Updated February 24, 2013

(This post has also been appended to Dr. Fetzer’s Open Letter.)

 (1) After posting my “Open Letter” on his blog, James Tracy received the following complaint:

Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:18 AM

Subject: Reader Comment

Comment: Dear Professor Tracy,

I am writing you to protest the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias of James Fetzer.  Without any supporting documentation or proof, he declares in his articles that Israel is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and previous staged events.  This is highly irresponsible.  How dare he!

If he has any valid argument or evidence to back up his outrageous claim, he should state it.  Otherwise, he should keep his own hateful opinion to himself and stop trying to indoctrinate  your readers into becoming anti-Semitic bigots.

It seems odd that a retired professor trying to defend your right to free speech would indulge in a verbal hate fest against the Jews.  That is not going to do you or your arguments any favors.  I hope you will remove for this website all of Dr. Fetzer’s articles which contain such offensive remarks, as they have no place here.

(2) He replied to the reader as follows:

I am unaware that Dr. Fetzer made any specific allegation that Jewish or Israeli elements carried out the Sandy Hook massacre. My understanding is that a colleague of his at Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, wrote a brief article discussing talk show host Mike Harris’ December remarks asserting this theory. Perhaps that’s what you mean. Since you are proposing that I censor my blog, if you have any citations in this regard it would be helpful if you could provide these.

(3) The reader wrote back as follows:

Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Reader Comment

Thank you very much, Professor Tracy, for responding to my concerns.  Unfortunately, I am rather alarmed that you would not be better informed about what is posted and linked to your own website, especially by a colleague of yours who claims to be trying to support you.

Here are a few citations and there may be more.    First, there is Dr. Fetzer’s article, “The Nexus of Tyranny”, which appears on Veterans Today.  He lists it with an active link in his front-page article on your website, entitled “An Open Letter to FAU Faculty….”   You know the one.  He states:
If you are going to read only one article about it  [Sandy Hook],  this is the one to read:

In “The Nexus of Tyranny…”, Dr. Fetzer does reference Gordon Duff; however, he goes on to add his own opinion regarding Israeli involvement and to link to yet another article of his in which he makes the same allegations.  In Nexus, he writes:

In “Israel’s Plan for World War enters high gear”, Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today, outlines the world-wide implications of the confiscation movement taking place here in the United States and how it possibly fits into the broader Israeli agenda, where those of us who have suggested that the Mossad may have been behind Sandy Hookeven if that was only in part–are looking better and better with the passage of time:
As you can see, he stands with Gordon Duff in blaming Israel at least in part for Sandy Hook!
He does walk it back a bit in the final paragraph of the article, by disassociating himself slightly from his co-author Dennis Cimino.  However, as one who is familiar with propaganda, surely you will agree that by repeating the false and stereotypic accusations, he actually reinforces them.  He writes:
“While Gordon Duff (above) and Dennis Cimino (below) both posit Zionists promoting Israel as the main group wanting to disarm the US general population–both to help their wars and to subordinate the American people to politicians whom they can largely control–there are many other diverse elements in the international banking and domestic gun-confiscating movement whose interests do not always converge with those of Israel, which should be borne in mind in evaluating the situation. The gun agenda has become preeminent–and it is being driven by multiple motives. The roles of the Mossad, the CIA and DHS have become increasingly difficult to sort out, where even our best efforts may fall short.”
And if we click the link in the paragraph first quoted above, which reads “the Mossad may have been behind Sandy Hook”, we find ourselves at another article by Dr. Fetzer, entitled, “Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?”  which he tells us was originally published not as a question but as a declarative statement, without any resistance on his part, even though he knew how provocative a title it was.    And he goes on to write,
Just as the Mossad and US Neo-Cons collaborated in the atrocities of 9/11 and the more recent events at BenghaziBenjamin Netanyahu bears grudges and has been offended by the failure of the US to kowtow to its every whim, including its dedication to manipulating us to attack Iranwhich has no justification. I think Texe Marrs has it right:  Zionism is the gravest threat to world peace and to domestic tranquility, where there are signs that our own leaders are finally figuring it out.“

(4) James replied that he was forwarding her complaints to me for my response, which was as follows:

Dear ___________,

So you are now an expert on Veterans Today as well as Sandy Hook?  What I find rather remarkable is how you assume that you are some kind of moral arbitrator of the universe.  It is a common debate tactic to go on the offense when you are at fault. It seems to me that your position is one of “guilt by association”, where you are holding Professor Tracy responsible for the opinions of others, who are, like me, also entitled to freedom of speech and to freedom of inquiry about all these things.

