All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:32:42
Victor-Hugo Interviews: Jim Fetzer (3 December 2024)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, this is the Maverick artist Victor Hugo reporting Modern Art Gonzo Journalism for the Modern Art Music Movement.
It is December 3rd, 2024, reporting from the former Soviet Union, Republic of Georgia, near the border with Russia, Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
My job is not to be politically correct.
It is to witness, observe, analyze, and document the beautiful chaos that surrounds us all, so that future generations can understand Welcome to my show!
And he will be participating in the False Flags and Conspiracy Conference that is coming up December 14th and 15th.
And you can log into that and participate in it.
Can you give the website for that?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is my fifth annual False Flags and Conspiracy Conference.
It's a virtual conference.
It's all through the internet.
You can watch for free in the comfort of your own home.
The URL, falseflagsandconspiraciescon.com.
So, falseflagsandconspiraciescon.com.
Cool.
And you can also find this information out on JamesHFetzer.org.
And if you go to the VictorHugoCollection.com, the homepage, you scroll to the bottom, you can find this information on my channels on Rumble and BitChute.
So today, what I'm going to do with the audience is you're going to have the experience of reading an article And then actually having the person who wrote the article there with you so that if you have any questions, you can ask the author who wrote the article.
So this is going to be kind of cool.
I'm going to take a page out of Jim Fetzer's book.
If you've seen his shows, The Raw Deal on Revolution Radio or Truth vs.
News, you'll see how he has the...
Or Authentic News on RBN Daily from 3 to 5 Eastern.
Authentic News Daily.
Oh, okay, cool.
And yes, and what he does is he reads articles.
But I'm going to read his article.
And what I'm going to do is I'm going to have him please interject with any points that he would like to make in addition.
And this is very interesting.
We've been having this conversation about...
Morality and ethics in this day and age where it seems like those people who are just trying to earn an honest living working three jobs sending their children to school and allowing them to be raised in these indoctrination camps and then still coming home and barely having enough to feed their children properly and living out of a car and yet it seems like those who have sold their souls to So,
before I start reading the article Jim, what made you write this article?
What inspired you to even write this article titled, Evaluating Moral Theories?
Well, there are a lot of popular beliefs about the nature of morality, most of which suggest it's just a matter of subjectivity, that it can vary from person to person or from time to time, the difference between right and wrong.
That seemed to me to be fundamentally misconceived.
And while religion is often thought to be the foundation for morality, actually, religion provides a motive for acting in a moral fashion, if indeed you believe in an afterlife, for those who have been righteous or acted in a moral fashion are going to be rewarded, and those who have been evil or acted in immoral ways are going to be punished.
But it does not define the nature of morality, for example.
If you look at biblical texts, Old Testament especially, it's littered with murders, sacrifices, genocides, and if those were attributed to God's will, as do modern Zionists today, for example, then they could claim that that's moral behavior because they're acting in accordance with God's will.
It's a question because is an action right because it's in accordance with God's will or is it in accordance with God's will because it's right?
That is to say, when the deity is properly understood, I myself, of course, being an agnostic, Have no reason to appeal to the existence or non-existence of a god, much less the existence or non-existence of an afterlife,
but that does not alter that we should act morally, do the right thing because it is right, and not by virtue of any potential reward or benefit we might thereby derive.
Jim, for those in the audience who don't know what agnostic means, what is your definition of agnostic?
Well, agnostic is one who neither believes in the existence of God nor Believes in the non-existence of God.
Now, of course, as a matter of logic, either God exists or he does not.
But an agnostic acknowledges that we don't have the intellectual, the cognitive, the scientific, the investigative resources to ascertain which is which.
And if you adhere to what is known as the ethics of belief, espoused by the British philosopher William Clifford to wit, That everywhere and always it is wrong to believe anything on the basis of insufficient evidence,
then you're going to adopt the agnostic position because you cannot have sufficient evidence for either proving the existence of God or for proving the non-existence of God for a very simple reason.
Human inquiry, observation, measurement, experiment, scientific, is completely restricted to the contents of space-time, but God is traditionally envisioned as transcendent, as outside of space-time.
So if our scope of inquiry is limited to the contents of space-time, but God is transcendent and beyond space-time, then we do not have the capacity to ascertain his existence or not.
There's those who want to make inferences from the way the world is to the existence of a creator who would create a world as it is.
Even David Hume discussed this, which would suggest that he's pretty powerful but not all powerful.
He knows a lot, but he doesn't know everything.
He may want people to act in moral ways, but, you know, he's left it up to them.
It's a pretty feeble concept that emerges that most would not regard as worthy of adoration, much less worship.
Have you always been agnostic, or is that something that happened at a certain point in your life?
Oh, I think I only...
I was never, it's interesting, my life, I was never exposed to religion, organized religion as a kid.
My parents divorced when I was young, and my mother married a childhood friend, and we lived out in a remote area in California called La Habra Heights, and on one occasion they took me and my brother Phil, my only full brother, though I have four other half-brothers and a half-sister, To a Quaker event on one occasion, and they asked me afterward, did I like it?
I said it was okay.
Did I want to go back?
No, not particularly.
That was my sole engagement in religion.
Until when I was 11, my mother committed suicide, and my brother and I were left with my father and stepmother, and they thought that it would be beneficial for us to be involved in the The youth movement, the programs where we were living in South Pasadena.
There were two programs in the community that were vibrant.
One was at the Congregational Church, which was only hop, skip, and a jump.
That's about three blocks from our home.
And the other was the Episcopal Church across town.
And they liked the Episcopal Church.
And we began going, and I participated in youth activities.
I became an acolyte.
I sang in the church choir.
I became the president of Young People's Fellowship.
I gave a lecture, you know, a sermon on Youth Sunday.
And between high school and college, remarkably, I was sent as a delegate to the 14th World Convention on Christian Education held that summer in Tokyo, Japan.
Representing the young people of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, my brother remarkably would become president of the Young People's Fellowship himself.
He would even be more involved than was I. And while I was there in Tokyo, And this may have put me on a CIA watch list.
I went to Communist Party headquarters and asked for a document because I wanted to verify for myself what I'd been told about communism.
And I still have those documents, Victor Hugo.
Wow.
Let me ask you...
To finish this story, when I went to college, you know, I came home one day and my stepmother said, Jim, I think you ought to apply to Princeton because you've already been admitted.
And what Princeton had done, they have an advanced placement officer at high schools where they'd had very successful recruitment.
And I'd been interviewed, but I hadn't thought much about it.
But there you had access to all the teachers, the principals, all my records, and blah, blah.
So I'd actually been admitted.
So I figured I might as well apply.
I've been contemplating applying to Pomona, Stanford, Princeton, and Cal Berkeley.
But because I'd already been admitted, I dropped Pomona and Stanford and only applied to Berkeley as a fallback, but went to Princeton, and frankly, it made all the difference in the world.
I went through the catalog for Princeton and circled every course that interested me, and it turns out they were heavily concentrated on conceptual and theoretical issues and predominantly in philosophy, so I wound up majoring in philosophy.
Unbeknownst to me at the time, Princeton was number one in the world in math, physics, and philosophy, and I did my undergraduate thesis for a world-famous philosopher, Carl G. Hempel, on whom, ironically, I've become perhaps the world's leading expert when I authored the article on Hempel-Carl for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an online extremely high quality, as it were, Well, it is.
