Prof. Jim Fetzer
jamesfetzter.blogspot.com
The BBC has massively edited an interview with me to use me as an example of a “conspiracy theorist”, where they excluded most of the proof that I presented during a 40 minute interview and added a lot of poppycock psycho-babble about why people are predisposed to believe conspiracy theories regardless of logic and evidence, the significance of which they systematically ignore: for them, reason and rationality do not matter!
Here is a link where you can download the 18 minute program broadcast worldwide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kpvjf. If anyone finds it where I can embed it directly, please let me know. Contrast what they used with my previous, “Why I (Jim Fetzer) AM a “conspiracy theorist“, which I extracted from my pre-interview for the published BBC interview, because I made many more points about Sandy Hook, including on my banned book, NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and its thirteen (13) contributors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zim6dFLyPhQ
This is not my first go-around with the BBC, which came to my home years ago an interviewed me for eight (8) hours, then used 4.5 minutes in their first “Conspiracy Files” program on 9/11. They would return a couple of years later and interview me for another four (4) after I extracted a promise that they would give me somewhat more of a “fair shake”. I published about it here:
“The BBC’s Instrument of 9/11 Misinformation”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/09/bbcs-instrument-of-911-misinformation.html
But the BBC is far from the only major media outlet to publish propaganda and disinformation, including about Sandy Hook. Here are three examples about which I have recently published:
“Proof that The New York Times publishes Sandy Hook disinformation and propaganda”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/01/proof-that-new-york-times-publishes.html
“The Washington Post joints the Sandy Hook propaganda game”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-washington-post-joins-sandy-hook.html
Indeed, to my utter dismay, even The Chronicle of Higher Education has joined in:
“The Chronicle of Higher Education buckles to the ‘official account’ of Sandy Hook”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-chronicle-of-higher-education.html
Like so many other complex and controversial issues, if you have not actually done any research (on 9/11, JFK, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example), because the mainstream media is endlessly propagating the “official accounts” of these events, you are very likely to be taken in (as appears to be the case with one of our own).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6PdSoNXwlM
We must understand the phenomenon in order to be in the position to cope with it. While all of you know the score regarding the misrepresentation of the evidence in the case of JFK, what we have been told about 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing has been equally misleading. I encourage each of you to check it out for yourselves.
Reblogged this on Today,s Thought.
I uploaded it for you so you can embed the interview. http://charlesfrith.podomatic.com/entry/2016-03-11T05_58_37-08_00
Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
Well, now we know the BBC has joined the New York Times, Washington Post, and Chronicle of Higher Education in not just being curiously incurious and disinterested in the truth — notwithstanding their charge and responsibility to report the truth — but in actively burying the truth. And so they are all part of the establishment of The Power That Be.
‘…notwithstanding their charge and responsibility to report the truth…’
Why would a corporate entity care about ‘truth’? What does truth have to do with revenue?
Can you believe that the Zio-Nazi Press published a photo of the Boston Bombing Drill, depicting a photo of a fellow who supposedly had his lower legs destroyed. All he has on one leg is a single bone, that supposedly came loose and fell off on his wheelchair ride. I wonder if that is supposed to be his tibia, or his tibia. Seems to be I kind of remember that the lower legs of humans have TWO (2) bones going from below the knee to the ankle area. Not one single bone ONLY ! What did they say this jokers name was ? How many of our brave medical professionals have noticed this and reported it to the deluded populace ?
It’s tibia and fibula. Jeff Bauman performance has been covered extensively by Dr. Fetzer and others. Boston was the biggest joke hoax of all.
Would you believe they claimed 16 people had one or two limbs blown off. Several M.D.s and hospital administrators from Boston area hospitals were in on the crime. Spauling Rebilitation clinics and in-patient rehabilitation facilities in Boston area were major participants in the hoax.
You don’t put a person who has just had both legs blown off sitting upright in a wheel chair. They bleed to death in under two minutes.
Change
Spauling Rebilitation
to
Spaulding Rehabilitation
The BBC introduced the documentary “Surviving Sandy Hook” last year… featuring several of the families and parties involved in the event. It was, to say the least, more mainstream media propaganda.
I tried to find a link to the documentary, but it seems to have disappeared. Interesting… Can’t help but wonder if all the negative observations in the comment section had something to do with that.
I was expecting this to be such a hit piece. But I thought Fetzer came off as very sound and reasonable.
