Jim Fetzer - The Raw Deal (7 November 2025) with co-host Paul from CA and special featured guest Kevin Barrett

Nov. 8, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:45

The Raw Deal (7 November 2025) with co-host Paul from CA and special featured guest Kevin Barrett

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Rob Deal, right here on Revolution Radio Studio B, the seventh day of November 2025.
	Russia has made a giant step forward by capturing Polkrovovsk.
	This is a major city, perhaps the last major bastion in the way to Kiev.
	I'm afraid Russia is going to have to do its thing.
	Actually, they do.
	They do.
	Yes.
	Pakrovsk have been essentially liberated.
	Hey, I'm Rick Sanchez, and what you just heard right there is probably one of the foremost military experts in this part of the world saying that Prokhoros has been taken.
	It's over.
	As he calls it, it's just a mop-up operation is all that is left.
	Despite what others are saying, he says, based on his sourcing and the conversations he has with real military officials in Russia, the operation in Prokhrovsk has ended and the Russians have taken, or as they would say, liberated Prokhrovsk.
	Also, he mentions that the war with Ukraine is essentially over.
	Again, quoting him, his words.
	He's not the only one saying that, by the way.
	He says it's just a matter of time now as to how long it takes Ukraine to succumb or the Ukrainian government, really, and how much territory Russia will end up taking.
	I ask him about Odessa and other places, and he explains it.
	But we start the conversation, interestingly enough, with him getting really pissed off when I show him and this video that we've been talking about in Kupyansk of elderly people, refugees really, trying to get out of the fighting and avoid the fighting and avoid the war getting killed by drones.
	And I mean, this is the new reality of war, you know, death by drone, something I've never quite seen before.
	And here we're seeing it not used against combatants, but against just average people.
	And his reaction is kind of surprising, which is why you'll hear me say to him, you seem like you're angry.
	And you'll hear his answer regarding that.
	So you should watch this interview.
	I think it's really, he's kind of nerdy smart and sometimes a little hard to understand, but he is really, really smart.
	And he really does know what he's talking about.
	Once again, let me remind you to please like this video.
	Please, if you can, subscribe.
	I need you to.
	It would help me a lot, help in any other way so I can continue this effort.
	And also, if you have some friends who don't know about this and you'd like to tell them, you know, just grab that link at the top and copy it and send it to him and say, hey, check this Cuban guy out who's working out of Moscow these days, Rick Sanchez.
	This is JSPEK.
	Thanks so much for being with me.
	Here now, without further ado, is my interview with Andre with Andre.
	Let me tell you a little bit about Andrei.
	He was born in Baku, USSR, 1963, graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy, served as an officer in the ships and staff position in the Soviet Coast Guard through 1990.
	In the mid-90s, he moved to the United States where he worked as a laboratory director in the commercial aerospace group.
	Today, I see him all the time.
	It's like you can't turn on your TV and not see him being interviewed by one of these guys who has some of the most famous podcasts in the world.
	They all turn to him to find out, to get a better understanding of what's happening right now, objectively, with the situation between Ukraine and Russia.
	And we are good enough, and he is good enough to give us his time, and we welcome him.
	Andre, thank you so much for joining us, sir.
	Pleasure.
	I think we should start off talking about this situation in Kupyansk, because, you know, we made the decision we wanted people to see this because it's the reality of drone warfare and the reality of what's happening right now between Ukraine and Russia.
	And look, horrible things happen in wars.
	That's just the reality of what a war is.
	But this looks particularly cruel, especially given the age of some of these people who obviously are not combatants and they're just trying to get the hell out of there.
	There's also an argument as to, is this really the Ukrainians doing this?
	Because the Ukrainians are now trying to put out a report saying it's the Russians.
	Can you help us understand this a little better, sir?
	Yeah, it's traditional modus.
	Well, it's modus operande by the NATO curators and they're essentially people whom they control, which are armed forces of Ukraine, and which today already about half of it are all kinds of the volunteers and all kinds of the Western soldiers of fortune, if you wish.
	So if not half, probably around 40% at the front line, because their losses are huge.
	So it's normal, starting from the famous provocation in Bucha, where obviously all proper Western journalists have been ready to go there and see what those Russians did.
	You know, I'm being facetious, of course.
	It was all false flag.
	It's a classic modus operande of MI6 and CIA.
	That's the only thing they are good at.
	And they continue to do this.
	And don't forget that for the majority of the people in Kiev, which is Nazi regime, and for the majority people in London or Washington, D.C. who run this thing, those are dirty Russian Slavs, sub-humans, you know, so it's they have to die.
	This is the prevailing mood and prevailing thinking among majority of the armed forces of Ukraine, whatever is left there.
	So they are very well brainwashed and prepped for essentially a repetition of their, well, how to put it politely.
	It's very reminiscent of what Wehrmacht Anderses did on the territory of the Soviet Union in the World War II.
	So it's as tragic as it is, there's nothing, absolutely nothing surprising about it.
	So you're saying stuff like this happens all the time.
	It's just that either there's no video of it or it just doesn't get coverage by the mainstream press and media because if Russia did this, it would make headlines.
	But when Ukraine does it, it doesn't make headlines.
	No, no.
	I mean, average Western journal from the main street, the legacy media, is a war criminal.
	It's a Gebersonian propaganda machine.
	Those people have no integrity.
	Humanity won't have you in them.
	So it's just inevitable degeneration of the composition of the media world, Primarily around, you know, primarily in the West, albeit many other places have this issue.
	So, for them, you know, the more those Damruskis died, the better, you know.
	So, it doesn't matter.
	Children, old people.
	Just yesterday, Russian defense ministry returned after proper whatever the medical procedures there, and remnants of the 300 civilians from Kursk adventure of NATO, essentially.
	And those remnants, those people have been, women have been raped, children have been mass executed.
	So, it's a normal thing for them.
	And that is why, as I already stated, Western media are media or the war criminals.
	Essentially, they are complicit in pushing what is happening still today, albeit obviously, when the fortunes, well, they always have been not in favor of Ukraine.
	It's just that the political top and media which serve them, they don't have a professional understanding of what is going on.
	So, but other than that, that is why, I mean, there is no difference between Gerbilsonian propagandist and average BBC or New York Times Journal.
	So, that's what it is.
	You know, I almost listening to you, and I listen to you all the time.
	I enjoy your commentary.
	I was watching you, I think, with Mr. Davis and Mr. Napolitano, and just recently.
	And I get a feeling listening to you now that after watching this video, you're kind of mad about this.
	Like, this is really kind of angering you to watch this video.
	Am I wrong?
	No, no, you're absolutely correct.
	I mean, this is pure, simple assess.
	You know, just that's what they do.
	Civilians, they are not good fighting militarily in terms of especially issues of the operation planning and strategy and how it is implemented.
	But they are very good at what they do: false flag, attacking civilian targets, as I already stated.
	In Suja, around Suja, for example, during the Kursk basically attack on Kursk, where they lost 80,000 people.
	Well, I couldn't call them people.
	Rape was normal.
	And, you know, what a number of villages, people were mass executed.
	Children with women have been locked in their basements and they had the, you know, what tripwires that if they go out and open the door, the grenade will explode.
	And so that's what they do.
	I mean, they executed 14 children.
	So, I mean, so we're listening to Rick Sanchez talk with an expert on the Russia-Ukraine war, who says, with the capture of Pekrovs, really, the war is over.
	Now it's just mopping up operation.
	I think he's got her right.
	Another indication that Ukraine has lost the war is the fact that they're having to recruit 2,000 Colombians to help fight the war against Russia.
	Well, those are yes, those are 2,000 more who are going to take a dive.
	Ukraine has signed up approximately 2,000 Colombian nationals as contract soldiers to help fill critical manpower gaps nearly four years into its war with Russia, according to German media.
	See, where do they get the money to pay him, huh?
	Wow, where do you think?
	From the good old USA, of course, Paul.
	The recruits are among thousands of foreign fighters currently serving in Ukraine's armed forces, about 40% of whom come from South America.
	Some brigades forming Spanish-speaking units made up almost entirely of Colombians.
	Rather surprising, Paul, too.
	Agree with you.
	Shocking.
	Any thoughts you have?
	Just add a few of your own right off the bat.
	Well, you know, this course is news to me.
	Well, it's news to all of us, I suppose.
	You're reporting it.
	But I can't imagine what would get somebody to go that far away in a conflict that certainly has no ramifications for, you know, life in Colombia.
	So, I mean, mercenaries, soldiers of fortune.
	I mean, they're obviously going for the money.
	And of course, it's just, you know, I kind of feel, as I've always felt about that sort of a thing, that people that go and do something like that for money deserve whatever it is happens to them.
	Yeah, well, it is CSB business.
	Meanwhile, we have Israel continues to strike Gaza and block the entry attempts despite the truce deal.
	Winter is set to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis faced by Palestinians across the ravaged territory.
	Really nothing new here.
	Israel violates every ceasefire agreement it's ever made.
	Israeli army has continued to attack various areas across the Gaza Strip as troops carry out demolition of buildings despite a lack of shelter amid dropping temperatures.
	Israeli aerial strikes and artillery fire have been ongoing since Sunday night, particularly in Con Yunus, south of the besieged enclave in Gaza City, killing and injuring a number of civilians.
	Israeli aircraft launched several airstrikes Monday morning in the eastern area of Con Yunas, coinciding with heavy artillery shelling that targeted Ali Khan's school and its surrounding in the town of Abbans al-Kabriya, east of the city.