It's an encyclopedia about philosophy and prominent, now departed or deceased philosophers, including Hample.
In retrospect, your mother's suicide at a young age, you said you were 11 years old?
Yes.
How did that impact your life?
Because most people who go through something like that, their lives End up not in the manner in which yours has.
You are quite a success and you have experienced a very full life.
It appears you were able to overcome that seemingly insurmountable childhood tragedy.
I was the only one at home at the time it happened and she was still alive when I rushed down to go to a neighbor's house because the phone was busy to tell them what had happened.
And there was a period there of several hours where I was at the neighbor's home not knowing if my mother were dead or alive and what the effect it had subconscious and it took me decades to sort it out.
It made me have a very low tolerance for uncertainty so that there were Occasions in my life where I pushed a decision, even though it might be adverse to me just to have the decision because I couldn't handle the uncertainty.
I'd say that was probably the most powerful effect.
And it also has given me great appreciation for women.
They have been very important in my life, by virtue of having lost my mother.
I would say those were the two most important consequences.
It's interesting because you said that you've pushed through decisions.
I wonder if that lack of restraint has actually pushed your career to the point where, because most people would never dare to go into the realms that you have.
You've questioned not only authority, but dogma in a way that most would cower from.
So I think that's I don't know.
From what you just said, I think that's part of where you're at right now, because of that.
That's interesting.
And you didn't let it hold you back.
Yeah.
Well, the decisions I brushed, as it were, were actually consequential.
So, I mean, it's a case where I've sometimes speculated...
How much more I might have accomplished had I not been affected in a way that was beyond my rational control.
I mean, it really was.
Because reason would dictate being patient.
But I was emotionally incapable of exercising that patience.
But nevertheless, you know, I just sought to devote myself, and in many ways, because of some of those Failures, where I felt I could have done more, this includes contributing to the profession of philosophy, for example.
I have made an effort to compensate by becoming so active in so many ways to do my very best to benefit the American public, given how much I've benefited from America myself.
And you entered into the military and became a Marine, which is one of the most The Marines are very tough.
What made you choose that route?
Did your mother's passing have any impact on that decision at all?
No, no.
But I was in the Navy regular program.
In other words, when I was in high school, not only was I admitted to prison, but I was admitted to the Navy regular program where they provided four years of tuition, books, and support, financial support, and college if you agreed to serve a similar number of years, four years as a regular officer in the Navy or the Marine Corps.
So I had to be admitted to that program.
I was admitted to Princeton, and then I had to be admitted to the intersection.
And that turned out to be quite an elite group, you know, that were in the Navy regular program at Princeton in my class of 62. One became the captain of a nuclear submarine, another college president, another, you know, I mean, it's just remarkable when you put all things together.
But no, I decided if I were going to be in a military organization, I wanted to be in a real one.
And that was the Marine Corps.
Hey, so how would you describe philosophy for those who see it as, I think, therefore I am?
What is philosophy to you?
Philosophy has to do with thinking things through, how to reason with conceptual clarity, how to recognize and detect failures in argument.
I spent 35 years As a professor of philosophy offering courses primarily in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I did other courses in the theory of knowledge and philosophy of language and the history and the philosophy of science, in which I earned my PhD.
So I actually have an interdisciplinary degree that combines the history of science, which is dominated by the history of astronomy and physics, and the philosophy of science, which has to do with the analysis of scientific reasoning,
scientific theories, scientific investigations generally, Where I have, you know, made a lot of contributions, especially to the nature of what's known as abductive reasoning, which involves considering which hypothesis is preferable or better supported by the evidence by assuming if hypothesis one were true,
What would be the probability it would confer upon the available evidence versus hypothesis two?
For the hypothesis that confirms the higher probability on the available evidence is the preferable hypothesis.
Take JFK. We know from the Warren report that we're told that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three lucky shots and killed Jack, wounding Governor Connolly.
Well, We know now from research that Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway of the book depository when the JFK motorcade passed by.
So what's the probability if Lee was the lone assassin he would be in the doorway of the book depository?
Zero.
What's the probability then that it was a conspiracy in which Lee Oswald was not a shooter Extremely high.
I mean, that's just an elementary.
And we have proof after proof of how they fabricated evidence like the backyard photographs.
They had another stand-in who was physically more robust than Lee Oswald.
I mean, it just goes on and on.
I do think that abductive reasoning is the key to sorting things out.
See, many people think you have to do observations and just make modest In extrapolations from observations, that's not true.
You can speculate and just ascertain what if your speculation were true, what probability it would be on the evidence, and by the way, it doesn't matter which comes first, the evidence, the hypothesis, sometimes a claim is made, but these are logical relations or atemporal, it doesn't matter whether you first come up with a conclusion or come up with the evidence, it's a matter of the fit.
How the hypothesis and the evidence fit together, and which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability on the available evidence.
And then as more evidence becomes available or new hypotheses, you may have to revise, reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
But that's a part of scientific reasoning generally, which is always Tentative and fallible.
Tentative in the sense I just adumbrated new evidence hypothesis may require changing conclusions and fallible.
No matter how well supported a scientific theory may be, it could ultimately turn out to be false, as was the case with classical Newtonian physics, which said for 200 years, As a paradigm of certain scientific knowledge only to be shown to be a special case by Einstein's theory of relativity.
So even the greatest paradigm or example we've ever had in the history of science of what was taken to be certain knowledge has turned out to be a special case, thereby illustrating in a stunning fashion the fallibility of scientific conclusions.
Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't you trying to showcase this in Princeton and they turned you down and said no, they didn't want you to discuss this?
Am I correct about that?
You're talking about a relatively late development here.
My Class of 62 has been having a series of scholars' lectures, Class of 62 scholars' lectures.
And there aren't that many remaining members of the class, but I submitted a proposal about how Hemphill's work provides a basis for evaluating conspiracy theories.
Because conspiracy theories are theories.
Hemphill articulated the criteria for evaluating scientific theories.
And what I did was to show how they apply to conspiracy theories.
But I was using as examples JFK 9-11 and Sandy Hook And in fact, it wasn't even prominent, but it featured in a published version.
What's wrong with the conspiracy theories you can find on UNZ.com, usually called the UNZ Review, which generated nearly a thousand comments, Victor Hugo.
And some member of the class told the fellow, whose name is Thomas Dunn, who was organizing the lecture series, that he knew somebody who knew somebody who had died at Sandy Hook, and therefore they weren't going to let me speak.
And I contested and said, well, look, I mean, the evidence is overwhelming.
It was a FEMA drill.
We have the FEMA manual.
We have the Connecticut schedule showing it on.
We have the porta-potties in place in advance.
We have...
You know, pizza in bottled water at the firehouse.
We have parents bringing children to the scene.
I mean, what parent would be a child at the scene of a child shooting massacre?
But that's because it was a drill.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
And where I haven't explained, I've been for years now in contact with two of the participants in the event.
One of them was cast by her mother as Emily Parker, a little blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl who's supposed to have died.
And the other, Victoria Aurelio, who was cast by her mother as Victoria Soto, a teacher who allegedly gave her life defending her kids.
Well, they're alive and well as you would expect.
I mean, I've been able to prove multiple examples, minimally four, being alive and well, one little girl.