Regardless it is interesting to observe how the MSM portrays those who reject the official narrative, and why they do it. Not ironic that the exact same logic they use to denigrate ‘conspiracy theorist’ applies to those who only believe MSM.
Funny, only about 12 hours ago (prior to this Fetzer article’s publication), I commented in the next most recent topic here at MHB pointing to this BBC show & remarking in part:
“[…] Fetzer holds his own pretty well overall… if BBC wanted a ‘proper slant’ taken home by listeners, I’d say they failed– it was a wash at best. […]”
http://memoryholeblog.com/2016/03/08/exclusive-an-interview-with-fired-professor-james-tracy/#comment-109436
I’ll add, notice in BBC’s written description of this show, how they describe the 3 guests: “Mike Williams talks to a psychologist, a Professor of Political Science and a conspiracy theorist as he attempts to separate fact from fiction.” Gee, the first 2 establishment tools there to skool listeners about the biases & psychosis afflicting CT-ists; meanwhile Fetzer, despite his Ivy League education & impressive professor emeritus resume/CV, he merely gets the “conspiracy theorist” label. Although granted, his background was recited in the show.
Doh! I see JF first published this article Tue Mar 8:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-bbc-edits-our-interview-to-attack.html
^ with 9 reader comments at the moment.
Regardless I’ll add, noting how I already said how I thought Dr. Fetzer came off well even after BBC’s attempt to edit their original 40 minute interview to present their desired slant; doesn’t JF know by now to audio/video record his own copy of the totality of his interviews for these predictable hit pieces by now? Then he could respond to BBC’s finished slanted products/hit-pieces with full evidence of their biased editing, to accompany these JF articles grieving about how he was gypped…again! Reminding me a bit of Charlie Brown, Lucy, & the football:
http://bartbeaty.ucalgaryblogs.ca/files/2013/04/Charlie-Brown.jpg
“doesn’t JF know by now to audio/video record his own copy of the totality of his interviews for these predictable hit pieces by now? Then he could respond to BBC’s finished slanted products/hit-pieces with full evidence of their biased editing, to accompany these JF articles grieving about how he was gypped…again! Reminding me a bit of Charlie Brown, Lucy, & the football:”
I have to say that I was thinking the exact same thought. For many years, Dr. Fetzer has been guests on several mainstream news shows and every single time, he has been flim-flammed. (Dr. Kevin Barret, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and a host of other conspiracy researchers have received like treatment. Curiously, Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have few or no interviews by the USA MSM that I know of so we cannot say if they would have received the same treatment as the others. I bet they were not to be criticized and that is why they had to avoid having them as show guests as the special treatment would have been noticed. I did see Gage on one talk show on TV in England and he was treated with kid gloves .)
Many if not most of us here are way beyond reacting to and expressing outrage at mainstream media anymore. Any dealing with them by our main researchers and reporters ought only to be for the purpose of exposing their constant egregious lies.
while I don’t share your revulsion towards Gage/AE911Truth.org; Gage did have a major C-Span: Washington Journal interview 1-2 years ago, which I heard it touted was the most viewed C-Span: WJ youtube segment ever; it’s 40 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec
However C-Span isn’t exactly the kosher-dinosaur MSM (which includes BBC) so any comparisons don’t really work. Plus even the MSM has to play their bias game differently when a guest (who they want to smear) is live in studio, vs MSM’s options when they’re cherry picking bits from a longer interview as we saw in this BBC conspiracy theory hit piece.
Check out this 12 minute C-Span WJ compilation of 9/11 Truth callers, lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnVZovV5dyw
Let’s not ever forget that “Conspiracy Theorists” used to be called “Researchers” back in the day prior to the Kennedy Assassination. For 60 some years now CT has been a term of derision, used to make the less intelligent not look into matters. But nowadays, CT mostly means “people who question the stories of known liars”. And we got tons of known liars these days, that’s for sure.
Friend of Sandy Hook Sister thinks Something is Strange.
He claims Noah was NOT a Twin!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcF0TdS-s3A
[…] Source: BBC Edits Interview to Attack “Conspiracy Theorists” […]
BBC have to keep a ‘ lid on it ‘.. it wouldn’t help their cause, which is to keep their viewers dumbed down not to listen to some ‘conspiricy theorist ‘.. I don’t like that term, they made that term., I am now wondering why they invited him on the show.did they want to show him as normal person who is activly seeking as to why the BBC keeps refering to Sandy Hook as if it happened.?. The BBC should take a good look at it’s own guidlines, it breaks them quite regular..
