Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pat,

Listen, I do regard you as sincere, which puts you in a different category than the Colbys, the

Lamsons, the Liftons, and the DiEugenios. Let me explain why you are endorsing what might

well be called "the ethics of extortion" in violation of basic principles of morality and why Lifton

should be repaying the money I have lent him, just as I intend to pay him any royalties that I

may owe to him, when a complete statement becomes available. I think you may not realize that I

have benefited him not only by lending him money but by previous royalty payments and advances

against royalties, which, like the loans, I was not obligated, legally or morally, to extend to him.

Whether or not I owe him any royalties is something I do not know at the point in time. If you

were to check what I have sent him, you would find the following accounting over several years.

Since 2003, I've sent him the following amounts separate from an earlier honorarium for coming

to Duluth and participating in the symposium, a benefit I was not extending to anyone else and

for which I have always felt uneasy for that reason. The total I have sent him is $5,210.00.

2003:

#1223

David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00.

Duplicate check notation:

#1239 13 August 2003

David S. Lifton (85 + 50 = 135) $135.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1248 18 December 2003

David S. Lifton (Pig on a Leash) $750.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1250 20 December 2003

David S. Lifton (200 + 500 advance) $700.00

2005:

My checkbook notation:

#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1313 4 March 2005

David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

My checkbook notation:

#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1321 31 May 2005

David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

My checkbook notation:

#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1340 25 December 2005

David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

In 2007:

My checkbook notation:

#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $100.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2013 13 May 2007

David S. Lifton (research support) $100.00

My checkbook notation:

#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2016 7 September 2007

David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Not all of this was royalties, of course. But at least $2,500 of this was royalties, over and

apart from the honorarium of $1,000 and the loans I have extended to him of $1,300 more. Since

he is entitled to 25% of the royalties, I would have to have received at least $10,000 from the

publisher to owe him as much as I have sent him, which has included advances against royalties.

I don't know if the publisher owes me $10,000 in royalties for HOAX, but I will be surprised if

it turns out that it does. Print runs for books like this are relatively modest, probably on the

order of 3,000 for the first printing, 2,000 for the second, and 1,000 for the third, if I were

to guess. If they were all sold retail and I am getting $2 apiece, that would equal $12,000.

I will be surprised if that many have been sold, since promotional copies and sale-priced copies

do not return royalties or only at a reduced rate and copies are presumably still on the shelf.

I will not be surprised if I owe him no royalties and may have actually overpaid his royalties.

So I have asked if he will repay me if I have overpaid him and his response has been silence.

So your claim that I owe him royalties and have owed him royalties for years is not obvious and

may very well not be true. I suppose one of the reasons I have not been overly concerned about

this royalty business is that most copies of books ever sold are sold in the first year of its

publication. MURDER was an exception and sold well thereafter, but HOAX is a more typical case.

The typical academic book only sells around 750 copies, by the way, so 6,000 would be very good

but far from spectacular for a book on JFK. Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE was a best seller, but HOAX

was not. Indeed, many of those in the JFK community have not bought it, even though it is the

most thorough and comprehensive study of the Zapruder film in existence. Do you own it, Pat?

Now Lifton no doubt believes that his name is a big item in promoting this book. But most of

the world knows very little of David Lifton. We are both well-known to students of JFK. But I have

29 books across a broad range of subjects, make hundreds of appearances on radio and TV on

JFK, 9/11, and other subjects, and I am probably much better known IN THE WORLD AT LARGE.

So while Lifton thinks he is a big draw, I am not convinced. After all the hassle he has put

me though, I would just as soon have not involved him at all. I find him interesting, but after

having benefited him in multiple ways only to find him trashing me with this anti-Semitic drivel,

which only arose after I asked him to repay those loans, I no longer have any confidence in him.

There was nothing "business" about lending Lifton money and I find it hard to believe you would

make such a crass suggestion. I have never cared about the money that my books bring in apart

from my putting them into an account from which I could offer small grants in support of JFK or

9/11 research. Frankly, I know of no one else who has done that. Tell me if you know better.

In my opinion, therefore, you have been grossly unfair to me. I have no doubt that I have pissed

you off because I have taken a dim view of your understanding of the difference between royalties

and loans. It still bothers me you do not appreciate the difference. The money "I thought were loans"

WERE LOANS. Given the proof I have that they were loans, I am dumbfounded by your stance.

Not only that, but you do not seem to understand the nature of ethics. I am no doubt alone here

in having taught courses in moral theory, but the most defensible conception is that morality

consists in treating other persons as ENDS and never merely as MEANS. Technically, this is the

second formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It entails treating others with RESPECT.

An excellent introduction to the study of this subject is James Rachels, THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL

PHILOSOPHY. You probably don't have it, but it would be easy to access at a used book store.

Here is a brief introduction to moral theory and why Kant appears to have it right, namely:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Corporations-Inherentl-by-Jim-Fetzer-100124-129.html

Now you suggest that Lifton should keep the loans until I have paid him the royalties I owe him.

As I have explained, I may very well have already done that. But even if it turns out that I owe

him more, how does that justify his withholding the loans I extended when he needed the money then

after I have informed him that I need the money now? How can he justify not repaying these loans?

As I understand it, you acknowledge that he owes me the money I have lent him. But you also say

he is justified in withholding it until the royalties are settled. Since I have sent him royalties

in the past and even advanced on royalties, as I have explained, I really do not understand your

position here. You endorse a form of extortion, which is clearly not treating me with respect.

Think of it this way, Pat. You are suggesting he should withhold money, even though you agree he

owes it to me, in order to make sure I pay him whatever I am still owe him, even though it may be

that I actually do not owe him any more than I have already paid him. Moreover, the loans are a

separate matter. So you are endorsing withholding repayment as a means to secure his royalties.

