Double standard on the EF?

[Len Colby]

Why am I not surprised that Dawn has found common cause with an obvious bigot like Wilson and has stooped to labelling Jim DiEugenio a "lone nut dimwit"? The funny thing is if you take a look at the Deep Phertalizer Forum she is one of the saner people there, Wilson would fit right in.

Len,

The quote you pasted on this thread by Mark Wilson was not complete. You removed the first sentence of his post. He was responding to another poster (Scott?).

I included the relevant portions, the excluded sentence was (ellipses {and punctuation errors} his) “Hi Scott.....these kind of statements are what i'm talking about....rather than participate and offer alternative ideas you deal the anti semite card straight from the bottom of the deck.”, it did not change the import of the rest of what he said i.e.

- his focus no Billy Graham’s statement to Nixon that “"The [Jewish media] stranglehold has got to be broken” as if it were evidence this were true and evidence they helped cover up Israel’s and North American Jews’ roles in the assassination

- his apparent belief that the Duke Lacrosse team controversy was less newsworthy because the complainant was a “black stripper”

The guy may be wrong about history but I don't see him as "anti-semitic". The same can be said about Jim Fetzer.

This from Terry “Them some Jews” Mauro, cultish follower of infamous anti-Semite Lyndon LaRouche and former subscriber of Willis Carto’s Spotlight. Take a look at the Freedman tripe he posted, I imagine even you will “see [it] as "anti-Semitic"”.

I have not read one word that "Jews" were responsible for WWI, WWII...(fill in the blank) from the link/material you have provided us. I do read criticism of what these guys call the Zionists. You seem to think it's perfectly okay to remove the word Zionist and replace it with "Jew".

As I explained in the linked post the author usually used the term “Zionist” as a euphemism but is clear he is talking about Jews because:

1) Several of the Jews he claimed pushed Wilson in WWI were not Zionists.

2) In the chapter about WWII he said, “Hitler and the Nazi party soon seized control of the German media, banks, and universities away from the influential Zionists who had reigned supreme in those institutions.” But of course the Nazi’s racial codes forced all Jews (and even grandchildren of Jews) out of “media, banks, and universities” regardless of their influence, politics or religious practices.

3) In the same chapter he also wrote:

A few years later, Lord Beaverbrook, a British newspaper magnate issued this warning about the Zionist influence over the British press. Beaverbrook warned:

"There are 20,000 German Jews who have come here to England. They all work against an agreement with Germany. The Jews have got a big position in the press here. Their political influence is driving us into the direction of war."

[…]

In the spring of 1940, the war in the West began when Germany launched pre-emptive invasions of Norway, Holland, and Belgium, pinning the British and French forces on the beaches of Belgium. Beaverbrook’s prediction was realized.

Note that Beaverbrook only mentioned the Jews not specifying “Zionists” but ‘Pastore’ said his “prediction” that Jews “political influence is driving [britain] into the direction of war" “was realized”. This fits a pattern in the chapters he refers to “Zionists” but sites sources that referred to Jews. Some of the quotes seem to be made up more on that below.

Pastore’s claims are rubbish anyway:

- The US entered WWI because of 1) the Zimmermann Telegram (in which the Germans tried to get Mexico to agree to enter in the war against the US if they entered 2) continued U-boat attacks on US ships.

- Britain and France declared war on Germany because Hitler continued to abide by his previous agreements. At Munich he said he had no territorial aims beyond the Sudetenland but soon took over all of Czechoslovakia he then set his sites on all of Poland (not just the parts that had belonged to Germany). Britain and France declared publicly guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity. In both cases it was the German government not Jews (Zionist or otherwise).

- As I pointed out the Jabotinsky seems to have been made up the only hits were from book or to forum/blog posts. The Beaverbrook quote almost certainly was. It too only appears on forum and blogs, the cited source was merely “Beaverbrook papers. House of Lords Records Service” no specific document or even year was cited. Beaverbrook was a friend of Churchill and one of the people responsible for bringing down pro Nazi King George.

And what about you! You falsely accused Lyndon LaRouche for example, of being a racist,

I showed that was the case but you simply denied the obvious. All of the 2 - 3 members who commented agreed that I was correct. Notably you refused my suggestion that a mutually arbiter decide our bet, presumably that was because you knew you’d loose.

and then we come to find out that your father Frank Colby was a high ranking executive for the very same people that were running a "sterilization" program against African American's in Winston Salem.