James a great SHE video I just posted vanished.
Guy claims he knew Noah’s sister and he wasn’t a Twin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcF0TdS-s3A
He was “Targeted” after this video almost as James was.
The last 3 mins or so of video.
Thanks, Ric. Good job digging this up.
This poor guy gets targeted by the usual suspects, but I’m so inspired that he’s been radicalized by the experience. Regular people like this, who are drawn in by circumstance, are a big hope for the future of truth.
Here’s his (Shawn Fox’s) youtube channel where you can read the comments addressed to him.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuvmrMRkKFOJrB6BBvXW34g
Shawn Fox1 year ago
noah doesn’t have a twin sister. i’ve heard so many stories but that but noah has twin sisters Ariel and Sophia i believe, but noah isn’t a twin.
WOW
Yes Ric, great find. I watched the whole video and think he’s totally credible. His assertion that Noah doesn’t have a twin helped clear things up in my own head…there seemed to be too many kids in that family.
Wasn’t Danielle portrayed as some sort of social media whiz early on? I remember reading tweets from her about how her mom (Véronique) only had time for her new boyfriend (Lenny?). They were hardly the Brady Bunch, that’s for sure.
And thank you, Toni, for the link to his YouTube channel.
Ric, I know you are sincere and you have reason to believe this video’s contents, however, my spidey sense meter just went off.
“Guy claims he knew Noah’s sister and he wasn’t a Twin”
I am very leery of any article or video that revolves around somebody, who has a friend who is a friend of…, or has a relative who has a friend of a relative of…, etc… one of the parents or victims of the event.
I am not going to view this video because I believe this kind of video COULD be a very powerful disinformation vehicle. If it is done well, I might even be fooled or at least have no way of verifying or knowing anything about the sources of the info involved and not able to come to a decision about it. There are literally hundreds of such disinfo videos out there on all the false events of the last half century, and many of them are produced in very sophisticated and convincing ways.
It may be that this video is to tell us that since Noah’s sister was real, that Noah was real too. The info that Noah’s sister says she is not Noah’s twin is not very earth shattering info but it does validate that there exists a real sister of the real person, Noah, and there is a real person out there who made a video of his experience in speaking with Noah’s sister.
And to really solidify the disinfor or misinfo, it is always great to have a targeted truth teller who experience “pain and suffering” for being for coming forth bravely with the truth. (I call this the “martyr” schtick and Alex Jones and several others have been feigning being persecuted and targeted for at least ten years. It pumps up their credibility enormously.
Here is another video I think is in the same vein of what I am trying to describe. Here, Dr. Rima Laibow tells us about her being Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist and her treating a thousand “Adam Lanzas” in her 30 plus year psychiatry practice in Connecticut. After listening to the video, most of it anyway, it seems that her main message is the evil of psychotropic drugs, especially for children and teen agers. Dr. Laibow also mentions how she experienced legal difficulty and had to fight hard to allow her to take the patients off of all the psychotropic drugs. (The martyr schtick) The title of the video is a bit misleading because you have to listen to almost the halfway point to see her actually claim to have been the real Adam Lanza’s personal doctor.
I would mention that Dr. Laibow is the wife of General Albert Stubblebine and both of them were featured regularly on the radio network of Stew Webb, http://www.vtnradio.com, that Dr. Fetzer does not seem to be heavily involved with anymore though he was at first.
I am Adam Lanza’s Doctor – Rima E. Laibow, MD
Connect the blots… Psychiatry’s Hidden Plan: Destroy Liberty
96,938
Published on Dec 21, 2012
…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHlQlWhHg2c…
http://www.facebook.com/ConnectTheBlo…
“I am a Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatrist. I did my psychiatric residency at Lincoln Hospital and, along with my child psychology residency, also at St. Luke’s Hospital of Columbia University.
I have worked with Autistic people of all ages, the Asberger’s Syndrome people, Schrizophrenic people, BiPolar people, Multiple Personality Disorder people, OCD, ADD, ADHD, and pretty much every other type of labeled person in my 42+ year career since graduating from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.
And I have never written a prescription for a psychiatric drug. Or any other type of drug, for that matter.”