Her name is actually Lenny Urbana, but she was supposed to be April Richmond who died.
She actually sang at the Super Bowl.
And Lenny had this very distinctive birthmark across the right side of her forehead that makes it unmistakable.
This is the same person.
And I was even sued, you know, for having published a book where I brought together 13 experts In collaborative research, which I've been pioneering, not only with regard to Sandy Hook, but Boston bombing,
Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, JFK, 9-11, Moon Landing, where Amazon has now banned six of my books, not because they're defective, But because they get things right and the government wants to suppress it.
So I said to the fellow who was organizing, well why you tell me who it's supposed to be and I'll have one of my colleagues do research to determine if this person is dead or alive.
And he said he had no interest in sharing my work with the members of the class.
I've sought to appeal it to a member of the class who turned out to have served as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
But even though I've written to him about it, he has to take a class poll stating that if the class agreed that I should not speak, I will gladly accept their conclusion.
But I've yet to hear a word back about it, so I rather anticipate it ain't gonna happen.
Anyone who wants to learn more about this, a rather special case, it's just for me it would have been so, you know, complete to go back to Princeton to talk about how Himmels work could be used to illuminate the nature of conspiracy theories that I wanted to do it.
I mean, it would mean a lot to me, but it appears I'm going to be denied.
Check out on my blog, there are two articles about it, Princeton In the Nation Service, Class of 62 Style, and then Princeton in the Nation Service, Class of 62 Style 2, meaning part two,
where I go through a number of the books, you know, and show how the collaborative research I've been pioneering on conspiracy theories has panned out, where because you have multiple investigators, you're Very unlikely to be making mistakes.
In essence, every additional contributor reduces the probability of getting things wrong.
And we've been sensational about getting things right.
And more and more, you know, as history proceeds and more of the facts are being revealed, it has vindicated my efforts to Pioneer this collaborative research.
It was an obvious thing to do because as a professional philosopher, I'd organized many conferences.
I'd edited many books.
I even founded an international book series, Studies in Cognitive Systems, another book series for another publisher.
I'd become an editor of important journals and philosophy.
I even founded an international journal called Minds and Machines.
Others said they thought that my editorial board was the best they'd ever seen for any journal ever.
And that was right.
I mean, I'd been very systematic and knew what I was doing.
What I just worry is that I, as a resource, not be sufficiently exploited because I want to give back as much as I can to the American people, especially in the belief that they are entitled to know their own history, the truth about their own history.
Well, if you don't mind, may I exploit you now and can you share that theory of the Of what you were going to present at Princeton.
Can you share that now?
Can you make that presentation now?
You can find it online.
You can find it online.
What's wrong with conspiracy theories?
Go to uns.com.
What's wrong with conspiracy theories?
As I said, it's got a thousand comments on it.
There you go.
I mean, there's a staggering number of comments on an article.
And listen, what we're talking about today, evaluating moral theories, is another illustration of the power of Himmel's approach and his criteria of adequacy.
Because I adapted them by giving a variation on Himmel's criteria for evaluating scientific theories to apply to evaluating moral theories.
So that's where we are.
And what's fascinating about these criteria is They are central to virtually every enterprise.
The criteria that are being used to evaluate, you know, whether it's students for graduation or academic prizes, whether it's research in one area of science or another, criteria need to be applied to evaluate.
And what Hempel did was to give us very clear substantial criteria, which include number one, The clarity and precision of the language in which a theory is expressed.
I mean, that's very important.
The more precise you are, the easier to test and falsify a theory.
So one of the examples I use is Elon Umar, I think, said on 9-11, somebody did something well.
That's so vague.
Of course, somebody does something every day, you know, everywhere, so that's hardly illuminating.
But then you get the official account of 19 Islamic terrorists using aircraft to attack the United States under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.
And when it turns out that Osama bin Laden was actually an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman, that he had nothing to do with it, that an official visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death from his medical maladies, it's tough to get dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
Then he died on 15 December 2001. Buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim tradition.
Then 10 years later, Barack Obama found it politically expedient to resurrect him and have him die again in a stage raid on a compound in Pakistan so he could present himself for a triumphal reelection as a man who got the most wanted man in the world.
When it turns out the deeper you dig at 9-11, It was an Israeli op.
It was run by the Mossad.
It was a brainchild of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Ulmer who wanted to find a way to draw American forces into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab state that served to counterbalance Israel's domination of the entire region and eventually to confront the Persian nation of Iran.
In fact, many believe What's going on now in Gaza and Syria is an effort to complete the job because it was very successful, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and others until the intervention of Iranian and Russian forces in Syria put a halt to it.
And they never were able to succeed with regard to Syria.
But it's, of course, a part of the Greater Israel Project that's going to take a big chunk of Egypt, almost all of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan.
We're almost all well aware of the project.
Well, they're still making efforts to bring it to completion.
So that there, you know, my books on 9-11, I have two, have not been banned.
And therefore, if you want to follow that up, you can with America nuked on 9-11, compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad.
Jim, you brought up a point about Osama bin Laden dying in December of 2001 and then years later being resurrected by Obama.
How does it work in your estimation There's a guy who's made a career out of claiming that he's the man who killed Osama bin Laden.
And he's been on Fox News.
He goes on different talk shows and everything.
He's even written a book.
How is that level of lying and making up fake history possible?
And then how does somebody...
I'm just saying from your philosophical point of view and from your research, how does a human being like that exist?
Like, if you told me that my job was to make pretend that I killed Osama Bin Laden, and now, like, for the rest of my life, I gotta run around making a bullshit, how does somebody...
How do they even find this person to say, okay, you're gonna be the guy?
You know who I'm talking about, right?
The guy who claims he killed Osama Bin Laden?
Yeah, well, there are plenty of candidates for roles like that.
You know, they...
Wind up becoming celebrated as this fellow has.
They're typically very well paid.
They're compensated for their effort.
They're stooges.
But when you have an uncritical media that's really basically a propaganda organ, For the Rothschilds, who own both the Associated Press and Reuters, virtually all of our international reporting comes through a Zionist filter.
Well, the only news we actually get that is reliable is local news about local and state events where they have no interest and don't seek to intervene as a rule, unless it involved perhaps a theft of an election as we had here where Eric Hovde was running for the Senate against Tammy Baldwin right here in Wisconsin, had his race stolen by a Ballot dump at 4 a.m.
in the morning in Milwaukee.
In this case, 108,000 new ballots, 95% for Tammy Baldwin.
So we had this jump.
He would have been leading consistently, but then with the dump she led and coasted, just as on 2020. We had a far more massive dump after they discontinued the counting.
And when they came back, Biden had left ahead of Trump, even though Trump had been leading the whole evening to that point in time.
Of some 15 million fake ballots.
I mean, it's just astonishing.
But he's not alone.
We have a fellow named James Files who claims to have shot JFK. I've even had dinner with Files.
I like the guy tremendously.
But he didn't shoot JFK. And I know this because we've done research.
It goes far beyond what we have available in terms of the home movies, the most famous of which is the Zapruder, where we've been able to establish on the basis of the testimony of the four motorcycle escort officers and their supervisor,
Stavis Ellis, but also at least six Other parties who have seen what they call the other film, which is a less edited version, that the driver, William Grubb, hold the limousine to the left and to a halt, and while Jack had been hit twice, once in the back five and a half inches down below the collar just to the right of the spinal column by a shallow shot, It only went in about as far as a second knuckle on your little finger.
