality.
	In that sense, you know, when you speak of God being outside space and time, I wouldn't say that.
	I would never say that.
	I would say space and time is within God.
	Transcendent is a good word in as much as it means that the ultimate being, the ultimate reality, transcends the physical world in the sense of the philosophical term precedes, meaning that it's a higher order of reality.
	It could also be said that the ultimate reality transcends the mind in as much as God is beyond imagination and conception.
	So, in that regard, one of the best metaphors for illusion and reality is that of the cycle of sleep and waking.
	The cycle of deep sleep, dream state, and awake state.
	Now let me come back to that a little later.
	So my point there is that when one is after a more sophisticated concept or approaching a concept of God, there are ways to do that in a metaphorical and allegorical sense, which has been used from time immemorial by beings who are on the earth.
	And when I say beings, I'm talking about people in human bodies, but whose consciousness has ascended to higher levels of consciousness, all the way to what is called God-realization.
	If we were born in India, for instance, we would have learned about states of consciousness, and we would have probably actually seen and been around human beings with states of consciousness
	Way, way different and way higher order, perceiving orders of being of the universe than what we normally call our human awake consciousness.
	So, these truths that are, I put the word truth in quotation marks there, in All the major world religions are almost always statements and metaphors, parables you would say, or analogies that were given by these people.
	Michael Alasker hitting a break.
	Frank, we'll be right back with Michael Ivey.
	Okay.
	You don't want to miss.
	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 Hordes 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.
	Come on!
	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.
	Revolution Radio.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
	And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
	Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing Unparalleled Broadcasting Excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	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.
	Michael, you were addressing higher levels of consciousness, especially found in some areas of Southeast Asia. especially found in some areas of Southeast Asia.
	Please do continue.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yeah, I started talking about how I think it's important to have as sophisticated a concept of God as is possible, or I want to say that is interchangeable with
	God is to me is interchangeable with the reality with a capital R like the final reality as opposed to illusion and many of the world's great teachers who have been of higher states of consciousness have tried to tell us that that which we think is real that which we
	Perceive as the material physical universe is in fact Illusion when compared to the final state of reality So we in our culture call that God and most people have there are lots of names for the final reality all over the place That and what I'd like to do is you know these people who?
	have this state or Higher states typically try, not all always, but they typically try to tell others who are of lower normal states of consciousness about their experience.
	And there, over the years, you know, they use lots of different kinds of metaphors or allegories, analogies.
	And there, in my mind, there have been Three great metaphors or analogies given over the history of humanity for helping us come closer to an understanding of God.
	And these are to be taken, you know, there's a Zen Buddhist story about these things that I'm telling you are like fingers pointing to the moon.
	They cannot be the moon.
	They can only be a finger pointing in the direction.
	So, the first of the three great metaphors is that of the Sun.
	And in this case, we would be talking about the metaphorical image of the Sun being the source of light on the Earth, and in terms of consciousness, being the source of all consciousness.
	Meaning, you, me, everything in creation that's conscious comes from The sun of consciousness.
	That's one.
	The second metaphor is that of the ocean.
	And they speak of the ocean of God in which we all live.
	And you could draw an analogy with fish in the ocean.
	Fish, even though they're completely dependent on and live in...
	The ocean.
	They have no knowledge whatsoever of the ocean.
	And that's analogous to our position with the state of God that we call the physical universe.
	But the best one, in my opinion, of a metaphor to understand God, is that of the dream.
	Every day, we go through a cycle of three radically different states of consciousness.
	And it's called the cycle of sleep and waking.
	And curiously, that cycle is common to every sentient being, all the way down to insects.
	There's a cycle of sleep and waking.
	And in that cycle, we have the deep sleep state,
	In which we're not conscious at all, we're not aware of anything at all, and then we awaken, but before we awaken, we have to go through a dream state, even if that is only for the fraction of a second, and going back the other way, from what we call the awake state, to the deep sleep state, we pass through a dream state.
	So, in this analogy, the entire creation is analogous to the dream state of God, the reality, the ground of being.
	Do you want to jump in right there before I go on?
	Sure, sure, sure, sure.
	Several comments.
	You have, in my opinion, shifted the definition or the concept of God you're addressing from Yes, I get it.
	Who would intervene or not in human events?
	He transcended a space-time.