I have long held suspicions that the Bert and Rima Schtick is directly connected with our darkside intelligence network. They seem to be big whistleblowers and truth tellers but there is something always seriously askew about their disclosures.
Dachsie, I get what you’re saying, but it’s worth a watch nonetheless, if only to be able to discuss its contents. I agree, the “friends of friends of Sandy Hook” angle has been used to death, but this is different, if only because I’d expect far more of these to have surfaced.
I heard the Rima Laibow show you mention. I don’t recall her claiming to have treated Adam (are you sure she did? That would be outrageous.); I thought she was aping the “I’m Adam Lanza’s Mother” pieces that were popping up here and there. But maybe you’re right (I really don’t want to listen to it again!). I’m not a fan of hers, either, and I, too, am very suspicious of both her and Stubblebine. I was disgusted by the story of how they met (told during an interview she and Stubblebine gave jointly with, maybe, Jan Irvin?): they were both slated to speak at some conference, and so she called him out of the blue for a ride from the airport. Though they’d never met (and though he was married), he agreed. When she laid eyes on him for the first time, she threw herself into his arms and kissed him deeply. They’ve been inseparable since. (That’s the story.) When they were telling the story, she was as giddy as a schoolgirl, and he just sounded dazed. Gross.
“I agree, the “friends of friends of Sandy Hook” angle has been used to death, but this is different, if only because I’d expect far more of these to have surfaced.”
I have seen several of these types of “bombshell” disclosure videos on YT over the years where they pretend to be conveying some big new info but in reality it subtly reinforces the official story. I guess I just do not like any story that assumes or it is subtly understood that Adam was real and his sister was real and someone personally knew the sister in the town where they all went to the same schools.
I jotted down some track numbers when I was listening to that Raibow video and found my scratch notes
one track number was 7:50
and the second one was 11:25 and I think it was at that point on the video, a little less than halfway through, where I interpreted what she said to be that Adam was her personal patient. I also heard a little later on the video that she counseled Nancy Lanza during Adam’s treatment.
I would not listen again but you may want to check out those two points on the track. It is possible I misinterpreted her words.
Glad someone else besides me has suspicions about the Bert and Rima show.
Many years ago John Hammel of http://iahf.com/ who was fighting against codex alimentarius and was a big advocate for health freedom and over the counter access to health supplements, wrote a few pieces exposing Rima Laibow and her very subversive tactics. She was claiming to be fighting over on the European scene of the main part of the fight against Codex A., but he showed very well that she was actually fighting FOR the thing she claimed to be fighting against. You may be still able to access those articles. I was very impressed with his analysis of her antics.
Since you didn’t see the video, this college-age kid says that he knew–was rather close to–Danielle Vaber (VP’s daughter by a previous marriage) during the time of the SHS. The young man actually seems to side with those of us who question the event, and claims to have been harassed after the release of his initial video (I think he taped and uploaded it late 2014 or early 2015).
He didn’t have any zingers, but alleges that Noah wasn’t the twin, but Arielle and Sophia were the twins (which supports my original impressions). However, most news sources say that Noah and Arielle were the twins (they also say SH happened), so who knows. But he certainly doesn’t support the official narrative, anyway.
Good find re: your notes! I can’t always find my WALLET! ?
He seems sincere, but the part about how Danielle lived with her dad and they were broke does not wash with the following:
http://www.intelius.com/people/Reuben-Vabner/06kss2mgcdp#work
Thanx for the post,
but I personally didn’t think it added much,
nor did I find him convincing,
rubbing that balm all over his lips I couldn’t tell if he was looking for a date with Madonna or Justin Bieber (not that there’s that much difference)
The BBC “has joined”? What makes us think they’ve not been joined all along?
This comment was meant as reply to Dr. Eowyn.
I have only one thought (and I haven’t even bothered to listen to the interview yet). WHY would Prof. Fetzer grant the BBC an interview? Did he think he’d get a fair shake?
If I were Fetzer, I would invite the BBC experts to a live debate on the issue. The donations from the attendees could be donated to the favorite charity of the debate’s winner.
They would NEVER agree to a free and open debate. How could they? There is no rational defense for their position.
The BBC interviewer appears to know his job. The broadcast is assuredly a piece of propaganda, but packaged cleverly enough to sound like fair reporting to even very intelligent people who have not done any serious conspiracy research.