	Israel also launched attacks on the southern city of Rafa early Monday, killing at least two Palestinians.
	Here's another, a full list of ceasefire violations in Gaza.
	Middle East eye details, Israeli attacks, arrests, and blockades since last month ceasefire.
	Since the Gaza ceasefire was signed last month, Israel has continued to violate the agreement from airstrikes and shootings to arrest an incursion beyond the deployment lines.
	Most of the violations appear unprovoked.
	Israel has cited alleged breaches by Hamas and other Palestinian groups to justify its actions.
	Hamas, however, has denied those accusations, insisting it has fully complied with the terms of the ceasefire.
	And frankly, I have no doubt they have.
	Many of the violations targeting civilians, meanwhile, have occurred without justification, which is, after all, the Israeli way.
	Nothing surprising here, Paul.
	Well, you know, just the absurdity of just the notion of the Hamas has been complying with the ceasefire.
	Like they have in any shape or form, any capability, any weaponry that would rival or challenge what the Israelis have.
	It's just an absurdity.
	This whole notion of so-called ceasefire, I mean, story after story, week after week, of all these various attacks that are continuing.
	So it's not even a ceasefire name only, to be honest with you.
	It's almost like, you know, what would you call it when it's a complete, completely the opposite of whatever it is that they say?
	You know, it's just a mockery of the idea of ceasefire.
	It's like giving the Nobel Prize to various warmongering presidents and leaders of other countries, you know.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Well, it seems to me the whole idea of the ceasefire was to get back the hostages Samos was holding and then just do a full-on slaughter continuation.
	I see no change in strategy.
	Right.
	And you've probably seen some of the same images I have.
	I've mostly tried to stay away.
	In other words, I don't want to really look at too much of that content, you know, kind of avert your eyes.
	But I did look at some of the things that I've seen.
	I feel like your brain craves pleasure just as much as it craves.
	I guess a lot of it was drone footage, you know, showing the area, but I don't know how anybody can live amongst all that.
	I saw basically almost no vegetation, right?
	No, just nothing but just gray, whitish rubble everywhere.
	I mean, I don't know how much more devastated that area could be from, you know, this so-called war when really what it is, it's just, like you say, it's an ongoing continual attack and genocide by the Israelis, leaving these people no place to go, no place to live.
	That's exactly right.
	Meanwhile, amid a historical retrospective, it turns out the club of Rome had an original plan back in 1991.
	The authors admitted in a search of a common enemy to unite humanity, they proposed global warming, pollution, and famine as useful tools and declared that the real enemy is humanity itself decades later.
	It sounds less like foresight and more like a blueprint.
	And here we have the image of Klaus Schwab.
	It's having trouble uploading.
	I think that there's a lot of shadow banning and undermining of, you know, very damning videos and reports that implicate the nasty agenda of the World Economic Forum and the global VSAT.
	Meanwhile, get this.
	we have a report that children were even sex-trafficked to King George.
	I mean, this is...
	The child-trafficking documentary Anne H. Died For survived.
	Every witness.
	But the child trafficking documentary Anne Hait died for survived.
	It's called Children of the Machine.
	And it's being completed right now, piece by piece, against every attempt to silence it.
	What she uncovered was never just about Hollywood.
	It was bigger, much bigger.
	Behind the red carpets and the talk show Smiles lies a network, ancient, untouchable, and global.
	And at the center of that web was a name nobody expected, Ellen DeGeneres.
	Anne's former partner, America's former talk show host darling, isn't just the entertainment royalty, she's blood, a distant relative of King Charles, with ties to the British elite far closer than anyone ever imagined.
	There's a reason she moved to England last year, and it wasn't to disappear.
	It was to return to the source of the sickness.
	Anne Haitsh was following that trail.
	Before she was executed on live TV, she found the links between fame power and the ancient dynasties who still pulled the strings from the shadows.
	When she drew too close to the truth, as Diana once did, they silenced her permanently.
	But now her work has resurfaced.
	The original footage.
	The files they swore were destroyed.
	An undercover team of investigators, journalists, and editors has taken up her cause, rebuilding the documentary piece by piece.
	And we're with them.
	Finishing what Anne started.
	It's raw, it's dangerous, it's real.
	And it's going to blow the lid of the elite pedophile ring and change the world forever.
	Let me just mention the title.
	Leaked Anne Heck Documentary Shows Ellen DeGeneres Sex Trafficking Orphans to King Charles.
	How bad is that?
	Same team that broke the original Peace of Gate investigation before the media hijacked the story.
	We're the ones who decoded podestas' emails, who interviewed Justin Bieber when he tried to warn the world about the system that nearly destroyed him.
	They blacklisted us, silenced us, tried to erase us.
	But we're still here.
	And this is the story that will make sense of everything and change the world as we know it.
	Today, you'll see the evidence with your own eyes.
	You'll hear from insiders who experienced the horrors and the producers, bodyguards, and assistants who finally decided to talk.
	Their testimonies, their recordings, their truth.
	All you need to do is subscribe to this account right now and be one of the first to witness the recovered footage to see the truth they killed to hide.
	To watch.
	Yeah, and Heck, of course, was killed in a bizarre automobile accident where it appears they took remote control of her car and made it crash to take her out.
	She was just exposing too many truths.
	Paul, I'm sure you, like myself, find none of this surprising.
	Well, I mean, it's always surprising, you know, in terms of shocking, where, you know, to come to the realization that what if even some of all this is true?
	I mean, that I really do think that that supposed the quote that was attributed, I believe, to J. Edgar Hoover about the fact that the, you know, a citizen of the American, you know, the public comes face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he scarcely believes it exists.
	And to me, that's what continues to happen to all of us, even myself, as jaded as I am.
	And you've heard me over the years, you know, talk about so many of these different things.
	And again, just the characterization of a science fiction movie, you know, like a bad, scary science fiction movie is probably as accurate as anything we're going to get from any media or anybody else.
	That's sort of trying to put a, you know, put a lens to all this.
	That you know, that we're a way that we could view it.
	Um, i mean, who it's?
	It's a world that is completely foreign to the average person, i mean obviously to you, to me, to a person of normal sensibilities, to you know even uh, imagine uh, such things going on.
	I mean all we would do is protect uh, you know, little children or, you know, make sure that they're safe and well fed.
	And you know, the average person, of course, would never harm a child, but these people are, You know, what can you say about him?
	Well, turning to the U.S. domestic politics, Mandami's New York mayor celebrates when by channeling America's, here they call Marxists, but I think they mean Eugene Debs, socialist icon.
	Obviously, after having been declared the winner of the New York City mayor race, Democrat socialist Zorhan.
	Mamdani opened his victory speech with a nod to one of the most infamous radicals of American history.
	Mandami quoted Eugene Debs, a far-left activist from the early 20th century.
	He was stripped of his American citizenship after being convicted of sedition in 1918.
	Like Debs, Mamdani has embraced radical policies, including broad promises to provide a range of free services to New York.
	You know, Paul, that doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
	Why is promising, you know, government to benefit the people supposed to be radical politics?
	The dawn of a better day for humanity, Mamdani quoted Debs as saying, frankly, I listened to his speech.
	I was very impressed.
	Here's a part of it.
	We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I know.
	That's obviously a lot of hype.
	But Donald Trump is not taking any of this kindly and threatening to threatening to arrest Mom Dami.
	I mean, can you believe?
	I'm telling you, Mandami's on notice because he's saying he's not going to cooperate with the feds in any way, shape, or form.
	You're not going to cooperate.
	I hate to break it to you, buddy, but there's this little thing called the Constitution.
	I know you're not that smart because you couldn't even get into my own home at Columbia University and your dad worked there.
	Not that smart.
	And what did he say?
	He was African?
	American?
	On his, yeah, that all came out.
	The guy's a liar.
	Frankly, in my estimation, he's a complete scumbag.
	But, you know, you had me a communist, basically.
	It's kind of hard to get beyond that.
	Anyway, here is Donald Trump saying, yep, you know what we're going to do?
	If he doesn't cooperate with the feds, if he stands in the way of the federal law, we're going to arrest him.
	Mr. President, your beloved New York City, your beloved New York City may well be led by a communist soon, Zorhan Mamdani, who in his nomination speech said he will defy ICE and will not allow ICE to arrest criminal aliens in New York City.
	Your message to communist Zorhan Mandami.
	Well, then we'll have to arrest him.
	Look, we don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.
	We send him money.
	We send him all the things that he needs to run a government.
	And by the way, they get already, they get about three times what you get, Ron.
	If you look at the per capita, Florida gets one-third of what New York gets in terms of freedomfoot.com.
	Right back.
	Right back.
	Right.
	...would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution RadioFreedomSlips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, every
	Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslips.com.
	the people's station the opinions expressed on this radio station its programs and its website by the hosts guests and call in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and FreedomSlips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	All right.
	Looks like Jim is taking an extended coffee break here.
	I'm sure he'll be back in the chair shortly.
	Meanwhile, we have Trump saying that maybe we're just going to have to arrest this new mayor of New York, which I think is just right in keeping with the chaos and division that they're so good at promulgating.
	That's a good word, promulgate.
	But of course, we really do want to see it.
	I mean, we, many, many people in America here really do want to see this conflict take place and come to a favorable conclusion in our favor.
	What some people would call heritage white Americans.
	Because there can be no doubt that the biggest reason that Trump was elected was his anti-immigration stance or his purported stance on immigration.