Cases like this–which are complex and controversial–qualify as severe tests of our commitment to those values.  Freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry do not exist to allow academicians and scholars to reiterate innocuous opinions that are widely held, but to inquire about situations that may not be as they have been presented as being. Professor Tracy and I do not have to agree about every issue in order to agree about some, including the core values essential to universities.

Professor Tracy and I are both trying to sort out what happened at Sandy Hook. The article to which you object was originally entitled, “Sandy Hook: The rest of the story”.  I did not choose the title used.  And the passage you cite was a quote from someone else.  None of your complaints about me dispute the points I was making about why the university should be supporting Professor Tracy.  Instead, you seem intent upon making a case for anti-Semitism when there is little case to be made.  I am not anti-Semitic, but I am very critical of the role of Israel in world affairs today.

I cannot help but notice that you seem to be highly selective in the points you make. I have also written about Israeli complicity in 9/11, by the way, including “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James), and “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW interview”. Another he has published is “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”  But if Israel was involved in 9/11, should we not be addressing it?

In addition to being a journalist for Veterans Today, I am the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  I organized its first national conference in Madison in 2007 and its first international conference in Vancouver in 2012.  I also edited its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and I have published widely about 9/11.  What has struck me most about your email to Professor Tracy is your complete failure to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  Is this a difference you don’t understand?

VT and I are both anti-Zionist but are not anti-Semitic.  Since you are reading some of my articles, where do you find me dismissing the opinions of others or their value as human beings on the basis of their ethnic heritage or religious faith?  I and others at VT are critics of the actions and policies of the State of Israel, including of course its grossly abusive treatment of the Palestinian people.  That is NOT anti-Semitism.

It is not anti-Semitic to raise objections to the violation of the rights of Palestinians and repeated violations of UN mandates.  A rather large and growing segment of the world’s population regards Israel as running the largest concentration camp in the world at Gaza.  It bulldozed peace activist Rachel Corrie to death, and its IDF forces are known for picking off Palestinian children for sport.  You abuse the word, but it properly applies to such actions by the Israeli government.  They ARE filth!

As for Sandy Hook, Mike Harris and Gordon Duff have also suggested that Israel may have played a role, where Duff has cited satellite footage that traces a van from the school back to Greenwich Village and a “safe house” run by the Mossad, which was found to contain neo-Nazi literature.  Israel is known to commit what are called “false flag” attacks.  They go back to the attack on the King David Hotel in 1946 by Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs and include the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.  For more, see “False Flag attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994″.

As you are no doubt aware, the ADL has attacked me, Gordon Duff, Alan Sabrosky and Kevin Barrett as anti-Semitic for pointing out Israel’s role in 9/11, but that is a charge that, as in this instance, has no foundation.  I find it ironic that, in classifying me as an “anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist”, the ADL cites my article, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, in which I refute that allegation.  If you can find cases in which I display anti-Semitism rather than anti-Zionism, then please point them out.

Indeed, reading your messages, they could have been penned by the ADL.  They display no concern for the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry that are at stake here.  I am grateful to Professor Tracy for speaking out about Sandy Hook, but I am less sanguine about your attacks on me.  Have you, for example, taken any steps to affirm his rights in this case as opposed to attacking someone who has actually done that?  I have found scant value in your comments to date.

With best wishes,


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth


By Dennis Cimino

[NOTE: Issues raised in the complaints about my “Open Letter” about anti-Semitism are so important that, when Dennis send me an extended commentary for publication below, I asked him to rewrite it and now publish it as an extension of my article (17 February 2013).]

My problem with conflation of a religion with a genetic or biological link to a piece of land is a bit more along the lines of denouncing most zionist jews for their beliefs that they have an entitlement to Palestine above and beyond what the indigenous people, who are Palestinians and some even muslims, actually do have, as it has been their home for centuries, unlike the usurpers who are for the most part, not truly of judean roots at all, but ashkenazi jews from the area between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, where about 90 or more percent of the alleged ‘chosen ones’ have come.