This indirectly shows one limitation of activism on conspiracies of grand obfuscation. With almost all sources of information–not only the western mass media but just about all institutions all around the globe–firmly aligned behind the cover story, it is very difficult to reach out to people who are not already predisposed toward skepticism, and it is almost impossible through an agency, like the BBC, committed to the censorship..
The only conspiracy talk that BBC listeners may be able to grasp, from a skilled interviewee, may be about Building 7. Not the controlled demolition, mind you, but the BBC and other media’s worldwide failure to duly bring to the public’s attention the extraordinary spontaneous, rapid and complete disintegration of a skyscraper by an office fire.
Love,
The BBC provided an uncritical sounding board for the British intelligence report, trumpeted by Tony Blair in 2002, stating that Iraq could hit the UK in 45 minutes with a WMD. BBC went into damage control mode in explaining Blair’s “Weapon of Mass Deception” only after the Iraq invasion turned up ZERO proof to support that government’s “conspiracy theory”.
Rt tv has excellent talk shows, such as ‘Worlds Apart’; Sophie&Co and Crosstalk. I suggest that James Fetzer request the program makers for an interview. He will get a fair hearing. Rt. (Russia To-day) now attracts a world wide audience comparable with CNN and BBC.
In one of my comments on ‘World Apart’ with Oskana Boyko, I recently suggested to include 9/11 as a topic of debate.
While still an above-average outlet, RT is not quite what it once was.
One could think of a number of pragmatic reasons that would preclude RT from covering false flags in depth:
The Russian apartment building bombings
The murder of RT founder in a D.C. hotel room
The poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko with nuclear byproduct waste
The mysterious deaths of both anti-Kremlin journalists and oligarchs
The imprisonment and expropriation of assets of oligarchs to the Russian Federation (usually allies of the main party who fell out of favor with the Kremlin).
Why would a state-sponsored outlet air anything that didn’t benefit the state? That goes for American media as well as foreign. True, RT doesn’t benefit the US, but it doesn’t benefit us, either.
Why WOULD it?
There is a new cold war, and the Kremlin is aware that the permanent adversarial minority is growing in America, and that America is becoming more polarized by the day. RT programming uses truth about America, not propaganda as our politicians state, to illuminate the growing anti-establishment trends here. Russians are much more politically united, and America has not had a President nearly as popular as Putin since Reagan. The political backstory includes America’s reactionary response to Russia’s actions within its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine, Syria, etc.). This colder war is exponentially costlier to America’s Western European allies in terms of money, energy security, and the specter of actual military conflict. However, as America’s military misadventures in the Mideast have caused a migration crisis, unseen in modern European history, this is exemplary of America being able to empty its septic tank and have it wash up on other countries shores. There is little blowback for America for most of its military misadventures, only the cost of its military machine.
That being said, Russia has many deficits in its handling of boarder skirmishes (e.g., Georgia), handing of political critics particularly in the press and by industry leaders. Russia also has used false flags to impose controls using terrorism as a pretext (e.g., the Russian apartment building bombings). In a sense, Russia’s own shortcomings make it a potential political blackmail target by VOA, etc. While I enjoy RT’s examination of America, I realize that the Russians own political machinations at home hamstring the journalism of RT to a great extent.
Fair enough. I appreciate your explanation, and I know you’re savvy enough to watch any media with a critical eye. I worry about those who think RT is independent journalism (and many do). It most certainly is not independent or agenda-free, though a greater percentage of its stories may contain a greater number of facts than, say, CNN or FOX News.
Because, Recynd, RT tells truths about US power that the American media doesn’t. Just as the US media would tell truths about Russian power that the Russian media doesn’t. Unfortunately, after a while, they tend to mellow out, to increase their readership to the less critical.
RT can be useful at times because frankly, all they have to do to embarrass the Zionist running DC is to tell the truth
I have to wonder what is taught in journalism school. It seems like journalists are very well trained on what not to report. They seem to have a very hierarchical view of knowledge. What matters not not what makes sense, but rather, what the most important person is telling them is true. Pundits repeatedly state that their editors tell them to never look at the comments for an article. Why? It must be because top-down control is the number-one priority of our elites. They want information, opinion, and control to always flow from the top down. Anyone out there in the peanut gallery is to be ignored at any cost. I have a hunch that this is what is really taught in journalism school.