How contemptible is that? I lent him the money then because he needed it then. I need the money

now. It would be just and honorable for him to replay me now. What if I had lent him my lawnmower

or my car? If I needed my lawnmower or my car back, would your stance be the same? Suppose that

I needed the car to get my expectant wife to the hospital? Would you tell him not to return it?

Moreover, you are very harsh on me over royalties that I may not owe at all but silent about the

abuse he has heaped on me with these vicious and baseless claims that I am anti-Semitic. I have

grave doubts about your even-handedness when you condemn me about royalties I may even have

overpaid but remain silent about his grotesque, abusive assault on me for which he has no foundation.

It is certainly true that I read some chapters from an excellent book on the history of Zionism

on the air. I have interviewed a half-dozen or more experts on Zionism on my radio program. And

I have published articles that point to indications of Israeli complicity on 9/11. But that was

all in the interest of discovering the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of 9/11.

He went on a rampage about videos that I did not produce and did not even know existed until they

appeared on a web site from a British source associating them with an article about a fellow by

the name of Tom Fetzer! I wrote and told them they were mistaken. And I had nothing to do with

creating them. I have supported a web site on Israeli complicity in 9/11, but recently resigned.

I would be glad if you could sort these issues out with just the least bit more discrimination. Your

insinuation that I lent Lifton money FOR BUSINESS REASONS has to be one of the all-time bone-

headed remarks I have ever read. It may have been stupid of me, as I recognize in retrospect, but

I thought he was trustworthy and needed the money. I was wrong then, but you are also wrong now.

I hope you can bring yourself to give this matter just a little more thought. Thanks very much, Pat.

Jim

Thanks, Jim, for your respectful reply. As you now acknowledge that Hoax sold less than 6,000 copies, and have now detailed royalty payments of 2500 dollars, your belief that Lifton owes you money has become more understandable. (I never really believed you'd conned him, but was trying to show you how your refusal to discuss the amount sold could be taken as an indication that you'd done so.)

My suggestion at this point would be for you to present Lifton with the full accounting you've asked for, and pay him what is owed (if anything). If he, in fact, owes you money, then you should ask him for it, not demand it. Unless he has a solid reason to doubt your accounting, he should repay it at that time upon request.

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Pat - I think you are one of the sanest and most thoughtful members for the forum. I only remember disagreeing with you a handful of times in 5 years. But the above seems patronizing to me, have you actually read the two chapters I indicated from the book Fetzer read on air (twice if count the rebroadcast) and has repeatedly endorsed with restriction? It goes far beyond blaming Jews for 9/11, its take on history from 1915 - 1941 is straight Nazi. You can find the links in the "Fetzer and Mein Kampf" thread. Lifton did not understandably overreact, his reaction was fully justified by the circumstances

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

I was giving my best guess about the numbers based upon my past experience. When I have the

real ones, I will post them. I am baffled by your defense of his sensitivity to anti-Semitism. I am

not anti-Semitic. Why would I be lending money, advances on royalties, or royalties to Lifton if

I were? I am an anti-Zionist, but that is not the same thing. Have you read my article about it,

"Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?" Do you have any reason to think that I am? I also believe in the

Holocaust, though there have been far greater ones in history, including the genocide of American

Indians, which took the lives of from 16-20,000,000. So I am not as impressed with the Holocaust

as you seem to be. And I have never read or cited THE ELDERS OF ZION. I don't think any of us

needs a sermon about the long suffering of the Jews, which we have heard all our lives. So I am

at a bit of a loss as to your equivocation about his attacking me as anti-Semitic. It was wrong, it

was vicious, it was unfounded--and it began when I asked him to reply the loans I had extended.

I would like to think you are made of sterner moral stuff. Your response raises doubts in my mind.

Jim

Pat,

Listen, I do regard you as sincere, which puts you in a different category than the Colbys, the

Lamsons, the Liftons, and the DiEugenios. Let me explain why you are endorsing what might

well be called "the ethics of extortion" in violation of basic principles of morality and why Lifton

should be repaying the money I have lent him, just as I intend to pay him any royalties that I

may owe to him, when a complete statement becomes available. I think you may not realize that I

have benefited him not only by lending him money but by previous royalty payments and advances

against royalties, which, like the loans, I was not obligated, legally or morally, to extend to him.

Whether or not I owe him any royalties is something I do not know at the point in time. If you

were to check what I have sent him, you would find the following accounting over several years.

Since 2003, I've sent him the following amounts separate from an earlier honorarium for coming

to Duluth and participating in the symposium, a benefit I was not extending to anyone else and

for which I have always felt uneasy for that reason. The total I have sent him is $5,210.00.

2003:

#1223

David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00.

Duplicate check notation:

#1239 13 August 2003

David S. Lifton (85 + 50 = 135) $135.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1248 18 December 2003

David S. Lifton (Pig on a Leash) $750.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1250 20 December 2003

David S. Lifton (200 + 500 advance) $700.00

2005:

My checkbook notation:

#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1313 4 March 2005

David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

My checkbook notation:

#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1321 31 May 2005

David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

My checkbook notation:

#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1340 25 December 2005

David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

In 2007:

My checkbook notation:

#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $100.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2013 13 May 2007

David S. Lifton (research support) $100.00

My checkbook notation:

#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2016 7 September 2007

David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Not all of this was royalties, of course. But at least $2,500 of this was royalties, over and

apart from the honorarium of $1,000 and the loans I have extended to him of $1,300 more. Since

he is entitled to 25% of the royalties, I would have to have received at least $10,000 from the

publisher to owe him as much as I have sent him, which has included advances against royalties.