	I was just babbling a little bit in your ass.
	They have a co-host here.
	My wife recently fell and broke her shoulder.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah.
	So I'm having to, you know, assist her in the way she has assisted me on so many occasions in the past.
	And now it's cutting up some onions so she can make some tuna salad sandwich.
	But Paul Yeah, you know, I'm not wild about this Trish Regan.
	She seems like very shallow and nasty.
	But I'll talk about communists.
	What the hell is that supposed to mean?
	You know, I went to mom Danny's the first thing you've got to know about this character.
	I already looked at him.
	I studied his face.
	He's clearly Jewish.
	There's no doubt about this.
	One of the things that they love to do that they create all kinds of confusion about who what somebody's heritage and lineage is, right?
	I mean, just like, you know, Shine Bomb in Mexico City is, is she Mexican, Jim?
	You know, when we play this clip earlier that I supplied, this head of Latino USA is a Jewish, clearly.
	You can see it in her face, right?
	It's like every single time we have a sort of a meme, if you're not aware, in the so-called white nationalist movement, right?
	And it's every period, single period time, period.
	I don't know if you've ever seen that every single time.
	So, you know, I mean, these people are Semitic and a lot of Arabs, people don't know this, are in their in their racial heritage, are heavily Jewish.
	You know, this is something we've covered many times.
	All you got to do is look at the nose, the noses and the faces on all these, all these Saudis as one example.
	But anyway, in my mind, I have no doubt that this guy here, the newly elected mayor of New York, spouting his so-called communist rhetoric, is clearly playing his role, right?
	This is all contrived.
	This is exactly what they love to do is to sow this division and then to provide the governmental solutions to solve the so-called conflicts.
	I'm sorry, go ahead, Jim.
	Well, you just preempted the question I was going to ask.
	What does it even mean to call somebody a communist for crying out loud?
	He wants to get free bus service.
	I think that's fantastic.
	See, I've wants to control rants.
	He wants to do a whole lot of things that it seemed to me are going to benefit and enhance the lives of New Yorkers.
	One that he seems to have hesitated over is that they have a police commissioner, a woman who's a rabid Zionist, and is cracking down on any Israel protests.
	He originally was going to fire her, and he seems to have now softened on that position, which I think he's going to have to fire her if he's going to follow through on what he wants to do.
	But you're telling me, and this is where you preempted, got ahead of the question I was raising, but no doubt astutely, you're suggesting, ma'am, Danny himself is Jewish.
	That's what you're telling us, Paul.
	Well, clearly his face, you know, he's got that classic hooked nose, that turned down nose, and everything about him screams Jew to me, similar to when you actually understand this, because there was many websites.
	A lot of them are not around anymore, but you can still go to Jew or No Jew, right?
	I mean, literally, there was a website called Jew or Not a Jew, and it was actually supposedly run by Jewish people.
	And, you know, because they're so prolific in, you know, it was mostly started about actors and actresses and politicians, but of course they're prolific in many arenas, as you know.
	And, you know, I think it started out as kind of a spoof, right?
	But the one thing that they did is, you know, you could look at a lot of pictures and they would actually, and similar to Wikipedia, all I do nowadays is I go to Wikipedia on some of these people they're putting up front.
	You know, in other words, the people they're shoving to the front of the stage and going, look at him, look at him, look at him, right?
	And that's all they do all the time.
	They're always shoving these puppets, these front men or women or gays, increasingly McGays and others up front of the stage.
	And in many cases, if they're not Jewish themselves, they are clearly associated with or have been funded and backed by Jews, similar to Charlie Kirk.
	You know, you look at Charlie Kirk's background and who funded his organization, who got him started.
	You know, just so happened to be, yeah, a Jewish billionaire.
	Sure.
	What are the odds?
	You know, it's just like every single time.
	Yeah, well, listen to this.
	John Rob Hubbard says, what are the odds?
	Two new governors, several odd coincidences.
	It couldn't be anything else, right?
	Listen to this.
	What famous agency is headquartered in Virginia?
	Let's see, oh, I think I know this one is CIA.
	What, if anything, does this have to do with the newly elected governor of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger, Encyclopedia Britannica?
	For a significant part of Abigail Spanberger's professional life, even her closest friend didn't know what she did for a living.
	That's because for more than eight years, she was a CIA field agent doing intel gathering in the U.S. and overseas on nuclear proliferation and terror threats.
	Her tenure as a CIA officer took her and her young family overseas and to the West Coast, although specifics about Abigail Spanberger's assignments remain classified.
	She has said that her role included understanding what it is that the United States government needed to know to thwart a terrorist attack.
	She worked for CIA 2006 to 14 as an operations officer, a position sometimes called case officer.
	She used to cover identity both in the U.S. and overseas coincidentally.
	Spanberger is very close, longtime friends with Mickey Cheryl, who was just elected the new governor of New Jersey years ago as Congress women.
	They shared an apartment in D.C. Cheryl once flew choppers for the Navy in Europe and the Middle East.
	She also worked as a Navy policy officer dealing with U.S.-Russia-Navy relations and U.S.-Russian nuclear treaty obligations.
	Her friend Spanberger also worked on nuclear weapon proliferation issues.
	Both women were just elected governors of their states, Virginia, New Jersey on the same night.
	I'm sure these are all coincidences.
	And the CIA is just an incidental fact, right?
	So again, this goes back to the old saying I heard first, probably back in the late 70s by a researcher who used to be on the radio regularly called Dave Emery.
	And he talked, he used the phrase, more connections than a switchboard.
	That was one of his favorite phrases.
	But Jim, again, this is why I keep coming back to the racial issue.
	And I'll work it into what you said earlier about, you know, what does it mean to be a communist?
	You know, this is exactly what they do to us.
	All these labels are completely invented and contrived.
	I mean, communism was started by the usual suspects, right?
	And the ideology, for the most part, is absurd, but it's sprinkled in with humanitarian notions, right?
	I mean, who isn't a humanitarian who doesn't want to see people, you know, well-fed and clothed and housed and have opportunities in their lives?
	I mean, this is all basic stuff that we're capable of providing for ourselves without any government interference.
	Thank you very much.
	You know, if anything, we can make the case quite easily that the government makes things worse in almost every case.
	They make more war, they make more poverty.
	They create all these controversies and contrivances, and they get us to accept the measures to counter them.
	I mean, nothing could be more clear than what these people, the usual suspects are doing.
	They're giving us exactly what we don't want, and then they're telling us what we need to solve that is something else we don't want, right?
	Which is like masked federal agents, okay, going around and kidnapping people off the streets, which we actually do want or we do need.
	It's made necessary by what it is they allowed.
	And so in the end, they're going to be holding the controls and presiding over the switch of a totalitarianism, of authoritarianism that unfortunately we need to get out of this, but we don't want.
	So, you know, again, it's that sounded kind of odd and convoluted, but when you think about it, it's just, it's the simple, you know, problem reaction solution that Alex Jones beat into the ground for 25 years, right?
	You know, the fact of the matter is, is all these foreigners flooding into our country are indeed a real, you know, what they call existential threat on many levels.
	So, and they don't want to go.
	I mean, that's clear.
	All you got to do is watch some of these YouTube clips of them having to be dragged out and cuffed and thrown in cards.
	I mean, clearly the only way to get rid of them is through some sort of an authoritarian or totalitarian use of force that would not apply their so-called constitutional rights.
	I mean, I heard some woman today on the, you know, Democracy Now or something talking about all these different people that the Constitution applies to them.
	And see, that's the problem.
	The notion of a document, which is meant for a people in a nation, the notion that this could just have a blanket application to anybody that comes here and puts their foot on our ground is just absurd.
	But this is the kind of thing that the ACLU and other people get behind, you know, twisting and contorting all these well-founded notions that we have in this country that come from English common law, right?
	And they're going to be used and weaponized against us.
	The fact of the matter is, is Mexican invaders and Chinese invaders and Indian invaders and African invaders, which is what they are.
	They're invaders who have been welcomed here and brought here by the people with money and control.
	They don't deserve, they can't have any of our rights, okay, unless we don't want to be a nation anymore.
	And of course, that's the ultimate goal, to destroy the whole idea of what a nation is, what a people is, so that they can rule the entire world as some sort of economic zone, subject to their complete and total, you know, control grid, surveillance state, you know, totalitarian, you know, crypto currency schemes just essentially to rob us blind forever.
	I mean, really, it's like that line in Orwell's book, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
	Pretty much that's what these people are about.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm exhausted for the moment.
	Nice, nice.
	Well, here are Max Blumenthal talking about good Muslims, bad Muslims on December 14th, 2000.
	What he has to say is we got a Sandy Hook promise commercial in boosting the career of everyone from Eric Adams, the outgoing New York mayor, to Richie Torres.
	So I think that's going to be an exciting interview.
	It's sort of, you know, a coming out party for this first-time filmmaker who made what I think is one of the most powerful pieces we've ever published at the Gray Zone.
	But Zorhan Mamdani is the mayor of New York.
	A former CIA agent is the new governor of Virginia.
	A former naval intelligence agent is the new Democratic governor of New Jersey.
	And the Democrats scored some big local wins elsewhere.
	Doesn't look very promising for the Republicans going into the midterms.
	And we didn't send a correspondent to Zorhan Mamdani's victory party because, like, why the hell would we do something like that?
	And we didn't want to be sitting around talking to Hassan Piker all night.