The commenters on internet news sites actually expand the content when they are not scrubbed or filtered. Controversial comments that fall outside the limited range of acceptable debate are routinely scrubbed from the full spectrum of left to right internet news sites.
It seems to me that James Tracy would be the best one to answer that question in this forum. He would know best what is taught to journalism students.
Is that right, Absorbine; editors tell journalists not to look at the comments on their articles? I don’t get that impression on the internet blogs, although some, like the Inforwar comments are really awful. But I get the impression some comments are taken seriously on the internet blogs. I read the comments more carefully than the columns to find out what people are thinking. And editors and journalists don’t?
They have to read the comments quickly so they can remove whatever information might leak that is under media blackout or otherwise offensive to the government.
I am talking about corporate news and opinion sites.
This is what happens when good people like Professor Fetzer show any respect for the BBC. In post-war England, the BBC was George Orwell’s stuffy muse.
A friend had recently suggested I watch a BBC documentary about Orwell, 1984 and Room 101. Orwell had been an employee at the BBC. Some speculate that room 101 where Orwell had worked was the inspiration for the Room 101 of 1984. The presenter either doesn’t understand the irony or hopes the audience won’t see it.
The BBC may soon reach a point in which it can ONLY necessarily produce reports that have no legitimate purpose but to whitewash its past. A statistician with expertise in probability could ‘probably’ figure it all out. Maybe Kurzweil will give it a go? 😉
The BBC was created to be the propaganda arm of the british government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zim6dFLyPhQ
Here Jim. You can embed this link.
I think very soon there will be some sort of reconciliation that features neo-Nuremberg type trials of not only direct players like Bush, Cheny and Rumsfeld, but (especially) the perps in the mainstream media ranging from Lush Limpbraut to Rachel Maddow.
Those responsible for the current BBC lie machine will surely be included.
They are all complicit in the truly amazing contemporary propaganda infrastructure – one of the highest order – that would make Joseph Goebbels’ red armband turn green with envy.
Hat’s off to them. But I think they are also in danger. Smart people in media are bowing out. It’s why the righteous players at MSNBC have fled like rats leaving a sinking ship for the past five years. They know the deal and they don’t want to be strung up for complicity.
Others like Limpbraut, O’Reilly and Hannity are going down with the ship. Can’t wait to watch them squirm.
I’m guessing a lot of folks now employed in the current propaganda machine share my sympathies.
I look forwards in my waning days to seeing them all answering questions on the dockets at The Hague.
The moral of the story is the supporting casts needs to get out now. It’s all going down, big time. That includes all the currently clueless folks charged with monitoring and reporting on Internet commentary like this.
To those I say, be cool but run like the wind at the earliest opportunity.
The first in line at the guillotine will be the supporting cast thrown under the bus.
Then they’ll get to the higher levels.
The trick is not to be the first in line at the lower levels.
War is dangerous at the beginning and at the end.
We should never comply with a request from the MSM for an interview.
I received an email from a Christopher Kummer, an independent journalist working for Swiss newspaper . He said he was working on an article about Conspiracy theories and it was going to balance views from Michael Shermer with that of a AE911TRUTH signatorie. I wisely erased his email without answering it. Do let yourself be provoked. If you feel the need to defend our view, put the record straight, it won’t work. The next day, Kummer’s article apeared in several Swiss newspapers on page 2. My reputation would have been destroyed.
Fetter, and anyone else who would subject themselves to the mainstream Zio-Nazi Media and expect a fair shake… You are out of your minds and you should know it by now. What’s the matter with you, are you suckers for punishment, or what ? Haven’t you learned from the early days after 911 with the Bill O”ArseHole show ? Do you really think that the Zio-Nazis care a wit about what the obvious truth is ? All they care about is their twisted version of reality. John 8:44, you just can’t get around it. There is NO TRUTH in them. And they delight in showing you to be the foolish “Conspiracy Theorist”. The Average IQ of Americans is 100, which means that more than 50% are below 100, in moron mode. They lap up the swill on TV just like pigs lap up slop in the mud corrall. They are totally incapable of understanding the fine points you try to get across, and can only sit back and let the tube tell them what to think. The message gets streamed into their eyes and ears and they are totally incapable of thinking for themselves. They haven’t got the brains God gave a goose and their heads are filled with their “Cognitive Dissonance”. They will never, ever understand. Spend your time on the alternative media, that’s where the more intelligent people go.