	You said actually space-time is contained within God.
	That's, yes, I get it.
	Who would intervene or not in human events?
	I mean, according to most conceptions of God, there is an intervention.
	If you simply identify God with what you call the reality or the ultimate reality or even the totality of everything there is, then that is generally known as pantheism to identify nature with God, nature being the totality of entities within then that is generally known as pantheism to identify nature with Now, I don't know.
	I'm certainly not going to argue against the existence of the totality of things there are or nature.
	So if that were what one meant by God, then I think, you know, the argument is decisive, but it's far removed from the traditional concept that has proven so, you know, controversial historically, though widely believed.
	I had no doubt most of humanity has had a belief in a God, something like the traditional Of a very powerful force that can intervene sometimes, you know, supernatural in all cases, meaning having powers that far transcend those of ordinary human beings.
	That's our supernatural.
	Well, Michael, but the Greeks, many gods, you know, the God of war, God of weather, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	When you talk about higher levels of consciousness, Timothy Leary was into higher levels of consciousness in promoting LSD.
	And there's certainly those who have.
	I mean, I can assure you from my own experience, when you smoke good quality grass, a decent marijuana joint, it's very, you know, has the effects of making you more mellow, more relaxed.
	I mean, that could be called a higher state of consciousness, but I don't think it's quite what you have in mind now in terms of consciousness itself.
	This becomes very, very important because I've done a huge amount of research on computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and developed a theory of the nature of mind.
	Based on the Charles Esper's theory of signs, according to which what's fundamental to mental activity are the processing of images or effects or causes or symbols, things that stand for other things I'm talking about.
	Photographs of a person stand for that person, a statue, a painting, a diagram, a map, blah, blah, blah.
	You understand the way in which it resembles that, which it resembles.
	That's the lowest level of signs.
	Those are known as icons.
	Then you have cause and effect, smoke, fire, you know, heat, red bumps, elevated temperature, measles, strata, geological strata.
	Some of these signs, which are effects of causes, require experts.
	To interpret them, but then, you know, that others do not.
	Then we have symbols that are merely habitually associated with that for which they stand.
	That's why you have a painting of a horse looks like a horse, but it's not a horse.
	You have the dropping of the recent passing of a horse as an effect of a horse.
	And you have the word horse, which doesn't look like this for Like an animal that runs races and occasionally wins some just as in all the other natural languages we have different.
	Words that are habitually associated with that for which they stand.
	English, French, German, Russian, Baba, right?
	Now, in my opinion, those are the three lower levels of mentality.
	Iconic and then indexical cause and effect, which subsumes iconic because you have to be able to identify instances of causes and instances of effect based on resemblance relations.
	And then symbolic, which presupposes the two lower forms, but higher than that is what I refer to as transformational mentality, which is the ability to use reason, deductive, inductive, abductive to draw conclusions.
	And the highest level is meta mentality involving criticism using signs to talk about or criticize or critique other signs that's you know film critics use words that talk about movies, which combine you know signs of all these kinds and bring it about a fax that are supposed to convey the impression of something that.
	Well, in some cases might be real.
	You have spoken several times about reality and illusion.
	Of course, that's a classic philosophical issue with which I am very conversant.
	The problem is to figure out, you know, how you can sort out the reality from the illusion.
	I'm suggesting observation, measurement, experiment.
	The scientific method is the most reliable method for sorting out the difference between reality and illusion.
	And that is why it has a higher status or more reliable as a form of knowledge that appeals to subjective experiences of the kind that you have been highlighting here.
	Continue.
	OK.
	You mentioned two things.
	One was that it's my the way that I'm talking about and defining God as the ultimate reality in this conversation.
	is not the same as the traditional concept of God, and I totally agree with that.
	I would maintain that the traditional concept of God is not very sophisticated at all, and it helps anyone who's interested in this question to make efforts to understand a more sophisticated concept of God.
	The other thing that you mentioned was Timothy Leary and drug-induced states of consciousness.
	I would not identify those as being higher in any way.
	Those are different states of consciousness, but they are definitely different from what I'm talking about as being perceptions of higher states of reality.
	Michael, just to intervene, what's the criterion or measure of higher states?
	What makes one state of consciousness higher than another on your scheme of things?
