Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 24, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:58:35

The Raw Deal (23 May 2025) with co-host Paul from CA and featured guest, Nick Kollerstrom

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, right here on Revolution Radio Studio B. It's 23rd day of May, 2025.
	With teams, we still have some technical glitches to work out.
	Not happy about that.
	I'm here with my co-host, Paul from California, and my very special featured guest today.
	Nick Kohlstrom from the UK, where Nick is a wonderful scholar, published on a huge range of subjects.
	He's an historian of science.
	He got the boot from University College London for doing research on delousing technology in the German labor camps of World War II.
	His book, Breaking the Spell is, in my judgment, the single most important effort published on the Holocaust mythology.
	He's also the leading expert on the London 7-7 subway attacks, Terror on the Tube.
	I have no idea which edition it's in now.
	You'll have to feel me.
	It's been a runaway bestseller.
	He has all kinds of other publications, including, of course, a lot on Sir Isaac Newton.
	Today we're going to be talking about the paperback reissue of his book On the Dark Side of Isaac Newton, which many are going to find more than mildly disconcerting.
	Meanwhile, I want to mention a couple of Stories that are now in the national press, including the fact that we have this alleged terror attack, this purported shooting.
	Near the Israeli embassy, and they emphasize it's near a Jewish museum by a couple no one's ever heard of before, coming out of an entrance no one would know the location of, who are about to become engaged.
	I mean, this is a soap opera version.
	This is just embarrassingly bad.
	What's going on here?
	Paul, let me begin with you.
	What are your thoughts about the so-called...
	Israeli embassy shooting, which appears to me to be totally fraudulent, Paul.
	Hearing Paul, Nick, your thoughts about it?
	Oh, I couldn't really comment, Jim.
	Sorry, I'm not up to speed on this.
	Oh, okay, okay, okay.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	A reason I can't quite explain, I'm having trouble with my Skype, my visuals here today.
	Nick, another story, of course, has to do with Harvard.
	Paul, is that you?
	Yeah, I think you had me muted, Jim.
	Can you hear me now?
	I can hear you very well now, Paul.
	Go right ahead.
	Tell us about the Israeli shooting.
	Totally fake.
	I mean, about as amateurish as it gets in my judgment.
	Well, you know, it's funny.
	It's one of those typical stories where the running commentary on the various news sites, I actually laughed out loud because it was amazing.
	They hit that story and then right after that started talking about the news.
	But right before that, you know, they talked about this young couple just starting out in their lives.
	One was American, one was Israeli.
	You know, it's like the little human interest anecdote.
	Meanwhile, you know, Palestinians are being slaughtered by the tens of dozens over there.
	It was just disgusting the way the news covered it.
	I don't know whether it's real or not, but I think the average person these days is, you know, they talk about black fatigue.
	I think people have Jew fatigue, Israeli Jew fatigue.
	Yeah.
	Can I ask Paul a question?
	Paul, I hear a lot of stories about fires in Israel.
	They can't put out.
	I've been raging for a week or two.
	And it seems to be something wrong.
	I mean, one gathers that it's very hot and very dry right now in Israel.
	And they can't seem to put these fires out.
	And there are some rather strange features of these fires, like you get in California with burning cars and homes burning down and the trees still there.
	Have you come across this at all?
	Obviously, it's not reported in the media.
	I just watched YouTube videos of it.
	I wonder if you have any views on it.
	Right.
	Well, you know, suspicious until proven otherwise, because fire is a fairly rare event, and it mostly would have to be set.
	Jim has had a guest on before, I believe, Robert Brame.
	Who's talked about, you know, the difference between what we used to call forest fires versus what they are always now calling wildfires.
	You know, they're wild.
	But I've not seen any photos of these fires over there, and that would tell the story.
	I mean, basically the...
	So most of the fires out here in California have been set, and almost all of them are some form of direct-out energy weapons.
	There's zero doubt about it, but the average person is just not a part of their consciousness.
	Right.
	Nick, yes.
	The fires in Paradise, California, Lahaina, Hawaii, and Pacific Balisades were all directed energy.
	The evidence is unmistakable.
	From the inside out, for example, you've got a cat that's just been turned to a perfect silhouette, but nothing but ash because it's been vaporized.
	All the water's been taken from its body instantaneously.
	Aluminum features of car wheels melting, preposterous if it were a bonafide wildfire because you wouldn't come within a thousand degrees of the temperature required for that effect to take place.
	And of course, as you're observing, you have the homes reduced to nothing, virtually nothing but ash, but you have trees and shrubbery surrounding the home untouched.
	It would be an impossibility if we were talking about a bonafide wildfire.
	Yeah.
	Well, I have the impression this was happening in Jerusalem and some cities in Israel.
	But nobody seems to know about this.
	I just watch videos of it.
	And I wonder if you guys had come across it.
	Well, you know, it's worth remembering.
	I think we live in kind of a science fiction world.
	Most people are just not prepared to deal with it.
	And, you know, I'm very familiar with the area around Malibu and Pacific Palisades where they had these fires down there.
	And it's mostly scrub.
	You know, it's like scrub brush and some scrub oak, you know, right on the coast.
	You know, you don't get a lot of greenery right next to the ocean as a rule in Southern California.
	And there was really no way for fires to spread and jump around.
	And there's a podcaster and comedian named Adam Carolla.
	And he's done many now, I think four or five of these Adam visits or Adam goes to Malibu or Palisades to look at the areas that he knows well because he was living there.
	And, you know, stuff that is just so obvious when, you know, he'll go buy a house.
	He'll talk about the damage.
	Oh, this house was damaged and that house wasn't damaged.
	I remember one in particular.
	It's like, Adam, how could you not notice this?
	Where literally a car and other objects were basically melted in the driveway and the house really didn't even have any char marks on it.
	Because fire causes things to be black.
	And, you know, he just didn't see hardly anything that was black in the area.
	It was just all this gray ash.
	And a lot of times things were burned.
	Then right next to it, things were unburned.
	And all these sometimes 20 to 30 minute blog podcasts he was doing, walking around, he never even pointed it out or noticed it.
	And it's just, it's a crazy, crazy world we're living in now.
	Anyway, just thought I'd mention that.
	I want to go back to this alleged embassy shooting.
	Here's one of the stories about it.
	Terrorists who killed Israeli embassy staffers was influenced by a foreign-linked leftist organization.
	The terrorist who killed two Israeli embassy staffers was once affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a leftist group linked to the Chinese Communist Party, funding networks that have been repeatedly contacted by Sanctioned Iranian state media.
	Of course, it's got to tie back to the Iranians.
	I mean, that's how the stage is singing.
	Of course, the guy was a pro-Palestinian declaring, you know, free Palestine.
	Just a little too staged, a little too perfect.
	Elias Rodriguez, 30, of Chicago, was detained by police on suspicion of murdering Iran.
	Lechinsky, 30, and Sarah Milgram, 26. I mean, this is just too picture-perfect.
	And as Paul is observing, he was declaring himself to be You know, the victims were one American and one Democrat?
	I mean, one American and one Israeli?
	Paul, I really like that point.
	Very nice.
	Further expansion.
	Well, that's just what they said on the news story.
	Yeah.
	You know, I had a funny thought in my head.
	I wonder what the average American news consumer right now would actually feel.
	About, you know, let's say that 10 Israelis were to be somehow killed versus, say, 10 Palestinians.
	You know, I think that there's a lot of animosity out there towards Israel and towards Jews in general, thanks to the Internet, thanks to people waking up.
	Yeah, I think the tide is turning in England.
	We had a wonderful demo last Saturday, the 77th anniversary of, what was it, birth of Israel?
	And we had half a million people turn out, nearly half a million.
	And it was a terrific march and demonstration.
	And I think British members of Parliament are finally getting the message that people are absolutely furious and disgusted with what Israel is doing.
	I mean, Israel is like the nightmare of the world these days.
	And I don't think politicians will be able to go on supporting Israel.
	In defiance of the will of the people, I would guess in America you've got now a majority of the people don't like and don't approve what Israel is doing, and it's just the Senate keeps supporting it.
	How could any decent semi-moral human being be supportive of the genocide, slaughtering women and children?
	They can't defeat Amos, so they're just going to wipe him out by starvation.
	I mean, this is grotesque, Nick.
	And, of course, the International Court of Justice is hearing the case against Israel for genocide.
	They're trying to discredit.
	The United States has supported Israel through thick and through thin.
	I'm disgusted with Trump.
	When he could end all this just by cutting off the bombs and the bullets that are being sent to Israel to perpetrate the slaughter.
	This is just a disgrace.
	Nick?
	Well, how about this, Jim?
	I think we need to argue, have a campaign, tell Americans that it's only ever had one enemy.
	The only America's only enemy.
	And let's go through the four main phases, Paul, see how you like this, of I'll go in reverse time sequence.
	Lastly there's 9 /11 at its core.
	That was an Israeli international Zionism neocon plot.
	Then before that was the USS Liberty and the shooting of JFK.
	Both of them core central Israeli motivations because Tendi was Trying to stop them from getting a nuclear program, a nuclear bomb.
	And then the first earliest attack on America, let's not forget this, back in the 1930s, was the Mafia, which was primarily Jewish, not Italian, as the Mervis try and make out.
	So I think there's been a systematic assault upon America for nearly a century by its only enemy, namely Israel.
	Yeah.
	How about that?
	Nick, you should be ashamed of yourself.