And in the throat, by a shot that actually passed through the windshield en route to its target, he was still alive.
So that Greer pulled the limousine to the left and to a halt.
They actually had painted yellow stripes on the curb to show where he had to stop.
And Jack was hit three times in the head.
Back of the head, slump forward, He was wearing this back brace from his injury, you know, PT-109 in World War II, where he saved a fellow soldier.
He was cinched up tight, so he really had very limited mobility.
He was hitting the back of the head, slumped forward, eased up, and then he was hitting the right temple, and virtually simultaneous in the side of the head, Which blew his brains out the back of his head and slumped to the left.
Now, the film was sent to CIA Hawkeye Works.
This is a secret lab adjacent at Kodak headquarters in Rochester, New York.
While the original was developed in Dallas and sent back to the National Photographic Interpretation Center as an eight millimeter already split film.
You know, there's a camera.
Abraham is a pretty used as a 16 millimeter, but it filmed down one side, you take it out, flip it over, that was side A, and you didn't film down the other side, side B. So if you wanted to do, put the whole thing together, you'd have to split of him and then splice it.
Well, so the version which was the original taken at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington DC on Saturday was replaced by the second version which was a 16 millimeter unsplit film brought down from Rochester.
That had massive editing, including taking out the limousine stop, during which he was shot three times in the head.
I mean, it's this kind of thing.
Now, Files, when he talks about his shot, never mentions the limousine stop.
But he cannot not have noticed the limousine stop, because remember, not only did it stop, but Jack has already hit the back of the head, slumped over, and then he's back up before the shot files claims to have taken and entered the right temple.
You may recall when Malcolm killed after the acting press secretary announced JFK was dead.
He pointed to his right temple and said it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head.
Well, Files is alleged to have taken that shot, but he does not describe the limo stop.
He does not describe the prior shot.
Jack is not being forwarded.
Jack, he isn't even back up before he takes his shot, which means he didn't take it at all.
Wow, this is all news to me.
So what you're saying is the Zapruder film is fake.
It's not evidence of the driver.
Because I thought the Zapruder film proved that the driver was the one who shot Kennedy.
You're saying that's not the case?
Yeah, that's an illusion.
But I mean, a lot of people have bought into it.
What they're looking at is Kellerman, He's the agent in charge saying the top of his head sort of resembles a revolver.
And it looks, a lot of people have thought, Greer turned and shot JFK. That would have had massive noise inside the limousine.
Not only that, but his brains would have been blown out to the right rear, looking at the limousine from behind, when in fact they were blown out to the left rear.
So Greer cannot have shot JFK. Nor could Jackie, nor could the Secret Service guy have accidentally shot him from behind.
I mean, there are a lot of wild theories that are subject to systematic elimination if you know the evidence well enough.
So are you saying that it was multiple shooters who got JFK? Oh yeah.
Oliver Stone posited three hit teams.
He was misled by Robert Grodin, who's a limited hangout guy.
He didn't let Oliver know that the film had been massively edited so that it's a fabrication.
I mean, they took real footage and then altered it.
Optical printing at special effects, so they could combine any foreground with any background.
They could have had Jack doing backflips in there if they wanted.
They concealed the blowout to the back of the head.
They painted it over in black, very amateurish the way they did it.
It occurred to me that they'd focus so much on early frames, they might have overlooked that it would be visible in later, and I found it in frame 374. You can actually see the blowout at the back of the head as Jackie.
He's climbing out on the trunk after a big chunk of Jack's skull and brains which is lying there.
He also claimed, you know, allowed Oliver to believe that Oswald had been involved when Lee was actually in the doorway and Grodin knew better.
You know, so really the three, that the film, he let Oliver believe the film was authentic, that Lee was one of the shooters, and that there were a total of three hit teams actually.
Turns out there were multiple sponsors, Victor Hugo, each of which put up its own shooter.
So the CIA had its own shooter.
This is a guy named Roscoe White.
He was a cop, a Dallas cop, joined the force recently.
The Mafia had their own shooter, a guy named Frank Sturgis.
He's the one who actually fired the shot that entered the right temple.
Mossad had its own shooter.
That was a guy named Clyde Forshaw from Boffman, Canada.
He fired the shot that hit the side of the head.
You had Lyndon Johnson had his own shooter.
Mack Wallace, who was firing from the book depository at John Conley, and the mistaken belief it was Ralph Yarborough.
The anti-Castro Cubans had a shooter, Nester.
Tony Nester Escadro, who was in the Daltex.
He was the only one who had unsilenced weapon.
He fired three shots with Amanda Kirk Arcano to set up the acoustical impression of only three shots having been fired.
Let's see, the eastern establishment had its shooter who is on the south, though, and he's the only one I've been unable to identify by name, rank, serial number, the shots he took and the effects they had.
But there were altogether eight shooters in Dealey Plaza, and a total of 10 to 12 shots were fired, depending on how many you attribute to Mack Wallace firing at Governor Conley.
Because while he was hit in the back, for sure, he may have also been hit in the right wrist, and a bullet wound up in his left thigh.
So you get from 10 to 12, depending on whether you have one, two, or three shots fired by Mack Wallace from the Book Depository.
And inside the triple underpass, by the way, you had an Air Force expert by the name of Jack Lawrence, who fired the shot, passed through the windshield and hit JFK in the throat.
And on the top of the county records building, there was a Dallas deputy sheriff.
This would have been the Texas oilman's guy, Harry Weatherford, who fired the shot and hit Jack in the bag, the shallow shot.
He was implanting a Manlik or Carcano bullet using a.30-06.
A larger caliber weapon using a plastic collar known as a sabot.
Jack Lawrence was the Joint Chief.
So you had eight different sponsors, each of whom had their own shooters, and they were supervised on the ground by George Herbert Walker Bush and by Edward Lansdale, who appears to have positioned the shooters and determined the sequence of shots.
Wow, that is amazing.
Amazing!
They made it seem, when I say they, the fake news media, I don't know who orchestrated the cover-up on this, but people always believe it was just one shooter, Oswald, who apparently was just the fall guy.
You're pointing out that there's so many other shooters.
When Trump...
If Trump actually decides to release the files on this, do you think all this information will be in there, or do you think they scrubbed all this information?
I mean, how did you even come to this conclusion?
Where did you get all these names and information from?
Well, remember, I've been doing collaborative research with a leading expert on the medical evidence since 1992. So for over 30 years I've been doing this.
I've published three early books, bringing together the best experts, focusing primarily on the medical evidence and exposing the cover-up.
Assassination Science, 1998. Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, 2003. So I've been bringing together the best experts and doing this for 30 years, Victor Hugo, and I'd like to believe I have something to show for it.
But remember, what I'm doing is presenting a distillation of the research of multiple experts on this case, which is one of the, I think, sensational payoffs of my pioneering collaborative research on conspiracies You know, to sort out the difference between the real and the fake.
My mind almost hurts in thinking that so many obvious things have been able to be condensed into one lie.
How is the establishment able to fool so many people with this, especially with your knowledge of...
You've got to understand.
The mastermind behind the whole plot was Lyndon Johnson, who was going to become the president and could guarantee that no one would ever be penalized for participating in the assassination of his predecessor.