	So, but we'll talk about it now.
	I mean, I'm mainly here for the meltdown.
	By the way, Jim, if you want to.
	What are your thoughts on the I was going to say, I did want to include in that remote, you know, you get just like you, you know, you have all these thoughts going around in your mind.
	You try to structure them as best you can.
	But one of the things I left out, which I always want to make clear, is I don't believe any of these elections, to be honest with you.
	I think that they're almost all contrived and they just make shit up.
	I don't believe Gavin Newsom has been re-elected governor of California all the times that he has.
	And so on.
	I don't believe Nancy Pelosi has been re-elected all the time or Dianne Feinstein and so on.
	I just think that, and this guy in New York as well.
	Again, I think they just give us these things to entertain us.
	And what the real voting results are, we are never to know.
	That's my personal feeling on all these elections.
	And it just happens to be a coincidence.
	We're just supposed to believe that all these women and these Jews and these intelligence assets are all just happening to run for office and be elected.
	And hey, they just so happened to win.
	What a surprise.
	I think it's clear.
	New Jersey and Virginia were red, especially after looking at these women.
	They're unattractive.
	They're not particularly articulate.
	They don't seem to have any merits whatsoever in the political domain, but rather they turn out to be intel assets.
	So I'm very troubled.
	Right.
	We had a reason to admission that the CIA was instrumental in stealing the election from Trump to install Biden.
	So I'm very concerned about issues such as those.
	Yeah, and you're making a perfect point without realizing that you are.
	The fact of the matter is that that's exactly what these people have always done.
	And it was almost like what I would call the pinnacle with Biden and Harris, all right?
	Two of the most unelectable people you can imagine.
	And hey, let's just make them president and vice president.
	I mean, you yourself on your show covered the fact that Kamala Harris was the lowest polling vice presidential candidate ever, right?
	And that many people covered the fact that Joe Biden on his prior runs for presidency had never even won a primary.
	And all of a sudden, boom, there he is, president.
	And, you know, and of all the people to choose, he chooses Kamala Harris.
	It's really what they do.
	If you recently saw that 20-point little communist, what you would call, what's the word I want to think of?
	Undermining, for example, destabilizing the 20-point plan that they put into place to reverse or undermine all your cultural and societal values.
	And, you know, everything is completely inverted.
	So, yeah, it's no surprise that they pick the people that they do and they say, okay, this is your new mayor.
	This is your new governor.
	This is your new police chief.
	I mean, for God's sake, you know, the average person has sensibilities.
	And so what they're trying to do is they're trying to throw a big pile of manure right into your sensibilities, into your face.
	And then, of course, they're going to call you a cisgendered, misogynist, Nazi white male if you object to it.
	And again, that's why I go back to bringing into the racial issue is there's no more clear way to solve this problem.
	In other words, we can't tell by looking at somebody, whether a Democrat or a communist.
	We can't tell what's in their mind.
	Can't tell a good Jew from a bad Jew, right, just by looking at him.
	So we have to, you know, settle if we're going to get out of this, right, on the racial issue.
	So it'd be pretty easy to solve all these problems.
	You know, if we didn't allow any of these women or minorities or Jews to hold public office, then they couldn't wield power over.
	Okay.
	Then they couldn't wield power over us.
	And by the way, Paul, I want to get Max in here for a few words, Edgewise.
	The whole campaign that Zorhan Mamdani ran and the significance of his victory, we actually highlighted his run very early on when he was polling at 1%, just because he was making some interesting videos about the collapsing support for the political duopoly and anger about oligarchy in the U.S.
	Yeah, listen, I think he's a real talent, and I think this whole victory is exciting.
	There was a big grassroots movement behind him.
	A big source of the momentum for him was just absolute anger, outrage over the bipartisan support for the Gaza genocide in Gaza, on top of the fact that he centered real issues, unlike most of the Democrats.
	And whatever comes of him, personally, I don't think he'll become a sellout.
	I don't think we're looking at another Obama.
	Obama, after posing as a savior of the country and having a lot of grassroots support, basically shut down his grassroots apparatus and became a centrist technocrat like all the Democrats before and after him.
	I don't think Zorhan Mamdani will do that.
	But even if I'm wrong on that, his victory alone, I think, is just something to celebrate because, as you said, look at all the people upset by it.
	All the people who have been using their great wealth to manufacture consent and obedience for the Gaza genocide, who don't want to see working people in power, don't want to see people of color involved in politics, immigrant communities.
	So just the symbolism on a victory alone, I think, is a wonderful thing.
	And, you know, even if he does completely.
	I didn't catch that.
	You wanted to interject.
	Well, he said something about we don't want to see working people or people of color involved in politics.
	And this is precisely the point.
	We don't want that.
	By the way, this guy's clearly Jewish.
	You can see his face.
	They're both Jewish.
	You know, Max Blumenthal, one more so than the other.
	He's an excellent commentator.
	Let's get a little more.
	Sell out with the guy.
	I don't think he will, but even if he did, I'm still celebrating this victory because of what it represents.
	I don't know what's to sell out.
	Like, I think the expectations have been set way too high, and I don't even know if he should be held entirely responsible for that.
	Selling out would mean not arresting Netanyahu if he comes to New York, not even stepping up, not Israel Bond.
	It would mean not attempting to finance free bus fare for the city.
	It would mean capitulating to the landlords, the slum lords.
	But these are all sort of vague objectives that are reformist in nature.
	Democratic socialism closely resembles what the Democratic Party looked like before the Clinton era and definitely before the Jimmy Carter era.
	It's not that sweeping of a proposal that he's putting forward.
	I mean, even Ryan Grimm, someone who's been very enthusiastic and much more electoral-minded than us, said the same thing that, you know, he's not actually promising that much.
	I see it as sort of just a reformist campaign that he ran Take the party back before the neoliberal era, before developers and Wall Street were in charge of every policy to stand more on the backs of unions.
	This is nothing.
	His opponents have made him out to be a communist jihadist, which I think is interesting and ironic in the light of his father.
	They're not adding anything to the show, Jim.
	On the issue of communism and jihadism, his book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, I don't know if it's like around here somewhere behind me.
	It helped inspire my book, The Management of Savagery.
	So I, you know, since he showed up on stage at the victory party, I decided that's what I'd call this stream.
	And because of, you know, the debate over Zorhan Mamdani's religious heritage, the book is basically about how the CIA created the jihadist so-called terrorist threat that was invoked after 9-11 by the likes of Dick Cheney to justify a permanent global war and a unitary executive,
	which Donald Trump is now using to even justify regime change in Venezuela on the basis that its government is our narco-terrorists, folding the war on drugs into the war on terror.
	So the idea that a communist jihadist could be mayor is just absolutely absurd.
	And it was, I think, these absurd formulations that were thrown at Mamdani, not just within the Democratic Party, but from the right and the injection of Murdoch media and Donald Trump's forces into the New York campaign,
	along with Netanyahu's forces, Netanyahu's cutouts in New York City, that actually benefited him and fueled popular outrage and him and wound up tainting not just the political campaign of Andrew Cuomo, but Andrew Cuomo's entire legacy, which was like one scandal and neoliberal policy after another.
	And this is really the moment it started when Mamdani was confronted with the essential logic of Zionism in a debate.
	We've showed this clip before, and I think this is really what put him, you know, vaulted him to the top.
	It was this exchange.
	I would visit the Holy Land.
	Given the hostility and the anti-Semitism, go to Israel.
	Yeah, I'd make my fourth trip to Israel.
	My goal would be to take my first trip to Israel, Mr. Mamdani.
	I would stay in New York City.
	My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that.
	Mr. Mamdani, can I just jump in?
	Would you visit Israel as mayor?
	I will be doing, as the mayor, I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and I'll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs.
	Yes or no?
	Do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?
	I believe Israel has the right to exist.
	Not as a Jewish state.
	As a state with equal rights.
	No, he won't visit Israel.
	If they asked me that question, they'd get a whole different answer.
	That was brilliant.
	He showed, first of all, that he cares about the city that he's elected to represent, not a foreign apartheid state.
	And on the issue of Israel's so-called right to exist, he said, yeah, I believe in a state with equal rights, which exposed, as you said, Zionism for what it is, which is that supporting a state that's based on Jewish supremacy.
	And the fact that that triggered his opponents, but yet they couldn't really articulate why that was so angry them.
	Because to that, you have to admit that you support apartheid.
	You support a state that privileges one group over another.
	That really helped him out.
	And yeah, it was his opponents who made Palestine the issue.
	It wasn't a big part of his campaign, but because they're so triggered by his support for equal rights, for basic Palestinian rights, they made it a big issue.
	And that helped him tap into all the outrage there is over our political class's support for Israel.
	And the genocide, of course, I think it was a major repudiation of current Republican politics being so sympathetic to Israel and so supportive of the genocide.
	Paul, I think it was a significant development here.
	And that what they're saying is fundamentally right.
	I invite your comment to the comments.
	Well, they said so many things, large and small, you know, that I mean, I would have had comments as we went, okay?
	I mean, it's just, I mean, first of all, it's all fucking nonsense.
	I'm so tired of all the bullshit.
	I mean, I'll just one thing I heard when talking about free bus fare.
	I don't know what else he promised for free, right?
	But here's the problem, the fundamental issue that none of these people will address.
	You talk about the third rail, the elephant in the room.
	Why are we so poor?
	Why is the average American working person a couple paychecks away from living in the streets?