I don't know if the publisher owes me $10,000 in royalties for HOAX, but I will be surprised if

it turns out that it does. Print runs for books like this are relatively modest, probably on the

order of 3,000 for the first printing, 2,000 for the second, and 1,000 for the third, if I were

to guess. If they were all sold retail and I am getting $2 apiece, that would equal $12,000.

I will be surprised if that many have been sold, since promotional copies and sale-priced copies

do not return royalties or only at a reduced rate and copies are presumably still on the shelf.

I will not be surprised if I owe him no royalties and may have actually overpaid his royalties.

So I have asked if he will repay me if I have overpaid him and his response has been silence.

So your claim that I owe him royalties and have owed him royalties for years is not obvious and

may very well not be true. I suppose one of the reasons I have not been overly concerned about

this royalty business is that most copies of books ever sold are sold in the first year of its

publication. MURDER was an exception and sold well thereafter, but HOAX is a more typical case.

The typical academic book only sells around 750 copies, by the way, so 6,000 would be very good

but far from spectacular for a book on JFK. Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE was a best seller, but HOAX

was not. Indeed, many of those in the JFK community have not bought it, even though it is the

most thorough and comprehensive study of the Zapruder film in existence. Do you own it, Pat?

Now Lifton no doubt believes that his name is a big item in promoting this book. But most of

the world knows very little of David Lifton. We are both well-known to students of JFK. But I have

29 books across a broad range of subjects, make hundreds of appearances on radio and TV on

JFK, 9/11, and other subjects, and I am probably much better known IN THE WORLD AT LARGE.

So while Lifton thinks he is a big draw, I am not convinced. After all the hassle he has put

me though, I would just as soon have not involved him at all. I find him interesting, but after

having benefited him in multiple ways only to find him trashing me with this anti-Semitic drivel,

which only arose after I asked him to repay those loans, I no longer have any confidence in him.

There was nothing "business" about lending Lifton money and I find it hard to believe you would

make such a crass suggestion. I have never cared about the money that my books bring in apart

from my putting them into an account from which I could offer small grants in support of JFK or

9/11 research. Frankly, I know of no one else who has done that. Tell me if you know better.

In my opinion, therefore, you have been grossly unfair to me. I have no doubt that I have pissed

you off because I have taken a dim view of your understanding of the difference between royalties

and loans. It still bothers me you do not appreciate the difference. The money "I thought were loans"

WERE LOANS. Given the proof I have that they were loans, I am dumbfounded by your stance.

Not only that, but you do not seem to understand the nature of ethics. I am no doubt alone here

in having taught courses in moral theory, but the most defensible conception is that morality

consists in treating other persons as ENDS and never merely as MEANS. Technically, this is the

second formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It entails treating others with RESPECT.

An excellent introduction to the study of this subject is James Rachels, THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL

PHILOSOPHY. You probably don't have it, but it would be easy to access at a used book store.

Here is a brief introduction to moral theory and why Kant appears to have it right, namely:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Corporations-Inherentl-by-Jim-Fetzer-100124-129.html

Now you suggest that Lifton should keep the loans until I have paid him the royalties I owe him.

As I have explained, I may very well have already done that. But even if it turns out that I owe

him more, how does that justify his withholding the loans I extended when he needed the money then

after I have informed him that I need the money now? How can he justify not repaying these loans?

As I understand it, you acknowledge that he owes me the money I have lent him. But you also say

he is justified in withholding it until the royalties are settled. Since I have sent him royalties

in the past and even advanced on royalties, as I have explained, I really do not understand your

position here. You endorse a form of extortion, which is clearly not treating me with respect.

Think of it this way, Pat. You are suggesting he should withhold money, even though you agree he

owes it to me, in order to make sure I pay him whatever I am still owe him, even though it may be

that I actually do not owe him any more than I have already paid him. Moreover, the loans are a

separate matter. So you are endorsing withholding repayment as a means to secure his royalties.

How contemptible is that? I lent him the money then because he needed it then. I need the money

now. It would be just and honorable for him to replay me now. What if I had lent him my lawnmower

or my car? If I needed my lawnmower or my car back, would your stance be the same? Suppose that

I needed the car to get my expectant wife to the hospital? Would you tell him not to return it?

Moreover, you are very harsh on me over royalties that I may not owe at all but silent about the

abuse he has heaped on me with these vicious and baseless claims that I am anti-Semitic. I have

grave doubts about your even-handedness when you condemn me about royalties I may even have

overpaid but remain silent about his grotesque, abusive assault on me for which he has no foundation.

It is certainly true that I read some chapters from an excellent book on the history of Zionism

on the air. I have interviewed a half-dozen or more experts on Zionism on my radio program. And

I have published articles that point to indications of Israeli complicity on 9/11. But that was

all in the interest of discovering the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of 9/11.

He went on a rampage about videos that I did not produce and did not even know existed until they

appeared on a web site from a British source associating them with an article about a fellow by

the name of Tom Fetzer! I wrote and told them they were mistaken. And I had nothing to do with

creating them. I have supported a web site on Israeli complicity in 9/11, but recently resigned.

I would be glad if you could sort these issues out with just the least bit more discrimination. Your

insinuation that I lent Lifton money FOR BUSINESS REASONS has to be one of the all-time bone-

headed remarks I have ever read. It may have been stupid of me, as I recognize in retrospect, but

I thought he was trustworthy and needed the money. I was wrong then, but you are also wrong now.

I hope you can bring yourself to give this matter just a little more thought. Thanks very much, Pat.

Jim

Thanks, Jim, for your respectful reply. As you now acknowledge that Hoax sold less than 6,000 copies, and have now detailed royalty payments of 2500 dollars, your belief that Lifton owes you money has become more understandable. (I never really believed you'd conned him, but was trying to show you how your refusal to discuss the amount sold could be taken as an indication that you'd done so.)