And he was aided and embedded by J. Edgar Hoover.
And by creating the Warren Commission, he preempted, oh, six or eight different investigations, some of which were actually making headway in Texas, in the House, in the Senate.
All consolidated under the FBI. And when they transferred the evidence from Dallas to Washington, which they did not need to do, they made substitutions.
For example, the weaponist Cadro had been using in the Daltex was subbed for the really bad condition Manlick or Carcano found in the book repository.
And, you know, Lee had nothing to do with his shooting of officer J.D. Tiff, but In fact, he appears to have been shot by two different guys who had automatics.
The first officer on the scene found four shell casings of two different manufacturers, Remington, Rand, and Western, and initialed the cartridges, which had been ejected from automatics.
But Lee only had a revolver.
So they Also substituted shell casings, revolver shell casing, but now there were three of one making one of the other, and they didn't have the initials of the first officer on the scene.
I mean, it was so blatant.
But when you had a president combined with the director of the FBI, and he was able to block out all the other investigations, and when the media was to a large degree complicit in going along with the song and dance, you know, There just wasn't opportunity.
This is fascinating.
You'll love this.
The afternoon of the shooting, two shots were being widely reported on radio and television.
If you go back, for example, you can see NBC had like four to six hours of coverage.
They were talking about a small, clean puncture wound to the throat, which had, as I explained, actually passed through the windshield fired by the Joint Chief Shooter Jack Lawrence from inside the triple underpass, using a weapon,
by the way, that appears to have been given to him by Curtis LeMay, the very right-wing anti-Kennedy, you know, head of the Air Force, thought he would know he was acting in accordance with the government and the military by using that weapon, and shot to the right temple that Was then thought to have blown the brains out the back of his head.
You know, it turns out on the most recent research by David Mantic, that shot to the right temple distributed metallic particles through the brain but didn't blow out the back of his head.
It was a shot to the side that had the force to blow his brains out the back of his head.
But the fact is that You know, they were able to take the film, edit it, combine the shot from behind with the shots from the front and the side.
You got that dramatic back and to the left in the Zapruder.
That didn't happen.
Nobody in Dealey Plaza witnessed.
He simply slumped to the side, but they took out so many frames in editing.
It got this violent back and to the left so that, ironically, Anyone who looks at the edited version is a pruder and says, obviously, it was hit from the front.
So they're reporting these two shots, and they're attributing, you know, the shot to the right temple to Admiral George Berkeley, the shot to the throat by Dr. Malcolm Barry, MD, who performed a simple tracheostomy decision, and who three times during a Parkland Breast Conference held after Malcolm Kilduff announced his death,
that it was a wound of entry, that the bullet was coming at him, such that later in the evening, when the stories started to come in that the FBI and the Secret Service had concluded there had been three shots fired from above and behind, Frank McGee, who is nobody's fool, says, this is incongruous.
How can the man have been shot from in front, from behind?
And I think many Americans who are glued to their television that day have seen all those reports of the two shots from in front.
And when the Warren Commission would be released about a year later, I think subconsciously, they were very suspicious about this claim to which Frank McGee reacted so appropriately as in Congress.
And that's because it was a fantasy.
It was made up now.
He was hit twice from behind.
He was hit in the back.
Conley was hit in the back, and he was hit in the back of the head.
So if you put the shots to Jack, the back and the back of the head together with the throat and with the right temple, you got four of the five hits that JFK sustained.
The missing one being the shot to the side of the head that blew his brains out the back of the head, but happened in such close proximity that they merged the whole thing.
They painted in the blood spray.
I'm telling you, You cannot believe the detail with which we know what actually happened in Dealey Blas on 22 November 1963. Now, let's fast forward using the scientific method that you noticed and that you used for conspiracy theories.
Even someone who's as seasoned and skeptical as you, originally, and I know you still are The Trump assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
That, a lot of people who don't have the background that you do, they noticed several incongruities with that.
In particular, the crisis actors in the back, who quite literally, when the shots were ringing out, held up signs that were pro-Trump as a means of defending themselves against bullets.
And nobody ran for cover, which was strange.
And then, of course, the whole thing with Trump reading off a teleprompter claiming that his hand was full of blood and everything.
There's just so many things.
Now, I understand that you believe, as do others, that Trump was filled in beforehand and then he kind of like did a double cross with the whole assassination that, yeah, the deep state and everything was involved.
But again, You would think that these people trying to do these false flags, and the reason I ask you is because there's false flags coming.
We all know that in the coming days, weeks, and months, there's going to be false flags.
You would think that these people would be better organized, and with the years of experience of doing false flags, that they would at least make it so that it's not that obvious.
Well, this is Trump.
This isn't This isn't the Sandy Hook crisis actors coming to Butler.
This is amateurs.
But yeah, he flipped the strip.
There was a real plot to assassinate Trump.
Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
For example, 29 million shares of Donald J. Trump were shorted before the Butler event.
That means wagers were made that stock was going to fall.
This is like for American and United Airlines before 9-11, where the chairs of the 9-11 Commission said they traced it back and found the source of those, which couldn't possibly have been involved.
Why?
Because they were naive.
The source was the CIA. They put the shorts on American and United.
They knew it was a sure thing, because they were going to Fake United and American planes hitting the Twin Towers and, you know, the stock was gonna drop.
Well, you don't put 29 million shares of Donald J. Trump's stock on shorts unless you're pretty damn sure the stock is gonna drop.
Now, Trump learned and flipped the script.
He decided, and there's no question that he was involved in this, That they would flip the script to make it turn out to be beneficial to him in the campaign.
Instead of taking him out, he's actually growing in popularity and enthusiasm for his candidacy.
So the thing was scripted.
Now, here's the biggest tell.
In addition to your mention that there were crisis actors there, you're not alone in drawing that conclusion.
And by the way, Two of the presentations on the 14th and 15th of December by Monique Lukens and by Dr. Catherine Horton are going to talk about the Butler event.
The most obvious tell to me when you think about it, there were only a few hundred people there.
When Trump did an event at Butler, one of the most awe-inspiring events I ever saw Was when Trump was coming down in a chopper, and this would be before 2020, coming down in a chopper over Butler in the evening, and there were tens of thousands on the hills awaiting him.
One of the most moving moments I've ever witnessed in my life.
Had this been a legitimate event, there would have been tens of thousands there.
There were only a couple of hundred.
They were crisis actors.
This was a very managed event.
And he flipped it and turned it to his advantage.
And frankly, I don't blame him for doing that.
I actually think it was one-upsmanship on his part.
Trump actually has a lot of experience in not just public relations, but even in acting events.
He's been associated with, you know, mixed martial arts and the like.
Phony altercation with the president of the mixed martial arts at an event.
This would have been 15 years ago.
I mean, he knows how to stage an event, and it was a staged event.
Knowing that so much of what we're witnessing in our lifetime are staged events used to propel the narrative forward, which I believe is towards a one-world government.
How do you even continue to do what you do as a journalist?
You're essentially, your shows are news shows.
You read current events and you comment on current events.
Isn't that kind of strange?
Because basically it's like you're almost a film critic, really.
Yeah, that's a good comparison.
I love that, Victor.
That's very appropriate.
Because so much in political theater.
