Dr. James Fetzer On Thinking, Truth, JFK, False Flags, Fake News, Censorship Robert David Steele

Video Transcript:

Folks, I've got a real treat for you today, because while I've been about hashtag on RIG election reform, I've also been about hashtag on RIG defend the Constitution, particularly the first, second, and fourth amendments, which President Trump is not defending today. And this causes me concern, even though I'm a strong Trump supporter. Today I'm gonna interview Dr. James Fetzer, a former marine officer, a PhD with many, many distinctions and I'll ask him to introduce himself, but I wanna start with this slide here, that shows what James Madison said. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. Now we add to that the first amendment of the Constitution, which says Congress shall make no law, that a bridge is free speech, and then the third quote here, is the provision of the Communications Decency Act, which was supposed to ensure that social media did not censor anybody. And by social media, I mean particularly, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Meetup, Twitter, and YouTube. And in fact, they're censoring everybody, they're de-platforming people, both progressives and conservatives, and they're violating the law, in my view. There needs to be a national, a legal investigation, there needs to be a massive national class action lawsuit against all of these people. So with that as a preamble, let me welcome to our 30-minute interview, Dr. James Fetzer. Jim, I've known you for many years, I've read many of your books. I wanna start off with you introducing yourself, and I've created four slides that we're going to have you talk about as we go through them. So in the first one, just introduce yourself, the highlights of your educational and professional career today. Well, mine was the first class at Princeton to have the same number of public high school graduates, his private school graduates. I was there on an NDEA title for a scholarship, which meant that the Navy provided for my tuition, books and $50 a month spending money, and returned from my agreeing to serve a minimum of four years as an officer in the Navy for the Marine Corps, where I chose the Marine Corps, wanting to be in a real military organization if I were to serve. So what about the rest of your education, just the high profiles, just bullets? Well, I had an excellent education from Princeton, which at the time was ranked number one in math, physics and philosophy, while in the Marine Corps, it honed my sense of discipline, so that by the time I completed my PhD in the history and philosophy of science, I was quite a formidable instrument of intellectual analysis. That is absolutely fascinating to me. Now, I know you've been listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World. So let's move on now. This next slide, which I'd like you to speak to very briefly, just talks about your 23 academic books focused on intelligence with integrity. I don't think anybody with a brain could challenge your intelligence and integrity. So just speak to these titles that are being shown on the screen and talk about your intellectual development as an author teaching others about how to think with integrity. I had the benefit of doing my undergraduate thesis with the most influential philosopher of science in the world called the Hempel. I did my PhD with a second most influential Wesley Salmon, and my first book on the theoretical foundation to scientific knowledge was dedicated to Sir Carl Popper, who has been the most influential among actual scientists and social scientists in the world. It was my interest in computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, that led me into doing work on the foundations of those disciplines with rather spectacular results, for example, a paper on program verification, the very idea led to an international controversy that clarified the uncertainty and insecurity that a team's executing a program with an actual machine which leading figures said actually made the world just a bit more safe as a consequence. That's fascinating to me, because one of the things I found as an intelligence professional, I just published my last three books, one of them on reinventing intelligence, 30 years of the wilderness, is I'm finding that we are corrupt. We lack data integrity, we lack analytic integrity, we lack social, cultural, economic, and just political integrity. So your books, in essence for me, represent a foundation for creating an informed citizenry that is supposed to be what this republic is all about. Now let's move on to how you made the transition from an academic who wrote pioneering books about thinking with integrity, to looking into first the John F. Kennedy assassination and then others. And we have here on this slide your 16 books on assassinations, big lies, and false flag events. And we won't discuss any particular event, but I just want people to get a grasp of what drew you in from JFK on to studying the reality that everything we're being told about these events is not true. On the wake of Oliver Stone's magisterial film, JFK, I was dumbfounded when the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association began to debunk and discredit everyone who'd done serious research on the assassination. It occurred to me that if somewhat of his level of prestige were to abuse his position for political purposes, perhaps some of those of us with special backgrounds and abilities such as mine in epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science ought to become involved. I asked myself, if I as a former Marine Corps officer don't do this, who could? And I reached out to others who had expertise and areas where I did not, such as David W. Mantic, MDPHD, who had turned out to be the leading expert on the medical evidence and the assassination for assistance and collaboration and he brought in others such as Bob Livingston, MD, a world authority on the human brain in ex-Bron Wound, Diablo, and others, including a physician who had been in trauma room number one, when JFK's more of a body was brought in and two days later responsible for the care and treatment of his alleged assassin. And I began specializing in bringing experts together to unpack these complex and controversial cases for the benefit of the American people. You know, that's what really strikes me. I mean, I've written, I've forgotten how many books now. It's certainly over 12, but nothing to compare with what you've done and what has struck me. And I've reviewed some of your