	Don't you know that Jews have a 5,000-year history of persecution?
	And Hitler holocausted 6 million.
	So I think right now I'm going to make an on-air citizen's arrest for anti-Semitism.
	All right.
	Well, let's say 3,000.
	And I think the first account was Egypt, being chucked out of Egypt.
	His story described the Pharaoh managed to get rid of them.
	It wasn't that they were having killed the captive.
	Pharaoh finally managed to get rid of them.
	I think that's the earliest example of early Hebrews being chucked out.
	And since then, they've been permanently chucked out of just about everywhere.
	Except America, of course, they have not been chucked out of America yet.
	They were too strong for America to chuck out.
	I think more people are seen through what I call the ham-handed public relations to, you know, as I mentioned earlier about, you know, for example, sympathy for Israelis or Jews versus Palestinians.
	I mean, you know, they pass laws to make you not hate them.
	I mean, just think about that, right?
	In other words, you can't hate us.
	It's a hate crime.
	I mean, no other group could even come close to what I call the transparent chutzpah that these people have, whether it's to Let's never allow them to call themselves Semitic, okay?
	The Semitic people are the Palestinians.
	They are the descendants of the people of Judea.
	The nearest thing you've got to descendants of the inhabitants of Judea, that's the Holy Land.
	People who wrote the Bible and stuff, they are descended to be the Palestinians right now.
	And the people who call themselves Israelites are colonial settlers, mainly from Europe, but from Russia, from America.
	But they're white colonial settlers invading and occupying the Holy Land.
	They're not Semitic at all.
	They're anti-Semitic.
	Correct.
	Correct.
	You know, I've been telling people for years, but, you know, you just got to go with what the language that people are familiar with.
	But, yeah, you know, as Jim has pointed out, you know, many times have made the same point quite succinctly.
	And I've just said that, you know, anti, you know, the whole idea of anti-Semitism is just a huge mind F, if you know what I'm saying.
	In other words, you know, they're generally not Semitic, right?
	Although there are some Jews that, of course, are Semitic.
	And they tell you that you're anti, not them.
	I mean, it's just really bizarre.
	And of course, again, we all are familiar with the continual propaganda about the Holocaust.
	Meanwhile, we hear nothing.
	The average person...
	I mean, there's a councilman.
	Well, it's so important that we go into that, Paul.
	I mean, Ukraine is a country in deep trauma.
	I mean, behind the conflict going on now, you've got terrible traumas that are unhealed.
	If you wanted a culture of peace, we'd want to try and work on As you say, the Haldemar, there was a lot of Jews in Stalin's Russia exterminated many millions of farmers around Ukraine.
	Maybe some people say 12 million.
	And so, therefore, people in West Ukraine have got this traumatic memories of which they might try to blame on Russia.
	Obviously Stalin's Russia isn't the Russia of today, but that is Their kind of bad memory.
	And then on the other side, Russians have got traumatic memories of the Nazis.
	Even worse, what the Nazis did.
	And the armies in Western Ukraine have direct ancestral links with the Nazis, Nazi Germany.
	If we wanted a healing of nations to take place instead of war, we'd need to go over these dire memories and just kind of cry, cry and feel the pain and talk about it and go over it, you know, and then try and reconcile ourselves.
	Yeah, and I'm sure you've seen some of the same pictures that I have from the Ukrainian, quote, salmon.
	Can you just imagine what it's like?
	People today take for granted what an easy life they have.
	You go to the store anytime.
	Many stores are open 24 hours a day.
	Get anything that you want.
	It's just incredible.
	Even if you don't have the money, you can shoplift it.
	That's what goes on here in many cases.
	Imagine growing food and being told that you can't store it.
	In many cases, we're going to confiscate it.
	you can't even eat the food that you grew.
	I mean, that sort of You know, they're getting quite old these days, probably up in their, you know, their 90s are getting near 100 here.
	But, you know, that's the thing about, like what you said, trauma is, you know, the concept of living memory.
	That's why I, you know, feel so strongly about the way I do about what's going on in America in terms of the Because in my living memory, I remember what America used to be like in the 60s and the 70s and the 80s, especially California.
	And it's not that way today.
	And there's only one group that's turning it into something completely different.
	And it's not us.
	We're not in control of our own lives, our own government.
	So can you even imagine what it's like to not be in control of your own farm, your own land?
	And that's what they did to those people over there.
	Yeah.
	Well, I think a lot of people feel that in Europe now.
	I mean, we've got a government, one in five of the electorate voted for it, and it doesn't seem to care at all about the people in this country, especially not the elderly folk.
	All it wants is more money for war and signs us up for war and seems to want to get back into the rejoin EU, which we voted to leave.
	So people feel this government And I think the idea of democracy is getting more and more, that's meaning less and less in European countries.
	We've got more than one European country had an election and they must tell, oh, no, you can't.
	You can't have that in.
	The EU steps in and crushes it because they're too independent.
	People want an independent nation called right wing or far right.
	Oh, no, we can't have that.
	So, democracy is getting to mean less and less, I would say.
	I agree completely, Nick.
	By the way, if I were mistaken about the shooting and it were actually authentic, I gotta say, the so-called manifesto sounds to me highly accurate.
	Here we have an individual by the name of Ken Klipperstein, Ken Klipperstein, who presents, yeah, I know, presents what's supposed to be the manifesto.
	Let me read parts of it, Nick.
	It's dated May 20th.
	He says it was timestamped before the event took place.
	It has his signature.
	He believes it's legit.
	May 20th, 2025.
	Harlitar is a word that means something like thunder or lightning.
	In the wake of an act, people look for a text to fix the meaning.
	So here's an attempt.
	And, of course, he's talking about what he has purportedly done or at the time intended to do.
	The atrocities committed by Israelis against Palestine Quantification.
	Instead of reading descriptions, mostly we watch them unfold on video, sometimes live.
	After a few months of rapidly mounting death tolls, Israel had obliterated the capacity to even continue counting the dead, which had served its genocide well.
	At time of writing, the Gaza Health Ministry records 53,000.
	Killed by traumatic force.
	I'm convinced, Nick, as I'm sure you are, the number is overwhelmingly greater.
	Right, yeah.
	Yeah.
	At least 10,000 lie under rubble.
	Who knows how many thousand more of preventable disease, hunger, with tens of thousands now at risk of imminent famine due to Israeli blockade, all enabled by Western and Arab government complicity.
	This guy writes really very well, because the Information Office includes the 10,000 under the rubble with the dead in their own count.
	In news reports, there have been those 10,000 under the rubble for months now, despite the continual making of more rubble and repeated bombing of rubble again and again, and the bombing of tents amid the rubble, like the Yemen death doll.
	Which had been frozen at some few thousand for years under Saudi-UK-U.S.
	bombardment before being belatedly revealed to stand at 500,000 dead.
	All these figures are almost surely a criminal undercount.
	I have no trouble believing estimates that put the toll at 100,000 or more.
	More have been murdered since March of the year than in protective edge and cast lead put together.
	What more at this point can one say about the proportion of mangled and burned and exposed human beings who are children?
	We have let this happen and will never deserve the Palestinian forgiveness.
	They've let us know as much.
	An arm action is not necessarily a military action.
	It usually is not.
	Usually it's theater and spectacle, a quality it shares with many unarmed actions.
	Nonviolent protests in the opening weeks of the genocide seem to signal some sort of turning point.
	Never before had so many tens of thousands join the Palestinians in the streets across the West.
	Never before had so many American politicians been forced to concede that, rhetorically at least.
	The Palestinians were human beings, too.
	But thus far, the rhetoric has not amounted to much.
	The Israelis themselves boast about their own shock at the free hand the Americans have given them to exterminate the Palestinians.
	Public opinion has shifted against a genocidal apartheid state, and the American government has simply shrugged.
	Without public opinion, then.
	Criminalize it where they can.
	Suffocate it with bland reassurances they're doing all they can to restrain Israel where it cannot.
	Criminalize protests outright.
	But it's doing the best, I add, as an aside.
	Aaron Bush, Neil, and others sacrificed themselves in the hope of stopping the massacre.
	And the state works to make us feel their sacrifice was made in vain, that there is no hope.
	In escalating for Gaza, and no point in bringing the war home.
	We can't let them succeed.
	Their sacrifices were not made in vain.
	Now, Nick, we're about to hit a break.
	There's more to it I want to share.
	I'd love your thoughts about this.
	It seemed to me very well written.
	He seemed to be informed about the situation.
	I'm having trouble taking exception to anything he said here.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And who was this fellow who wrote this?
	This is the guy who did the shooting at the embassy, more importantly.
	His name is Rodriguez.
	They're trying to destroy the pro-Palestine case, which is what they always try to do.
	And there's something behind this story.
	We'll probably find out about it in a week or so's time when it's out of the news.
	It's a very formulaic thing.
	We've seen it for decades.
	In other words, what they do is they'll put a lot of truth, kind of the way that either most people feel or the kind of knowledge that most people would have, and then they make it a right-wing nutjob who is using violence.
	I mean, when you took a look at the so-called Unabomber Manifesto, and I don't believe Ted Kaczynski wrote that.
	I think a lot of these things are written by You know, loose, what I would call intelligence writing committees, you know, where they workshop them back and forth.
	Yeah.
	There's zero chance that this guy, okay, who, you know, may or may not be an actual shooter.
	I've just been notified the break is playing, so it's playing over the air.