With regard to the vehement attacks that maintain that we have wrongly pegged the involvement of the MOSSAD on U.S. soil–and in fact, it’s influence in the U.S.–one need only look at the absolute totality of FACTS that support the MOSSAD has been a key and pivotal player in 9/11 and, in fact, in many other attacks on Americans over years, dating back to 1967 when MOSSAD was instrumental in guiding the IDF to the conclusion that it needed to attack the U.S.S. Liberty in June of that year and attempt to initiate a thermonuclear war between the U.S. and Egypt by doing so.

Many other incidents of MOSSAD attacks on, not only Americans, but citizens of other nations, which were fomented in Israel and blamed on other nationalities, have since taken place and certainly it is not unreasonable to blame the MOSSAD for it’s direct involvement in DHS and FEMA today, via organizations such as S.I.T.E. and others such as In Q TEL, who, quite rightly, along with at least one other nationwide phone billing company, have been involved within the United States conducting drift-net spying and the blackmailing of U.S. politicians for decades.

Given all the dynamics of who is doing this, it is not outrageous nor out of the question to pin the tail on Israel for most terrorist acts globally, with of course the ‘Wag the Dog’ issue of the United States gleefully killing people with drones at the behest of ‘Israeli First’ people in the U.S. Federal Apparatus, such as Sen. Diane Feinstein and Mr. John Brennan, currently being considered for CIA Director. If one looks at the dynamics of how both WWI and WWII were started and, for that matter, the Zionist influence of Ashkenazi jews, such as Bernard Baruch, upon a sitting U.S. President, one only need wonder if the United States would have ever used nuclear weapons on Japan, had it not been a major part of Baruch’s ear bending, in the closing days of that war, upon Harry S. Truman.

We know today that the Japanese were in the process of arranging a surrender when inexplicably the Army Air Corps dropped two nuclear devices on a country which was in the process of capitulation. Too harsh to blame this on ashkenazism and organized jewry in the U.S. How about the diversion of fissile grade enriched uranium from NUMEC to Dimona, again, by more Ashkenazi jews named Shapiro? Too harsh still? Better yet, let’s look at the Rothschilds banksters and their role in the creation of Israel. Rothschilds matriculated out of the Frankfurt AM MEIN ghetto’s as loan sharks and brothel owners, in around 1747 or so, and their roots are Ashkenazi, not sepharadi or Judean. Interesting coincidence? Not on your life.

Our research has proven that most of the involved players who did these elaborate staged hoaxes in Tucson, Aurora and Sandy Hook were predominantly ashkenazi jews, likely to be more khazarian than sephardic, based on their skin color and their facial characteristics. They are not judean rooted jews, but per the now very documented work of Arthur Koestler and one more recent Johns Hopkins researcher, are clearly ashkenazi jews, with virtually no real roots to the original descendants of the holy land by any bloodlines.

Translated, what I am trying to say for the record is that it would so appear that the heavy hand of ZIONISM in the United States is not driven by true ‘jews’ who were jews by bloodline, but more modern day, european jews who are especially not with any verifiable linkage to the judean jews who inhabited the area known now as Palestine more than 2,000 years ago.

What is unclear is why the have such an appetite for subjugating people in other countries they matriculate into and live in when peaceful coexistence is much more likely to engender harmony and peace over warfare for profit, as these ashkenazi jews seem to be so focused on for the lion’s share of at least 237 years or so in modern times. More importantly it is very very clear that virtually all of the global wars have been foisted upon the earth by organized jewry tied to the Rothschilds banksters of London. Why?

That question may never be answered by any of us, but it surely not ‘anti semitic’ to decry the apparent character flaws of people who conflate a religion belief into a heritage and or an ancestral claim to land they never came from in the first place, such as is the case with zionist jews who portend that they have a blood right to Palestine, when they have never had any verified link to Palestine over the indigenous and rightful inhabitants, who are known as and are the very semitic ‘Palestinians’.

Furthermore, since Jim Fetzer seems to have strong reservations about calling out or citing these facts of life, which I do not, there is a clear divergence in our beliefs. He has a belief that for some reason it is unfair to so label ashkenazi jews as FAKE JEWS when in fact that is the best way I can come up with to so describe a race of people from a much removed from Palestine piece of land that is between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, formerly known as Khazaria from ancient translated documents that show this to be correct and factual.

My point is this: Most of the jewry in the world today, more than 90 percent, is ashkenazi and non sephardic or non judean, and therefore has no valid claim to turf that they do not hail from, and that this ‘chosen’ tribe (as they think of themselves) has been thrown out of so many nations, to date, about 109 of them so far, for strong cultural differences that rub the peoples in their adoptive homelands the very wrong way.