	Mine is because each of these levels of consciousness presuppose the lower, and I've identified five, which I can, you know, articulate at great length with lots of examples.
	Perhaps you could do the same for your notion of higher and lower levels of consciousness.
	Well, the best I can do is to point to the analogy of the dream.
	What would you say is the measure of a higher state of consciousness being the awake state as opposed to your own dream state?
	How can you measure that?
	How can you say?
	You don't know that it's a higher state of consciousness until you experience it.
	Just imagine That if you were able to go into or awaken in your own dream state and be there talking to people, communicating with people that you love in your own dream state, and you knew it, and you also had your awake state while there, What would you try to tell those people?
	You'd try to tell those people that you love, don't worry about all of this.
	This is a dream state.
	This is illusion.
	It's what the Eastern religions refer to as maya for that reason.
	You want me to address that?
	The classic argument of Descartes, for crying out loud, was that the whole world, you know, of our consciousness might merely be an illusion or a dream.
	So this is a very familiar issue here in the history of philosophy, as I have no doubt you are aware.
	Sure, dates back as long as what we say Eastern religions date back.
	It may be, but the question here becomes in relation to concepts of God and the meaning of the word knowledge.
	I mean, we're going to have to be very specific about what we mean by our hypothesis that we assert God exists.
	To know which concept of God we're talking about.
	You're now referring to traditional as being very unsophisticated, even crude.
	But it's those traditional that are most widely held by humanity, which get back to that idea whether a widely held belief is therefore true, which clearly it is not.
	Well, I totally agree with that.
	Yeah.
	So why should you be asking for a definition of a higher state of consciousness That is just something that would make it more widely agreed upon.
	Michael, you've lost me there, honestly.
	You're advocating for a very sophisticated conception of God that is somehow, you know, very different than the traditional.
	You're calling it the ultimate reality.
	You know, I'm saying, well, reality can be defined as a totality of the way things are.
	The problem is to figure out The way things are so we know what is the reality of this is very close to the problem of illusion versus reality what you're suggesting you're strongly animating that these higher levels of consciousness by eastern mistakes or however we want to address them.
	And the word mystic, by the way, as a history tends to be that mystics claim to have some sort of access to the divine or God or to the ultimate reality that others do not possess.
	I'm just asking you, how do you Defend the claim that that actually is a higher form of reality rather than say Timothy Leary claiming a LSD induced experience is a higher form of reality too.
	How would you distinguish between the two?
	Well, that's a good question.
	Basically.
	One has to use one's intuition on that and identify if If you think that there might be people of higher consciousness living in the world, and you want to know about their perception and their experience and their consciousness,
	The best thing to do is to go to those people, not physically, but I mean go to them in terms of information, and look at them, look at their lives, look at what they say, look at what they teach if they're teachers.
	They might not be teachers, they might just be people living lives that are outside the norm, one would say.
	And there are lots of people like that on the Earth at all times.
	Now, there are also charlatans.
	So, again, you have to go to your own best intuition to ferret out that which is true and that which is false.
	Well, how do you know that your intuition is a reliable guide?
	Intuition is a notoriously variable property from person to person at the same time or for the same person at different times their intuition might change.
	So how do we know which intuitions are the right intuitions?
	I would say consistency with eternal values.
	If you think of God or define God as being the ultimate reality, That would also include the ultimate truth with a capital T. So being the truth seekers in the world as we are, we don't have to be limited to the world to seek truth.
	We can seek truth in our very existence.
	And that's where higher states of consciousness come in, is that if indeed they are Aspects or perceptions of higher truths, then those higher truths can be distinguished from falsehoods as they work out in a person's life.
	Like you might have a guy who's preaching that he's a saint and to be worshipped And on the other hand, he screws all these women that he brings into his circle.
	You know, that's a big tip off that that guy's not in line with your perceptions of higher truth.
	And again, there's no certain reason for that other than your intuition about what should be an expression of higher truth.
	To get some of the most basic elements of epistemology, distinguishing between truth and knowledge, truth generally is defined in relation to language.
	This is known as the semantic conception of truth attributed to the great Polish logician Alfred Tarski, that a sentence in a language L is true if and only if what it asserts to be the case is the case.
	Michael, this can be viewed as a, you know, a formalization of the less formal characterization of truth is correspondence to reality.