	So we'll just remain in silence for a few minutes until it resumes.
	Right, yeah.
	Stand by.
	Stand by.
	Stand by.
	so we'll be able to finish it.
	Why do either?
	It's okay to be in there.
	Why not have it in there?
	No, no, that's okay.
	That's okay.
	No, leave it in there.
	Leave it in there.
	Thanks, Dean.
	I gotta get back on the air.
	I'll call you later.
	I'll call you later.
	We're back.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	I've been notified.
	I mean, how awkward is this?
	I'm having to get outside vote calls that tell us when the breaks are starting, when they're ending, so people will be able to hear what we have to say.
	Give us an ever so brief recap of what you've said so far, Nick.
	And then, Paul, I thought I was making a very nice point about the formulaic character here.
	Nick, first.
	Well, I haven't got much to say about this adventure.
	Okay, well, let me get Paul.
	Paul, go ahead and repeat your formula, because it was partially incoherent because of the broadcast of the break.
	Go ahead.
	Repeat.
	Yeah, well, I guess it'll be okay when we post it up on BitChute.
	Yeah, so again, we've all, I don't know how much people have read of these various things.
	So, for example, you know, let's take the Unabomber manifesto as a perfect example.
	Well, when you go through that, you know, a lot of it just resonates with, you know, if you're a human being, you know, it's sort of like the old thing about when you're.
	And when you're older and you're not conservative, you don't have a brain, that kind of thing.
	Well, when you read and understand the points that are being made, you just kind of say, yeah, I get it.
	Nod your head with it.
	But here's a guy that supposedly set off bombs and blew people's fingers off.
	So, okay, that's a...
	And so here you got this guy, right?
	He supposedly just shoots two people at random, doesn't even know them, right?
	And, of course, they're, quote, innocent, right?
	They're not over there and, you know, they're not flying the jets, dropping the bombs on the Palestinians.
	They're just, quote, innocent Jews.
	And he writes this very, very thoughtful, okay, and mostly accurate, quote, manifesto.
	I mean, this is just the thumbprint or the fingerprint of the kind of things that these people do over and over again, which goes all the way back to Operation Chaos.
	You know, it's sort of another MKUltra program where they blackwashed the hippie war protest movement.
	And one of the major things they did there was with the Charles Manson, Sharon Tate murders.
	And of course those were fake in my opinion.
	And of course, who were these people that supposedly did it?
	They were the hippies, the flower children, right?
	You know, love and peace and all that.
	So this is what they do.
	It's called blackwashing.
	So again, it's just Let me continue with the manifesto, which I think will fit your scenario to a T. The impunity that representatives of our government feel that abetting the slaughter should be revealed as an illusion then.
	The impunity we see is the worst for those of us in immediate proximity to the genociders.
	A surgeon who treated victims of the Mayan genocide by the Guatemalan state recounts an instance in which he was operating on a patient who'd been critically injured during a massacre when suddenly armed gunmen entered the room and shot the patient to death on the operating table laughing as they killed him.
	The physician said the worst part was seeing the killer as well known to him openly swaggered down local streets in the years after.
	Elsewhere, a man of conscience once attempted to throw Robert McNamara off of Martha's Vineyard-bound ferry into the sea, incensed at the same impunity and arrogance he saw in that butcher of Vietnam as he sat in the ferry's lounge laughing with friends.
	The man took issue with McNamara's very posture, telling you, my history is fine and I can be...
	The men did not succeed in heaving McNamara off the catwalk into the water.
	The former Secretary of State managed to cling to the railing and clamber back to his feet, but the assailant explicated the value of the attempt by saying, well, I got him outside, just the two of us, and suddenly his history wasn't so fine, was it?
	A word about the morality of harm demonstration.
	Those of us against genocide take satisfaction in arguing that the perpetrators and abettors have forfeited their humanity.
	I sympathize with this viewpoint and understand its value in soothing the psyche, which cannot bear to accept the atrocities that witnesses even mediated through the screen.
	But inhumanity, as long as it showed itself to be shockingly common, mundane, prosaically human, a perpetrator may then be a loving parent, a filial child, a generous and charitable friend, an amiable stranger, capable moral strength at times when it suits you, and sometimes even when it does not, and yet be a monster at the same time.
	Humanity doesn't exempt one from accountability.
	The action would have been morally justified taken 11 years ago during Protective Hedge around the time I personally became acutely aware of our brutal conduct in Palestine.
	But I think to most Americans such an action would have been illegible, would have seemed insane.
	I am glad that today there are many Americans for which this action will be highly legible and in some funny way the only sane thing to do.
	I love you, Mom, Dad, Baby, Sis, the rest of my family.
	Free Palestine.
	Go, Paul.
	Yeah.
	So all that you read, that's purportedly all in this manifesto written by this guy.
	Right.
	Yeah, so that's exactly my sentiment.
	Yeah, right.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Some guy named Rodriguez wrote this.
	You know, most people can't write, and a lot of people can't write very well.
	Okay.
	So, you know, this whole thing, anytime that you read something like that, you just know it's fake.
	It's put together by one very talented, very thoughtful writer, author, or several in collaboration.
	You know, the average individual is not going to take the time to do all that, write all that, think all that.
	So, again, you know, it's a perfect example of what these people do, these psyops.
	And your email should be right there right now, Jim.
	It's been there for a few minutes.
	A photo of a billboard near me that was up.
	I don't know if you could check your mail and put it up and you'll see.
	This will make a perfect point of what we're talking about.
	Okay, let me see what I got here.
	It says photo of billboard.
	Keep talking, keep talking.
	Nick will enjoy this photo.
	Anyway, it's not there anymore.
	It's changed since then, but it was up for probably the better part of two years, right?
	There you go.
	How do you like that, Nick?
	You don't have to be a Jew to protect Jews.
	Jewbelong.org.
	You want to spell it out?
	Yeah, that's okay.
	I mean, this is what they do, right?
	They buy billboards, okay?
	Now, I bet you right now, if you wanted to put up a billboard about the Palestinians, more than likely it might not even be allowed.
	Who knows?
	Yeah, that's a nice point.
	But yeah, you're driving down the road, you take a look at that billboard, and, you know, it's just these people.
	The people that rule us, the people that steal from us, the people that try to poison us, you know?
	You've got it bad.
	Almost all senators support Israel, don't they, in America.
	You've got a massive majority.
	I mean, you're screwed, really.
	You've got 2% of Jews in America.
	That's a very high proportion, you know.
	We've only got about half of 1%.
	Get this talk about lunatics or us.
	Representative Randy Fine implies Gaza should be nuked like Japan after the D.C. shooting.
	Thursday, Representative Randy Fine, a Republican of Florida, appeared to suggest Gaza should be nuked like Japan was during World War II in response to the shooting in Washington, D.C. that killed two Israeli embassy staffers.
	Just think about the disproportionate of the response.
	It's like October 7th, right?
	I mean, they've got to slaughter the entire Palestinian community in Gaza in response to The congressman was asked in an interview on Fox if the shooting should change the course of Israel's onslaught on Gaza.
	Well, I think it's big to the importance of the only end of the conflict that completed...
	In World War II, we did not negotiate a surrender with the Nazis.
	We did not negotiate a surrender with the Japanese.
	We nuked the Japanese twice in order to get unconditional surrender.
	That needs to be the same here.
	Paul.
	Yeah, lovely people.
	Lovely sentiments, huh?
	This is insane.
	As I say, these are the lunatics running the asylum.
	No, Jim, they're God's chosen people.
	They're our persecuted brethren.
	Yeah, just for the record, the Japanese surrendered primarily because the Russian army had defeated them.
	That was the prime reason for the surrender.
	And that was more or less happening before the nukes were dropped.
	I think the nukes are more a demonstration to Russia that America have got this power.
	Right, but the Soviets and the US have this new weapon to intimidate them.
	I agree, Nick, 100%.
	Well, plus, I'm sure Nick understands, just like you do, Jim, the real true causes of those wars.
	And the fact of the matter is, is the West, Britain and America started both of them.
	Right?
	Well, yeah, I've got a little book on that.
	How Britain Started Both World Wars.
	Nice little book.
	Easy to read book.
	Really?
	I was not aware of that.
	I'll have to actually look into that.
	Wow, I'm just going to dump it.
	But this is...
	This guy, Nick Hollerstrom.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	It's got...
	It's my, I think it's my one bestseller, actually.
	How brilliant did both world wars, Nick?
	Beautiful, beautiful.
	Yeah, good.
	It's a gripping, gripping, easy-to-read little book.
	And it shows how warmongers work, you know.
	Have you ever come across a book, Nick, called Uncovering the Forces for War by Conrad Grieve?
	1947.
	I don't think so, no.
	Very, very interesting read, and of course it covers probably some of the points you cover, but yeah, it was all essentially a manipulation for domination of the world markets.
	I mean, Britain didn't, I mean, there's many more things going on there, but Britain did not want Germany as a competitor.
	So they made war upon them.
	It's fairly simple.
	So many other things have gone on in this world.
	I mean, we did not want to...
	Germany, both world wars, the heads of Germany were wanting to support the British Empire and said that even send German troops in support of the British Empire if it was in trouble.
	Because they were totally pro-British, you know.
	But oh no, oh no, they had to be the enemy.
	We had to fight them.
	And so we lost the Empire.
	Europe lost its self-confidence, really, through those two wars.
	Nobody was better off after those wars.