	Okay.
	I mean, it's like, what is going on here?
	But they never talk about it.
	Right?
	Do they?
	I got more after the break.
	I hear the music.
	Well, we got a guest coming in, Paul, and I need him to have the opportunity.
	Oh, we're going to play my video, hopefully.
	We'll see.
	We'll see, Paul.
	We'll see.
	Okay.
	I would love to finish my rare man if I could.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this lesson.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston Either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's boomrockbooks.com.
	One second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly.
	You are lying to yourself.
	They do!
	And we must fight!
	You can torture us and bomb us!
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, you burn less.
	Good evening.
	Wake up.
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use cast and resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	The time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	RevolutionRadioFreedomSlips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	revolution angered by the injustices inflicted upon the innocence of the world Do you have a message you'd like to share?
	Any knowledge you'd like to impart to those willing to learn?
	Have you ever listened to our shows and thought, hey, I could do this, but you just don't know how to kickstart your hosting ambitions?
	Or are you an established professional host?
	Thwarted by censorship in other areas, seeking pastures new?
	Contact us here at the world's number one free speech network, Revolution Radio.
	We provide the platform, the training, and the airtime to any budding host wanting the chance to take those first talk show steps.
	Established hosts can find a safe and secure home here where their message can ring out loud and clear, unencumbered, free from sponsorship overreach.
	Drop us a line via our email, support at revolution.radio, or head into our Discord server to say hello.
	We'll take everything from there.
	Revolution Radio, where hosting dreams become actualized reality.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed it.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and FreedomSlips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listeners-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Well, it's my great pleasure to have as my featured guest for the second hour, Kevin Barrett, a dear friend of decades.
	We've done shows together.
	There's even a book about the two of us.
	This guy and I go way, way back.
	Kevin lives now in Morocco.
	He is a Muslim.
	I want to begin, Kev, and asking you about what I think is a trifecta that's working very much against Israeli domination of the American government, beginning with the shooting of Charlie Kirk.
	Well, I'm convinced it was staged.
	It has caused tremendous uproar in the belief that Israel took him out because he was wandering off the Zionist reservation.
	Second, we had Tucker's interview with Nick Fuentes.
	I didn't know Nick before, but I love the interview and I was so glad Tucker did it.
	And it created consternation in conservative circles, which I thought was very much off base, but where the head of the Heritage Foundation was supportive of Tucker having the interview with Fuantes.
	And then third, of course, the election of Mamdani in New York City, himself a Muslim.
	I'm just fascinated by what you think.
	I believe we've created here a perfect storm focusing on the role of Israel in dominating American society, running our government.
	I think that people are sick of it and that these events combined together are giving a focus to a motivation for doing something about it.
	Your thoughts.
	That's a great intro, Jim.
	I couldn't have said it better myself.
	I tried to say it better, but I just published this piece headlined, Mamdani and Fuentes are both good signs.
	And it just got headlined at the UNS Review.
	And I was saying a lot of what you just said.
	I mean, I think that's right.
	I think that the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the eve of September 11th, the anniversary, when Tucker Carlson had been scheduled to put out the most important documentary film on 9-11 since Massimo Mazuko's September 11th, The New Pearl Harbor came out back in like 2013.
	That, you know, obviously with a much bigger audience, I think that really blew up in the faces of the perpetrators.
	You know, their purposes were, I think, not only to prevent Charlie Kirk from wandering off the Zionist reservation, but perhaps also, as Ron Uns pointed out, quite cogently, to perhaps try to take a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Tucker Carlson's reopening the 9-11 case, because Tucker Carlson was close friends with Charlie Kirk.
	And had Charlie Kirk lived, he would certainly have promoted Tucker's 9-11 documentary series to his considerable audience.
	And so it would have been an even bigger audience than it already was from Tucker alone.
	And it also would have been premiered on September 11th itself.
	So because of Charlie Kirk's assassination on September 10th, the Tucker Carlson 9-11 video was postponed.
	It came out later to somewhat less impact, although it's still having an impact.
	And his presentation to the 9-11 Truth Conference in Washington, D.C. was canceled.
	So anyway, that's just more of the same.
	But I think it blew up in their faces because a lot of people, with Candace Owens being among them, are outraged at the holes in the official story of the Charlie Kirk shooting.
	And there are all sorts of circumstantial evidence pointing at Israel.
	Even people like Max Blumenthal, who was never very friendly to us 9-11 conspiracy theorists, was kind of more in the mainstream on some of these issues.
	He actually spearheaded this movement to investigate Charlie Kirk and to point the finger at Israel.
	So yeah, I think that's a huge factor.
	Fuentes getting mainstream, it's not just going on Tucker Carlson show, but suddenly Fuentes is all over the mainstream media now.
	And the coverage is, of course, somewhat unfavorable, but maybe not as unfavorable as one would expect.
	It's actually, some people are suspicious that the mainstream media started rehabbing Nick Fuentes just like a week before the Charlie Kirk shooting.
	He had a big New York Times piece on him.
	So that is a little strange, but I still think it's a good sign that Fuentes, with his hardcore anti-Zionist views, his genuine America First views, you know, he's MAGA as MAGA should be.
	He's getting this attention now.
	And that, as you say, together with the Charlie Kirk investigation and then the Mamdani election, which I mean, who would ever think that an out-and-out anti-Zionist Muslim would get elected mayor of the most powerful Jewish city in the world?
	So that's a good sign, you know, and Momdani is going after the Zionist oligarchs who rule America from a different angle, not just because they're Zionists.
	Yeah, but because they're oligarchs.
	That is, you know, he's broaching the concept of essentially taxing billionaire oligarchs into extinction, which is obviously what needs to be done to get rid of our oligarchy.
	So yeah, I think these are all really excellent signs.
	It is kind of a perfect storm and a trifecta.
	I noticed that Charlie Kirkavant preempted by like two and a half hours the beginning of the big three-day 9-11 conference.
	which of course had to adjust its schedule, as you're implying.
	It also took the Epstein files off of the front page.
	That was gaining a lot of currency.
	So I can see multiple motives.
	And while I'm personally convinced it was a stage event, that Charlie is still alive and well, it nevertheless generated a huge, a huge amount of criticism of Israel because nobody could believe that Israel hadn't done it, Kevin.
	So, you know, I think it's been really powerful.
	I love it.
	It's so simple.
	Everyone has an opinion.
	One guy, one target, one shot, but a hundred different theories about it.
	And it's got legs.
	I mean, it's enduring.
	It's like it's this generation's JFK.
	I'm rather astonished by that, having lived through the real deal.
	But I think this Charlie Kirk thing is having immeasurable benefits for those who are critical of Israel and bringing about a very comprehensive reassessment, questioning opening minds where then Nick Fuenes fills in a huge amount of content on the one hand and Mamdani on the other from different directions.
	I think it's really powerful, as I say, a perfect storm.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And I think that the Zionists are overplaying their hand by overestimating their ability to terrorize people into complicity, into silence, and into obeying their ridiculous orders and submitting to their ridiculous rule.
	I think you can go back to the philosophy, the kind of philosophies that guide these Zionist oligarchs.
	Michael Ledine, the famous neocon and Operation Gladio black ops guy, famously wrote a book on Machiavelli and said that, hey, we Jews are tight with Machiavelli.
	We were Machiavelli long before there was a Machiavelli.
	In a sense, he's right.
	That's the truth.
	Yeah, because the Christians believe, like almost everybody else, believes in objective morality, which is the topic you invited me on to talk about with regard to Jonas Alexis.
	And the Jewish approach to morality is pretty opportunistic, I think.
	That is, when Machiavelli came along and made this argument in favor of a certain amount of complicity in evil in real politic by rulers, saying that the princes should go ahead and lie and kill and so on and so forth, violate Christian moral precepts.
	That was a scandal for Christianity.
	Many people thought it was a satire, but not from the Jewish point of view.
	It's not a satire at all.
	It's totally, you know, it's an understatement.
	And Ladine saw that.
	So anyway, Jews have this long history of a kind of moral calculus that is basically whatever we can get away with.
	Maybe because they're a minority living in places where they had to eke out a really good living through organization.
	That's got nothing to do with it.
	Wherever they are, it's in their nature to do what they do.
	I'm okay.
	It's Jim.
	I can interject on occasion.
	Hang on, Paul.
	I'm going to bring you in.
	I know, but you keep having a hanging out every now and then.
	Okay, gotcha.
	Paul, if you want to stay here, you're going to follow my rules, okay?
	Now, listen, Kevin, yesterday I cited your article, which I think is simply excellent.
	Why, you know, the interview and the election are both good things.
	I believe they are both good things.
	And I just played Max Blumenthal before talking about the Mandami.
	Paul, my co-host here, believes Mandami may actually himself be a Jew.
	I mean, that rather startled me when he said it.
	And it's only been 20 minutes since he made the observation.
	So he's a bit of a skeptical about all of our elections.
	When we return to the issue here about consequentialism and moral philosophy, where you have ethical egoism and limited utilitarianism and classic utilitarianism,
	all of which evaluate the moral rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of the consequences or benefit for a group, I regard limited utilitarianism as the most pernicious of all because it involves groups acting to benefit themselves regardless, regardless of consequences for others.
	And that seems to me what we have in Judaism or Zionism today.
	They could care less about anyone else, whether it's their life, their property, they're starving them to death, shooting them to death, bombing them to death.
	I think it's raping them to death.
	Yeah.