Untrue as has been pointed out to you, my dad started working for RJR in the 1950’s, the sterilization program run out of a hospital funded by an endowment from Bowman Gray who was chairman of the company till his death in 1935. The school and hospital had no direct relationship with the company.

Furthermore your father got into this country via Cuba by working for Chaim Weizman's "Commercial Solvents" as a chemist.

Wrong on several accounts as has already been pointed out to you

1) My dad came to the US with an immigration not a sponsored work visa

2) His first job in the US was with Industrial Tape Corporation (part of Johnson & Johnson) in New Brunswick, New Jersey

3) Commercial Solvents Corp. paid Weizmann a royalty for exclusive rights to his patented process for producing acetone. He was a university professor and politician not a partner or employee of the company. I doubt anyone here but you (and perhaps Fetzer) thinks Weizmann was the devil incarnate.

http://butanol.com/docs/Weizman-Terre_Haute.doc

Of course none of this is relevant to whether or not “Pastore”, Fetzer, Wilson or Larrouche (or you) are anti-Semites or racists.

[Mark Wilson]

Why am I not surprised that Dawn has found common cause with an obvious bigot like Wilson and has stooped to labelling Jim DiEugenio a "lone nut dimwit"? The funny thing is if you take a look at the Deep Phertalizer Forum she is one of the saner people there, Wilson would fit right in.

Len,

The quote you pasted on this thread by Mark Wilson was not complete. You removed the first sentence of his post. He was responding to another poster (Scott?).

I included the relevant portions, the excluded sentence was (ellipses {and punctuation errors} his) “Hi Scott.....these kind of statements are what i'm talking about....rather than participate and offer alternative ideas you deal the anti semite card straight from the bottom of the deck.”, it did not change the import of the rest of what he said i.e.

- his focus no Billy Graham’s statement to Nixon that “"The [Jewish media] stranglehold has got to be broken” as if it were evidence this were true and evidence they helped cover up Israel’s and North American Jews’ roles in the assassination

- his apparent belief that the Duke Lacrosse team controversy was less newsworthy because the complainant was a “black stripper”

The guy may be wrong about history but I don't see him as "anti-semitic". The same can be said about Jim Fetzer.

This from Terry “Them some Jews” Mauro, cultish follower of infamous anti-Semite Lyndon LaRouche and former subscriber of Willis Carto’s Spotlight. Take a look at the Freedman tripe he posted, I imagine even you will “see [it] as "anti-Semitic"”.

I have not read one word that "Jews" were responsible for WWI, WWII...(fill in the blank) from the link/material you have provided us. I do read criticism of what these guys call the Zionists. You seem to think it's perfectly okay to remove the word Zionist and replace it with "Jew".

As I explained in the linked post the author usually used the term “Zionist” as a euphemism but is clear he is talking about Jews because:

1) Several of the Jews he claimed pushed Wilson in WWI were not Zionists.

2) In the chapter about WWII he said, “Hitler and the Nazi party soon seized control of the German media, banks, and universities away from the influential Zionists who had reigned supreme in those institutions.” But of course the Nazi’s racial codes forced all Jews (and even grandchildren of Jews) out of “media, banks, and universities” regardless of their influence, politics or religious practices.

3) In the same chapter he also wrote:

A few years later, Lord Beaverbrook, a British newspaper magnate issued this warning about the Zionist influence over the British press. Beaverbrook warned:

"There are 20,000 German Jews who have come here to England. They all work against an agreement with Germany. The Jews have got a big position in the press here. Their political influence is driving us into the direction of war."

[…]

In the spring of 1940, the war in the West began when Germany launched pre-emptive invasions of Norway, Holland, and Belgium, pinning the British and French forces on the beaches of Belgium. Beaverbrook’s prediction was realized.

Note that Beaverbrook only mentioned the Jews not specifying “Zionists” but ‘Pastore’ said his “prediction” that Jews “political influence is driving [britain] into the direction of war" “was realized”. This fits a pattern in the chapters he refers to “Zionists” but sites sources that referred to Jews. Some of the quotes seem to be made up more on that below.

Pastore’s claims are rubbish anyway:

- The US entered WWI because of 1) the Zimmermann Telegram (in which the Germans tried to get Mexico to agree to enter in the war against the US if they entered 2) continued U-boat attacks on US ships.

- Britain and France declared war on Germany because Hitler continued to abide by his previous agreements. At Munich he said he had no territorial aims beyond the Sudetenland but soon took over all of Czechoslovakia he then set his sites on all of Poland (not just the parts that had belonged to Germany). Britain and France declared publicly guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity. In both cases it was the German government not Jews (Zionist or otherwise).