John 8:44New International Version (NIV)
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
I haven’t read this in a long time,
I don’t think I truly understood the meaning of this until I started studying geopolitics, and specifically, started musing about the phenomena of politicians, leaders etc., who have the ability to stand before crowds and make the most profound lies; people that are guilty of mass murder, torture, causing world wars for profit, causing the burning alive of whole cities, when militarily there is NO justification, the enslavement of millions of people, sex slaves, theft of nations wealth, money, gold, manchurian candidates….
Most people do not have the ability to lie like this, and cannot understand or believe other people can do horrendous crimes and convincingly deceive others,
but is important for people to firmly embrace this concept, in this day of lies and disinformation-anyone in a position of great power must be thoroughly vetted and their history studied-not what they say, but what they do
Sun out.
Since my two comments on this article of yesterday morning were never posted, thought I would try one more time.
No discussion of how the term, conspiracy theory, came into use as the weapon of choice.
Here is the 1967 CIA instructions to media assets.
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
”
CIA Document 1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
CIA Document #1035-960
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results. …”SNIP
Fetzer DID try to explain the genesis of the term “Conspiracy Theories”, but it was pooh-pooh’d and dismissed liked everything else he said.
The BBC’s piece really WAS offensive. I’m not a huge fan of Dr. Fetzer, but I think he was in top form for this interview.
Our controllers have very sophisticated deep knowledge of human nature and how humans tend to react to certain speech, and how we “Americans” and “Christian Americans” tend to be repulsed by the very word “conspiracy.”
The dictionary definition is simple and straightforward.
A “conspiracy” is “an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act”.
I believe Dr. Fetzer has quoted the essentially identical dictionary definition of “conspiracy” in more than one article and possible in this BBC interview.
Now the operative word in that definition is “subversive.” The word “subversive” calls up the word “secret” as JFK rightly reminded us.
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.”
There are several verses in the bible that deal with conspiracy.
“The Hebrew word for conspiracy is qesher. It has to do with a confederacy, conspiracy, treason, and unlawful alliance. For example:
• Absalom had a conspiracy to promote himself as king (2 Samuel 15).
• Zimri conspired to kill the king (1 Kings 16).
• The servants of Joash formed a conspiracy to kill the king, and they struck him down (2 Kings 12).
The Lord accused His people of forming a conspiracy to disobey Him.
Again, this is no mere theory or possibility. The King of heaven saw it and informed His prophet Jeremiah about it:
The LORD said to me, “A conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They have turned back to the iniquities of their ancestors who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers.” Therefore thus says the LORD, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them. Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal. Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster” (Jeremiah 11:9-14 NASB). ”
Source of above quote…
http://onecry.com/national-revival/conspiracy-theories
The media assets, the Sunstein and Sunstein’s early mentors of 1967 when CIA schemes to squelch investigations of JFK assassination as a conspiracy, do not care about conspiracies being part of America and human life on earth from the beginning of time. THEY only care about exploiting the word’s power to manipulate and control and to hide truth.
As Dr. Fetzer has oft stated, the official explanation of 9/11 events involve a conspiracy theory, where we are told that a group of Muslims had conspired to bring about a large-scale tragedy against the American people.
People innately understand in their hearts that conspiracies are against truth and that not openly facing, studying, exposing and dealing with conspiracies has to power to destroy the rule of law, our country, and ultimately our individual eternal souls.
Great post,
I recently purchased a book that investigates the use of the term “conspiracy theory” and found that it came into widespread use AFTER the Warren Report came out, so many people openly questioning the findings,
it’s part of the PsyOps used in our society to alter our perception, other terms like “holocaust, “anti-semite, Department of Defense (it is a department of modern WAR!), undocumented aliens, democracy”
our LANGUAGE (and by extension audio/video media) contains the essence of who we are as a society,
and the manipulation of this “technology” we developed over hundreds of thousands of years alters our perception, and therefore everything you think you know about society and life around you
It is well worth reading (or re-reading) the whole CIA document; thanks for yet another solid piece of evidence of our manipulation.
Speaking of the CIA, there is a terrific podcast, available on iTunes and the GnosticMedia website, called “Celebrity Chefs: Weird Scenes Inside the Kitchen” (episode 246), named after Dave McGowan’s book about music: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/gnostic-media/id405186177?mt=2&i=364657563
It’s long (about an hour and a half), but John Adams (the interviewee) brings a really fresh and interesting perspective to the CIA’s involvement in culture creation. Very interesting!