	Go right ahead.
	Then I'll bring in Paul.
	Go ahead, Kevin.
	Yeah, no, I think you're absolutely right in that critique, Jim.
	As far as the issue with Jonas Alexis, I kind of lean towards Jonas's viewpoint over yours, but I would express it somewhat differently.
	You know, the way I see it, the neocons, actually, Leo Strauss, who was the kind of the guru of the neocons, was right in a sense when he argued that pure reason, I guess Kant got it wrong according, he can't see the fact that pure reason can be, it's a neutral tool, really, that can be used to argue for evil or for good, to make, to convey the truth or to devise lies.
	So pure reason in and of itself doesn't, by at least the kind of stripped down abstract reason parallel with mathematics that we think of as reason in the West, is that it's not enough to give us any real moral or even ethical guidance by itself.
	And the analogy I would make to help you understand what I'm trying to say here is that with empirical science, we know that the universe obeys mathematical laws in a great many ways.
	That's essentially what modern science is all about, is finding out these patterns in empirical realities that obey mathematical laws and figuring out what those mathematical laws are.
	And that effort really wouldn't get very far in terms of developing the kind of power over the natural world that modern science has if there were no empirical experiments.
	That is, and some argue that that's in fact the way it was prior to the scientific revolution and people like Bacon and so on, that there was an over-reliance on pure abstract reason and not enough on empiricism.
	And so they never got to these discoveries about the way that mathematics actually governs the real world that we experience in material space-time.
	So I would argue, yeah, so you agree with that so far.
	So now I'm going to take that same argument and apply it to ethics and morality and indeed spirituality, which to my mind are all very much different sides of the same coin.
	And I would argue that to actually understand morality, we need not only abstract philosophical arguments of the kind that you make, but we also need to say, taste the reality.
	We need some equivalent of empirical experimentation in the moral, ethical, and spiritual domain.
	And I suppose you would probably argue that, well, we have that in a sense because we all live our lives and we encounter other people, including these limited group utilitarians like the Jews and so on, and we see the bad consequences and blah.
	So, okay, I sort of see that, but still, that doesn't fully explain why it's you can't convince somebody else.
	Like, you can't convince a limited utilitarian, Machiavellian Jew, say Michael Ledine.
	You can't use rational arguments to successfully refute his viewpoint, which is that the good for him, as he experiences it empirically, is the triumph of his group, the bloody, vindictive triumph of his group over the other groups.
	That's what seems good to him.
	Exactly.
	Right.
	So therefore, what we need to actually clarify this whole picture and to make sound philosophical arguments about morality, ethics, and spirituality is an empirical experience of moral, spiritual, and ethical truth.
	And my argument is that this is precisely what religion provides by way of distilling and conveying the direct experiences that the great prophets and mystics have had of this very truth.
	Yeah, just offer a preliminary review of my position before inviting Paul to comment.
	Of course, I adapt a Hempelian criterion for the adequacy of scientific theories and the one hand to conspiracy theories, their theories.
	We can evaluate them by the same criteria, including the clarity and precision of the language in which they're expressed, their scope of application for explanation and prediction, their degree of empirical support, and ultimately their elegant simplicity with which they achieve those results.
	When you have theories that are equally explanatory of the data, but then adapting to moral theories, I introduce variations.
	Number one, that must not reduce to the corrupt principle might makes right, which seemed to me at the core of ethical or moral abuses in the world.
	That second of all, it must have a broad scope of application for evaluating the morality or lack thereof of acts.
	Third, it must be consistent.
	And this is where my empirical evidence come in with traditional classification of clear-cut cases of right and wrong, clear-cut cases historically in human societies, murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape.
	That an adequate theory of morality has got to classify those as immoral acts and others historically like candor, honesty, loyalty, kindness, as acts of morality.
	And then finally, fourth, to assess more complex cases like, in this instance, abortion, for example, but it can be extended to many others.
	I mean, the genocide of the Palestinians is such a blatantly grotesque violation of morality by virtually any standard except those corrupt like the limited utilitarian, where they disregard the consequences for others.
	I make my case in a broad fashion, applying those criteria systematically, where of the eight theories I evaluate: simple subjectivism, family values, religious-based ethic, cultural relativ on the one hand, and then ethical egoism, limited utilitarianism, utilitarianism, and deontological moral theory.
	Only the latter of always treating other persons with respect, never merely as means.
	We're treating people merely as means is exemplified blatantly by murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape.
	You don't have any regard for the person.
	You're murdering, robbing, kidnapping, or raping, but using them to benefit yourself.
	You know, I mean, that's kind of like the bare bones of my argument where I'm contending that evolution does not justify ethics.
	Evolution might be used to justify some forms of altruism because they're ultimately self-serving, but that actually morality enables human beings to transcend their animal origins.
	And it's thereby we affirm what it means truly to be a human being.
	Yeah, Paul, go ahead.
	You've been patient.
	Yeah, to say the least.
	So I would just say this with due respect to both of you.
	I mean, Kevin, by the way, hi.
	You know, I know your work.
	I've listened to you many times.
	I respect what it is you say and do for the most part.
	But I would just sort of make a joke here.
	For whatever audience we have and for the comment section, when this gets posted on BitShoot, I would just say this.
	What the hell are you two talking about?
	Now, the reason I say that is, you know, religious philosophy and, you know, dissertations about morality and, you know, empiricism is a luxury that people have when they're not under siege or being attacked, you know.
	And what I've come to the conclusion looking at, shall we say, history and descriptions and depictions of history of what's taken place, okay, that there is a fundamental drive in a very large majority of human beings, especially the men, obviously, to attack and destroy.
	I mean, I've recently taken an interest in the, after the Mongols, I was into the Mongols for a little bit now, the Ottoman Turks, for example, and also prior to that, the Huns.
	And prior to that, for example, the Plains Indians and the Cherokees and the Comanches and the Apaches and so on, and what we had to do to survive in this country.
	So we just didn't set out to wipe out these Indians.
	Okay, most of the stuff that we did with the Indians was retaliatory.
	Okay, so for example, when the Comanches come in and over and over again, they scalp women and children or kill them outright or steal, kidnap women and children, kill or steal your livestock and your horses, burn your cabin down and your ranch house down.
	Well, what is it are we to do?
	Similar to when I recently watched a set of these videos about the Ottoman Turks and the way they laid siege to various cities.
	Okay, Vienna, of course, was a very famous one, but they had this pattern of sacking cities, which, of course, they didn't invent, but they were very skilled at it, right?
	Where they would surround the city and they would start shelling it and they would wait them out, starve them out, then they would invade and they use ladders and so on and so forth.
	And again, all these cities in many cases were fortresses that had to be breached.
	And what was the end result?
	In many cases, and they got in there, if you had resisted, they would put everybody to the sword.
	And what were they making off with, right?
	Tapestries, carpets, gold coins.
	Were they doing it just were they hungry?
	Did they want to get the food that was being stored inside the city?
	In many cases, they'd starve them out so they'd run out of food.
	So, what's going on here?
	Right?
	And it's just over and over again.
	The natural world tells us what it is that we have to do to survive.
	And that's why I'm suggesting those are examples of moral behavior.
	Well, I'm trying to draw an equivalency to what we're taking.
	What's taking place now?
	So, for example, if anybody wants to, they can go online and they can watch some of these history tutorial channels and see, you know, based upon the descriptions at the time, a lot of it was very well written down, including in many cases illustrations of what took place.
	And I would contend that right now we are being besieged or think of the United States or any of these other Western countries as a city fortress with walls.
	Okay, we are being besieged no differently, well, very differently, actually, but along the same lines where we're slowly but surely being destroyed.
	Okay, that our enemy is their goal is first of all to destroy us, and then what remains is to convert to what it is they envision for our way of living.
	Okay, I don't see it any differently.
	So, in other words, who are you talking about?
	I mean, people who are coming to the United States to improve their economic situation, uh, in what sense we don't, we don't care, we don't care about those.
	There's a greater agenda at play.
	These people are just pawns in the game, but that doesn't mean we should allow them in here, okay?
	Because it's obviously it's an invasion that we don't want.
	No, you're saying there's an invasion, there's an attempted conquest to impose somebody else.
	Well, I'm drawing an analogy, in other words, yes, okay.
	It cannot be, you know, reasonably, how should I say this?
	It cannot be argued in any way, shape, or form that there is an overall conspiracy to take down the West and what we call white Western Christian civilization.
	Okay, well, what do you think?
	I don't think it's that simple.
	Look, what do you mean you don't think it's that simple?
	It is that simple, Paul.
	Well, why do you say my name?
	I think we all know the history, we know the history, the brutality of humanity, the sex, the raping, all that bad stuff.
	Listen to me: Kevin and I are not talking about history, which is loaded with brutality, right?
	Might makes right prevailing.
	We're talking about what would be a proper understanding of the nature of morality, how people okay.
	And so, right, I get it.
	Okay, it's not like I'm not capable of understanding what I would call academic content.
	Okay, I've read books, I took philosophy classes.
	What I'm saying at this point is it's a total waste of time what we're facing.
	Would you not call would you not call the chemtrail bio-warfare agenda war?
	Would you not call the nanotech agenda war?
	Would you not call the economic agenda war against us?
	I mean, what is it?
	I mean, do you guys want to just sit in your ivory tower and talk about all this academic bullshit blathering points?
	Right?
	I think you're wonderful, Paul, but you're on a different trajectory.