	When you are offering descriptions or characterization that correspond to reality, they are true.
	The question then becomes, which are the claims, the sentences in a specific language, L,
	That correspond to realities such that we're entitled to regard them as true and generally a coherent conception, the way in which all the available evidence coheres and hangs together is used as the criterion to offer a judgment as to which sentences in a language correspond to the way things are now.
	This coherence theory is dependent upon criteria for the way in which evidence is to be evaluated and hang together, including inductive and deductive standards, and most importantly, in my judgment, abductive standards, which has to do with calculating the probability of the available evidence if a certain hypothesis were true.
	In other words, supposedly, Oswald was a lone assassin at JFK.
	Then, of course, you'd assume that there would be three and only three shots, three and only three wounds from the back, and so forth.
	Thus, the probability, when you understand the available evidence, that Jaguars hit at least five times in the back from behind, in the throat from in front, in the back of the head from behind, in the right forehead and the side of the head from the front and the side.
	The probability Lee Oswald was the lone assassin, given that evidence, is zero.
	And the probability that there were multiple assassins, which you might initially have thought to have been remote, turns out to be very, very high.
	In fact, once you acknowledge shots from the front and behind, I mean, the day of the assassination of JFK, radio and television were just swamped with very detailed reports about two shots.
	One's a small, clean puncture wound to the throat.
	The other, the shot to the right forehead, both of which had been fired from in front.
	Such that later in the day, this is following the NBC report, for example, which went on for about six hours.
	Frank McGee was nobody's fool when hearing the reports dribble in that the FBI and the Secret Service had concluded there had been three and only three shots fired from above and behind said, this is incongruous.
	How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?
	And of course he had a ride.
	If you put together those two shots widely reported on radio television with the official Warren report, then you get actually a very good inventory.
	You get four of the five hits on Jack.
	That's just an illustration now of how the role of coherence.
	And I welcome your introduction of your alternative conception of coherence, Michael, because I don't think intuition, just saying intuition is going to solve any problems.
	I think it's going to raise more questions than it answers.
	You started that with saying that language has a role in this and the importance of language.
	And that was really up my alley when I was actually studying Western philosophy, because I got into Ludwig Wittgenstein.
	I was just going to ask you, when you said that in the first place, if you had ever studied Ludwig Wittgenstein.
	He's commonly attributed as the father of linguistic philosophy.
	Of course!
	I know quite a lot of them published on Wittgenstein.
	I mean, look, he had two works at Tractatus, which was really claiming that the world is a totality of facts.
	He made a lot of interesting claims later in his investigations.
	We have the linguistic turn that dominated most of Western philosophy in the 20th century.
	So I don't think there's any competent philosopher who is not Rather thoroughly familiar with the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein the point I was making if you want to formalize the meaning of truth.
	What appears to be the most objective way to do it is in relation to a language framework remember i said how symbols vary with the words that stand for things vary in different languages english french german etc so if you want to know whether you know the climate snow is white is true in english.
	And you need to seek to ascertain whether or not snow is white.
	I mean, that's a trivial example, but do a good investigation and research.
	You're going to find a lot of substantiation for snow initially falling, not after.
	Say it's been.
	Converted by dirt or other forms of alteration of color.
	Go ahead, Michael.
	You seem to want to resist the idea that language has a role here.
	No, not at all.
	Michael, we got a catch here because we also want to open the lines because this is such a fascinating subject, but you will have ample opportunity right after this break.
	We'll be right back.
	Okay.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back.
	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, Freedom Substance dot com, the number one listener supporter radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomsedge.com, the people's station.
	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 of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuke 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.
	Well, it's hard to imagine a more controversial subject than those we're addressing here, at Let me open the line.
	There you go.
	608-957-8727.
	608-957-8727.
	We do have a first caller on the line, but prior to bringing him in, Michael, I want you to have the opportunity for further response.
	Yours.
	Yeah, let me just finish up the thought I had when I Brought up Ludwig Wittgenstein.
	Back in my college days, I went to school in Vienna, Austria for a year and studied under a guy named Giza, Herr Giza, who had actually been in the classroom at Oxford with Wittgenstein in his youth.
	So that was a great experience, and that's why I got into him so heavily.
	But the point in my bringing him up is the point that Wittgenstein, relative to language, advocated that there were, in very poetic manners, advocated that there was a limit to the literal meanings that language is capable of.