	As a result of those wars, besides all the unfortunate loss of precious, in many cases probably irreplaceable, genetic material of the white race, the world was essentially wrecked after that.
	Yeah, unless you want to claim Jews getting Israel, you might want to say that was the only victorious outcome.
	In many ways, America was richer.
	In many ways, America lent a lot of money and became the dominant world power afterwards.
	So you might want to argue that America...
	Oh, there's no doubt about that.
	So then it was a big ripe gold calf waiting to be asset stripped by the you-know-whos.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	That's what's taking place.
	One of the first lines in one of the first chapters of a book I read about after World War II, mostly the book was about economics, and it said that, So things are now unraveling.
	And, of course, this is probably all part of their plot.
	I mean, there's many things that they can't do.
	The trouble is that, you see, America grew through war.
	All sorts of wars helped America to expand and get a more and more dominant position.
	Presidents and rulers, looking back on its past history, would see wars as being successful.
	That is, as it were, the catastrophe that we're in now and the alleged report from the Iron Mountain in the 1970s that really existed was basically a recommendation for perpetual war because America had always succeeded through wars.
	And so that the very dire question now is, can you imagine America living without war?
	You know, I doubt, I think you must can actually.
	But that is, in a way, a consequence of its past history of always succeeding through wars.
	And because nobody ever wants to attack America, it always has to create false flag pretext for its wars.
	The question is, can anything change?
	Have we got any other option for a culture of peace?
	You're going to love this.
	Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said at a press conference on Wednesday, today's Friday, on Wednesday, that President Trump assured him that the U.S. was committed to Israel despite a slew of media reports that have said there's friction between them.
	Let me give you some details that perhaps haven't been made public.
	A few days ago, I think around 10 days ago, maybe more, I speak on the phone with President Trump, he said, according to the Times of Israel.
	And he said to me, literally, Bibi, I want you to know, I have absolute commitment to you.
	I have absolute commitment to the State of Israel, the Israeli leader added.
	Netanyahu said he also spoke with Vice President Vance, who said to me, listen, don't pay attention to those fake news spins about this rupture between us.
	He said, it's all spin.
	This isn't the truth.
	You know it's not true, and I'm telling you, from our side, it's not true.
	Wow, of course not true.
	Absolute obedience, obeisance to Bibi Netanyahu.
	Unbelievable.
	Yeah, well, the people of America have got to rise up and protest and shake the leaders of America out.
	This is a hypnotic condition they're in.
	They're hypnotised.
	They're not acting on behalf of their own country, which is treason.
	They're acting on behalf, putting greater priority to a foreign country, which, as I said earlier, is literally the only enemy that America has ever had.
	Adoration towards America is a kind of heterotism.
	We all know there's a Tariq financial circulation.
	America gives billions to Israel, and Israel then gives millions back to all the senators to bribe them.
	I mean, maybe there isn't a solution.
	Nick, you're 100% correct.
	By the way, that pause in the war in ukraine which i thought indicated trump really man up when he said he wanted to end those two but wars was apparently ordered by Pete Hegg said, the Secretary of Defense, it wasn't even Trump's order.
	When he learned about it, he reversed it.
	How bad is that?
	You know, the one action I thought was most promising, made me have the greatest confidence in Trump, was when there was that suspension of aid.
	He could suspend the aid to Israel today at the stroke of a pen, and the slaughter would end.
	Nick, it's outrageous.
	And of course, you're there in the UK.
	It's just outrageous.
	Paul.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead, Nick.
	Well, everyone feels that our blood is boiling at this absolute horror.
	I think there's a marvellous speech that a Chinese minister gave to the International Court of Justice, pleading with it that civilised life must be allowed to continue.
	And that means that Israel has got to be stopped.
	And now China has taken real steps now.
	Giant Chinese planes are flying in with aid to Gaza and Israel doesn't dare to block Chinese planes.
	It doesn't dare.
	So Chinese are doing something and generally for any conflict resolution, I would say the Chinese show consummate skill in how to do it and how to go about resolving strife and conflict.
	Whereas Western politicians don't seem to have the ability to think in those terms.
	They just think in terms of short soundbites.
	They always want the war.
	Who's going to pay me?
	and they seem to be fixed into just short slogans of warlike mentality.
	In this country, we...
	There are anti-war people who are admired, like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn.
	Well, hang on.
	Jeremy Corbyn is in Parliament.
	He is the one dove of peace we've got in Parliament today.
	Well, you know, it's funny.
	Hopefully, Nick will get a chuckle out of this, too, with all due respect to Nick's scholarship.
	I do take issue with the statement he's made a couple of times that Israel is the only enemy that we've ever had.
	I think that Britain has done a pretty good job of that a couple of times.
	Well, yeah, yeah, I agree.
	The initial independent breakaway was horrible.
	Well, you burned our capital in the War of 1812.
	That was pretty nasty stuff there.
	Right, right, yeah, yeah.
	Listen, anyone who's had lingering doubts about Trump, for me, this has sealed the deal.
	An intolerable attack.
	Trump DHS blocks Harvard from enrolling international students.
	There's no purpose to this other than Harvard and his students were not fully capitulating to Trump.
	A professor at the University of Denver wrote, in my opinion, this action by Trump is going to lead to the resentment of every intellectual in America.
	This is so outrageous.
	Observers are sharply condemning a decision by the Trump admin announced Thursday, yesterday, to terminate Harvard's student exchange and visitor program certification, meaning the Ivy League school will no longer be able to enroll foreign students.
	According to the announcement from Homeland Security, the move also means foreign students already enrolled at Harvard must transfer elsewhere.
	The administration alleges that school leaders have permitted, quote, anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and politically, physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students.
	This is an absurd claim.
	It's categorically false.
	In a statement shared with multiple outlets, a spokesman for the school called the Trump ad actions unlawful.
	This retaliatory action threatens Syria's heart to the Harvard community in our country and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission.
	Harvard has over 6,700 international students, according to data, 27% international enrollment.
	This intolerable attack on Harvard's independence and academic freedom is plainly governmental retaliation for Harvard's speech, standing up for itself, and the rule of law.
	America must rally to the side of Harvard and its students in court and Congress and in our communities, said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the school.
	I am losing my mind with the lawlessness of this administration, wrote Devin Driscoll, a lawyer, on next Thursday.
	The government is singling out Harvard because they don't like it, and it's fighting back.
	Erin Reschland-Milnick, an immigration lawyer, wrote, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's action is also likely illegal.
	She doesn't name a single rule Harvard has alleged to have violated.
	An SEVP certification cannot be terminated discretionary.
	Seth Maskin, a political science professor at the University of Denver, wrote on Blue Sky, There is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully conventionally to President Donald Trump.
	Now this is, of course, a free speech issue.
	This is a case where Harvard has not condemned students for protesting the genocide.
	And frankly, what more noble cause could students have to protest a genocide?
	And to claim that Jewish students are being physically harassed is complete bullshit.
	It's not happening.
	It's a phony story.
	It's what we're getting from this administration that is kissing Beebe's ass.
	I am disgusted, Nick.
	Every academician in the country is going to be appalled by this.
	Trump is going to lose massive support over this specific issue, which I regard as impeachable.
	Well, this is control and domination, which...
	And it's absolutely central for America's future destiny of being able to, in some way, put a stop to this.
	Otherwise, you'll be slaves, you'll end up with a Noahide religion, and you won't be allowed freedom of thought.
	As I may add, Benjamin Franklin did warn people about this.
	He said a couple of centuries ago, if you let Jews come into the country like this, your sons and daughters will end up working for them and being controlled by them.
	I mean, they do have an agenda of mental control and kind of enslavement, telling you what you've got to believe.
	And they've always been like that.
	The civilizations that survive...
	Iran also has a position.
	The Jews are perfectly happy in Iran, if I may say so.
	They don't want to leave it.
	And Iran, I believe, has a similar principle.
	They're not allowed to get to the top and become in control.
	In Europe, we had that rule until Napoleon changed it.
	He removed that block, that impediment.
	Now there's a glass ceiling.
	They couldn't get up any higher.
	That's interesting.
	I'd never heard that before, Nick.
	I learned something today.
	Oh, right.
	Well, I recommend The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reid.
	Get that on your shelf.
	Spend a summer holiday reading it.
	Now the glass ceiling is more the other way around.
	So the BBC, you know, the broadcasting company, there's a glass ceiling for anybody who isn't Jewish.
	You're not likely to be able to get up higher unless you're Jewish, you know.
	And that's the way it goes, as we're finding out to our sort of doom.
	You know, I've never cared if a person were Jewish or non-Jewish.
	I never realized the enormity of the political significance of Zionism until relatively recently, say, certainly within the last decade.
	Many have been far ahead of me in that regard.
	I have very close friends who are Jewish, and I have tremendous affection and admiration for them.
	I'm just the same, yeah.
	I'm just the same, Jim.
	I've always had good friends who are Jewish.
	I've always been slightly in awe, actually, to be honest, of their intelligence and also their cosmopolitan attitude, which I was always brought up to respect.
	I've personally come across these kind of Jews who kind of aspire towards this sort of control and domination, which is the dark shadow side of Judaism.
	That's always there.
	It's there.
	Just look at, say, the Book of Isaiah or something.
	Nick, hold that thought.
	I'm being notified we're...
	Thank you.
	This is good, helpful.
	Yeah, I thought that 60-minute stuff That was wonderful.
	Yeah, I do.
	No, no, no.