My suggestion at this point would be for you to present Lifton with the full accounting you've asked for, and pay him what is owed (if anything). If he, in fact, owes you money, then you should ask him for it, not demand it. Unless he has a solid reason to doubt your accounting, he should repay it at that time upon request.

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Pat - I think you are one of the sanest and most thoughtful members for the forum. I only remember disagreeing with you a handful of times in 5 years. But the above seems patronizing to me, have you actually read the two chapters I indicated from the book Fetzer read on air (twice if count the rebroadcast) and has repeatedly endorsed with restriction? It goes far beyond blaming Jews for 9/11, its take on history from 1915 - 1941 is straight Nazi. You can find the links in the "Fetzer and Mein Kampf" thread. Lifton did not understandably overreact, his reaction was fully justified by the circumstances

Len

Len, I was not endorsing Fetzer's statements or behavior. I was trying to show him how conjecture that Israelis were behind 9/11 is offensive to anyone sympathetic to Jews and Israel. I don't think Fetzer realizes how offensive his current "take" on 9/11 and 20th century history is to anyone not late for goosestep practice. I think he's intellectually intrigued by this material, that's all, and that he will probably move on and find other theories just as or even more intriguing.

I mean, do you really see him as deliberately embracing a Nazi "take" on history? I don't. I mean, if he fully believed this stuff, he would be proud that people find it so offensive, and see it as further proof that "Jews" have been undermining our thought processes through their relentless propaganda. He would have blamed it on the Jewish media, etc. That's the normal playbook. But instead, he keeps insisting that he's not anti-Semitic.

There's a reason for this, I think. He doesn't realize the material he's intrigued by is offensive. He seems to be of the opinion that Lifton should be more like Chomsky--who can separate in his mind the history of the Jewish people and the behavior of Israel--without realizing that for most Jews this is not only difficult--but, when one extends Israeli culpability to an attack on the financial center of a city often called "Hymietown" or "Jew York," impossible. His equating of the white man's behavior towards Native Americans with the holocaust further illuminates this problem. Does he really believe the spreading of disease responsible for most of the deaths was deliberate, and the moral equivalent of putting women and children in a gas chamber? I think not. I think he just doesn't "get it."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister Hay,

Don't make me laugh. I say that Jack White is beyond help. The guy IS pathetic. I mean, if you have admiration for someone who claims the Zapruder film was altered, Man did not go to the moon, and there were no planes on the Pentagon or the twin towers, .. it's your problem, not mine.

He lives in a dream world. And if he really believes that he is better than others at weiging evidence, that's the last straw. He invents impossible theories and refuses to admit that he might be wrong. When intelligent people try to make him realize he's wrong, he has no answer, but is too dishonest to admit the truth.

Still, I have to thank him for being very helpful to me (without him knowing it). You know what ? I have a trick. Whenever I want to know the answer to a question, regarding a case I haven't investigated yet, I go to see what Jack White says about it. If he says it's true, then I know it's false. And if he says it's false, then I know it's true. It always works !

As to you, Mister Fetzer, all you can do, all the time, is refer people to articles that YOU have written. Talk of a reference ! I can do the same, you know.

I challenge you to read my articles and my book, and to tell me where I am wrong.

(rings a bell ? It's your style).

Go ahead, read my article on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I proved my case beyond any doubt, which is very easy, since it did happen !

Go ahead, Mister Fetzer, read my article, and then come back.

/F.C./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of truths are offensive. That the CIA, LBJ, and their buddies whacked Jack is offensive. That Cheney, Rumsfeld,

and Rove took out Paul Wellstone is offensive. That the Neo-Cons and Mossad committed 9/11 is offensive. I think it

would be a good idea for Pat Speer and others of his disposition to confront unpleasant truths. This apology for David

Lifton's inexcusable behavior in trashing me when I have only benefited him is offensive. This Speer post is offensive.

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Pat - I think you are one of the sanest and most thoughtful members for the forum. I only remember disagreeing with you a handful of times in 5 years. But the above seems patronizing to me, have you actually read the two chapters I indicated from the book Fetzer read on air (twice if count the rebroadcast) and has repeatedly endorsed with restriction? It goes far beyond blaming Jews for 9/11, its take on history from 1915 - 1941 is straight Nazi. You can find the links in the "Fetzer and Mein Kampf" thread. Lifton did not understandably overreact, his reaction was fully justified by the circumstances

Len

Len, I was not endorsing Fetzer's statements or behavior. I was trying to show him how conjecture that Israelis were behind 9/11 is offensive to anyone sympathetic to Jews and Israel. I don't think Fetzer realizes how offensive his current "take" on 9/11 and 20th century history is to anyone not late for goosestep practice. I think he's intellectually intrigued by this material, that's all, and that he will probably move on and find other theories just as or even more intriguing.

I mean, do you really see him as deliberately embracing a Nazi "take" on history? I don't. I mean, if he fully believed this stuff, he would be proud that people find it so offensive, and see it as further proof that "Jews" have been undermining our thought processes through their relentless propaganda. He would have blamed it on the Jewish media, etc. That's the normal playbook. But instead, he keeps insisting that he's not anti-Semitic.

There's a reason for this, I think. He doesn't realize the material he's intrigued by is offensive.

Jim, let's be honest here. Did you honestly believe that your Jewish friends and acquaintances would NOT find your embrace of a theory whereby the Islamic fundamentalists they believed to be guilty of a vicious attack on the center of Jewish-American life were innocent, and the State of Israel the real culprits, offensive? If so, then it is your naivete and lack of understanding human nature that is offensive.