	If it goes beyond that, what he called the world, like the world is all that is the case, It can mean something poetic or allegorical, but the type of knowledge it would convey or the type of meaning changes at that point.
	So I actually did, and to me that struck me, I had already read a lot of Eastern religion by that point, and it struck me as remarkably similar to Zen Buddhism philosophy, and so my My term paper for him was, not just the term but the whole year, was on the overlap, similarities between Wittgenstein and Zen Buddhism.
	Yeah.
	Very interesting, Michael.
	We have two callers now.
	Ericco816 was the first.
	Join the conversation, 816.
	Well, you're in my wheelhouse.
	You know, Jim, I was going to be...
	Who's that?
	I hear somebody.
	Yeah, anyway, I deal with this stuff every day.
	And it's true that there is no such thing as this reality is all illusion.
	I've said that.
	This time that we're in is part of that illusion time.
	And the way you increase your intuition is by doing Chakra Dhyana twice a day.
	I've been doing it for 10 years.
	And then suddenly, things hit you.
	Like when you had that Greg Halladon, you know, I just knew right away, well, this is Sir Walter Raleigh.
	In a past lifetime, he was Sir Walter Raleigh, right?
	You'll get things like that that you're not going to get with your normal intuition.
	And it becomes really powerful, okay?
	And then you start seeing things out of your third eye.
	Your telepathy gets really good.
	Like, you know, I've said, and this gets, where they'll block this program out like they've done in the past, is Lifetimes of Christ.
	He was the Prophet Muhammad.
	He was Queen Elizabeth I. He was Adolf Hitler.
	He was George Washington.
	He was Um, Joseph Smith.
	So if you want to talk to him, you'd say, hi yourself of Jesus Christ.
	Then you get all those lifetimes.
	And he's super powerful, but telepathy about rattles me out of my head.
	And I said to him, what's up with Donald Trump a few days ago?
	And he said, that's not Donald Trump.
	So in other words, the Trump you're seeing right now is one of the dark clones that probably has a rubber mask that they control, which suddenly I said, well, that makes sense because he just did such a radical 180 that it was good to have the ability to talk to these people and find out what's going on.
	So yeah, I deal with this every day.
	Brian, I appreciate all of that.
	I think we have Frank here.
	Eric, go to 518.
	Frank, join the conversation.
	Thanks, Jim.
	Jim, I come here with a Christian perspective, okay?
	Years ago, Jimmy Swagger, I know he went south, okay?
	He wasn't the greatest thing going.
	But he brought up a point where NASA, when they were getting ready to head for the moon, which we know they never got there, but he was saying that they had to run a program back and they kept running it back years and decades and then centuries or whatever.
	And they said they came up missing, I think it was a half a day or a day.
	And then somebody was saying, this was what Swigert was saying, if you go to the Bible in there, and there's a part of it where it says, God stopped the sun from moving.
	And it kind of kept things at a standstill for, I forget, I thought it was 12 hours, but maybe it was 24.
	Okay.
	And he claimed that that was the reason that NASA came up with that.
	Now also, I've got a point.
	What do you think about the Shroud of Turin?
	Okay, I know NASA looked at that, and they said they can't prove that it's false, and they can't prove it's authentic.
	What are your feelings about that?
	Are you familiar with that?
	Yeah, sure, of course.
	I actually tend to think the Shroud of Turin is authentic, but you know, When they do samples of the fiber, it's like from the 14th century for the cloth itself.
	But it's a very funny situation, Frank, because of all these phenomena, I tend to be open to the authenticity of the Shrouded Turret now.
	No one can make the sun stop, you know, the planets and all that.
	I mean, granted that people can believe these things happen.
	It's better to say God created, you know, the world and all its laws than to try to suggest God interferes with their conduct or operation, which of course, however, is technically the definition of a miracle.
	It's a violation of laws of nature.
	Which I dare say, in my judgment, cannot happen.
	Laws of nature are inviolable.
	They never change.
	But our beliefs or knowledge about them, that, of course, can change.
	I keep hearing Paul's voice in the background.
	Paul, are you there?
	Are you omnipresent?
	Paul, if you're here, go ahead and speak up.
	Otherwise, I'm going back to Michael.