- As I pointed out the Jabotinsky seems to have been made up the only hits were from book or to forum/blog posts. The Beaverbrook quote almost certainly was. It too only appears on forum and blogs, the cited source was merely “Beaverbrook papers. House of Lords Records Service” no specific document or even year was cited. Beaverbrook was a friend of Churchill and one of the people responsible for bringing down pro Nazi King George.

And what about you! You falsely accused Lyndon LaRouche for example, of being a racist,

I showed that was the case but you simply denied the obvious. All of the 2 - 3 members who commented agreed that I was correct. Notably you refused my suggestion that a mutually arbiter decide our bet, presumably that was because you knew you’d loose.

and then we come to find out that your father Frank Colby was a high ranking executive for the very same people that were running a "sterilization" program against African American's in Winston Salem.

Untrue as has been pointed out to you, my dad started working for RJR in the 1950’s, the sterilization program run out of a hospital funded by an endowment from Bowman Gray who was chairman of the company till his death in 1935. The school and hospital had no direct relationship with the company.

Furthermore your father got into this country via Cuba by working for Chaim Weizman's "Commercial Solvents" as a chemist.

Wrong on several accounts as has already been pointed out to you

1) My dad came to the US with an immigration not a sponsored work visa

2) His first job in the US was with Industrial Tape Corporation (part of Johnson & Johnson) in New Brunswick, New Jersey

3) Commercial Solvents Corp. paid Weizmann a royalty for exclusive rights to his patented process for producing acetone. He was a university professor and politician not a partner or employee of the company. I doubt anyone here but you (and perhaps Fetzer) thinks Weizmann was the devil incarnate.

http://butanol.com/docs/Weizman-Terre_Haute.doc

Of course none of this is relevant to whether or not “Pastore”, Fetzer, Wilson or Larrouche (or you) are anti-Semites or racists.

Colby,You've proved my point.You are a double standard.In both of my statements,that you use as your examples that i'm a bigot and or anti semetic,I was merely quoting each case as the media had reported them...Is the reverand Billy Graham a bigot or ant semetic? When Nixon and Graham had this conversation,Nixon was POTUS and Graham was probably the most influential Christian in America.My statement was in the context that if Graham and Nixon held these views 30 years ealier,is it such a reach that the same elements which they discussed still had america by the throat 30 plus years later??

Moving along to the Duke lacross rape case,which was thrown out of court for lack of evidence.My point was it was a non story to begin with,but your media ran with it night after night,with the emphasis on the race factor, instead of reporting real stories like the United States being duped into a hunt for WMD that still havent been found.All the while,the people doing your bidding not the bidding of America,like Wolfowitz,Perle,Feith,Cheney are given a free pass and virtually no media coverage to lie and fabricate stories about WMD,yellowcake,mushroom clouds,pre-emptive strikes,ect.All the while, it's ignored that there is only one country in the middle east with WMD or the capability to create mushroom clouds...Colby,you must know how i feel about you and your tactics,but i must admit you're very good at what you do.Your efforts to twist,turn,deflect,label, and especially changing subjects is impressive.

[Pat Speer]

And what about you! You falsely accused Lyndon LaRouche for example, of being a racist,

You mean he's not? I couldn't figure out why Larouche never compared Bush to Hitler, and never started an impeach Bush campaign, (when Bush basically sold the country to special interests), but has now started such a campaign against Obama. I then came across this quote attributed to Larouche:

"Now, I saw that in Germany: in Hitler Germany. It's exactly that. There's no distinction between the mechanism of the Obama movement and the Hitler movement--none! Because the essential thing is not the particular prejudices you have. What functions is the way you think. In a human being, it's the way you think that's important, it's not necessarily what you think. Because it's the way you think that will lead you, ultimately to what you will think. And the Obama movement is a fascist movement--by any historical standard. And you get an intimidation of people, who respond to what? They respond to a sense that there's nobody in society, in political power, who's doing a goddamned thing, about saving this nation, and its people. So people say, "You've got to go along, to get along. Don't try to change the rules, adapt to them." Go with the majority popular opinion, even if it's stupid. I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father--he wasn't much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5's operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called "Coming in Samoa." [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."

Now that's some seriously racist crud, PURE CRAZY TALK. SO...

Do you dispute that Larouche would actually say such a thing?

OR do you accept that this quote is genuine, and actually defend this nonsense?