Today they are destroying the United States from within and wish to disarm it. Is it ‘anti semitic’ to decry this as fact? I think not. Though Professor Fetzer seems to feel this is too harsh of a condemnation of a fictional and highly dubious claim by these zionist jews that anyone who points this out is an anti semite. I am not an anti semite. I just have no desire to mince words or pussyfoot around with the notion that zionist jews are destroying and now are disarming the nation that I was born into. It is not relevant that many of them were born here, when they hold allegiance to a government that flies a blue and white flag with a six pointed star.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a journalist for Veterans Today.

Leave a Reply

43 thought on “The Rest of the Story”
    1. It sounds to me sir, like YOU have already made that decision – or maybe your employer made it and you’re just still here working that angle as well as you can?

      Seriously, if questions can somehow ‘hurt’ the story, then the story itself is shaky and won’t hold up, meaning there are genuine killers going free today, who need to be identified and prosecuted. If the ‘truth is out there’ already, then the questions can’t hurt, can they? So what is your real purpose or issue here?

      1. The issue is not the questions being asked, the issue is the baggage that is being brought along with the questions. Also the wacky theories. For example:

        “Most likely, Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before with Adam Lanza’s body picked up by police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school. ”

        “Most likely,” indeed, except we ain’t got one scrap of evidence.


        Jim Fetzer has a history of crazy ideas advanced as “Most likely” (see the reference I provided above), which only discredits the intelligence of his adherents.

        And, Rev. Dave, since you use the title Rev, would you mind telling us by which church you were ordained. I mean if the title is supposed to confer credibility, the name of the church is surely relevant.

        1. Yes, I do mind. I’ve read enough of your posts here to believe that you are simply looking for more details with which you can find fault and make unwarranted criticisms. I actually don’t think it matters a whit either – you’ll criticize something no matter what I say just as you do everyone else here.

          So, no, I don’t choose to get into that discussion with you. You’re a gadfly, and although you’ll bite at me anyway for not telling you, I’m not going to do that. I don’t want to hear your annoying criticisms of whatever aspect of my training you might choose to attack, and I won’t dignify a person who’s apparent hobby is being insulting to others

          However, regarding your statement about NO proof that Adam Lanza died the day before, there is that earlier mention of the Social Security website that implies he and his mother were both dead prior to the 14th, and that the office had been informed in time to post it on the 13th. So, depending on your definition of proof, it either is proof – or it is reason enough to ask the questions about whether or not he was alive on the day of the Sandy Hook event, and if he was – WHY was that death information entered into the system? Unless, of course, YOU can answer that question?

    2. To claim that someone is discredited because their theories are nonsensical (as you and the linked information states) only serves to distract from the truth. The evidence supporting the official story of 9/11 as being false is overwhelming. To believe the official story, you must either be in severe denial or an agent of the state.

  1. I could feel and sympathize with Professor James H. Fetzer’s frustration, anguish, disappointment all from reading his reply.

    A few days after the Sandy Hook shootings media report was released along with a list of the deceased victims, I was told off by someone and received personal attacks on facebook because I made a post asking people to pray for the murdered souls on that tragic day. Primarily because for reasons that he doesn’t trust the mainstream media reports on the shootings.

    However, whether the media reports are trustworthy or not, my basis for my post on facebook asking for a prayer request is the loss of lives on that day, and solely for that intention.

    And if there truly wasn’t a loss of lives on that day, then I concede the fact that my prayer request was made in vain. Otherwise, I believe my actions were at least, reasonably vindicated.

  2. Mr Fetzer seems like an opportunist for the purpose of spreading his anti-Zionist message and would probably get on board with just about any cause to spread it. I’ve seen his type at city council meetings and there is a popular Sandy Hook Truther youtuber that also inserts anti-Israel messages in all his videos. James Tracy, please say thanks but no thanks