	Michael.
	Okay, Paul's not there.
	All right.
	Well, let's see.
	I'm not sure what was just said to... You can address almost anything and be in the ballpark!
	Yeah, yeah.
	Something I would say is the question of God.
	We talked a lot today about what it is to know something in epistemology.
	But the question of God also not just overlaps, but it's like the central question of ontology, the philosophy of being itself, what it means to say that we exist or what existence means.
	Very few people would think that it makes sense to say that we don't exist.
	And yet our personal experience of existing is independent of any scientific proof.
	Our own existence is a fact that's so immediate to us that we think it's silly to think we would have to prove it to anyone or to hear any proof of it or to hear anyone deny their own existence.
	And this is the reasoning behind people saying You know, some people who argue for the existence of God would say, if you believe in your own existence, then you believe in the existence of God.
	Because if God is defined as the source and ground of existence itself, it follows that to take the position that God doesn't exist is to deny one's own existence.
	I presume you recognize the fallacious character of that argument, because obviously nature could exist with or without God.
	I mean, it's very clear that's a blunder.
	To make that argument, and as far as one's own existence is concerned, you're interacting with other people, you walk into walls, you trip over stones, there are all kinds of indications that prove to us our own existence.
	So I do not regard that as a serious question when you look at the massive evidence that coheres to confirm that you do exist, to the extent you do, because of course once you pass on, You're not going to have any consciousness of interaction and so forth with the rest of the world.
	Yeah, Michael.
	Jim, you're missing the main definition in what I just said, and that is, if God is defined as existence itself, it makes no sense to say that God doesn't exist while affirming that we do.
	Yeah, but Michael, you can agree that that's a trivialization of concepts of God.
	I mean, that's why I'm saying that's just a trite argument.
	It is not trite to say that God is existence itself.
	What does that mean, Michael, to say God is existence itself?
	What does that mean?
	I'm not sure how to answer that, but why should I have to define what existence means?
	Because you're making it central to the argument in this case.
	Look, Michael, ontology concerns the kinds of things there are that may or may not exist, and we can create all kinds of categories, and of course there are Also categories for fictional entities like unicorns and tooth fairies and Santa Claus.
	And the question becomes, in which category does God belong?
	Is a real thing like tables and chairs and skyscrapers and airplanes?
	Or does he belong in the category of fictional entities?
	And we can make the claim they all exist in one sense or another, but it's the type of existence they possess that's at stake.
	If you put God into any of those categories that you just mentioned, then you're trivializing and using a lower concept of God than I'm using.
	Yeah, of course, of course.
	Listen, Brian, did you want to come back?
	I gather, you know, you believe in this Is it not transmutation, you know, reincarnation?
	Obviously, you got, you got, you had Greg Hallett having ancient ancestors, Donald Trump, no doubt, virtually everyone you want to name, I presume, as precursors in terms of earlier incarnations.
	But most people, most people, Brian, are going to reject that out of hand.
	I mean, I acknowledge your right to believe it.
	But most would react, as I do, that that's rather far-fetched.
	Go ahead.
	Well, it gets even more far-fetched, because the way it works is the cosmic cycle is a 26,000-year cycle, and at the end of the 26,000-year cycle, the rocks who have God-consciousness move up to plants, plants go up to animals, and At that point, you reset.
	So in other words, your consciousness is actually demigod level, okay?
	Yours goes up to god level, and then all of your lifetimes reset.
	And for the entire 26,000 year cycle, all your births, deaths, everything are going on, okay?
	What The Dark have done, they've screwed up that cycle.
	It was supposed to happen December 21st of 2012, and you were going to jump up and be a full-fledged God-consciousness.
	I was, too.
	Okay?
	Well, it happened to me later because I do my kundalini yoga every day, and I finally got there.
	But everything was supposed to jump up another level of consciousness, and all those lifetimes affect you now.
	In my last lifetime, I was this Nazi wife hiding from Russian artillery.
	In my younger life and in college, I had to sleep in the basement.
	I always took the basement room.
	Brian, Brian, Brian.
	You're a very interesting guy because you have such complex, convoluted beliefs and we respect you.
	Frank, Frank, Frank.
	Give us some further thoughts of yours, Frank.
	All right, Jim, I'd like to ask you a question.
	You do believe in evolution, right?