So it's a matter of critiquing and trying to sort out the real elements from the fake.
That's an excellent, perfect analogy.
I buy it 100%.
It's like at the movies with Jim Fetzer, you know?
I have a nephew, by the way.
I have a nephew who's the head of the Chicago Film Critics Circle, so he actually is a film critic.
You know, we were supposed to be...
Yeah, yeah, okay.
My favorite nephew, yeah.
What's your favorite movie, by the way?
Oh, I have several favorites.
I like Apocalypse Now.
That's great.
I like Natural Born Killers.
My wife can't watch even five minutes because of violence, but actually, it's a very philosophical film.
Half of it is about crime, half about punishment.
About how we treat the symptoms of crime, never get to the root causes, how tabloid journalism drives out serious reporting, and ultimately the redemptive power of love.
I actually wrote Oliver Stone a letter praising the film for its philosophical significance.
I'm going to share with you a memory of when I was at the U.S. Naval Academy that was a bittersweet memory for me.
The entire time that I was there, I don't know if you've ever been to the United States Naval Academy, but the hall where all the midshipmen officers sleep and then they have the rotunda, the main officer in the morning before they played Reveille would Turn on the opening for Patton when he does his opening speech.
You know that song?
Yeah.
And then after he played that song, which was hypnotic, and gave the speech, then he would come in with Neil Diamond's Coming to America.
And then after we heard Patton and Neil Diamond's Coming to America, then we would hear Reveille.
And then it was full-on, you know how it is, during INDOC. It was just like boom, boom, non-stop.
Fascinating.
Fascinating.
And you would come out of...
And you know when you're in the INDOC and when you're going through that, There's never really time to rest.
And when you do get that rest, it's like a brick wall of exhaustion hitting you and you go into such a deep sleep that when you would come out, if you remember that opening to Patton, it was just such a way, almost like listening to birds in the morning chirping.
It was one of the most beautiful memories that I have of being at the Naval Academy.
But like I said, what was crazy after that is that was essentially...
If you're on a roller coaster, going up.
And then as the last note of the Neil Diamond coming to America, it was like this and it was on the full day, you know?
So I want to move on to this evaluating moral theories because this was what we were supposed to be talking about.
I'm just going to read the abstract.
Let me give you the short take.
The criteria of adequacy are what are crucial.
Himmel articulated four for evaluating scientific theories.
The clarity and precision of the language with which they're expressed.
Second, the scope of application for explanation and prediction.
Third, their degree of evidential or empirical support.
And fourth, the economy, simplicity, or elegance with which The effect is achieved, which would be used to arbitrate among those who are equal in the first three respects.
Now, the challenge with regard to moral theories is how do you establish evidence of morality, of moral acts or immoral acts, and that's where I proposed looking at Human experience and what kinds of actions have traditionally been regarded as clear cut,
clear cut examples of moral behavior and clear cut, clear cut examples of immoral behavior.
And I offer you murder, kidnapping, robbery, rape, clear cut examples of immoral behavior.
Candor, sincerity, loyalty, truthfulness, clear-cut examples of moral behavior.
So, in my judgment for an alternative theory of the nature of morality, and I address eight of them divided into two categories, popular theories and philosophical theories, they have to have the result of sorting out the clear-cut cases.
In other words, If under one moral theory, it turns out that murder, robbery, kidnapping, and rape are moral, obviously, it's disqualified because the experience of humanity contradicts it.
And then finally, the fourth criterion is how does it clarify and illuminate controversial or unclear cases?
Those might be abortion, marijuana, Death penalty, for example.
And then you find the real power and illumination of an alternative theory.
Now, there are four versions of popular theories to what simple subjectivism, namely an action is right if I think it's right.
But it's obviously somebody could think it was right to rob or murder or loot.
I mean, you know, you got a whole population in Israel, for example, is supportive of raping Palestinian prisoners, but that's obviously wrong.
A second would be family values.
You know, whatever the family thinks is right is right.
And then I give examples like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Where they butcher people and barbecue them and put them up for sale, obviously flawed.
A third is religious-based ethics, and the problem there is there's so many varieties of religion, you know, and they're often inconsistent to their result.
Fourth, finally, cultural relativism, whatever a culture endorses.
Well, let's take these Somalis.
Apparently, They believe in, you know, cooking up human beings.
They're in a cannibalism.
And I dare suggest that cannibalism, like slavery, is immoral, if any actions are immoral, just as pedophilia is immoral.
And the question becomes, how do we know?
You know, what is the basis for that judgment?
We can know something is wrong without knowing why it's wrong.
And I give some very serious examples to begin with, like suppose you want to replace a president with someone whose policies they prefer and blame it on a patsy.
What's wrong with that?
Or suppose the leaders of a foreign nation orchestrated a terrorist act as a rationale for U.S. forces to take out their enemies at the expense of 3,000 Americans.
What's wrong with that?
Or suppose an administration decided to fake a mass elementary school shooting to promote its agenda to undermine the Second Amendment.
What's wrong with that?
So there I am using these serious examples because we know they're wrong, but what is it that makes them wrong?
And then we turn to philosophical theories.
Now, the first is ethical egoism.
Which is a more sophisticated version of subjectivism.
Ethical egoism says that if you calculate that an action you take is going to produce more of a certain benefit, and the question becomes, what's that benefit?
It could be measured in terms of money or pleasure or happiness.
I use happiness.
Suppose an individual calculated that one action is going to produce more happiness than any alternative action, then that action is right, if ethical egoism is correct.
But obviously, rape would be a nice, you know, if they're going to get more happiness by raping a woman they desire, who's resistant, and any alternative that makes it moral when it's obviously not.
Then we have what's called limited utilitarianism.
That's applying a similar standard to a group.
If there's a group that would be happier with one outcome than another, then they're morally entitled to do it.
If that's the one that would be maximally happiness-producing for the group, And this limited version of utilitarianism is absolutely crucial because we have all kinds of groups.
Take, for example, the Democrat Party today.
That belief that they're going to get more happiness by stealing elections and by allowing legitimacy to prevail because they're going to keep them in power.
And they're going to calculate that as being the morally right thing to do, and they have acted on that belief to promote it.
And there's classic utilitarianism.
That's what we've got to consider everyone and say, what action, if it were to be adopted, would produce a maximal, the highest degree of happiness for Everyone.
Now, in the case of limited utilitarianism, you don't need to take into account those who are affected.
So, for example, in terms of Israelis slaughtering Palestinians, they're not taking into account how Palestinians feel about being slaughtered.
That doesn't enter into their happiness equation.
It's just how the Israelis Who are doing the mass killing are gonna feel about it.
With classic utilitarianism, however, you gotta take into account how everyone feels, including those who are gonna be the subjects of the action.
So one tends to think that's gonna balance things out and make more productive of virtuous actions if you take classic utilitarianism.
And frankly, there are a lot of philosophers who endorse classic utilitarianism.
But in a nutshell, both the problem with limited and classic is you could adopt policies that are inherently immoral just because they make more people happy than the alternative on a small scale.
A lynching party.
They want to drag these couple of blacks out of jail and string them up because they think they, you know, were flirtatious with white women and the men found that unacceptable.
Well, on limited utilitarianism, they're doing the right thing, which obviously indicates that limited utilitarianism is such a great theory of morality, it's indefensible, it's failing that third criterion.