[Terry Mauro]

And what about you! You falsely accused Lyndon LaRouche for example, of being a racist,

You mean he's not? I couldn't figure out why Larouche never compared Bush to Hitler, and never started an impeach Bush campaign, (when Bush basically sold the country to special interests), but has now started such a campaign against Obama. I then came across this quote attributed to Larouche:

"Now, I saw that in Germany: in Hitler Germany. It's exactly that. There's no distinction between the mechanism of the Obama movement and the Hitler movement--none! Because the essential thing is not the particular prejudices you have. What functions is the way you think. In a human being, it's the way you think that's important, it's not necessarily what you think. Because it's the way you think that will lead you, ultimately to what you will think. And the Obama movement is a fascist movement--by any historical standard. And you get an intimidation of people, who respond to what? They respond to a sense that there's nobody in society, in political power, who's doing a goddamned thing, about saving this nation, and its people. So people say, "You've got to go along, to get along. Don't try to change the rules, adapt to them." Go with the majority popular opinion, even if it's stupid. I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father--he wasn't much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5's operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called "Coming in Samoa." [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."

Now that's some seriously racist crud, PURE CRAZY TALK. SO...

Do you dispute that Larouche would actually say such a thing?

OR do you accept that this quote is genuine, and actually defend this nonsense?

Pat,

Can we list that with your confusion about who murdered JFK?

LaRouche went after the Bush administration, but because he's a tad bit smarter than you he knew impeaching idiot son GW would leave the country with Dick Cheney.

Perhaps you never read LaRouche's expose titled "Children of Satan". Maybe that's another thing you missed, eh?

And talking about racism I guess you missed Obama's attack on Shirley Sherrod, Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters. One might even think that Operation Fruehmenschen is back on the table.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15426

Don't worry Pat, as LaRouche stated it's not what you think it's the way you think. The way you thinks guarantees the wrong conclusion 100% of the time.

[Dawn Meredith]

Why am I not surprised that Dawn has found common cause with an obvious bigot like Wilson and has stooped to labelling Jim DiEugenio a "lone nut dimwit"? The funny thing is if you take a look at the Deep Phertalizer Forum she is one of the saner people there, Wilson would fit right in.

I hardly labled Jim " a lone nut dimwit", I was observing that since Jim- a respected astute researcher- has joined the lone nuts have been attacking him. But twisting things is your stock and trade.

"Common cause" with Wilson? You are simply making things up.

Good bye LenCo. I will not be engaging with you again, so continue twisting.

Dawn

[Len Colby]

Colby,You've proved my point.You are a double standard.In both of my statements,that you use as your examples that i'm a bigot and or anti semetic,I was merely quoting each case as the media had reported them

The media reports many stories the ones which some people tend to focus on and their spin on them CAN be quite telling.

Is the reverand Billy Graham a bigot or ant semetic?

At least one Baptist minister thinks he was, Graham told Nixon “They [Jews] swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth, But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country…” and made reference to the “Synagogue of Satan”.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090625/confronting-graham-s-demons/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-06-24-graham-tapes_N.htm

When Nixon and Graham had this conversation,Nixon was POTUS and Graham was probably the most influential Christian in America.My statement was in the context that if Graham and Nixon held these views 30 years ealier,is it such a reach that the same elements which they discussed still had america by the throat 30 plus years later??

Neither being POTUS or an Evangelical minister diminish the possibility they were biased you yourself pointed out that a previous president (JFK), his brother and their father used anti-Semitic slurs and there is no reason to doubt that a religious leader might be prejudiced against members of other religions. Just because they believed something almost 40 years ago doesn’t mean that it was true then let alone now. You just copped to suspecting that Jewish media owners and executives “had america by the throat” in the early 70’s and still do so today.

Moving along to the Duke lacross rape case,which was thrown out of court for lack of evidence.My point was it was a non story to begin with,but your media ran with it night after night,with the emphasis on the race factor, instead of reporting real stories like the United States being duped into a hunt for WMD that still havent been found.

I largely agree but your comments indicated you thought she was less credible because of her profession and race. The sad fact is that Americans prefer sensationalist stories to real news that’s why in NYC the Post and Daily News each out sell the Times. What exactly did you mean by “YOUR media”

All the while,the people doing your bidding not the bidding of America,like Wolfowitz,Perle,Feith,Cheney are given a free pass and virtually no media coverage to lie and fabricate stories about WMD,yellowcake,mushroom clouds,pre-emptive strikes,ect.