	Sure, of course, yes.
	Okay, now you say sure.
	I remember about 20 years ago, they found this tooth, okay?
	And they said, look it, we got the link, okay?
	It's not human, and it's not a gorilla, it's something in between, okay?
	And then eventually, I think it was NASA went in, and they checked it out, and it turned out to be a pig's tooth.
	If these things were evolving, Wouldn't something die occasionally during this evolution?
	And wouldn't we find the remains somewhere?
	Wouldn't something like that come about?
	Well, I'm not quite sure.
	I mean, we have distribution of skeletal remains and fossils throughout geological strata.
	That's one of the basic arguments for evolution.
	You go back more ancient geological strata, you find more primitive forms of life.
	As you work forward, they become more sophisticated.
	But there are all kinds of arguments, including about morphology, to which a skeletal structure, say, of human beings, birds, lizards, and even dinosaurs is the same, with variations like shorter limbs, longer limbs, shorter legs, blah blah.
	I mean, it goes on and on, but there's a similarity even in the skeletal structure that supports a common evolutionary origin.
	But it's not that you have, it's that there's a common genetic tree at the background, not that all the evolved forms of life then turn into another form of life.
	That is not a proper understanding of the nature of evolution.
	And you don't have to have all intermediate species because genetic mutations are one aspect of evolution.
	I think far more profound is what's known as genetic drift.
	When you have a subpopulation of a population, I saw it geographically and responding to the pressures, having to adapt to the pressures of that geographical region.
	I mean, it appears all human life emerged out of Africa and then spread around the world.
	And the emergence of the different races was a function of genetic drift because these different subpopulations were responding to different Pressures and adapted the properties of the subpopulation that evolved were those that adapted to the varying circumstances of their geographical region.
	I mean, that's very rough and crude, but there it is.
	Go ahead.
	Well, why did it stop?
	How come things aren't still evolving?
	They are.
	Oh, they are?
	Okay.
	What?
	I'm not talking about species.
	Go ahead.
	- Jim, I'm not talking about species.
	Go ahead. - Stop Frank, stop Frank.
	What do you think all this business about migration is about?
	Because they're changing the population.
	It's immigration.
	First of all, it's immigration.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm sorry.
	We're talking about a different thing there.
	Go ahead.
	I apologize.
	Yes, Jeff.
	If you want to have a serious discussion rather than nitpick, that's one thing.
	I take you for your better.
	I'm telling you, we have all kinds of constant pressures about evolution, but now we're dealing with artificial evolution because they're introducing deliberately populations into other populations intended to change your genetics.
	So that subsequent populations are different than the original.
	I mean, that's why this whole issue of limiting immigration is so damned important.
	We need to get them out.
	It arises with Japan.
	Was a Biden admin saying Japan should take more immigration?
	Japan has a very distinctive culture.
	It's devolved through genetic drift in an island where they had the unique opportunity to develop distinctive characteristics of their culture that would be threatened with Well, I got to disagree with you there, Jim.
	I mean, you know, I think, I think Adam started this show.
	be polluted by outside populations.
	I mean, and it's being promoted by the globalists worldwide, but evolution continues to this day.
	Every time another offspring is born by any species, it's an extension of evolution.
	Well, I got to disagree with you there, Jim.
	I mean, you know, I think Adam started this show.
	Well, actually, I don't even know if he was the first one, but, you know, where do you Were you Amoebas?
	And then they got a little bigger and moved on and, you know, moved to the higher seas?
	Yeah, but I mean, you know, Adam and Eve is a wonderful story, but it's a metaphor, Frank.
	It's not literal.
	It's a metaphor.
	But we're going to have that discussion on another day.
	I want to go back to Michael as my guest here.
	Michael, give us further thoughts of yours about any of this or other ideas you'd like.
	Yeah, the subject of evolution could be a show in itself.
	While we still have time, I wanted to read a short excerpt from, you know, I mentioned earlier that there are always beings on the earth of higher consciousness, and they try to tell us things about it, and one of them In our time, it was probably the most significant lifetime that was lived in the 20th century, but people on this side of the earth don't know about his life very much.
	He went by the name Meher Baba, spelled M-E-H-E-R, Baba, and he lived until 1969.
	And the excerpt is from a brief address that he gave called Awake Dream State to Real Awake State.