    1. When the shoe fits….The government of the state of Israel is indeed made up of criminal mafia terrorist. Part of the plan to get the US into war with Germany was to carve out of the Palestinian homeland this state of Israel. Truth be known the world was lied to about the facts that brought on war with Germany and continued during the war and continues to this day. If one questions these facts and outright lies they are labeled anti semitic. When the ADL throws around such labels they want to hush people up. Countries now have gone so far as to criminalize thought, as in Germany, for anyone who questions the accuracy of the Holocaust. Instead of having open debate on the subject the whole story is supposed to be accepted on bogus eyewitness accounts without physical evidence. I am not anti semitic either. I too question what is peddled off as truth without clear fact. All Jews are not bad people, just as all Christians, all Muslims, etc. are not bad. Yet when someone mentions a certain group of Christians, or Muslims in a bad light you do not have people crawling out of the woodwork saying that person is anti christian, etc. The term anti semitic is merely purposely used to shut people up. If you look deep enough there may actually be a Zionist plot that ties in to the shadowy quest for a New World Order. The atmosphere surrounding 911 and Sandy Hook smells familiar, and even though there are those who question the official stories, as with Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth where they back their questioning with evidence, an appalling silent shoulder is given by media and the government. It makes one wonder if it will become illegal to question these events also. Already these people who question are labeled “conspiracy theorist”. Then if an element of Mossad involvement is thrown into the mix the “anti semitic” accusations fly. The fact that Israel bombed the US Liberty was silenced and anyone who brings that up is also given the label because it is not supposed to be discussed. The leadership of Israel is indeed running the largest concentration camp in the world with the Palestinians in Gaza. They have taken their land and ruthlessly threaten to destroy their identity. What hypocrites! I too am anti Zionist and proud of it. Dr. Tracy and Dr, Fetzer do not be deterred by those who attempt to discredit you and shut you up by trying to label you as anti semitic.

    2. Mixing the terms anti-Zionist and anti-Israel is a disservice to Israelis who don’t have any affiliation whatsoever with Zionism.

      I would like to hear your views on the events of Sandy Hook. What are your thoughts?

  3. Very typical — ad hominem attacks against Dr. Fetzer. He’s been demonized for years by trolls and 9/11 Thumbsuckers. Veterans Today is a terrific website that often hits the target. Kudos to Professor Tracy for posting this exchange.

  4. Many of us are anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic, which is a loaded term if ever there was one since the origin of “Semite” does not specifically refer back to the patriarchal tribe of Judah, but generations before Abraham, which would include many races from Mesopotamia. Infact many of today’s “Jews” and “Israelis” are not descended from Judah but are from parts of Asia and Russia as Koestler and other researchers have shown.

    The truly crazy thing is how many Fundamentalists have bought the lie that they are genetically alien to the Hebrews of the Bible and others that originated from Abraham. And then their leaders shamelessly teach that America must support Israel no matter how destructive that country becomes or how much it costs. Christian-Zionism is one of the most dangerous of religious hybrids.

    1. I’d challenge you to provide a single example of someone using the term “anti-Semite” to refer to anything other than hatred of Jews. Anti-semites are by definition Jew haters. No one would dream of using the term to refer to hatred of any other group, because if they did, the listener would have no idea what they’re talking about.

      For example, by your reasoning, since “Arabs” (because they speak a semitic language) are technically “semites,” hating Arabs is “antisemitism.” But if you were to talk that way you’d sound like an idiot, and the person you’re talking to would know you have no idea what the term means.

      There are lots of Jew haters in the world, and they all hate Israel. There are no doubt also people who don’t hate the Jews but do hate Israel, but I have found that most Jew haters find Israel-hatred a very convenient cover story to deny their anti-semitism. It’s convenient, because we can’t prove what’s in their heart.

      So we must, to be polite, take Fetzer at his word when he claims that his hatred of Israel is not an indication of anti-semitism. But let’s not quibble over the clear meaning of the word itself.

      1. Patrick – I’d suggest we also not blame someone who knows his vocabulary for the ignorance of millions who are careless about using theirs correctly. It’s not Rocky’s fault most folks are ignorant of the meaning of ‘Semitic’ or ‘Semite’. Just look up semitic languages or semitic people and see who’s who, really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

      2. With all due respect, rev. dave, I believe that mine is an important point.

        That is, it matters not at all that “semites” are a large category of races. My point is that anyone who insists on that arcane fact, when denying that they are an anti-semite, “doth protest too much.” Everyone knows what “anti-semitism” means, and it is not a hatred of anyone except Jews. Insisting that the term “anti-semitism” is, as Rocky put it, a “loaded term,” is ridiculous. It is a synonym for Jew hatred, and everyone in the world knows it. That’s what it means. It’s in no sense at all a “loaded term.”