They were doing MY “bidding”? Just what are you going on about “your media”, “your bidding”. Was that a singular or plural you? In the latter case me and who else? Telling besides the veep you cited three 2nd and 3rd level Jews but failed to mention non-Jewish major players like Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenat, Powell etc.

All the while, it's ignored that there is only one country in the middle east with WMD or the capability to create mushroom clouds...

Not exactly true Syria is believed to have chemical and biological weapons, Libya and Egypt are believed to have used them as recently as the 1980’s. Though Isreal is believed to be the only country in the region with nukes several other countries tried to develop them and one country (Iran) still is. Most educated Americans know that Israel has the bomb, but few believe they would use it unless attacked.

http://nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/index.html

http://cns.miis.edu/wmdme/index.htm

[Len Colby]

Why am I not surprised that Dawn has found common cause with an obvious bigot like Wilson and has stooped to labelling Jim DiEugenio a "lone nut dimwit"? The funny thing is if you take a look at the Deep Phertalizer Forum she is one of the saner people there, Wilson would fit right in.

I hardly labled Jim " a lone nut dimwit", I was observing that since Jim- a respected astute researcher- has joined the lone nuts have been attacking him. But twisting things is your stock and trade.

Yes Dawn, I misunderstood you, my bad. I thought that like David Healy you were calling a CT whose views differed from yours a LN. In part that was because of the missing comma but more due the fact what you said made no sense, only one LN, DVP, joined the forum after Jim and only other active one has not posted more than previously, nor is there any evidence they have target Jim and none of this relevant to this thread. I could also baselessly claim you intentionally made an erroneous claim.

"Common cause" with Wilson? You are simply making things up.

You said you agreed with him

Good bye LenCo. I will not be engaging with you again, so continue twisting.

Dawn

See ya later

[Pat Speer]

And what about you! You falsely accused Lyndon LaRouche for example, of being a racist,

You mean he's not? I couldn't figure out why Larouche never compared Bush to Hitler, and never started an impeach Bush campaign, (when Bush basically sold the country to special interests), but has now started such a campaign against Obama. I then came across this quote attributed to Larouche:

"Now, I saw that in Germany: in Hitler Germany. It's exactly that. There's no distinction between the mechanism of the Obama movement and the Hitler movement--none! Because the essential thing is not the particular prejudices you have. What functions is the way you think. In a human being, it's the way you think that's important, it's not necessarily what you think. Because it's the way you think that will lead you, ultimately to what you will think. And the Obama movement is a fascist movement--by any historical standard. And you get an intimidation of people, who respond to what? They respond to a sense that there's nobody in society, in political power, who's doing a goddamned thing, about saving this nation, and its people. So people say, "You've got to go along, to get along. Don't try to change the rules, adapt to them." Go with the majority popular opinion, even if it's stupid. I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father--he wasn't much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5's operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called "Coming in Samoa." [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence."

Now that's some seriously racist crud, PURE CRAZY TALK. SO...

Do you dispute that Larouche would actually say such a thing?

OR do you accept that this quote is genuine, and actually defend this nonsense?

Pat,

Can we list that with your confusion about who murdered JFK?

LaRouche went after the Bush administration, but because he's a tad bit smarter than you he knew impeaching idiot son GW would leave the country with Dick Cheney.

Perhaps you never read LaRouche's expose titled "Children of Satan". Maybe that's another thing you missed, eh?

And talking about racism I guess you missed Obama's attack on Shirley Sherrod, Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters. One might even think that Operation Fruehmenschen is back on the table.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15426

Don't worry Pat, as LaRouche stated it's not what you think it's the way you think. The way you thinks guarantees the wrong conclusion 100% of the time.

I take that as an acknowledgment that Larouche made those awful statements. I'd hoped you were smart enough to avoid being taken in by a fraud like Larouche. I'm sorry to see I was wrong.

So...tell me...where does John Simkin and the ED Forum fit into this giant British conspiracy to control the world. Is he a disinfo agent?

I mean, if you think the Beatles were part of some vast plot to weaken America, where does the conspiracy stop? Was Hugh Hefner also part of the plot? What about Marilyn Monroe? Chubby Checker?

[Len Colby]

Pat,

Did you really expect a rational answer from someone who rails against drug use by rock stars, blames the Beatles for the “drug culture” and even condemns High Times as a narcotics front but is a big fan of Joe Walsh and includes a quote from Tom Petty in her signature?

Len

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Did you really expect a rational answer from someone who rails against drug use by rock stars, blames the Beatles for the “drug culture” and even condemns High Times as a narcotics front but is a big fan of Joe Walsh and includes a quote from Tom Petty in her signature?