And then with classic utilitarianism, you could even have a slave-based society if The amount of happiness that would be produced by having a certain segment of society serve as slaves, even though it would make them less happy.
If that arrangement produced the overall highest level of happiness collectively, it would be judged to be moral.
And yet, as I've observed, slavery is immoral if any action is immoral.
And finally, we come to deontological moral theory.
The essence of which is always treating other persons with respect, never treating anyone merely as a means, always treating other people as an end in themselves, so that What's crucial here is merely as means.
And if you think about murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, what's going on there is other persons are being treated merely as means.
They're not being treated with respect in terms of their interests and their right to live, survive, and flourish, provided they're not doing harm to other human beings.
So the concept of a person here is absolutely fundamental.
And I submit that the clear-cut cases of morality and immorality in terms of human experiences clarified and illuminated by adopting the deontological moral perspective, where, notice,
you can have perfectly moral means- means relationship between employees and employers, students and teachers, patients and physicians, Providing they're treating one another with respect to illustrate in the simplest example.
As long as the worker is performing the work to the standards expected and not claiming time that they didn't spend at work or not stealing from their employer,
as long as the employer is providing safe working conditions and appropriate wage and benefits, You can have perfectly good means-means relationships where the employees are using the employer to make a living, the employer using the employees to make a profit, blah, blah, blah.
Similarly for teachers, students, patients, doctors, and so forth.
Once you understand the concept, it's pretty obvious how it applies.
Well, then the question becomes, how does deontological moral theory apply to the complex cases like marijuana or abortion or Gun control.
Marijuana is pretty trivial because, you know, it's been misclassified, demonized, principally because the alcohol industry doesn't want competition.
Just because a generation prefers that smoke is high rather than drink it, Doesn't mean it ought to be illegal.
Actually, it's been classified in the past right up there with heroin and cocaine as a class one narcotic, which is absolutely absurd.
So clearly, we get illumination on the misapplication of the law to benefit a special group.
I mean, it gives you a superior high, no hangover, you don't get cirrhosis of the liver, you're not gonna get lung cancer from smoking cannabis.
I think there you got a clarification of moral status apart.
What about abortion?
Well, that's extremely interesting because as the Supreme Court ruled In Roe v.
Wade, which I regard as one of the wisest decisions it ever rendered, but of course has now been decided to have been improper that they didn't have the jurisdiction to make the decision and send it back to the states, which is creating a patchwork quilt.
I mean, one thing I liked about Roe v.
Wade is it created a uniform standard nationwide.
When you apply it, It turns out the developing fetus, by the ruling, which I submit was correct, doesn't attain the status of personhood until the stage of viability, where it could exist outside the interuterine environment.
And it's not a function of brain or heart development, but lung development.
I think that's exactly right.
I mean, you don't actually have a separate person over and beyond being a special form of property for the mother until the occurrence of a live birth.
But in essence, they ruled that at the time of viability, it attained certain primitive right to life, such that it's not subject to abortion except to save the life or the health of the mother.
Otherwise, an abortion is murder.
I think that was completely correct.
And when you look at the Democrat going on not just for full-term abortion, but even after birth, they're talking about infanticide.
Their position is so immoral, it's repulsive on its face, properly understood.
So I think there ought to be uniform laws that it all ought to be a function where, just as the court ruled, first trimester unrestricted, second trimester is take and regulate how it's done, but third trimester only to save the life or the health of the mother, otherwise it's murder.
That is right.
Now, gun control.
It's absolutely fascinating how much this issue has depended upon false reports about the role of guns in society.
It turns out that worldwide, the greater the gun ownership in a country, the lower the homicide rate.
The Democrats have promoted the opposite.
More guns, more homicides.
It's categorically false.
And if you think about it, Makes a lot of sense.
If perps are aware that other citizens might be armed and intervene, they're going to be far more cautious and prudent in their actions and treating other people than they would be if they know essentially they've got free fire zones.
And that's how we've seen it play out in Democrat cities where they have stringent gun control.
The crime rate goes way up.
The gangs know they got free fire zones.
There's no snoopy, you know, civilian who's going to intervene.
We have a hypothetical experiment in a community where everyone owns a gun, in a community where nobody owns a gun legally.
Because remember, the criminals are going to own guns.
I mean, that's what makes them criminals.
They violate the law.
Legal restrictions against gun ownership don't affect criminals.
In the community where everyone owns a gun, crime rate goes to virtually zero.
Where nobody owns a gun except the criminals, just the opposite.
Would you believe it turns out that Americans use guns to defend themselves against attacks millions of times every year, saving an estimated 200,000 lives every year.
Well, if you compare that with actual gun violence, which might be around 80,000, 85,000, but about half of which are suicides, most of which are gang-related, you realize you're quadrupling or more the number of gun deaths that would be expanded if we took guns away from Americans so they couldn't defend themselves from perps.
So the whole gun agenda is simply ridiculous.
They've fabricated cases like Sandy Hook and Orlando and Parkland To try to promote the idea and demonize the AR-15 especially, because it's a lightweight, versatile, all-purpose weapon that is just of maximal benefit if we have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.
So I submit When you analyze systematically using the appropriate criteria of evaluation, it turns out that the most defensible moral theory, which I'm convinced is absolutely correct, is deontological moral theory.
So Aretha got it right.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T. And that is the thrust Of this article on evaluating moral theories, which interestingly is parallel to my article, What's Wrong with Conspiracy Theories, because in both cases I've taken Himmel's criteria of adequacy and adapted them on the one hand to conspiracy theories, on the other to theories of morality.
Totally fascinating, Jim.
Amazing how your mind works.
You're a living legend.
I was gonna ask you, where do you think we are right now as a society in our process of evolution today, December 3rd, 2024, as far as that morality goes?
Are we moving more towards respect or further away from respect?
Well, the Democrats were scraping the bottom of the barrel, most corrupt party in American history, most immoral, absolutely disrespectful of human rights.
Look at the whole transgender business, pedophilia on children who are incapable of granting informed consent, the whole vax business.
I'm troubled greatly by how much Trump may bring us out of the sewer, but We could not have been worse off than we were under the Democrats.
So I'd like to believe we might make some progress, but I won't be surprised if it's in baby steps.
And we'll see how it goes.
But I'm not overly optimistic about all this is going to play out.
Russia is without any doubt the foremost nuclear and non-nuclear, the foremost military power in the face of Earth.
Greedy bankers and financiers because the Rothschild Empire wants to own the entire world.
They're not just happy with the 80% they already control.
They want to take Russia.
This is not just for the sake of Ukraine.
They want to take Russia, break it up into little statelets and exploit its natural resources where Vladimir Putin In my opinion, inadvisably, posted about Russia having 88 trillion in natural resources.
The world covets that.
They want to take it.
But I just say Russia has the ability to bring it to a halt and that I'm very impressed by BRICS, Russia, China, India.
I think the West is in an advanced state of decline.
And deservedly so.
Opening our borders was a calamity.
The extent to which the United States has fallen in four short years under Biden-Harris has been catastrophic.
So I'm only hoping we can survive.
But I'm not overly optimistic.
There are some positive signs there.
I do believe we're going to have secure borders from day one.
And in fact, Mexico is already halting.
Additional migrant caravans because of Trump's threat to tariffs.