The drive to define ‘conspiracy theorists’ as ‘mentally ill’ gets a lot of momentum from the british government:
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/elites-link-anti-government-thought-to-mental-illness-lay-groundwork-for-incarceration/
Excellent comments under the article… The con artists calling skeptics ‘ill’ (notice the avoidance of the word ‘disease’ which more rigorously requires actual scientific proof) are the true conspiracy theorists. They assert that nature conspires against us by disabling our bodies even when they are at their most efficient and pristine. They theorize without any evidence whatsoever. Maybe fantasists is the more apt term.
The “experts” never did explain about the conspiracies we KNOW have happened throughout history, did they? They just bushed off all conspiracy speculation as misinterpreted “accidents”.
This BBC piece, like so much in the media, is not meant to inform, but to create impressions in a distracted populace.
The BBC like all its MSM brethren is not a honourable institution and this should have been understood by Fetzer before agreeing to do an interview. Whether or not he could have insisted on editorial rights before broadcasting to the unsuspecting public is another question. Be that as it may even with sympathetic media coverage the final product is very often not what was intended by the originating party as reporters too often just get it wrong in a headlong rush to create product. Hopefully the lesson is learned.
Truthers do interviews on mainstream media all the time,
it does allow at least some of the message to go out to millions of people,
it does not mean the person being interviewed has been co-opted, or doesn’t understand they are up against the propaganda machine,
takes a lot of balls to stand up like this:)
I’m sure the whip-smart Jim Fetzer knew exactly what he was going to face from his BBC interview.
Jim can handle himself, never fear.
The BBC………..those that hid the likes of Jimmy Saville……..you know that conspiracy!!
Well we have truthers getting fined and going to jail for so called “holcaust denial” [which of course is part of the Zionist tyrrany of control to block people from questioning this hoax, and other Zionist concoctions in public]
now American politicians are introducing legislation to fine people for so called “climate change denial”
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 9, 2016 on Department of Justice (DOJ) operations, Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged there have been discussions within the DOJ about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called “climate change” deniers.
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/03/11/obama-administration-discussed-taking-civil-action-against-climate-change-deniers/
It is also a real bait and switch as climate change is not caused by carbon emission but the heating of the sun and the entire solar system for that matter. The polar axis has also been moving quite rapidly lately and is causing ice caps to be exposed to more sunlight.
https://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/thawing-permafrost-the-speed-of-coastal-erosion-in-eastern-siberia-has-nearly-doubled-arctic-methane-released-at-blinding-speed-climate-change-core-of-earth-heats-up/
Yes, I’ve heard that moons on other planets are showing signs of warming/melting, demonstrating warming is a solar event;
did you see that Obama recently gave $500,000,000 to foreign interests for climate change? (This is what we elect our president to do for our interests, give our children away in debt)
Then again, no sentient individual would have had any illusions about Obama’s choice of Loretta Lynch as AG and why he put in a totally sold out individual as AG.
DOJ- degenerate ossified jurisprudence. It has a catchy ring to it.
I listened to the program. Pretty typical BBC radio; gentle, inoffensive. The psychologists seem fond of using the rather dubious “Intentionality Bias”
While this would appear to be the “go-to” theory to explain a predisposition to conspiracy theory, there are some simple psychological factors they omit.
The first is of course “evidence”.
The second is that, conversely, psychology also takes account of those who choose to ignore evidence in order to maintain a comfortable world view.
It comes in the form of Maladaptive Coping Mechanisms such as Avoidance Coping
There is far more psychological research into this area and it would seem to be the more prevalent and predominant social disorder.
It is essentially when when carry into adulthood sticking our fingers in our ears and making a loud noise.
There is more ego associated with this position. It is often seen in the form of alcohol and drug abuse but is equally evident in religion and academic arrogance.
If those attacking conspiracy theories want to play in the psychology ball-pond they will very quickly find themselves hoisted by their own petard.
Perhaps it is time to bring a well recognized psychologist on-board to explain this to his/her peers.
[…] 6) BBC Edits Interview to Attack “Conspiracy Theorists” http://memoryholeblog.com/2016/03/11/bbc-edits-interview-to-attack-conspiracy-theorists/ […]