	I want it in there.
	Yeah.
	I was troubled.
	See, I had to create a new variation on the cover.
	That's why I put the question mark in there.
	But I don't like it.
	If it's a variation on the cover, as I saw to explain in those voicemails, it might be better, but I don't care.
	Just do whatever you think is best.
	We cannot use the original cover.
	No, there was no question mark on the original cover.
	See, they got the book.
	They took the book through the lawsuit team.
	They took the book.
	They took the cover.
	He had the copyright.
	That was what the lawsuit was.
	That's really what it turned out to be.
	But if you had a variation on it, you know, if you had it kind of distorted or something, some way that doesn't, You can use that.
	So I was suggesting you might put your ingenuity come up with some.
	This coming weekend tomorrow and Sunday?
	Oh, you mean you're coming for a visit?
	Come for a visit!
	Come on, come on, come on.
	Come on.
	Do it.
	Do it.
	Stay for the week.
	I'm just going to come sit in.
	Sure.
	Right.
	Good.
	Good.
	Thank you.
	Okay, I've got to get back on.
	I'll call you in the next break.
	I'll call you in the next break.
	30 minutes of the iPad.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'm glad to say we're back on the air and a friend is calling me to tell me when the breaks begin and end.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Lay on about Harvard.
	I'm just outraged.
	This is just so disgusting.
	It has me incensed.
	Yeah, I think I mentioned this before.
	I want to comment on the – I'll just give you my quick thoughts on Harvard, but I definitely want to comment on what you just said and what Nick just said about knowing, you know, But yeah, as far as Harvard goes, I come at it a little bit differently.
	I enjoy all these things that Trump does to make people angry.
	Now, in principle, of course, you're correct in terms of the free speech and so on and so forth.
	But I just think many of the good things and many of the ridiculous things that Trump does To make the left angry and maybe even some of the people in the middle angry.
	To me, it's entertainment.
	And I think the average person doesn't give a damn about anybody going to Harvard and what happens to them.
	I mean, I'm just talking from the average American walking around kind of point of view.
	So even though you're exactly correct, I just have watched too many of these videos, you know, like when liberals and lefties lose it.
	And it's just so, you know, I've made my opinion to Trump very well known for many years, Jim, and I was, I think you can say fairly, I was ahead of the curve in knowing what he was, who he was, and not trusting him.
	But I thoroughly enjoy how he riles people up.
	So quickly on this idea, this notion of individual versus the group.
	Okay, which is what I've labeled the not all argument, which I have spent lots of time on this and other networks, in my opinion, attempting to destroy or destroying the not all argument, because it's not really an argument.
	It's actually an observation, and it's masquerading as an argument.
	We never know who it is that's going to rise to political control, economic control, pharmaceutical control, and then engage in criminal activity.
	We never know which Jews.
	Just for example, everybody can say, well, I have black friends.
	And it's true.
	I have black friends.
	I've had them.
	I have them now.
	That has nothing to do with overall black behavior and what we have to take into account in society.
	Because we're not just individuals.
	This is the kind of weird place that we're in where they sell us on this individuality and this individual freedom, but we're all dependent upon each other.
	Okay, for many, many things.
	I mean, including the food we buy every day, right?
	Including my recent hospital visit.
	So we live in a society.
	And what happens is when these people get into positions of power, it takes a very small handful to control, well, in this case, essentially the entire nation.
	And in reality, in many cases, they're running the world.
	And so the idea that you can let them, as Benjamin Franklin and others have said, To let them in your society, you can't really talk about, well, I've known this Jew and I've known that Jew and they're wonderful people, because that doesn't really matter.
	We have to make group decisions based upon group characteristics.
	So in other words, wolves act like wolves, giraffes act like giraffes, crows act like crows.
	So any policy that we're to have, if we're to have a policy as a nation, has to take that into consideration.
	I'm a human being like anybody else, but we have to recognize that thinking about Jews individually is going to be to our detriment.
	Oh, I get it.
	I get it.
	That's an excellent argument.
	Meanwhile, federal judge blocks Trump admin from revoking international students' legal status.
	This is dated yesterday, Thursday, May 22nd.
	A federal judge in California has blocked Trump admin from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the United States.
	In the injunction, District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland also prohibited the administration from arresting or detaining any foreign-born students on the basis of their immigration status while a case challenging previous termination moves through the courts.
	In his decision, White said the Trump admin has wreaked havoc on the lives of plaintiffs as well as other international students.
	Today's ruling delays justice and seeks a kneecap.
	The president's constitutionally listed power center article 2, claimed the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Trisha McLaughlin in a response.
	The Trump admin is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system.
	We expect a higher court to vindicate us in this.
	We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.
	I don't believe that for a second.
	I think this whole thing is outrageous, grossly violent, punishing Harvard.
	What an outrage.
	Nick, your thoughts.
	Well, I'm very interested in this, Jim, but I can't really help you.
	I think the university needs its own sovereignty and autonomy, and the staff of the college need to be able to make their own judgments and not be pushed around by the university.
	So there needs to be a limit on what the state thinks it's supposed to do.
	And that does not include telling the universities how to behave.
	Their reputation, their integrity and their standard will be achieved not by being bossed around by the state.
	But by their own staff setting their standards and determining their goals.
	And it's terribly important.
	I think it's what's called a right-wing view that the college themselves determine what they want to do.
	And that includes such things as, you know, marking papers.
	Which is, in this day and age, sorry, I'm changing the subject a bit, is a closely guarded secret, the portion of blacks and different ethnic groups who get grades at Harvard because they can so easily get accused of racism by the outcome that they need to say our examiners are colour blind, we mark according to talent and the ethnic composition of the grades is not our business at all.
	It's generally understood in higher education that, well, Harvard's undergraduate program might only rank around fifth, Princeton number one, MIT number two, Yale in the mix, but that its graduate programs are superb, and that's what draws its vast number of foreign students.
	Harvard has a tremendous amount of income, revenue, from the tuition paid by foreign students to attendance.
	Good programs.
	There you go.
	It's a way in which the United States is a beacon for all nations of the world to be exemplary in higher education and for Trump to be trashing that.
	You know, it's an agenda to take down America.
	If you had an agenda to take down America, this is one of the moves you would make.
	The Constitution is the best thing you've got in America, the US Constitution.
	Try to maintain it as you will have it in your back pocket.
	And I think our main aim of the US Constitution was to limit the central power of government.
	And I think you need to be very, very emphatic that this is done.
	Yes, yes, Paul.
	Right, well, that was the idea, right?
	To bind the government with the chains of the Constitution.
	How's that working out so far, you know?
	Right, right.
	I mean, the enemy, as Paul rightly points out, the original enemy was England, and they did not want a king or a monarch with any idea of absolute powers which the king used to have.
	Now, any elected president is going to want those kind of powers.
	He's only here for five years.
	He wants to be able to boss everyone around.
	And so he will want to assert himself to get more and more powers.
	And the horrible fact is that by declaring a war, you get emergency powers.
	able to boss people around a lot more.
	And people in America need to be very emphatic in stopping this from happening or trying to stop it from happening.
	Saying we do not want a president to have these only powers like a monarch, be able to boss everyone around.
	I mean I He doesn't seem to have any circle or group of wise advisers around him.
	He just comes out with these crackpot decisions and changes his mind a week later.
	I'm horrified that he seems able to do this without anyone guarding him, just because he won an election.
	Well, I'm going to take a little bit of the opposite tack here.
	Even though I do agree, I heard everything you just, Nick said, he made a lot of very, what I would call precisely true points about the role of the government, universities, and so on.
	But I think people actually want Trump, if not necessarily Trump, they want Trump.
	The system, these people that are running, quote, the system, they count on the system being the sort of bureaucracy where stuff never gets done, never really changes.
	And I think that people actually, the appeal of Trump, what it proves more than anything, okay, is that they want a strong man, okay?
	People don't want...
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, go ahead, Paul.
	Go ahead.
	I think people are tired of bureaucrats and bureaucracy.
	And more than anything, what Trump appealed to in most cases is a guy, a bull in a china shop who's not going to take no for an answer, who's going to kick things around and get things done.
	That's what they want.
	The problem is Trump's not going to do it for us, right?
	There may be some side benefit that the average working person will reap, but he's going to do it for his cronies and international Jewish capital.
	That's always going to be a priority until such time that it's not.
	And I think there's only one way that that's going to occur.
	He's being so open about it, Paul.
	I don't think anyone can mistake it.
	Nick, especially, is here to talk about the paperback edition being released of his book On the Dark Side of Isaac Newton.
	Right, yeah, let's do that.
	Yeah?
	There, let me just read what Amazon has, which Nick no doubt authored.
	Isaac Newton was accorded a semi-divine status in the 18th and 19th century, whereby his image linked together religion and science.
	The real human being behind the demigod image has tended to be lost.
	He was a person who took credit from others, crushed the reputation of those to whom he owed the most.
	The most brilliant of mathematicians could always be devious, deceptive, and duplicitous.
	This work doesn't go looking at unpublished alchemical musings as is nowadays fashionable.
	Rather, it sticks to the historical record.
	At the time, when the new science was born, And we're talking about classical Newtonian physics, of course.
	We scrutinize the ways in which he failed to discover the law of gravity or to invent calculus.
	What exactly did Leibniz mean describing him as a mind neither fair nor honest?
	Why did Robert Hooke describe him as the verest knave in all the house?