        Here’s a thought: If he’s sensitive about the term, maybe he’s like the guy who needs to go to the dentist, but thinks the sensitivity of the tooth isn’t an indication of a problem, so he chews on the other side of his mouth. Better, in my opinion, to face the source of the sensitivity, and stop denying it.

        1. Somehow it seems to me you’ve only reiterated my point Patrick. If one person uses vocabulary according to the definition, and nobody else does, all those others are still wrong, by definition. And even the OED changes and adds definitions at times, so its not like ‘vocabulary’ is some arcane 17th century concept.

          But, I did look up (www.dictionary.reference.com) the ‘anti-Semite’ term, and even the two dictionaries cited there use your ‘anti-Jew’ definition to the exclusion of any other. I don’t have a subscription to the OED online, so I didn’t look at that dictionary even though its considered ‘gospel’ in terms of English language definitions.

          What this means is that even being picky about using vocabulary carefully, most people wouldn’t find out that the term in question is actually much more broad than the way it’s defined on that website. So I can’t continue to argue against your interpretation – even though I believe it to be more of a colloquial usage than a ‘correct’ definition.

          In short, as they say, ‘you win’, because I can’t ‘prove my case’ without buying a subscription to the OED Online and I don’t care enough to spend money on the discussion. Besides, it might prove me wrong anyway if they’ve dropped the ‘generally middle-eastern’ definition. I wouldn’t know without looking – but if you’re interested, you could do that and let us all know what it now says. Or, just accept that I demur and let it go at that.

      3. “Loaded language”:

        Examples of loaded language are “You want to go to the mall, don’t you?” and “Do you really want to associate with those people?”.
        The appeal to emotion is often seen as being in contrast to an appeal to logic and reason. However, emotion and reason are not necessarily always in conflict, nor is it true that an emotion cannot be a reason for an action. Murray and Kujundzic distinguish “prima facie reasons” from “considered reasons” when discussing this. A prima facie reason for, say, not eating mushrooms is that one does not like mushrooms. This is an emotive reason. However, one still may have a considered reason for not eating mushrooms: one might consume enough of the relevant minerals and vitamins that one could obtain from eating mushrooms from other sources. An emotion, elicited via emotive language, may form a prima facie reason for action, but further work is required before one can obtain a considered reason.

        Well let’s differentiate hatred of people with Jewish names from dislike of the Israeli political entity and radical, end justifies the means, Zionism, for the dangerous threat that it represents to American political interests. It is natural and normal to make judgments about people based on their names, their appearances and reputations; and these things can be done with out irrational bias, but rather take them into consideration with regard to the larger picture of social order. There are good and bad in all types of people.

      4. Rocky, anti-semitism is not “hatred of people with Jewish names,” it is hatred of Jews. A very large percentage of Jews in the world do not have names that give a clue as to their race. Anti-semites hate them, too.

        And you may find “natural and normal to make judgments about people based on their names,” but I find that incredibly foolish. My name is Patrick. What does that tell you? That I’m Irish, and thus I’m a drunk?

        Say my name was Leroy Brown, or Quanzi Jefferson. Would it be “natural and normal” for you to assume I’m a violent, black, drug dealing thug in a big city slum district? If so, you would be a racist.

        Anti-semitism is a unique form of racism. It existed before the Jews returned to the land of Israel and re-established a state. The policies and politics of that state are mere excuses for anti-semites to justify their hatred.

    2. All of those people have been fooled by the Scofield Reference Bible – changes were made to Genesis 12:1-3.

      See it for yourself at http://whtt.org/show – the presentation is called The Cause Of Our Conflict.

      Don’t allow yourself to be made to not think critically about this situation. We have been lied to about the events at Sandy Hook. It’s only responsible that we seek the truth of the events of Sandy Hook. If we do not, we embolden the perpetrators to repeat their behaviour and to hurt more people.

  5. Doctors: Thank you for all you have invested in bringing light to what is clearly a murky picture of what transpired in Newtown. In all the conspiracy theories of the past, I had blindly set aside, as it did not seem possible that my government could do that, or perhaps I was too scared to admit they could. SH swallowed me up, I could not believe there was no emergency lane, no ambulances, no paramedics, no helicopters, no evacuations, no hysterical parents, as I certainly would have been. May I suggest that VT, keep the subject separated from what was wrong, and then who may have done it. Thought the article was excellent with details of what was wrong, but could not bring my husband to read it, as all he saw was who may of done it. A commenter to a Dr Tracy article pointed out the home addresses of the parents were not available on google, there is a pipeline being built there and through the school. Those houses are not available on zillow.com also, which has always been a reliable source of house values, etc. My conclusion is that the bankrupt town citizens, with the help of the local, state and federal government are all compliant in this scheme to make money and I pray that no children lost their lives!