Len

I don't know. I've always liked Terry. I wish her the best. And hope she gets over her LaRouche fixation soon...

[Len Colby]

I don't know. I've always liked Terry. I wish her the best. And hope she gets over her LaRouche fixation soon...

That’s about as likely as DVP making a post claiming that

- neither “Harvey” nor “Lee” and anything to do the assassination

- JFK was shot by Greer, someone in the storm drain and “badgeman” after being signaled by TUM

- All know images of the assassination have been altered

[Len Colby]

Back to the original topic of the thread, if it was discovered that Craig, DVP, the Bug or Rahn had not only repeatedly endorsed such a Naziesque book but read it on air would the reaction here have been as muted as it was to Fetzer doing so?

[John Dolva]

the q is rhetorical

[Pat Speer]

Back to the original topic of the thread, if it was discovered that Craig, DVP, the Bug or Rahn had not only repeatedly endorsed such a Naziesque book but read it on air would the reaction here have been as muted as it was to Fetzer doing so?

I think that different people bring about different reactions, but that it's not necessarily because of a "double standard" of LN vs. CT. Everyone here knows that certain members of this Forum, Fetzer included, like to think outside the box, and embrace what to most would seem wild theories. So it's not surprising to us when he embraces something most of us would reject, and we don't consider his embracing of something we would reject necessarily reflective of his bias or hatred of others.

The single-assassin theorists on this Forum, however, present themselves as defenders of "safe" thinking--mainstream rational thought. As a result, their embrace of something we would consider outlandish would leave a different impression. It would feel like they were betraying a bias otherwise hidden beneath the veneer of normalcy.

[Len Colby]

Back to the original topic of the thread, if it was discovered that Craig, DVP, the Bug or Rahn had not only repeatedly endorsed such a Naziesque book but read it on air would the reaction here have been as muted as it was to Fetzer doing so?

I think that different people bring about different reactions, but that it's not necessarily because of a "double standard" of LN vs. CT. Everyone here knows that certain members of this Forum, Fetzer included, like to think outside the box, and embrace what to most would seem wild theories. So it's not surprising to us when he embraces something most of us would reject, and we don't consider his embracing of something we would reject necessarily reflective of his bias or hatred of others.

The single-assassin theorists on this Forum, however, present themselves as defenders of "safe" thinking--mainstream rational thought. As a result, their embrace of something we would consider outlandish would leave a different impression. It would feel like they were betraying a bias otherwise hidden beneath the veneer of normalcy.

Pat

Justifying the persecution of Jews and blaming them for the World Wars isn’t “thinking outside the box”, it’s bigotry plain and simple. The term you used is supposed to refer to innovative thinking the objectionable ideas in the book date back to a Munich beer hall in the 1920s and even earlier.

But up to certain point you have a point, Fetzer seems to suffer from some severe cognitive dissonance which usually cuts off his critical thinking when it come to his pet theories.

A good example is when someone showed up at the Yahoo Group dedicated to debating the Wellstone crash. He claimed to have been an EMT whose crew showed up at the crash site before anyone else. He said they were ordered away and that the plane had not yet caught fire. This made no sense:

- Several of the people on the plane had smoke in their lungs so they were alive when it was burning. Thus we are to believe that the EMTs left behind injured victims.

- The crash site was in a very isolated location and was only located because of the smoke.

- The crash was only confirmed when it was spotted from the air by the airport manager. He found it due to the smoke which he spotted a few minutes before reaching the site.

- One of the central planks of Fetzer’s theory is that the plane crashed because it was disabled by an EMp weapon and that the blue smoke was indicative of an electrical fire. But if the plane only caught fire well after it crashed there would be no reason to believe the fire was caused by some futuristic weapon rather than ignited fuel.

Despite these obvious discrepancies being pointed out to him Fetzer insisted that he wanted to hear more of what the obvious xxxx had to say.

Along the same lines when writing or speaking about the crash he correctly observes that the NTSB does not investigate crashes which are believed to be criminal but when discussing 9/11 he claims that there failure to investigate the obviously criminal crashes was anomalous. I used to think he was lying but later concluded that like “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” he could be incapable of seeing what was obvious to others.

So perhaps some sort of mental block prevents him from “groking” what’s wrong with the chapters about WWI and WWII. But just as Dr. Sacks wondered if his patient’s disability might be due in part to a certain arrogance I wonder if Fetzer’s plugging anti-Semitism might be due in part to his prejudices.