	And why was the astronomer Flamstein calling him sin?
	S-I-N as an abbreviation for Sir Isaac Newton.
	We are here concerned to give him credit for what he did discover, which may not mean quite what you have been told.
	This book reminds the genius of Isaac Newton, but without the heavily mythological baggage of a bygone era, he believed in one God, one law, and one bank.
	Nick, fascinating, fascinating, fascinating.
	Tell us more about the greatest, with the possible exception of Galileo and Einstein, the most celebrated figure in the history of science.
	Yeah, well, this is my years, Jim.
	Thanks very much.
	When I was at University College London in the Science and Technology Studies Department, and I got a degree in history of science, okay?
	I was regarding you as quite a remote character who supposedly did all these things, you know.
	And one thing or another, I was very interested in the Moon and motions of the Moon and dynamics of the lunar motion.
	It always fascinates me.
	It's so elusive and enigmatic, you know.
	And I guess that's how I got into looking at Newton's work originally.
	And my first book was called Newton's Forgotten Lunar Theory.
	It looked at the way he discovered rules for ascertaining how the moon moved, but he couldn't ever get it to work on his gravity theory.
	Everything else in the universe was obeying his inverse square law of gravity, but he could never quite figure out the moon's motion because it needs very difficult calculus to get it right.
	They didn't have that in those days.
	So I think that was initially my interest.
	I gradually got to realise what a devious character he was, you know, and there's this quite likeable character, Robert Hooke, who was a brilliant inventor and he pulled together the early Royal Society of London.
	We're talking about the restoration around about 1660 when Charles II, the King was brought back to England after Commonwealth of Cromwell.
	Royal Society was set up and Rob Hook was the guy who kept it all together.
	He'd produce all sorts of demonstrations, experiments and he was friends who knew everybody and he was a short little hunchback figure, so not really suitable as a sort of hero image.
	He went around helping to redesign London with Christopher Wren.
	In those days people had different talents.
	They weren't specialists like we are today.
	And the thing he worked on mostly after many years was this idea of some force that held things together in the universe that became the law of gravity.
	And how objects moved in space and could the circulation of the heavens be accounted for by a law of gravity?
	And he wrote to Weiss at Newton eventually in 1699 saying my supposition is that there's a force throughout the universe that works as inverse square of the distance.
	This is very much at the core of what came to be called Newton's theory of gravity.
	Now Newton in those days, he'd got a right?
	So that's what Newton believed.
	And around the earth there was another vortex which carried the moon around.
	So this was sort of fluid type stuff that made everything move.
	Newton pondered this and he also had his own etheric fluid which moved downwards.
	It moved down into the centre of the earth, this terrific etheric fluid, and it was sticky and it got hold of things and pulled them downwards.
	That's why things fell downwards, because this downward flowing ether.
	And he wrote all this up in a big...
	This is very much like traditional alchemy of etheric vortex and stuff.
	He sent it to the Royal Society of how nature works in this circulatory manner and everything.
	So he got this What was really his theory, which he put forward, and that is why he was doing loads of alchemy experiments.
	He had an alchemical furnace.
	Every day he was tending to it in Trinity College, Cambridge, trying to fix antimony and mercury and stuff, reading these old alchemy textbooks.
	So he's a million miles away from what Hooke suggested to him, right, about this inverse square law.
	He wasn't into it at all.
	And what happened then?
	Various people, like Edmund Halley, were trying to ponder what made the planets go round.
	And the genius Kepler, Johann Kepler, earlier in the century, showed the planets all go round in ellipses.
	Go elliptical motion around the Sun.
	And people were just getting used to it.
	Everything going around the Sun, not going around the Earth anymore.
	So everything was sort of in flux of what you're supposed to believe, right?
	And then...
	dead wrong.
	And instead, there had to be this universe inverse square.
	Now, he was a brilliant mathematician, so he could cope with the whole inverse square law.
	You can cope with it much better than Hook did, right?
	And that's what people Everyone felt that if we're going to get anywhere with these Kepler's laws being ellipses and the law of gravity, Newton's probably the guy who's going to figure it out.
	So Hooke sent him this proposal.
	And he could also give talks to the Royal Society about this universal gravity principle, how the planets moved and why things moved downwards and so on.
	And anyway, Newton started writing up and it was his character that he couldn't really acknowledge anyone else's contribution.
	He would see everything as him and also God, God who kind of gave him the idea, right?
	He started to talk to Edmund Halley, and Halley funded the publication of this book in Principia, right?
	And in 1687, he got the whole book ready, a couple of years writing it, and so his big masterpiece was finally given to the Royal Society to be published.
	And it was extremely obscure.
	The maths, nobody could follow it, right?
	The geometry was very, very arcane.
	His way of doing things, however he moved, it was all explained geometrically by his own logic, which, to be honest, nobody's really ever understood it.
	But it was the big classic textbook, right?
	And Hooke realised that his whole theory had been taken and he was hardly acknowledged.
	He was slightly acknowledged but then Newton got more and more angry when Hook was protesting and the more angry Newton got the more he deleted any reference to Hook.
	So Hook found himself written out of the story and he got very fed up by realizing that Newton had taken his whole gravity theory and written it up in informal mathematics.
	You see Hook's stuff was very People loved reading his book.
	It was all practical inventions like the microscope.
	Practical stuff people could enjoy.
	Look down a microscope, this sort of thing, and gears that came to be used for transport.
	All sorts of useful stuff Robert Hooke was developing and a total contrast with Newton as the pure mathematician who'd write stuff hardly anyone could understand.
	Anyway, Newton's book was felt to be the big synthesis of how the universe worked.
	If only you could understand it, you know.
	Okay, so I would say in general what I tried to bring out my account is the way Newton was very brutal towards the people who he actually owed most to.
	He wasn't really interested in other people at all, actually, not generally, and so Hook was personally crushed.
	He never recovered from the shock of that.
	Now the two other main people who were very keen, very great admirers of Newton, and really tried to get on with him, there was Leibniz, the brilliant He's an all-round genius in Germany, Hanover, and he was developing what came to be called differential calculus, right?
	That was being developed with Leibniz and some other mathematicians, the Bernoulli brothers.
	The calculus was about how you treat things that are moving.
	If things are moving in space, Old-fashioned maths isn't much use, and calculus is about change, how things are changing, right?
	And that was coming to be regarded.
	At the beginning of the 18th century, we realised this is the biggest mathematical discovery since the Arabs invented zero.
	You know, it was the big thing.
	Now, and get this, all the Newton's theories, for example, Everyone thinks f equals ma.
	Force equals mass times acceleration.
	That is the way people express what are called Newton's laws of motion.
	The point is that what I brought out is that Newton never heard of that equation, never used it, never heard of it.
	And that was actually the mid-18th century, that equation, acceleration.
	Nobody has acceleration in that sense in Newton's time.
	So that is a mathematician called Euler, Leonhard Euler, who developed that brilliant equation.
	And it's what's called dynamics.
	It's a study of how things move, right?
	So at the beginning of the 18th century, Everything Newton had expressed about the way gravity works and the way the planets go around the Sun and how things fall down, that was reformulated in terms of the Leibnizia and calculus.
	That's with dy /dx and also integration.
	Integrations like the converse of differentiation.
	You could say that's the only sense in which Newton's work was ever understood, that it was translated into Leibniz's calculus.
	And if you look at what Newton actually wrote in his book, it's all obscure arcane diagrams, which are very hard to follow.
	And so Newton then made the claim.
	He said, aha, I actually developed all that stuff earlier.
	It's my discovery.
	Leibniz has taken it over from me and I wrote it out in calculus and then I transposed it into this geometrical format.
	And that was the claim which has been accepted by Newton biographers for a couple of centuries.
	They've accepted Newton's claim that he really developed that differential calculus and he claimed it was present in early letters of his, but he didn't put it in his book.
	Now, you're well into total mythologising of Isaac Newton at this point, okay?
	That the Royal Society of British politicians accepted Newton's claim about himself as if this was some sort of patriotic or imperialistic struggle of Britain has to be first.
	So they didn't properly acknowledge the way Leibniz had developed the calculus and how that actually worked much better than The obscure maths that Newton had used.
	So there was an almighty struggle and a huge, very, very biased Royal Society report which claimed that Leibniz was the second inventor and he somehow filched stuff off Newton.
	So because of the prestige of Newton at this point, Leibniz got his reputation destroyed.
	It was a very terrible thing.
	He was a brilliant genius.
	And his quest for this kind of universal symbolic logic, which in a way the calculus was, I mean, you could say the calculus is the greatest mathematical invention ever, because what Leibniz wrote, you know, the integral sign and dy /dx, that's now used all around the world for centuries.
	You could hardly do maths without it, could you?
	Those symbols, concepts developed by Leibniz, became universal.
	And they're very absolutely central of the way anyone does higher maths.
	We've reached another break.
	My dear friend has notified me.
	Stand by.
	We'll be right back after this break.
	Okay.
	Fascinating stuff.
	You've got to wrap a bit more with me.
	Don't just let me drone on, you know.
	We've got to remain silent until I'm notified.
	We'll be right back.
	Oh, okay.
	Do you like it better with these ad issues?
	Okay.
	Can you hear me?
	Dean, can you hear me?
	Yeah.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You've got a waitress or something that sounds like.
	Oh, yeah.
	So you're saying Do you like it better with the ads or no?
	Yeah, the new images that are being added, do you like it better?