books, Ray Reviews. What has struck me is that you're not only gifted at thinking, you're gifted at bringing together appropriately qualified experts and creating a reasonable narrative. You are in fact better than the American legal system today. I mean, Sydney Powell is one of my favorite people and she's written a book called Licensed to Lie and Matt Tobi has written the divide and also Griffopia. We have a broken legal system, a broken academic system. And you seem to me to excel not only at evaluating situations, and we're going to get into your methodology shortly, but also at bringing together wise people who have the purest motives in order to study events. These are publications that I have produced, two of which have gone to the President of the United States, the rest of which are about the President of the United States in relation to false flag events, including the Russian witch hunt which you study. So I just want people to know that, apart from my respect for Dr. Fetzer, I actually ran a false flag for the CIA. They're real. I know what they're like. They have occurred. 9-11 was a false flag. The others have been false flags. And anybody who does not understand this is either being an ignorant, unengaged citizen or is in the employ of people who are creating a false narrative. Now, Jim, you have a method. You call it the four stages of scientific reasoning and I'm putting that graphic off. What did you talk to us about the four stages of scientific reasoning for maybe two or three minutes? Well, Robert, typically we begin with posthum, but something doesn't add up. Just to use the illustration of the Senate, an illustration of JFK. You had Lee Oswald declaring that he hadn't been responsible for shooting whereas if he'd been the assassin, he would have been boasting. That raised questions. There were issues about the medical evidence. The up behind the secret service, both claim that there have been three shots with three hits that day. Later, it could turn out a witness had been affected by a shot that had occurred in scratch his face. They had to cut it down to two and invent a magic bullet theory, which is a physiological impossibility. You can't have a bullet entered the base of the back of the neck to reverse the neck without hitting any body structures because cervical vertebrae intervened. So if you have something puzzling, you have to speculate about the alternative hypotheses, but this had been a conspiracy of a small scale, a large scale. Why would the evidence be misdescribed? And it turned out to be a very elaborate project wherein the course of three books, we shattered the cover up. We're the key to exposing these events and separating the authentic evidence from the inauthentic. In this case, they had altered x-rays to conceal a fist-sized block to the back of the head. There was internal evidence of a second shot to the head. The brain-showning diagrams and photographs at the National Archives was not even up the brain of J.M.K. So when you start to consider the alternative hypotheses, such as Leozwald did it, or that it was a conspiracy involving the government, you have to ask, well, what's the probability of the autopsy x-rays haven't been altered? Having someone else's brain and diagrams and photographs at the National Archives at Leozwald had done it, that would have been far beyond his can indeed. Even the hypothesis that the mafia was responsible has incredibly low probability, but the government was involved is very high under those evidential circumstances. So it rapidly emerges the government involvement hypothesis is the preferable among those considered. So that's fascinating to me, because I also as the top reviewer, I took all my reviews off Amazon when they started censoring books and reviewers and reviews, but I am the top reviewer in English for nonfiction with over 2000 published reviews across 98 categories and people can see my latest lecture on the best books at tinyraw.com forward slash steel dash, top dash books. Leozwald tested negative for gunpowder residue. He was literally standing in the door just observing. We now know that this was done by Alan Dulles and we now know that there were multiple parties engaged. We now know that there were nine shooters. And the humor on the nine shooters is that there were nine major parties to this event and none of them trusted the others. So they all had their own shooters in place. CIA appears to have provided secret service credentials through not necessarily officially, but through Alan Dulles reaching into the office of technical services. There are tens of books now that support your early findings on the John F. Kennedy assassination. And the point I'm leading up to is that there are going to be hundreds of other books that will support your books on the other false flags that you've looked at in recent times. Robert, that's really fascinating. I actually met the contract agent who prepared 15 sets of forward secret service credentials for using it around Dele Plaza. I have identified eight shooters. Actually, it's a completely fascinating, Robert. One of which seems to represent each of the diverse agencies involved here. And Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas Police, a Air Force expert on CIA contract guy, Lyndon Johnson's personal hitman because Robert, well, Alan Dulles no doubt played a role here. It was Lyndon who was the prime mover who forced himself on the ticket in Los Angeles in 1960 with a plan to take out JFK to a seat to the presidency himself. Now, I want to just show two slides here very quickly. These are my own slides. And I'm not going to ask you to comment, but I want the viewers to see that there is a way of thinking about modern false flags. And this is one slide on considering possibilities. And now here is another slide. This one was made for the Charlie Hebdo event, which was in Paris, a false flag event. And I just want to leave those as thought provokers. Dr. Fetzer has pioneered a rational way of looking at events that are anomalous. I wrote an Orlando piece with 70 anomalies that I sent to James Comey as the director of the FBI. Like Dr. Fetzer, I am a patriot. I am also a thinker. And I want my government to be honest with me because the truth at any cost lowers all other costs. Now, Dr. Fetzer, Jim, I'm showing a new slide here, which talks about a Stalinist trial in which you have recently been involved. And I do not want to discuss the specifics of the trial, but I do want you to articulate not only how you feel aggrieved by a bad judge in Wisconsin, but also I