When I was thirteen and fourteen, I had a school friend named Jim. He was curious about my last name--did I know that Hitler was close to a guy named Speer, etc. It turned out that Jim had come under the spell of holocaust deniers, and thought I would be receptive to the idea that the holocaust was a hoax. Well, Jim didn't realize a couple of things about me, one of them being that my sister's boyfriend was Jewish, and that he used to take me to Dodger games with his father, and the other being that his father was a holocaust survivor, complete with tattoo, who'd stayed alive by helping the Nazis dispose of those they'd murdered, and who'd subsequently testified against several of the guards with whom he'd worked.

Despite his efforts, then, Jim was not able to convince me that the holocaust was a hoax (although he was able to convince me that the supposed number of victims may have been slightly exaggerated.) This, however, wasn't good enough for him. He seemed disappointed that I wasn't biting on his hook. In a strange turn of events, he then started hanging out with a Jewish kid named Stein who used to loan out portions of his large weekly allowance to poorer kids short on lunch money, and charge them interest. As I recall, Jim would accompany Stein when he retrieved his loans, effectively serving as his "muscle."

Well, this curious turn didn't last long, either. Within the next year, a race "riot" erupted at our school. One of the black kids--almost all of whom were bussed in from South Central L.A.--was injured in a game of "butts up," after being hit in the head with a hardball thrown by a white kid, and this led the black kids to threaten a walk-out. I still remember the sight of hundreds of black kids marching to the school gates, only to have the principal race over and chain it shut. I still remember the sight of police cars lined up in front of the school. I still remember the rumors circulating that one black kid was caught with some sort of weapon in his locker, and that one of the scarier kids I knew was caught with a switch blade.

The biggest story, however, was Jim. He'd got caught with a WWII-era German submachine gun in his locker. While the gun--apparently pulled from his father's collection--was not loaded, he admitted that he'd brought it to school to show the black kids true "white power," and scare the heck out of them should they try to cause any more trouble. I never saw him again.

Now, this is obviously an isolated incident. But to me and I assume many others it's hard to separate those "not impressed" by the holocaust with those who would go along with a holocaust. I've done so in your case. As I said, I think you're just being curious. If you want to find that offensive that's fine.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

And I suppose you are one of those who thinks that laws against Holocaust denial are a good thing!

I, on the other hand, consider them to be a manifest absurdity. If the Holocaust is in fact real, as I

believe, then research will support that conclusion. And if it does not, then we are entitled to know.

You appear to be far more calculating than am I. I place truth before politics and friendship. Other-

wise, there is no truth, only politics and friendship. And you do not seem to be responsive to some

of the crucial points that I have just made, including the following observations: I also believe in the

Holocaust, though there have been far greater ones in history, including the genocide of American

Indians, which took the lives of from 16-20,000,000. So I am not as impressed with the Holocaust

as you seem to be. And I have never read or cited THE ELDERS OF ZION. I don't think any of us

needs a sermon about the long suffering of the Jews, which we have heard all our lives. So I am

at a bit of a loss as to your equivocation about his attacking me as anti-Semitic. It was wrong, it

was vicious, it was unfounded--and it began when I asked him to reply the loans I had extended.

I would like to think you are made of sterner moral stuff. Your response raises doubts in my mind.

I am sorry, Pat, but you seem to me to be a moral weakling. If you can't take a stand and condemn

Lifton's vicious and unfounded attacks upon me for being anti-Semitic, you are morally incompetent.

Lots of truths are offensive. That the CIA, LBJ, and their buddies whacked Jack is offensive. That Cheney, Rumsfeld,

and Rove took out Paul Wellstone is offensive. That the Neo-Cons and Mossad committed 9/11 is offensive. I think it

would be a good idea for Pat Speer and others of his disposition to confront unpleasant truths. This apology for David

Lifton's inexcusable behavior in trashing me when I have only benefited him is offensive. This Speer post is offensive.

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Pat - I think you are one of the sanest and most thoughtful members for the forum. I only remember disagreeing with you a handful of times in 5 years. But the above seems patronizing to me, have you actually read the two chapters I indicated from the book Fetzer read on air (twice if count the rebroadcast) and has repeatedly endorsed with restriction? It goes far beyond blaming Jews for 9/11, its take on history from 1915 - 1941 is straight Nazi. You can find the links in the "Fetzer and Mein Kampf" thread. Lifton did not understandably overreact, his reaction was fully justified by the circumstances

Len

Len, I was not endorsing Fetzer's statements or behavior. I was trying to show him how conjecture that Israelis were behind 9/11 is offensive to anyone sympathetic to Jews and Israel. I don't think Fetzer realizes how offensive his current "take" on 9/11 and 20th century history is to anyone not late for goosestep practice. I think he's intellectually intrigued by this material, that's all, and that he will probably move on and find other theories just as or even more intriguing.

I mean, do you really see him as deliberately embracing a Nazi "take" on history? I don't. I mean, if he fully believed this stuff, he would be proud that people find it so offensive, and see it as further proof that "Jews" have been undermining our thought processes through their relentless propaganda. He would have blamed it on the Jewish media, etc. That's the normal playbook. But instead, he keeps insisting that he's not anti-Semitic.

There's a reason for this, I think. He doesn't realize the material he's intrigued by is offensive.

Jim, let's be honest here. Did you honestly believe that your Jewish friends and acquaintances would NOT find your embrace of a theory whereby the Islamic fundamentalists they believed to be guilty of a vicious attack on the center of Jewish-American life were innocent, and the State of Israel the real culprits, offensive? If so, then it is your naivete and lack of understanding human nature that is offensive.

When I was thirteen and fourteen, I had a school friend named Jim. He was curious about my last name--did I know that Hitler was close to a guy named Speer, etc. It turned out that Jim had come under the spell of holocaust deniers, and thought I would be receptive to the idea that the holocaust was a hoax. Well, Jim didn't realize a couple of things about me, one of them being that my sister's boyfriend was Jewish, and that he used to take me to Dodger games with his father, and the other being that his father was a holocaust survivor, complete with tattoo, who'd stayed alive by helping the Nazis dispose of those they'd murdered, and who'd subsequently testified against several of the guards with whom he'd worked.