	And it goes like this.
	In sound sleep, you completely forget yourself and your surroundings, your thoughts and emotions around which are arranged your ideas of imagined happiness and sufferings.
	But this respite is short-lived in sound sleep.
	From the sound sleep state, you come down to the normal awake state.
	And as you come, You necessarily pass through a dream state, even though it be for only a fraction of a second.
	Now, at one time, you have a very happy and sweet dream in which your ideal of happiness is fulfilled.
	But being a dream, it lasts only a little while.
	And when you wake up, you're pained so much that you sigh, what a pity.
	It was only a dream.
	At some other time, you have a horrible dream in which you experience great suffering and time seems an eternity.
	Then, as you wake, you feel such relief that you say, thank God, that was only a dream after all.
	In the dream state, you enjoy and suffer.
	When you wake, you realize that your enjoyment and suffering was nothing but a dream, an illusion.
	But I want you to know, this is Meribaba continuing, I want you to know that your present state of consciousness, which you call being awake, when compared to the real awake state, is nothing but a dream state.
	Your life is a dream within the mighty dream of God, which is the universe.
	End quote.
	Well, I respect your endorsement of that view, Michael.
	That's just fine.
	It is not mine, but I respect your right to those beliefs.
	Let me come back to Frank ever so briefly.
	Frank, did you want to add a further argument?
	Well, you know, I think what you're saying, Jim, I mean, evolution, you know, man has gotten taller, we're getting better.
	I mean, I think there's a lot of things that come in for people, you know, they can say, well, we evolved, you know, we were cavemen or whatever.
	And I don't doubt that at all.
	But, you know, as far as something changing from one, you know, That's right.
	one type of animal or plant to another.
	You know what I mean?
	If this was taking place for these billions of years, I still believe that something during that transition would have probably died.
	Just one of them, if they could find it, when they found that tooth, the evolutionists were going crazy.
	We got the link and then it was proven to be false.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Frank, Frank, they've even found, you know, feathered versions of animals.
	They didn't think existed yet.
	You appeal to the limits of what is known now, but they are constantly rolling back as more and more discoveries are made.
	It's been observed.
	Nothing in modern biology makes any sense absent evolution, and that's the bottom line here.
	It's the coherence of everything we know.
	It doesn't make any sense whatsoever without evolution.
	But there are many misconceptions about evolution, such as one species somehow turning into another.
	That does not happen.
	What we're talking about is common gene pools that evolve in different directions for different reasons, such as genetic drift.
	Brian, I want to give you another opportunity for a final word of yours.
	Go ahead, Brian.
	My final word is I was so upset I had to work Wednesday, and you had Sophia Smallstone back on, and all of this in a Well, thanks, Jim.
	relates to her because she had that Willendorf Venus figurine.
	And that's actually something ancient shamans used to get into reality out of this illusion.
	And I wanted to talk to her and I missed it and I could not get a hold of her.
	So I was really upset.
	So that's all I had.
	I'm sure Sophia will return on another occasion.
	Michael, I'm going to give you the last word.
	Well, thanks, Jim.
	That was a lot of fun.
	That's my last word.
	I appreciate your having this conversation.
	Well, I'm glad to have you here, Michael, and I do respect our diversity of views here.
	Charles S. Peirce identified four methods for the fixation of beliefs, the way in which people come to their conclusions.
	One is tenacity, just taking a position and never letting it go.
	This is like the government regarding Lee Oswald having shot JFK.
	James Files said to me, once a government takes a position, it's stuck with it and will never change.
	He's got it right.
	But that means the government isn't a rational or scientific organization that will change its conclusions based on the available evidence, but rather a political entity.
	A second is the method of authority.
	You cite what you take to be an authority and the authority determines what you believe.
	A third, It's something called agreeableness to reason a priori, meaning independent experience.
	I think it's pretty close to what you and Brian both would mean by intuition.
	And the fourth is the method of science, which of course I advocate is the most reliable of these methods.
	Perse, I recommend, is the only great American philosopher, many have thought they were.
	He was the real deal.
	I want to thank you, Michael, for being here.
	Ryan and Frank for calling in.
	It was an excellent discussion.
	Meanwhile, spend as much time with your family, your friends, and people you love and care about, because we do not know how much time we have left.

▲