hope that you're going to take this all away to the Supreme Court. Why don't you just summarize the process without the specifics? Well, this was a classic example of what are known as slapsuit strategic lawsuits against public participation that are based on fabricated grounds in order to punish those who are speaking out about events, the government, and other powerful sources would prefer not be disclosed to the public. They're illegal in 27 states. I believe the reason Wisconsin was selected is that they're still permissible here. But what we're dealing with is the weaponization of the law. It's a tragic development in American history because of a very idea of the rule of law. And injustice for all is predicated on the objective assessment of evidence in accordance with our principles that govern legal investigations and judicial procedures, which were grossly violated in this case. How were they violated? Now I understand facts were in dispute. Doesn't that mean that you must be given a jury trial on the facts? Precisely, Robert. There are protocols that govern summary judgments, which have a long history of controversy. They're widely known to be subject to abuse, especially in cases of deaf humation. Because what one person may find to be a fanciful and the famed or another may not, therefore if there are any facts in dispute, then summary judgment cannot be rendered. And the issue must be submitted to a jury for resolution of the disputed facts. The basic facts, in my case, were massively disputed and ought to have been sent to a jury. You know, one of the things I've learned from Sydney Powell, who I hope goes through the Supreme Court one day, because we need a Supreme Court that will crack down on crooked judges, I learned the term, exculpatory evidence. And in the case of General Mike Flynn, Sydney has some fortunate national security agency connections that she has in her hands, all of the exculpatory evidence for General Mike Flynn that will inevitably lead to the government having to close that case down. If I understand you correctly, you were not allowed by this judge to present any exculpatory evidence. Well, I'm rather stunning because in response to the complaint, I felt that I would be able to present a massive evidence I had published, even in my defense, that showed that I was correct in my assessment and the basic issue. However, the judge precluded my doing that and claimed we only focus on the authenticity of the document subsequently, in fact, during the appeals process, after the case was sent to trial for damages and an absurd verdict was rendered against me. In response to my attorney's depth observation that, for example, they never established that I had been negligent in my publication. Jim, if I understand you correctly, not only did exculpatory evidence not get presented, but they never proved malice, and they never proved that you were, in fact, seeking to actively defame anyone. So let's leave that for another time. We're going to move on. I certainly hope that you will take this all the way to the Supreme Court, because I believe that the due process of law requires that the judges and the prosecutors be honest. I suspect that there is both a Catholic and a Freemason Secret Society handshake going on here, and I believe that in the end, you will be vindicated. I want to give you an opportunity to make any final comments on freedom of speech and the degree to which you think the American public is or is not thinking clearly and being fully informed. And then I will close with my own slide on threats to free speech in the USA. Well, Robert, you've been masterful, even magnificent in calling out Google Gestapo, as you call it, for the massive censorship of the American people. There are major threats at work here. We have, I've found it an independent book company, Moonrock Books, after my first book was banned by Amazon and now believe it or not, my five more of my books have been banned. I think this is unprecedented in American history, Robert, that the American people must understand they're entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the special exceptions that were made for these major platforms on the presumption that they would function as libraries. They would let everyone publish their own work and decide what they wanted to watch and wanted to read without interference has now been massively circumvented by their role as censors so that the Congress must hold them to account and revise the standards and limit their ability to restrict the American people from learning what they must know with air to be properly informed and make intelligent decisions about the future of this nation. I think that's an absolutely superb statement of where we are and I thoroughly support that. With this last slide, my thoughts on the threats of free speech in the United States and I will say very clearly, crooked judges being bride and blackmailed, crooked prosecutors licensed a lie, crooked legislators and governors being blackmailed and bribe. There are 27 states that have made it a felony to criticize Israel. They didn't do that because it was a good idea. They did that because the Mossad and others have been running pedophilia and trapping operations combined with bribery and they have subverted 27 legislatures across this country just as they have subverted the Congress of the United States. And finally, you have a crooked FBI. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was founded by a pedophile who took small children as gifts from the mafia. The FBI turned into a red mafia agent taking out the Italian criminals in order to open the way for Zionist and Russian criminals. And then of course, you have the whole issue of citizens advocating and I want to end on that point. No matter how bad our government has become, this is on us. We the people have failed to participate and demand free and fair elections. We the people have failed to demand that Congress eliminate all lobbying and make evidence-based decisions in the public interest. At the end of the day, we will not unread the system until every citizen is wearing a polo shirt or a ball cap that says hashtag unread. Get in the fight, please. God bless you, Dr. James Fetzer, former Marine, brilliant PhD, distinguished author. I think you are a poster child for everything that's right with America. God bless all of you watching. And God bless the President of the United States, Mr. President, would you please start defending the first, second, and fourth amendments of the United States Constitution? Sir. You He