Despite his efforts, then, Jim was not able to convince me that the holocaust was a hoax (although he was able to convince me that the supposed number of victims may have been slightly exaggerated.) This, however, wasn't good enough for him. He seemed disappointed that I wasn't biting on his hook. In a strange turn of events, he then started hanging out with a Jewish kid named Stein who used to loan out portions of his large weekly allowance to poorer kids short on lunch money, and charge them interest. As I recall, Jim would accompany Stein when he retrieved his loans, effectively serving as his "muscle."

Well, this curious turn didn't last long, either. Within the next year, a race "riot" erupted at our school. One of the black kids--almost all of whom were bussed in from South Central L.A.--was injured in a game of "butts up," after being hit in the head with a hardball thrown by a white kid, and this led the black kids to threaten a walk-out. I still remember the sight of hundreds of black kids marching to the school gates, only to have the principal race over and chain it shut. I still remember the sight of police cars lined up in front of the school. I still remember the rumors circulating that one black kid was caught with some sort of weapon in his locker, and that one of the scarier kids I knew was caught with a switch blade.

The biggest story, however, was Jim. He'd got caught with a WWII-era German submachine gun in his locker. While the gun--apparently pulled from his father's collection--was not loaded, he admitted that he'd brought it to school to show the black kids true "white power," and scare the heck out of them should they try to cause any more trouble. I never saw him again.

Now, this is obviously an isolated incident. But to me and I assume many others it's hard to separate those "not impressed" by the holocaust with those who would go along with a holocaust. I've done so in your case. As I said, I think you're just being curious. If you want to find that offensive that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I suppose you are one of those who thinks that laws against Holocaust denial are a good thing!

I, on the other hand, consider them to be a manifest absurdity. If the Holocaust is in fact real, as I

believe, then research will support that conclusion. And if it does not, then we are entitled to know.

You appear to be far more calculating than am I. I place truth before politics and friendship. Other-

wise, there is no truth, only politics and friendship. And you do not seem to be responsive to some

of the crucial points that I have just made, including the following observations: I also believe in the

Holocaust, though there have been far greater ones in history, including the genocide of American

Indians, which took the lives of from 16-20,000,000. So I am not as impressed with the Holocaust

as you seem to be. And I have never read or cited THE ELDERS OF ZION. I don't think any of us

needs a sermon about the long suffering of the Jews, which we have heard all our lives. So I am

at a bit of a loss as to your equivocation about his attacking me as anti-Semitic. It was wrong, it

was vicious, it was unfounded--and it began when I asked him to reply the loans I had extended.

I would like to think you are made of sterner moral stuff. Your response raises doubts in my mind.

I am sorry, Pat, but you seem to me to be a moral weakling. If you can't take a stand and condemn

Lifton's vicious and unfounded attacks upon me for being anti-Semitic, you are morally incompetent.

While I don't think denying the holocaust should be considered a criminal act, I am sympathetic to those who do. No one wants to be on the losing side of an epic battle. It is only human nature, then, that a certain percentage of people suffering a crushing defeat will rise up years or even generations later and re-assert the correctness of their forefather's cause. The knowledge of this coming backlash, in turn, makes it awfully tempting for the "winning" side of such an epic battle to outlaw the rebirth of the opposition's cause whenever and wherever possible.

To be clear, I can't help but think this country would have been better off if the scores of history books written by southerners, in which the nobility and tranquility of the pre-war south is mourned, and the blatantly false claim that the war between the states was about "state's rights" and not slavery is espoused, were never written. The KKK, after all, reached its peak decades after the war and decades after reconstruction, and was fueled in large part by the blatantly bogus revisionist history of The Birth of a Nation.

While it was an important film, was it really worth the lives of the hundreds of men lynched in the years following its release? I suspect the families of the murdered men would say not.

But, ultimately, I'm with you. Bad ideas should be left to die off on their own, as the suppression of them will only make them more attractive to a certain minority.

Not to mention that the thought of a thought police is most unappetizing...

P.S. You didn't answer my question. Did you really expect your Jewish friends and acquaintances to not be offended when you started pushing your new views on Jews?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KKK went through a number of iterations. It is important to recognise who were the focal persons in the various ''ages'', From Bedford Forrest to the showing of TBoaN in the white house in 1915, to its demise as the moral depravity of its main leader became known to sporadic bursts, to the pact between the KKK and the American Bund/isolationists/firsters, to the resurgence as Kennedy rose to power and his intentions became clear. Then the most Rabid elements find themselves in an atmosphere they tap in to while all they have been doing during the off times is sitting and brooding in places like Stone Mountain, to today where a global resurgence of this tragic lemming dogma asserts itself again. Ultimately when Capitalism is due for a MAJOR correction as the elbow room grows less and it becomes more monopolistic it assumes the characters of Fascism. Steel vice Control. An unbelievable disregard for humanity and an over weening conern about wealth and power with the Lumpen Proletariat always in the wing to do the dirty work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You missed my point. I care more about truth than I do about friendships. If I were to put

friendships ahead of truth, there would be no truth, only friendships. If you think that I have

something wrong, show me what it is. Identify the conclusion and the argument and establish

that the conclusion is false or the argument is flawed. You have not only not done that, but

you steadfastly decline to condemn Lifton for his atrocious and unfounded attacks upon me as

an anti-Semite, which began when I asked him to repay my loans. If you can't see the abuse

involved there, I can't imagine how you could regard yourself as qualified to consider some

of the greater abuses of history, including the Holocaust. Take stock of yourself, Pat. It is

still my belief that you have a moral core. You should display it. This is not a difficult call.