	I know.
	I'm bringing, I'm bringing my mind cooking to your show.
	We'll continue on another occasion, Paul.
	We're simply discussing what you think is academic area.
	But it's boring bullshit, is what I'm trying to tell you.
	Thanks, Paul.
	Yeah, I would disagree with that.
	I mean, I've read my bit of history, and just as the newspapers and TV channels focus selectively on violence, if it bleeds, it leads, right?
	That's the rule if you're selecting what to put on your TV news show.
	And likewise, historians are interested in the top of the power structure because whoever's at the top of the power structure pays the people who do the writing, right?
	Throughout almost all of history, only a tiny minority have been even capable of reading and writing, and they've done all of that paid by the powerful.
	The powerful are interested in power.
	And plus, of course, we're all kind of so.
	Anyway, history has we read history, we run into the kinds of descriptions that you just gave us, Paul.
	But in terms of what actually was going on with the people alive, if you could just go back and fast-forward a global view of every human on planet Earth for the past 10,000 years or what have you, the kinds of bloody conquests that you are describing would be a minuscule minority of the human experience.
	And indeed, what's really important is living a good life.
	And the way to live a good life is to understand the stuff that we're talking about.
	Discussing Darwin and Deontology.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support as this made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution RadioFreedomSlips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	REVOLUTION RADIO
	Join Revolution
	Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslips.com.
	the people station even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it.
	That the twin towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes.
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S. Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read America Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of and freedomslips.com, his staff or affiliates.
	If you're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listeners supported radio.
	And now we return you to your house.
	Well, I think Paul rather vividly described the problem.
	I mean, the brutality of manned other men, women, and children.
	But we're interested in the difference between how we should behave and how we do behave, which he so graphically described.
	You suggested you were more sympathetic to Jonas Alexis' view of these issues in relation to evolution than mine, Kevin.
	Could you give us a kind of delineation of what you take those differences to be?
	Sure.
	Although, I guess yours, you know, he was arguing most forcefully against Kevin McDonald and other sort of evolutionary people who haven't come up with the justification for the existence of a real basis for morality the way you have.
	So he comes out sort of half agreeing with you, I guess.
	But I agree with his critique of attempts to base morality and ethics in materialism and in a material, sort of empirical, materialistic worldview.
	That is a worldview that holds that we human beings are basically biological machines that happened by chance.
	And chance is the engine of evolution, according to the hardcore version of Darwinian theory, neo-Darwinism, Dawkins, and such.
	And indeed, most forms of Darwinism, I guess, have a strong role for chance.
	And so the notion that we're living in a random universe in which chance has just happened to produce the universe we see around us and the life that we see around us, including our own species, is, well, first prima fascia absurd, but secondly, doesn't provide any basis whatsoever for morality.
	And specifically, that the notion that we should be behaving altruistically, of course, is not supported by Darwinian theory.
	And indeed, it's been difficult for Darwinians to try to explain things like altruistic behavior.
	They've had to stretch their theory quite a ways.
	So I'm sympathetic to Jonas Alexis's critique there.
	And then when he comes to your view, which is, as I take it, you might agree with me that reason itself can be used to justify immorality essentially as easily as morality.
	And I mean, superficial reason.
	That is just sheer logic, mathematical type reason.
	In other words, you can argue cogently and with pure, with genuine reason for evil being the good.
	That's in fact what Leo Strauss did.
	Leo Strauss looked back at the history of Western philosophy and argued that the great thinkers, starting with Plato, knew that the best way to live in this world is to be good on the outside,
	that is, earn a good reputation by appearing to be good while being rotten on the inside and lying, cheating, raping, stealing, grabbing every possible personal benefit that you can while pretending to be honorable so that you fool everyone else is the best way to live.
	And indeed, there's a Platonic dialogue, Socratic dialogue that goes into this argument.
	And so in the past, everyone always accepted the obvious interpretation that indeed Plato was arguing in favor of Socrates and morality.
	And Strauss came up with this perverse interpretation that it was quite the opposite.
	And that not only Plato, but all these other philosophers throughout history have seen the horrible truth that there is no basis for morality in this world.
	And therefore, it's actually a lot more fun to just be a psychopath and perhaps a group psychopath like the Jews.
	And so, because of course, to get to get the maximum of wealth, power, and pleasure, you need to organize with other people.
	You can't just be an individual psychopath because you won't get so far.
	But if you organize with other psychopaths, you can maximize wealth, power, and pleasure.
	So that philosophy explains the way the people who rule our Western empire today behave with our Jeffrey Epsteins, our Israeli right to rape protests and so on, our oligarchs maximizing their own benefit at the expense of everyone else and doing so increasingly worse every year.
	So I think Strauss was right that it's possible to make that argument.
	He proved it, that you can make that argument.
	And the only way to refute that argument and to genuinely show that there is such a thing as good and that truth, beauty, and goodness are quite real and that we ought to submit to them and order our lives in service to them is to provide some sort of a taste of that reality.
	That is either that or at least to communicate that for those who have not yet had a taste of that reality, to find a way to use symbols and rituals to communicate that reality to such people.
	And that's what religious and mystical traditions have always done.
	And that's, I think, the sort of the deep structure of Jonas's argument about abortion.
	That is, using reasoned argument, we can argue that personhood doesn't arrive until sometime well after the fetus is first created by the act of impregnation.
	Or that we can argue the contrary.
	Certainly, we have a very strong argument against any particular claim that three weeks, three months, six weeks, six months, 8.99999 months or any particular point in the development of the fetus, that this is the cutoff.
	Before that, it wasn't a person.
	After that, it's a person.
	That's kind of all such arguments that pick any particular cutoff are obviously false and ludicrous.
	So, but in any case, one could make either argument.
	One could also just as well argue that killing babies is good, killing fetuses is good, and killing babies is good, killing people is good when you can get away with it.
	That's basically what Leo Strauss argues.
	All of these things are possible things to argue and can be argued just as rationally as they're contraries.
	Therefore, we need Essentially, some form of revelation or direct tasting of moral, spiritual, and ethical reality in order to understand which arguments are correct and which ones are specious.
	Very good, very good, very good.
	I would comment on several aspects of what you just presented.
	Number one, yeah, we do have a universe of laws.
	I mean, if one wants to envision God as a lawmaker, you ought to envision the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth as God's will.
	You know, that to me is a far more intelligible or defensive position than any other alternative of which I am aware.
	But the fact is, these laws of nature cannot be violated, cannot be changed, require no enforcement.
	Now, when it comes to evolution, there's a tendency persisting to this day to buy into the simplest model of genetic mutation as a source of diversity and natural selection as the process by which future gene pools are determined.
	When actually there are six other causal mechanisms, three more for the generation of diversity, three more for the determination of which genes survive, to wit, beyond genetic mutation,
	sexual reproduction, creating new gene pools, genetic drift, whereby a subpopulation is isolated from others in a domain where it has to deal with challenges that require forms of adaptation that appears to have been the source of the races, and genetic engineering, actually, which we're now having to confront with in an all too real way because of the mRNA vaccs, which actually changed our DNA.
	Actually, before the vaccs, Kevin, I didn't even, I didn't believe DNA could be altered.
	And then we have, in addition to natural selection, we have sexual selection.
	What are the properties of the opposite sex that are attractive and lead to the higher propensity for reproductive activity?
	Group selection.
	How does the way in which a community organizes itself benefit?
	I offer lots of examples.
	You know, take the same five players on a basketball team, give them different positions.
	You're going to get different results.
	Members of a rival team organize into a squad make a big difference in what they can deal with.
	Lots of examples where it seemed to be Jewish social strategy, you know, the group strategy that Kevin McDonald focuses upon that's made them stand out historically among human communities.
	And then artificial selection as when a thoroughbred owner, you know, puts them out to stud, you know, for a fee, going about arranged marriages or all kinds of ways.
	So in my opinion, the attacks on evolution that emphasize chance are exaggerating a too simple model of evolution.
	I say it's much more complex.
	And I'll even declare that my eightfold theory of causal mechanism affecting evolution is overwhelmingly superior to Darwin's simplified model.
	But then he was initiating a whole area of investigation.
	I mean, you know, the man's genius, you'll remain an immortal for all that.
	Now, well, if you're immeasurably superior to him, Jim, how immortal are you going to be?
	We shall see.
	I'm just saying, you know, I think taking evolution seriously requires a more complex model that can actually accommodate the available evidence, the fossil record, morphological structural similarities.
	Let me quickly ask you about that because I've had Josh Middledorf on my show many times, and he's sort of a thinker, an evolutionary thinker in the line of Lynn Margulis.
	And the first issue that he would bring up, which also I thought of a long time before I even met him, of course, was that you mentioned that you can look at group selection as well as individual selection, right?
	The neo-Darwinians, docs, and those people, they always look at individual selection and the individual so-called gene, which is a piece of DNA, an arbitrarily chosen piece of DNA that they choose.
	And they say, well, that's what does this or that for the individual, whether the individual is fit to survive, determined by the gene.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Very simple for they have a simplified model.
	And as you say, it's much more complicated.
	But it may be so complicated that it's basically impossible to understand, right?
	Because you can look at the so-called group versus individual selection at all sorts of different levels, right?
	You could look at individual atomic or chemical components of the DNA strand as individuals and/or groups.
	You can look at the genes as individuals or groups.
	You can look at what we think of as individual, let's say, humans or organisms or their communities or families, a family of organisms.