  6. I didn’t come here for fetzer or the never ending carnival of oddities which is the struggle against the esconced israel lobby. I came here for Prof. Tracy and his excellent disquisitions.

    1. FYI- The BBC is being challenged in court beginning Feb 25 in England regarding the accuracy of its coverage of 9/11 WTC. A rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for those with an appetite for truth. Detailed scientific evidence has been submitted to the court. This evidence supports bias and inaccuracy in BBC 9/11 WTC documentaries. We could use a similiar case in the US against PBS, Nat Geo and Popular Mechanics to name a few.

      Also, keep your awareness as the propaganda machine fires up this week with PBS- Raising Adam Lanza.

  7. “You abuse the word, but it properly applies to such actions by the Israeli” American, Iranian, Pakistani, Russian, Indian, Saudi-Arabian, many African governments, and other brutal regimes that wantonly kill civilians and journalists to protect their assets, etc. “They ARE filth!”
    If James Fetzer’s statement has these countries added it has a wider net of “evil doers” and to my way of thinking more truth. I’ve heard Fetzer in person and met him and have also heard other pro-Palestinian/9/11 truth activists including Wayne Madsen and Cynthia McKinney and what strikes me as strange is their extreme emotion about the Israelis’ treatment Palestinians, which is admittedly appalling, yet they never denounce other brutal regimes with the same fervor. Then they use the expression that they are anti-Zionist but not anti-semites – does this mean they want the Israeli’s to back up and leave the area entirely or just back up to certain areas? Do the Jews belong anywhere in the area – will any territorial lines please them or do they just have to stop bulldozing Palestinian land and stop the blockade?
    It’s hard to think that the emotion these activists have invested is merely anti-Zionism. The activists’ bizarre hatred of the Israeli “government” seems to have a touch of anti-semitic sentiment, but they probably do not see themselves that way. I’ve also never heard these activists praise any Jews either, either culturally or otherwise which bolsters the appearance of extremism.

    1. Well Patty the Jews could all go and give their money and their lives to Israel and get off the backs of the working people of America. Is that an anti-semitic request? US taxpayers are carrying the Israelis. How is it that the Jews have managed to instill in the world’s mind that there is a racism that they alone are allegedly targets of? The very term ‘anti-semitism’ assumes that hatred and prejudice goes only one way. I’ve noted personally and by studying the political system that the truth is far more often just the reverse.

      Great book for those interested: The Host and the Parasite; How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America by Greg Felton. The Israeli Lobby is killing the American people.

  8. I began reading this blog just recently, finding a link to it from another website. I find the view refreshing, because a professor is able to speak his mind and I am able to utilize my brain, to think outside the bubble being rammed down my throat. I just happened to be sick 12/14, & as I watched this horror unfold, something was WRONG. Like the pictures when we were kids, and had to circle the items out of place. Since that day, my eyes havr been opened. So much so, it’s difficult to wrap my head around it all. If a simple mom can see this plain as day, why not everyone else? Welcome to hollywood. We are so used to being foiled

  9. I suspect the unnamed reader making the complaints was an ‘official’ troll of the Zionist party.

    My suspicions are based on the level of familiarity with Dr. Fetzer’s work (quick and light research apparently), the citing of a few specific sentences (search for things that can be challenged), the unsubstantiated accusations about some of the unquoted statements (typical propaganda technique), and the general lack of actual or false supporting evidence for the accusations. I’m sure the writer got a ‘high five’ from the boss or coworkers – it is rather long after all, and would convince many intellectually insipid readers who will find it somewhere else without criticism.

    Too bad it doesn’t work on this blog, but as some of us would say: That dog won’t hunt.

  10. Jim Fetzer has done a great job, sewing rancor and dissension among the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and tarring most of them with the anti-Semite brush. Good work, Jim.

    But I guess as with my earlier comment James Tracy will delete this one.

    1. The previous comment was not deleted, yet it appeared inflammatory and unproductive, and thus was withheld. One does not have time to “background” every post and the assertion here that James Fetzer is a sower of discontent and the one previous (“wacky conspiracy theories”) do not in my view hold up to serious scrutiny.

