Monday, January 5, 2015

Nicholas Kollerstrom

During the first hour, Nick Kollerstrom and I discuss the "false flag" attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, which was conducted by a professional, high-disciplined team, which went out of its way to leave false impressions that they were Islamic terrorists. Some of the give-aways include that the vehicle parked on an "+" mark in the street to make sure it would receive clear coverage, that the shooting of a police officer on the sidewalk did not blow his head apart and left no blood and that, at the "kosher" deli, an officer is firing from behind a vehicle into the store, which might have injured police in front of him had he not been using blanks.


  1. Jim, saw this on a philosopher's blog. Look at the examples of things we can be absolutely certain are false!

    "As sympathetic as I am to Mill, I am puzzled (and you ought to be too) by the last sentence of the first quoted passage. It consists of two claims. The first is that 'We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion . . . .' This is plainly false! The opinion of some Holocaust deniers that no Jews were gassed at Auschwitz is an opinion we can be sure is false. We are as sure of this as we are sure of any empirical fact about the past. Or suppose some fool denies that JFK died by assasination or maintains that McCain won the last presidential election. Those are fools' opinions we know to be wrong. There is no lack of examples. What was Mill thinking? "We can never be sure," he writes. A modal auxiliary married to a negative universal quantifier! To refute a 'can never' statement all you need is one merely possible counterexample. I have given three actual counterexamples. Pace Mill, we can be sure in some cases that certain opinions are wrong."


    1. just another scummy, filthy, lying kike, obviously, ho ho ho oho

    2. I think he is infact a maverick as regards *Western* philosophy, as advertised.

      Standard *Western* philosophy would see him studying all the evidence before taking a definitive position on a controversial issue (not usually so with other peoples' traditions).

      Since we know the evidence is strongly against mass gassings [to death, he means] and points instead to the use of Zyklon-B for delousing only (similar amounts used at camps not designated death camps; no tell-tale blue walls at alleged gas chambers, only at acknowledged delousing sites; the reliance on the purported testimony of Höss with its many impossibilities such as guards removing gassed prisoners within half an hour of death, smoking and eating while they did so; and on and on... we can know he hasn't actually bothered to look at the evidence.

      How very maverick indeed!

    3. Blasphemer of the Holy Spirit!!
      Slanderer of Christ!
      Defiler of Christianity!!
      Scandal giver to the innocents!!
      Spawn of the devil!!
      Enemy of God!!

      Your destiny is the eternal fires of HELL!!!

    4. Most persons in philosophy do not look into the Holocaust as being a potentially inaccurate official version, or into 9/11, or other things. The points about being carefully doubtful are valuable, but this person would not apply it carefully to THAT topic. That is their error, even if the Holocaust narrative is completely accurately told. (I am legally unable to comment on my personal take on that issue if it discusses almost any points made by revisionists.)

    5. Whom are you speaking to, SW? I am aware of the arguments. If you are addressing me, I am simply being careful of the law here in Canada, in what I say about what I know.

  2. I hate that you are being persecuted, Nick.

  3. First the the idiot White Nationalist that uses vulgarities such as "kike". You are anti-White when you present yourself as such. Assuming you're White and not a troll.

    As for the Holocaust. In real life when I encounter a conversation of the validity of the 'Holoco$t', almost every response is 'I know..I saw the pictures'. Well, after arguing the fact of disease, starvation, allied bombing...yada the person still 'knows'.

    The best real life argument against the fraud is simple. "Did you know that questioning the historical facts of the Holocaust is illegal in 20 countries? And many journalists, scientists, historians and bloggers were prosecuted with prison sentences."

    A normal person who is fair shuts up and gets that confused and slightly annoyed look upon themselves.

  4. Can't get this podcast to download from podbean. Is it hosting anywhere else?

    1. I 'm not technically minded at all but I have downloaded the podcast same as usual, no problems, so it must be hosting from somewhere.

  5. The French Government's criminalising of viewpoints hostile to the Holocaust(tm) Fraudsters was FINALLY acknowledged yesterday on the USA's National Public Radio -- when a reference to it "slipped through" in a live-satellite interview with NPR's Paris correspondent.

    When the program host asked her what sort of "man-on-the-street" opinions (about the Charlie H. spectacle) she was encountering in certain majority-Muslim, Paris neighborhoods, the correspondent thoughtlessly paraphrased remarks she had heard criticising the HYPOCRISY of a nation that champions "free speech" whenever The Prophet (PBUH) is ridiculed but imprisons anyone who engages in the "hate speech" of doubting the Six Million.

    I imagine that hapless correspondent got a stern talking-to from NPR management soon afterward. ;)

  6. "Anders, the "face-value, mainstream" version of the Nixon-removing, Watergate Scandal, now firmly cemented in politically correct, consensus history, was that it only became public knowledge due to an "heroic crusade" by two brilliant young reporters and their "independent-minded," curmudgeonly editor -- who had the guts-and-determination to "follow the money" and bring down a sleazy, paranoid (i.e. the "enemies list") president."

    Do you always believe what you see in the movies? "Follow the money".
    What other tooth-fairy "sources" do you "rely" on for your "research"?


  7. The congested natured of the new site may chase many listeners away. I know I am much less inclined to use it as it currently exists.

  8. Perhaps you missed that, as of 5 January 2015, I have moved to a new "Real Deal" on Media Broadcast Center because I have VIDEO as well as AUDIO capability. If you want to view the slides we are discussing in addition to listening to our discussion, go to

  9. All of Jim's new shows can be found below...every episode has a HD video version an audio mp3 and a download button as well a description and links for more info on every show, thanks!

  10. A video with the picture of the shooting of the police officer (which may be a fake moment, though others died later), showing that there was no blood anywhere from a strong gun blast, was immediately removed.

    I don't know if the gun shot had to be fake (some do not leave massive blood everywhere, of course), but the immediate removal suggests there's a problem there.

    The rest of the case is troubling, for who they were -- supported and partly protected fanatics, patsies and agents, probably. The target being the partial propaganda organ, Charlie Hebdo, is also troubling.

    Tarpley has a great early broadcast on the situation:

    Of course then there's always the pat objection of the variety: "Not everything is a conspiracy of the important, big kind and you want to find them or are too open to thinking slight evidence is good evidence."

    Not everything, no & yes we're used to M.O. so we look for it and are more open to the possibility fully.

    Thanks, Nick.

  11. This audio won't play. I know it doesn't have video, but won't you put up the audio here?