	We could think of a human body as a community, right?
	The same way that we can think of a species as a community.
	We have a human species, which in a sense is almost like the body of one big creature that's all over the earth.
	The way these slime molds are, you know, these many cells that spread out everywhere under the forest.
	So we could think of the planet itself as a single organism.
	And of course, that's the Gaia hypothesis in a nutshell.
	So group selection versus individual selection, anything practically at any level, it could be an individual and at any level, it could be a group.
	And given that complexity, it really makes me wonder, you know, how can we actually pretend to really understand anything?
	Isn't this going to end up being so complex that it's going to be the sort of the chaos theory, you know, butterfly wing in Australia creates a hurricane in Florida kind of situation?
	Well, I don't think so.
	It's a matter of looking at specific phenomena that you want to explain, like the emergence of the races.
	I think there's a general consensus of the out of Africa that human origins began in Africa and then the human population began to spread over Earth, wound up in all these diverse areas with different kinds of demands from the environment.
	And if you didn't have the right adaptive capabilities, your genes didn't survive to reproduce.
	I think it just becomes a question, Kevin, of looking at the specific data you want to explain.
	My point being, evolution provides a lot more causal mechanism to explain diverse aspects of human life than mirror genetic mutation and natural selection.
	I mean, that's my point.
	That is just much more complex.
	I don't think it's overwhelmingly complex.
	I, of course, would concede you can look at, you know, complex organisms as a single entity or whatever is you're suggesting.
	That doesn't mean it's going to offer or afford an equally adequate scientific explanation.
	It's going to require a refinement of the explanandum, what it is you want to explain in relation to the explanance, you know, what I'm or the premises that are used to explain it.
	And I'm suggesting the explans has a lot more resources here for potential explanands for various explananda that are generally acknowledged by those who are critical of evolution.
	I mean, it's I'm really making a scientific point here about the complexity of the theory and its adaptability to explain diverse phenomena.
	But it's a matter of focusing on exactly what you want to explain as which of those aspects.
	I mean, you could do a similar thing with chemistry.
	You know, depending on what you want to talk about, you're going to invoke different chemicals or chemical procedures or processes.
	I don't see it as different in kind than that, you know, kind of standard scientific.
	Now, the question does become about the emergence of morality.
	And I argue, and I suspect you haven't run across this, but it had to do with the development of human mentality and that there are levels of kinds of minds.
	This is what my book, The Evolution of Intelligence, is about, the emergence of human mind from its animal precursors, distinguishing between different types of mind.
	And you find the more primitive in the more primitive species.
	I mean, unsurprisingly, I mean, if the theory is correct and evolution is right, then as you get more complex forms of life, you get higher levels of mentality.
	The Mountain Gorilla, for example, has elements that overlap with what is perhaps most fundamental to human mentality.
	These are symbols, things that don't look like what they stand.
	They're not causes or effects of what they stand for, but they're merely habitually associated with what they stand for.
	So you got the lowest level of mentality involves iconic or representational things that look like, smell like, taste like what they stand for.
	Then you have causal levels of mentality where you look at the effects, smoke, fire, heat, blah, blah, blah, as interrelated and so forth.
	And you reason from cause to effect, effect to cause and so forth.
	And then you get this higher level of symbolic mentality.
	Now, what it does is take you out of the domain of immediate experience.
	It allows you to create possible scenarios that are independent of your immediate circumstances, where I argue that you can then begin to contemplate how things could be different than the way they are and how they might be better, more preferable, more desirable from multiple points of view than the way things are.
	And we've developed a higher level of reasoning, transformational mentality.
	So I'm talking about iconic, indexical, symbolic, then transformational in the highest level, metamentality, where you use signs which are fundamental to thought.
	In other words, I'm building on verses, Charles S. Theory of Signs, where he elaborated in great detail things that stand for other things in some respect or other, the ways and variations in which they can do that, adapting it as a theory of mind to account for the lower than higher and higher species of mentality, where you eventually reach a point where you can exercise criticism and think, well, things could be different.
	Things could be better.
	And I believe that's the point at which morality begins to enter in.
	Think about ways things could be better for everyone.
	Maybe you begin by thinking about how things could be better for you.
	But I do believe the development of human mentality is profoundly connected to the emergence of morality.
	So I argue.
	Yeah, well, that's an interesting way of reconciling kind of a materialist worldview and an evolutionary view of life and of humanity with a belief in the reality of morality.
	I would argue, though, that I think there's something else going on here.
	And I urge you to try to interview Josh Middeldorf sometime.
	He is a kind of a professional.
	He has a physics PhD, but he turned to evolutionary biology because he was fascinated by the inevitability of death and the mystery of death.
	Indeed, sex and death are not only great mysteries to us humans based on our experience of them or anticipated experience of them in the case of death, but also they're great mysteries in evolutionary thought because it makes we know that organisms are perfectly capable of repairing themselves and going on essentially forever.
	And therefore, those species which include a built-in self-destruct mechanism like us and so many animal species and not a few, I guess, plants and so on as well, are wired for control demolition.
	That was actually my headline with my first interview with Josh, I think it was.
	So why would that be?
	Evolution in the traditional form doesn't explain that because evolution would say that the longer that you live, the more progeny you're going to have, right?
	The longer you live with fertility and health and vigor, the more progeny you will have.
	And so each generation should become longer lived.
	And yet that doesn't happen.
	We have these set limits.
	The body is wired to blow up at a certain age.
	And that can be jiggered with a little bit by fooling your body into thinking that times are really tough.
	You have very caloric restriction.
	If your body gets the message of caloric restriction, it thinks, oh, times are really tough in order to have enough children to maintain the correct ecological balance of the number of people, then you're going to have to live longer.
	Whereas if you have all the food you want, your body knows, oh, things are great here.
	And if we reproduce like crazy, there's going to be way too many people and we're going to crash.
	So you die earlier, right?
	So Josh has studied this, claims that there is a possible explanation through group selection in the form of ecological ecosystem selection.
	That is, that any ecosystem that genuinely had selfish organisms, truly selfish in the Richard Dawkins sense, in that ecosystem, that ecosystem would blow up and it wouldn't exist anymore because we can look at ecosystems competing with other ecosystems.
	And even planetary ecosystems may be competing with other planetary ecosystems as well.
	So the reason that we humans, for example, have a built-in self-destruct mechanism and we're not going to live forever, or not, like many trees, other kinds of species, we are not going to be, it's not going to become less likely that we die every year, which is true for some species, by the way, mostly plant species.
	Instead, it becomes more and more probable that we die every year.
	And once we hit about 100 or so, the probabilities become overwhelming.
	That's built in.
	And that's there, according to Josh.
	It makes sense to me, because all of the great many ecosystems in biological history that had a selfish member, a genuinely selfish member, and a member that wouldn't sacrifice half of its genes for sexual reproduction, as well as wouldn't sacrifice its genes through built-in death.
	That ecosystem blew up and is gone.
	The only ecosystems around are ones in which every organism has essentially agreed not to be so selfish as to impose its genes on everything and to get longer and longer lived and to reproduce by cloning rather than sexual reproduction.
	So that's one of the real world applications of this theory that it's very complex.
	You can do group selection at all these different levels, including in this case, ecosystem selection.
	And indeed, we may have something like this to explain, was it Fermi's paradox?
	Why don't we have aliens openly coming and landing on the White House?
	Why does it appear that we humans are the only advanced technological species that we can see?
	Well, one explanation for that has been that every species that follows our path blows itself up and its planet.
	And so there are no planets with species like us anywhere.
	There couldn't be.
	That's the negative view of it.
	I don't think that's true.
	I think that I think the universe is teeming with intelligent species, extraterrestrials and extra-dimensionals.
	I tend to think that there are huge numbers of them that pass through and around Earth.
	And so that's a different topic for a different time.
	But in any case, that ecosystem selection, I think, is a really good application of the complexities of how you can analyze fitness for reproduction at all of these different levels, making the whole situation really complex.
	And then to make it even more complex, Josh Middledorf is aware of the body of scientific research proving that psi phenomena are very real, that all of us, our bodies, know what's going to happen five seconds from now.
	And that's been proved seven ways from Sunday in scientific experiments.
	They wire you up.
	They show you images, column image, column image, column image, pornography, column image, column image, column image.
	Horrible violence.
	And your body reacts to the shocking image seconds before you see it, even if these images are chosen absolutely randomly.
	So we're all precognitive all the time, a little bit.
	And we also have precognitive dreams, which has been shown many times.
	The science of parapsychology has gone over all of this kinds of material and proven it more than any other issue in science has ever been proven.
	So given that, given that the illusions of materialism turn out to be illusions that the basis of reality is mind, not matter, that gives us a whole new way of thinking about these things with God as the source of mind.
	Kevin, it's just a joy to have you here.
	Where can people find your work?
	I love your articles.
	I feature them frequently on my shows.
	Where can people get more up, Kevin Barrett?
	Oh, I suppose KevinBarrett.substack.com is good.
	And then truthgihad.com.
	Excellent, Kevin.
	I look forward to having you back again, my friend.
	Meanwhile, 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.
	And as you know, I'm now disposed to say, God willing, we'll be back.
	What day is this?
	Friday.
	We'll be back next time to see you then.
	Do it all over again.
	Kevin, just terrific having you here.
	Well, thanks, Jim.
	I really enjoyed it.
	Great to talk again.
	It's been a while.
	Well, there's a big selection to the madness.

▲