	I mean, I assume you take care of them.
	That's fine.
	I wanted your judgment on that, Dean.
	I wanted you to make that decision.
	Good, good, good.
	Yeah.
	So anyways, my situation here is all people told me I'm being targeted.
	It's because of your connection to me.
	I don't have any doubt about it.
	Steve, but Jim, am I getting targeted because your connection to me?
	So they brought in Victor to attack my character, and because you're attacking Victor's, they're attacking you.
	That's what it is.
	You started on several years ago, I think, or something.
	So I looked at all the companies that have a company in DTI there because they're not able to sell it.
	Wow.
	It's fascinating.
	Well, Starbucks must be a Zionist company.
	I mean, you know, they've got to be controlled by people who don't have the best interests of America at heart.
	Okay, so, so, I should leave, and I remember it all the sudden, how did I begin to speak?
	Right.
	start our state business and next week Yes, yes.
	And we just kind of surprise people.
	I've got to get back on the air.
	Thanks, Dean.
	I'll call you again in 30 minutes and we can talk longer.
	Okay.
	Go right ahead, Nick.
	Go right ahead.
	We're back on the air.
	We're back on the air.
	Oh, okay.
	Right, Jim.
	Just coming back to the first part of our discussion, I'd just like to recommend a new book about Gaza.
	Okay?
	It's called, if I may, Genocide in Gaza, Voices of Global Conscience.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	It's an anthology.
	It's co-authored by Richard Falk, who's a very great American.
	I'm sure you know.
	Former UN Special Reporter for Palestine, a professor of international law, and another guy who was Prime Minister of Turkey.
	So I think this looks like a very worthwhile treatise for anyone who can bear to face what's going on.
	I don't think Israel will ever recover.
	It has lost its victimhood status.
	The whole Holocaust thing, which was a bag of wind, has been Okay.
	I think it's all over for Israel in terms of public relations, international standing, the moral decade.
	The other corruption.
	The horrific crimes are never going to be outlived by Israel.
	It's a done deal, Nick.
	Let's hope so, Jim.
	Anyway, I just want to mention that, right?
	So I can come back to this abstract stuff we were discussing earlier.
	Is that okay?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So I wonder if we're coming out of an era of Newtonian science now.
	I mean, this book is for people who enjoy, who do like doing a bit of maths, you know.
	And simple concepts like centrifugal force, acceleration due to gravity, the ability to do simple calculations, which in my time it was called science and people used to be proud of being able to do that.
	I think we're coming out of an era where that takes place.
	I fear that we're coming into some more irrational type of world, a bit more kind of maybe magical or superstitious, in which nobody can quite tell what is real and what isn't.
	I mean, what Newtonianism did, what people liked about it, was that it brought us into a world that Seems to be comprehensible.
	It seems to have rational principles and what was achieved by science used the Newtonian principles: momentum, inertia, mass acceleration.
	You could do it all by calculation and people used to enjoy that and feel reassured by it.
	If the bridge would stand up and not fall down, it was because of calculations of force and stress and so on.
	Of course.
	I'll tell you how bad it's become.
	People don't even understand that Twin Towers were built with a safety factor of 20, which means each floor gets over 20 times as expected dead or live load, live load, the empty building, but with now the furniture, the computers, the personnel and all that.
	Which means we could not have collapse.
	People can't understand that elementary concept, Nick.
	I mean, it's just astonishing.
	Well, yeah, so far, the planes going into the towers through the very strong steel walls.
	I mean, I think 9 /11 has done a lot to disintegrate what used to be traditional science, you know?
	It's engineers and physicists, as you all knew, that we're getting an impossible depiction of those events, who remained silent because the federal government was funding them, and they were worried about being abused or cut off.
	Let's reassure ourselves that what used to be called science, I'm not absolutely sure it still exists, it was the basic idea that people, mainly men, would get together to discuss experiments.
	On the basis of experiments you would deduce what was the case and your conclusions would not be controlled by who is paying you.
	The basic idea of the Royal Society and of scientific societies and scientific journals was that you could evaluate what was happening and what was not happening.
	And your results were not conditioned by who was employing you.
	And that seemed to be originally the case.
	That idea, that was the core theme of humanism and science as a progressive thing.
	And it's a contrast with religion, where a priest would tell you what you had to believe.
	So the whole idea of the Enlightenment was very much based on this science, which But once Newton managed to link together the three laws of Kepler with the universal inverse square law of gravity, and his great masterstroke was to show the gravity that made things fall down,
	32 feet per second per second, That was the same force that kept the moon going around the earth once every 27 days.
	Now, that was the great achievement of linking together heaven and earth by the laws of mechanics.
	That was what inspired the 18th century calling itself the Age of Enlightenment because those laws all seem to work, right?
	Now, you had Einstein in the 20th century, but that, in a way, that only applied for very extreme conditions, like near to the velocity of light or whatever.
	For the ordinary world, the Newtonian laws all still seem to work.
	So that was the positive side of Newtonianism that was established.
	And because it was so successful, the figure of Isaac Newton got kind of Put on a pedestal as some sort of divine-inspired person who linked together religion and science, called deism, and you had therefore the Freemasons who were very much connected with deism, this idea of the great architect up above.
	So the growth of Freemasonry started in 1717 in London.
	It was very much overlapping with the Royal Society and it promoted the new science.
	So that was the idea of the Enlightenment.
	I mean, I think we both accept that later on, the Masons got taken over by other people, you know, became more sort of Hebrew control and so on.
	But I would suggest that initially...
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Just a philosophical point or two.
	It wasn't deduction.
	It's actually what's known as abduction.
	Which hypothesis, if it were true, could provide the explanation of the available data with the highest probability?
	Newton was making an inference.
	It was a form of inductive inference, but actually technically known as abduction, which the experts elaborate most concisely, where he got a bribe.
	It's like we find in Sherlock Holmes, they talk about his deduction from the soldier here and the dirt on his boots and the kind of the skin and the It was an inference to the best explanation, which hypothesis, if it were true, could explain the available.
	So while Watson is constantly talking about Sherlock making deductions, he's not.
	He's making abductions.
	And it's an important difference.
	The form of induction have conclusions that have more content than their premises in deduction, strictly speaking, Nick.
	You can only get out what was already there to begin with.
	That's why in a deductive argument, if the premises were true, the conclusion can't be false, because a conclusion of a deductive argument is merely recapitulating part or all of the content of the premises.
	We're deduction improperly when we're really talking about a species of induction, which is ampliative reasoning, because a conclusion, sample to population, for example, where the conclusion has more content than the premises, but specifically in scientific context, abduction.
	Newton was a master there.
	Paul, I know you got a lot of comments and questions.
	Yours.
	Well, no.
	I mean, I was actually quite enjoying this.
	And it's fascinating to learn about, you know, what Newton's contemporaries had to say.
	I just was reminded of my college textbook in calculus had its name on it.
	I suppose he wrote it.
	I'm not sure.
	But I remember I enjoyed it.
	I was intimidated.
	Take calculus at first.
	The great Leibnizian calculus development in the 18th century, right, that really could figure out, for example, how the moon moved.
	The greatest practical challenge for the new science in Newton's time was to find the moon's position because you could use that, ships could use that at sea to find out where they were.
	It's a long story, but basically you could find longitude if you knew.
	The exact time, universal time, which you might, if you like, get from the moon's position, and that will then give you, compared to local time, give you longitude.
	I know, it's a bit shortened.
	Can I ask you a question, Nick?
	So, in your exploits, okay, I came across a book one time, I have it at home somewhere, it's called Pushing Gravity by, I believe it's Laplace.
	I'm sorry.
	It recounts the history of gravitons.
	And I found it very interesting.
	I don't know.
	I probably don't have the knowledge or expertise to comment on any sort of truthfulness of it.
	But what did you think about that?
	Oh, well, Newton always took this kind of agnostic line.
	First of all, he said, If the planets are moving through a complete vacuum, there cannot be any friction.
	So he got rid of all the vortices that Descartes believed in, of swirling substance that carries the planets around.
	No, it's a vacuum, and gravity therefore works through a perfect vacuum.
	But he then said, oh, that is impossible to understand.
	It cannot be the case.
	Now, please don't ascribe that belief to me.
	He didn't know what did form gravity.
	He couldn't imagine how gravity worked.
	He couldn't possibly imagine how this thing could work through the infinite magnitude of space, decreasing in square distance.
	But he wouldn't speculate at all about it.
	The only kind of theories he had brewed up was about the early aether theories and those were no good.
	Those didn't work.
	He got greatly criticised by people on the continent who still believed in some sort of aether substance in space that made this attraction work.
	And Lyman has criticised him.
	But Newton kind of knew that for the maths to work, there had to be, in effect, a perfect vacuum, which meant he didn't have any way of explaining why gravity worked.
	Right.
	So gravity would be, in my opinion, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it's the only exception to action at a distance, right?
	Other than that, there's no other exceptions to that rule, correct?
	Well, what he was describing was action at a distance, but he at the same time said that is impossible.
	It cannot just act our distance.
	But he then didn't say...
	He ended up basically admitting he hadn't a clue or it could not be expressed, put it that way.
	I feign no hypothesis.
	Yeah, very good, yeah.
	I feign no hypothesis, yeah.
	He was claiming that his work, unlike other people, he wasn't putting forward hypotheses.
	And he also said that on the basis of his theory of colour.
	He had a...
	He broke up white light into different colours in the prism.