And it's already been asserted that the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel is because of Trump's reelection.
And I don't doubt that those are both Already consequences of this change in government, but there are an awful lot of zealous Zionists in key positions in his administration, especially in relation to foreign policy.
But I do believe he's going to do a lot of cleaning up the FBI, DOJ, border, endless, you know, corruption.
I think there's going to be a lot here to be done, and he's going to do a lot of it.
How much may be the tale we shall see?
Jim, two more questions and then we'll close up.
The last one will be a quick yes or no.
But one of the things that viewers of your show have commented on in the comment section of the videos that we've done, they've noticed how over the past couple of months you're Observations on Donald Trump have changed.
I was interviewed recently on a couple of shows and they said, my God, it was astounding.
You saw Jim Fetzer switch over completely.
Most people don't normally get to see that as far as Donald Trump goes.
It was like turning a light switch on with you.
And people still say that they've seen that over and over again because it was clear as day.
How was that for you?
Because for a long time you were in the camp of like X-22 report and SGT report and all these people who are still like, yes, Trump is going to save the day, this and that and the other thing.
And I'm not disputing what you're saying.
Absolutely.
He's the better...
Then Kamala Harris and he will fix a lot of things, absolutely.
But your eyes have been opened in a way like you described the JFK and all these other things.
And I guess a lot of people were surprised that someone with such an analytical mind as you do would have fallen for the initial, you know, Trump is the new savior kind of thing.
But boy, you've really come around.
Can you describe that for those who are in awe of someone?
You know, the saying, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Well, you've proven that wrong.
I'm not saying you're a dog, but you know what I mean about the saying.
Sure, sure, sure.
Well, my initial stat was just based on the gross judgment that Trump, for all his flaws, was overwhelmingly preferable to More of Biden and Harris.
I mean, that's the big picture.
But when I was fine-tuning, look, we had accumulation of evidence here.
It's a matter of getting new evidence and alternative hypotheses and being brought to the point where you have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted and accept hypotheses you previously rejected and leave others in suspense.
I was brought to the point where the weight of the evidence was sufficient to revise my assessment of this guy and his place in our history, and I'm only hoping that he will prove to be half as good as I originally thought, but I have, at this point, no illusions.
And given the appointments he'd been making, especially to foreign policy, I'm troubled by some of the signs.
So it was just a matter of the weight of the evidence and the fact that I began to look more closely at what we would really get with Trump as opposed to what we had to abandon with Harris and Biden.
It was on that order.
And you and others like Joaquin Ross, Others have had a significant influence upon me by articulating aspects of his style and his past, of which I was here before not sufficiently appreciative or in some cases even aware.
So it's just a matter of rationality.
If you're committed to rationality, when the weight of the evidence changes, your conclusions and opinions are going to change with them, and that is what has taken place here.
Fascinating, Jim.
And final question.
You spoke about cannabis earlier.
Have you ever smoked marijuana?
Oh, sure.
Yeah.
Less than a dozen times.
I'll tell you, one of the greatest was down in Kentucky with my dear friends.
We were in a car and they were passing around these joints and I was saying, man, this is great shit!
And I kept saying that!
And we drove up to a restaurant and we were going into the restaurant and I was saying, man, this is great shit!
And there were a couple of state police in there, state troopers, they said, Jim, Jim, you gotta calm down!
I said, God, this is great shit!
I think marijuana is fantastic.
I endorse it 100%.
You know, obviously everything in moderation.
But I mean, I'm telling you, it's far superior to alcohol or cigarettes.
God forbid I smoked up to four packs a day at one point in my life, and thank goodness I quit way back when.
I'll tell you, I'm in the Republic of Georgia where moonshine is like water here.
These people, they produce their own wine and they make their own moonshine and they take great pride in it.
The families that are here, they each have their own recipe.
Love it, love it, love it.
When you go to the family get-togethers, they insist.
Even if you say that you don't drink alcohol, they will not allow you not to drink.
It's like an insult if you don't drink it.
So they give you the moonshine, they call it cha-cha, and then they're known here for very long toast.
Sometimes toast can go on for half an hour.
The man of the house will get up in front.
He sits at the front of the table.
Long table.
And they have a competition to see who can make the longer toast.
So anyway, the guy starts going on.
I never understand what they're saying because I don't speak the language.
And just as I think it's time to take the toast, they go, no, no, no, no.
He's still not finished yet.
So everybody's just standing there holding on to this.
Anyway, even though...
Alcohol here flows and it's very affordable.
I mean, you could buy a really great bottle of wine here for less than five bucks.
And I'm talking like really good wine.
And the cha-cha you can get for like three bucks, but it goes down like kerosene.
The stuff you can light a match and a flame will come out.
Also, marijuana is legal here.
Well, you can't sell it.
It's illegal to sell it, but it's legal to grow it and it's legal to smoke it.
What's interesting, Jim, is being around marijuana, where if I wanted to smoke it every day, I could.
And the same thing with alcohol.
I haven't had a drink of alcohol or smoked marijuana in a very, very long time.
But I'll tell you what, when I get to the United States and I see you in person, I will definitely love to get stoned with you, Jim.
Holy cow!
I don't even know what the laws are here in Wisconsin.
It's been so long.
I mean, that's like 30 years ago I'm talking about Victor Hugo, but I would love to see you here.
Love to see you here.
And I think you're doing...
You'd be great.
Let me just say, Victor Hugo...
You're doing a smashing job.
You're a big hit everywhere you go.
I'm very proud of everything you're doing and very glad that we're collaborating on a range of issues, including, of course, the fearsome foursome show on Wednesdays on Revolution Radio from noon to two.
On Studio B, and I hope very much you will be joining the Revolution Radio lineup, my friend.
I think you're perfect.
And I just congratulate you.
You are a smashing success.
Just smashing.
I love it.
Coming from you, Jim, that's a great honor.
I thank you very much.
I really, really appreciate that.
Yes, I guess you've kind of sort of broken some news.
Soon I will be announcing the premiere of a new show that I will be doing on Revolution Radio, but we haven't gotten all the details yet, and I will be sharing that probably on your show, Jim.
I'll announce the dates.
Excellent.
I endorse it 100%.
And thank you for this, Victor Hugo.
It's been a joy being with you here today.
Wow, I learned so much today, Jim.
I'm actually going to have to go back and watch this.
I think the viewers as well, there was so much information in this brief time that we shared that really I recommend that you watch this over again.
You taught me so much, Jim.
I would say God bless you, but you're agnostic.
So I'll say thank you very much.
And...
I appreciate it.
I don't mind.
I say, God bless America, even though I'm agnostic.
I want America to succeed, to thrive and survive as I do you, my friend.
And I do the United States of America as well.
I love that country.
It really is.
I've been all over the world, and I must say, it is the best country on earth.
And I'm not just saying that because I'm an American, but right now we need to work together.
And I'm working on that because there's a lot of division going on right now.
And so I'm working to see if we can get united again.
So thanks again, Jim.
I'll see you tomorrow.
Actually, is it later today?
Are we doing the show?
No, tomorrow.
It's tomorrow, my friend.
Yes, I will see you then, Hugo.
And thank you once again.
Remember, everybody, united we stand, divided we fall.
Never give up.
Never surrender.
Keep shining.
Live.
▲
Export Selection