      1. Hi, James. Thank you for allowing my comment.

        I understand you are under considerable pressure, so I understand your caution in admitting comments here. But such caution makes it so much more difficult to understand why you appear to associate yourself so closely with Jim Fetzer’s seemingly wild and irresponsible speculations. For example, from his earlier post on your blog:

        “Most likely, Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before with Adam Lanza’s body picked up by police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school. ”

        “Most likely,” indeed, except there isn’t a scrap of evidence.

        Your own approach to Sandy Hook has been based on reason and available evidence. While there may be justification for quoting what others have to say or even posting on you blog what others have to say, it appears that you are lending support to Fetzer’s ideas, which seems a serious mistake.

        Fetzer has a track record for disrupting inquiry into possible state crimes. For example, forced Prof. Steven Jones, a key academic investigator of 9/11, to withdraw from Scholars from 9/11 Truth, an organization that Fetzer then made his own.

        1. Thank you for your remarks. Keep in mind there’s little compelling evidence to uphold the official version of the Sandy Hook massacre either.

        2. Can we be so sure? Dr. Fetzer has published a detailed response to such assertions that is well worth reading, “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op,” jamesfetzer.blogspot.com,

  11. I just found this video & thought it was worth sharing . Apparently it is of some one with a camera at the firehouse that day in sandy hook being harrassed by several people ( the ever circling / aimlessly moving crowd that was there that day ) , except this person with a camera seemed to have a purpose but was not treated very well .,. i wish we could find this person as they seemed to have ‘mysteriously dissapeared’ – check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lv2WtaIxCg

    1. Interesting. One has to wonder what they were afraid would appear in a photo – maybe some of the ‘parents’ coming out of the apparent make-up trailer (a camper) that is off screen to the bottom?

    1. This is a bit odd. What is “the horse”? Does some arbitrary Israeli lefty represent Israel as a whole?

      Obviously not.

      Down below in this thread (I have no idea why comments in this blog are not posted chronologically), I point out that “anti-semitism” is a synonym for Jew-hatred. I did not weigh in to the surrounding questions raised in other postings, and don’t propose to do so now. The thing is such a hopeless quagmire I consider the conversation impossible to benefit from.

      That said, this silly video posting screams for comment.

      Whatever one thinks about Israeli politics, Israeli policy, or the history of the land of Israel, certain things must be understood.

      First, Israel has within it Jewish Israel-haters, just as America has within it America-haters. Think of an America-hater of your choice, and then watch a two minute Youtube of that odious traitor, and then ask yourself, “is this ‘from the horse’s mouth’ (the horse being America)? Of course not. Whether this woman hates Israel is not the point. She might be correct, and might not be, but that’s irrelevant. My point is that she’s not “the horse.” She is not Israel speaking, confessing its sins, as “conspiracy” so presumptuously asserts.

      Second, while the history of modern Israel is complex and full of evil, it is not undiluted evil. If this person is correct in her accusation, and the evil elements in Israel’s government defend their actions by falsely accusing their whistle-blowers of anti-semitism, what of it? That is, false accusations of Jew-hatred on the part of those who expose them is not disproof that Jew-hatred exists. It is just proof of cynicism on the part of Israel’s evil leadership. If they have found that it works well politically as a technique to shut up their opposition, we have a word for that in English: politics. Get over it.

      What it is NOT is proof that anti-semitism, Jew-hatred, is a myth. This video is worthless, if it is intended to prove that hatred of Israel is never an expression of anti-semitism. And certainly not worthy of the high standards Dr. Tracy has set for his site. IMHO.

  12. I must admit that this particular post and many of comments following it here are highly disappointing and disturbing to me. I first started reading this blog when the Sandy Hook school shooting story had numerous inconsistencies and unanswered questions. I admire Professor Tracy for not being so politically correct as to back down from what many are now questioning regarding the incident.

    But then, upon revisiting this site I see what seems to be (to me, at least) an unnecessary blog post topic that appears to have inadvertently spun out of control and ends up including a “blame the Jews” guest commentary that really had nothing to do with the original Sandy Hook topic.

    I don’t know if anyone is interested in reading my take on the anti-Zionism blathering going on and see the truth about Christian support for Israel and the biblical reasons for Zionism. But if you want to learn something please visit my blog Talk Wisdom: Refuting Anti-Zionism

    ~ Christine

Leave a Reply