	And then he invented a brilliant little reflecting telescope.
	That was the first thing he did.
	The first thing Royal Society heard about him was this theory of light and colour with a prism and then his little reflecting telescope, which was dead clever.
	It didn't last very long because the lens didn't last, but it was a dead clever reflecting telescope.
	First sort of decent one anyone got to work.
	And his theory of light and colour didn't really get anywhere.
	It didn't really make sense in the end.
	But it led to the idea of the seven colours of the rainbow.
	Nobody could see.
	Nick, we got this idea of an electric universe.
	How had Newton responded to that?
	Do you think this would have been something he might have embraced?
	Well, don't forget in his time, electricity didn't exist, except there was a slight phenomenon of static electricity.
	He noticed bits of paper would occasionally jump up and, you know, with friction you could generate.
	That was the only way he saw electricity.
	And he kind of wondered what it was, you know.
	But so we've got our idea of a seven...
	different red and blue, different coloured particles of light which he thought that could explain how a prism would break up light and Hooke's totally correct theory about waves was Kind of rejected, yeah.
	Nick, you suggested Newton borrowed or plagiarized some of the views of authors, whether it were Leibniz or whomever.
	Similarly for Einstein, I mean, how often am I hearing these days that Einstein also was a plagiarist?
	Do you have views about that?
	Is that a matter you've looked into at all?
	Not at all, not much.
	But let me say, I too, I keep hearing people say, oh yeah, equals m squared.
	Of course, you just ripped that off Sansa, Poincari or whatever.
	Let me just say that all the years I was in the History of Science Department, I never heard anybody in 20th century physics saying that.
	There's a lot of brilliant physicists all around Einstein, you know, quantum theory and everything.
	I never heard that any of them said, look, this old geezer is just a plagiarist.
	I heard people complaining they couldn't understand those theories.
	Do you think it's a psyop?
	You get theories like moon is hollow.
	I met a caller recently say that moon was hollow.
	Let me tell you that story.
	It's quite a funny story.
	Newton's theories and calculations went completely haywire with the density of the Moon.
	He thought he could deduce it from rough tidal data in the Bristol Channel, which he couldn't, of course.
	And he ended up with a Moon 200% too heavy.
	He ended up with an Earth-Moon mass ratio about 20 to 1, and actually it's more like 80 to 1. So he had an enormously dense Moon.
	And this is a massive error.
	This is the biggest error in his Principia.
	And that error then went through to various other things, various other calculations where the moon was evolved.
	So that's the biggest source of error in his book.
	It could be a threat from the trajectory of the moon that it had to have a certain mass.
	The last estimate I saw were like Earth versus Moon, 55 times the mass of Moon that Earth has 55 times.
	It's one of the disproofs, by the way, of Apollo that from the photographs NASA provides of Earth from the Moon shows the Earth having the same relative size.
	To the Moon as the Moon does to Earth.
	You know, they just took photographs of the Moon from Earth and colorized them, photoshopped them, because obviously the Earth being so much more enormous, it should have filled the entire visual field taking such a photograph.
	Yeah, well, the Moon is 27% the width of the Earth, and it's 181 times the mass, okay?
	And that's the accepted view, right?
	But I'll just go through this.
	So Edmund Halley concluded, therefore, the Earth must be hollow.
	So Edmund Halley had a terrific theory of the Hollow Earth and he had people living inside the Earth, right?
	He had different shells inside the Earth and he even had a special light, light substance from the Sun, lighting up the inside of the Earth so the citizens could live happily, right?
	So he had a marvelous Hollow Earth theory, which appeared later in science fiction.
	Any science fiction story you read about Hollow Earth, it starts from Edmund Halley, right?
	Because of Newton's calculation of the Earth being much less dense than the Moon, right?
	We have reports, by the way, of late, Nick.
	Spending $21 trillion to build underground cities so the elites and politicians could escape in the threat of a nuclear war.
	And I believe they've done something like that, that there are connected by high-speed rail.
	And there are all kinds of reports of tremors, unexpected because of what was actually the drilling going on beneath the well beneath the surface.
	I mean, these are kind of scary propositions, but I believe...
	I believe those stories are true.
	Classic sense of people living inside the Earth.
	Of course, that's just nonsense.
	Just go on.
	The only way you get the relative mass of Earth and Moon is what's called the barycecle.
	That's the common center of gravity of Earth and Moon.
	You have to determine where it is from the orbit.
	Okay, they finally got that right in the 19th century and that moon is strangely light.
	You've got a very light moon, 0.6 density of earth.
	So that led to theories of the moon being hollow.
	So hollow moon theory started to develop, which you originally mentioned.
	So it's quite likely that the moon has got big caverns inside it to explain its low density, right?
	Spacecraft hitting the moon and making a sound of a bell like is absurd because there's no sound waves transmittable in empty space.
	It's made up.
	I wanted to let you guys know, too.
	Just a minute, Paul.
	The moon rang like a gong for three hours after they impacted something on it.
	I don't know where they detected those sound waves.
	How could they?
	They're not transmittable, Nick.
	I mean, there's no way to transmit sounds.
	There must have been something on the moon to register it.
	I don't know.
	But anyway, that is the story.
	There's an actual report to this effect?
	Are you telling me there's an actual report to this effect?
	Well, that's my memory, Jim.
	I can't tell you offhand.
	It's been talked about on air multiple times.
	Richard Hoagland used to talk about it.
	Anyway, what do you say, Paul?
	Well, I'm just curious.
	So, I saw a video on YouTube.
	I could probably still find it quite a while ago, but it was an interview with a Soviet scientist.
	We'll just call him an astronomer.
	I don't know what he was, but it was from the 60s, and he was claiming that the moon was actually a plasma.
	And I just wondered if you ever heard that and what you thought of it, and if you know the video I'm referring to.
	Well, I think it's a lot of nonsense.
	I mean, it's fairly solid rock.
	I mean, surely we accept that some craft have landed on the moon.
	Oh, no, I don't believe that at all.
	You don't believe it at all?
	Not at all.
	I don't believe that any space agency from any country has gone to the moon or Mars because they fake everything.
	That's my personal belief.
	There's zero doubt about the fact of all the things they've faked.
	So my question would be, well, if they fake all these other things, then which one is the real one?
	In other words, they fake the Mars landing.
	You know, so on and so forth.
	I think it's possible unmanned mission to the moon may have left some kind of radio sensors.
	My understanding is there actually is transmission back and forth from moon, but not by any man land.
	They can't do it.
	I don't believe it for a second.
	I've just seen too much fakery from NASA.
	There's a lot of fakery.
	You're right about that, Paul, for sure.
	Nick, your thoughts?
	Well, I would trust.
	Chinese recently landed stuff on the moon.
	They've done it quite a few times.
	I would believe what they say.
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	I think they faked it.
	They faked it as well.
	You know, you can't, They landed something on the moon?
	It's a joke.
	It was ridiculous.
	It's absurd.
	Yeah.
	When you see the, when people have pointed out and by the way, But the classic one for me was when the Mars rover, when somebody, more than one person actually, I saw several videos did this, matched rock for rock, okay, and point for point.
	A photo from Devon Island in the Arctic Circle versus supposedly Mars.
	And another found the Arctic Field Mouse in the Mars rover photos.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	There appears to be a Corvette buried in a landfill that was used in the moon landing footage.
	No, I've never seen that one.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	But it's like, you just have to ask yourself, what are the odds?
	Of a scene on the moon or Mars looking exactly like a scene on the Earth.
	Hmm, I wonder.
	And why would they do this?
	And as some person pointed out, let's be simple here.
	In terms of all the mass and the physics and the forces you were talking about, I used to joke about the fact that if anybody believes that the buildings collapsed or that aluminum planes could damage those buildings, they've never wrapped their knuckles on a steel girder.
	I've been on job sites before, and you wrap your knuckles on a steel girder, and that's all the math and physics you need to know.
	Paul, you've been wonderful, wonderful today.
	I'm so glad you joined me as co-host.
	Nick has been marvelous.
	A final thought.
	We're about to conclude our conversation, but I look forward to our next.
	Nick, final thought.
	Well, I think that...
	And so we've had a kind of flawed science which respects this extremely abstract treatise that nobody could probably understand.
	And we haven't appreciated the way in which I suspect we're coming to the kind of end of this scientific era as it has existed and people don't believe in the kind of rational concepts that were then described to.
	We're entering an era of cell phones and AI, Nick, and AI still exemplifies the traditional principle of computer science, G-I-G-O, garbage in, garbage out.
	So if you don't have a responsible, accurate database, AI isn't going to do you any more good than conventional computer searches.
	Sad to say.
	Right.
	By the way, Jim, are you agreeing with Paul that I think some unmanned craft have landed on Moon, but that's as far as I go.
	Yeah, I think that's it.
	Nothing to Mars.
	Nothing to Mars.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	Nick, it's wonderful you do such sensational work on so many subjects.
	We could have endless number of shows just based on your work, my friend.
	It's wonderful!
	Well, if you can think of any place to get this reviewed, Jim, or promoted, I'd be very grateful.
	If you can think of any journal, I'm happy to send copies to anyone you can think of, you know.
	Sure, you got it, Nick.
	Let me give that some thought.
	Meanwhile, I'm sure we're in a break now.
	Let me just say to everyone, spend as much time with your family, your friend, the people you love and care about.
	We do not know how much time we have left.
	Use it wisely.

▲