And I suppose you are one of those who thinks that laws against Holocaust denial are a good thing!

I, on the other hand, consider them to be a manifest absurdity. If the Holocaust is in fact real, as I

believe, then research will support that conclusion. And if it does not, then we are entitled to know.

You appear to be far more calculating than am I. I place truth before politics and friendship. Other-

wise, there is no truth, only politics and friendship. And you do not seem to be responsive to some

of the crucial points that I have just made, including the following observations: I also believe in the

Holocaust, though there have been far greater ones in history, including the genocide of American

Indians, which took the lives of from 16-20,000,000. So I am not as impressed with the Holocaust

as you seem to be. And I have never read or cited THE ELDERS OF ZION. I don't think any of us

needs a sermon about the long suffering of the Jews, which we have heard all our lives. So I am

at a bit of a loss as to your equivocation about his attacking me as anti-Semitic. It was wrong, it

was vicious, it was unfounded--and it began when I asked him to reply the loans I had extended.

I would like to think you are made of sterner moral stuff. Your response raises doubts in my mind.

I am sorry, Pat, but you seem to me to be a moral weakling. If you can't take a stand and condemn

Lifton's vicious and unfounded attacks upon me for being anti-Semitic, you are morally incompetent.

While I don't think denying the holocaust should be considered a criminal act, I am sympathetic to those who do. No one wants to be on the losing side of an epic battle. It is only human nature, then, that a certain percentage of people suffering a crushing defeat will rise up years or even generations later and re-assert the correctness of their forefather's cause. The knowledge of this coming backlash, in turn, makes it awfully tempting for the "winning" side of such an epic battle to outlaw the rebirth of the opposition's cause whenever and wherever possible.

To be clear, I can't help but think this country would have been better off if the scores of history books written by southerners, in which the nobility and tranquility of the pre-war south is mourned, and the blatantly false claim that the war between the states was about "state's rights" and not slavery is espoused, were never written. The KKK, after all, reached its peak decades after the war and decades after reconstruction, and was fueled in large part by the blatantly bogus revisionist history of The Birth of a Nation.

While it was an important film, was it really worth the lives of the hundreds of men lynched in the years following its release? I suspect the families of the murdered men would say not.

But, ultimately, I'm with you. Bad ideas should be left to die off on their own, as the suppression of them will only make them more attractive to a certain minority.

Not to mention that the thought of a thought police is most unappetizing...

P.S. You didn't answer my question. Did you really expect your Jewish friends and acquaintances to not be offended when you started pushing your new views on Jews?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim...I think it appropriate to mention that "Jews" care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionate numbers,

beginning with Mark Lane. Then there were Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden (heritage only), and of course

David Lifton. Others include Mae Brussell, Sylvia Meagher (???), Edward Epstein, David Scheim, Bud Fensterwald (???),

Cyril Wecht, and many others I could name but am not sure of. I include Meagher and Fensterwald because I was

once told they were Jewish in a discussion with a leading researcher as we discussed this subject.

Few know that Groden was an adoptive child and raised in a Christian family, but retained his family name,

as I understand it.

Jack

And I suppose you are one of those who thinks that laws against Holocaust denial are a good thing!

I, on the other hand, consider them to be a manifest absurdity. If the Holocaust is in fact real, as I

believe, then research will support that conclusion. And if it does not, then we are entitled to know.

You appear to be far more calculating than am I. I place truth before politics and friendship. Other-

wise, there is no truth, only politics and friendship. And you do not seem to be responsive to some

of the crucial points that I have just made, including the following observations: I also believe in the

Holocaust, though there have been far greater ones in history, including the genocide of American

Indians, which took the lives of from 16-20,000,000. So I am not as impressed with the Holocaust

as you seem to be. And I have never read or cited THE ELDERS OF ZION. I don't think any of us

needs a sermon about the long suffering of the Jews, which we have heard all our lives. So I am

at a bit of a loss as to your equivocation about his attacking me as anti-Semitic. It was wrong, it

was vicious, it was unfounded--and it began when I asked him to reply the loans I had extended.

I would like to think you are made of sterner moral stuff. Your response raises doubts in my mind.

I am sorry, Pat, but you seem to me to be a moral weakling. If you can't take a stand and condemn

Lifton's vicious and unfounded attacks upon me for being anti-Semitic, you are morally incompetent.

Lots of truths are offensive. That the CIA, LBJ, and their buddies whacked Jack is offensive. That Cheney, Rumsfeld,

and Rove took out Paul Wellstone is offensive. That the Neo-Cons and Mossad committed 9/11 is offensive. I think it

would be a good idea for Pat Speer and others of his disposition to confront unpleasant truths. This apology for David

Lifton's inexcusable behavior in trashing me when I have only benefited him is offensive. This Speer post is offensive.

As far as his charges of anti-Semitism, I really think you need to step outside yourself and see things through his eyes. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and scape-goated as a matter of routine. There is a book on the history of Satan that shows how the early references to Satan were veiled references to the Jews. There are books on the history of conspiracy theories that trace the modern era back to the "blood libel" included in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This "blood libel"--the belief among non-Jews that Jews drink blood--is still prevalent today, particularly among Islamic fundamentalists. And so, with this background, it is beyond offensive to a Jew for someone to seriously consider the possibility that Jews master-minded 9/11, and that the Islamic fundamentalists presumably behind it were patsies set up by the Jews. To push this theory to a Jew, would be, moreover, like looking a nun in the eye and telling her that you've been thinking about it and now believe that Jesus' followers faked his death, and his ascension into heaven, to cover up that he'd really died from syphilis, or telling a native-American you've come to believe that Wounded Knee was a hoax perpetrated by greedy savages hoping to guilt future generations of white men into letting their tribe have its own casino. It goes against everything they believe, and is so impossible for them to imagine that they have no choice but to question your sanity and/or decency. IMO, you need to understand this to understand Lifton's response.

Pat - I think you are one of the sanest and most thoughtful members for the forum. I only remember disagreeing with you a handful of times in 5 years. But the above seems patronizing to me, have you actually read the two chapters I indicated from the book Fetzer read on air (twice if count the rebroadcast) and has repeatedly endorsed with restriction? It goes far beyond blaming Jews for 9/11, its take on history from 1915 - 1941 is straight Nazi. You can find the links in the "Fetzer and Mein Kampf" thread. Lifton did not understandably overreact, his reaction was fully justified by the circumstances

Len

Len, I was not endorsing Fetzer's statements or behavior. I was trying to show him how conjecture that Israelis were behind 9/11 is offensive to anyone sympathetic to Jews and Israel. I don't think Fetzer realizes how offensive his current "take" on 9/11 and 20th century history is to anyone not late for goosestep practice. I think he's intellectually intrigued by this material, that's all, and that he will probably move on and find other theories just as or even more intriguing.

I mean, do you really see him as deliberately embracing a Nazi "take" on history? I don't. I mean, if he fully believed this stuff, he would be proud that people find it so offensive, and see it as further proof that "Jews" have been undermining our thought processes through their relentless propaganda. He would have blamed it on the Jewish media, etc. That's the normal playbook. But instead, he keeps insisting that he's not anti-Semitic.

There's a reason for this, I think. He doesn't realize the material he's intrigued by is offensive.

Jim, let's be honest here. Did you honestly believe that your Jewish friends and acquaintances would NOT find your embrace of a theory whereby the Islamic fundamentalists they believed to be guilty of a vicious attack on the center of Jewish-American life were innocent, and the State of Israel the real culprits, offensive? If so, then it is your naivete and lack of understanding human nature that is offensive.

When I was thirteen and fourteen, I had a school friend named Jim. He was curious about my last name--did I know that Hitler was close to a guy named Speer, etc. It turned out that Jim had come under the spell of holocaust deniers, and thought I would be receptive to the idea that the holocaust was a hoax. Well, Jim didn't realize a couple of things about me, one of them being that my sister's boyfriend was Jewish, and that he used to take me to Dodger games with his father, and the other being that his father was a holocaust survivor, complete with tattoo, who'd stayed alive by helping the Nazis dispose of those they'd murdered, and who'd subsequently testified against several of the guards with whom he'd worked.

Despite his efforts, then, Jim was not able to convince me that the holocaust was a hoax (although he was able to convince me that the supposed number of victims may have been slightly exaggerated.) This, however, wasn't good enough for him. He seemed disappointed that I wasn't biting on his hook. In a strange turn of events, he then started hanging out with a Jewish kid named Stein who used to loan out portions of his large weekly allowance to poorer kids short on lunch money, and charge them interest. As I recall, Jim would accompany Stein when he retrieved his loans, effectively serving as his "muscle."

Well, this curious turn didn't last long, either. Within the next year, a race "riot" erupted at our school. One of the black kids--almost all of whom were bussed in from South Central L.A.--was injured in a game of "butts up," after being hit in the head with a hardball thrown by a white kid, and this led the black kids to threaten a walk-out. I still remember the sight of hundreds of black kids marching to the school gates, only to have the principal race over and chain it shut. I still remember the sight of police cars lined up in front of the school. I still remember the rumors circulating that one black kid was caught with some sort of weapon in his locker, and that one of the scarier kids I knew was caught with a switch blade.

The biggest story, however, was Jim. He'd got caught with a WWII-era German submachine gun in his locker. While the gun--apparently pulled from his father's collection--was not loaded, he admitted that he'd brought it to school to show the black kids true "white power," and scare the heck out of them should they try to cause any more trouble. I never saw him again.

Now, this is obviously an isolated incident. But to me and I assume many others it's hard to separate those "not impressed" by the holocaust with those who would go along with a holocaust. I've done so in your case. As I said, I think you're just being curious. If you want to find that offensive that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim...I think it appropriate to mention that "Jews" care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionate numbers,

beginning with Mark Lane. Then there were Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden (heritage only), and of course

David Lifton. Others include Mae Brussell, Sylvia Meagher (???), Edward Epstein, David Scheim, Bud Fensterwald (???),

Cyril Wecht, and many others I could name but am not sure of. I include Meagher and Fensterwald because I was

once told they were Jewish in a discussion with a leading researcher as we discussed this subject.

Few know that Groden was an adoptive child and raised in a Christian family, but retained his family name,

as I understand it.

Jack

Disproportionate to what numbers, Jack? I don't understand your point. For instance, IMO, generally speaking, AMERICANS as a whole care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionately LOW numbers. Perhaps I missed what you meant...

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim...I think it appropriate to mention that "Jews" care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionate numbers,

beginning with Mark Lane. Then there were Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden (heritage only), and of course

David Lifton. Others include Mae Brussell, Sylvia Meagher (???), Edward Epstein, David Scheim, Bud Fensterwald (???),

Cyril Wecht, and many others I could name but am not sure of. I include Meagher and Fensterwald because I was

once told they were Jewish in a discussion with a leading researcher as we discussed this subject.

Few know that Groden was an adoptive child and raised in a Christian family, but retained his family name,

as I understand it.

Jack

Disproportionate to what numbers, Jack? I don't understand your point. For instance, IMO, generally speaking, AMERICANS as a whole care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionately LOW numbers. Perhaps I missed what you meant...

The people I named included nearly ALL of the early authors. All were Jewish. Americans as a whole did not do

early research nor write leading early books. I THOUGHT MY MEANING WAS VERY CLEAR. The early authors were

disproportionately Jewish. This is merely an observation, not a racist statement.

Thanks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...