An Open Letter to FAU Faculty, Staff and Administration about Sandy Hook 43

Updated February 24, 2013


Because James Tracy and I have been attacked as faculty members–I am now retired, while he is not–for speaking out about  Sandy Hook, I would observe that this is a very messy case and that serious questions are being raised about it from a wide range of perspectives.   It is clearly complex and controversial but also falls squarely within Dr. Tracy’s areas of professional competence, which include conspiracy theories and culture, malfeasance by the media and related issues. Tenure was created to protect faculty from the political consequences that might otherwise attend addressing complex and controversial matters of this very kind.

I am very surprised by some of the issues being raised, because, as is common knowledge within academic institutions, faculty NEVER speak for the institution, which is a role that is the exclusive prerogative of the institution’s ADMINISTRATION.  It would reflect well on FAU if your deans and other representatives of the institution were to DEFEND their faculty when they tackle complex and controversial issues like this one, not imply that they may be doing the institution harm.  It would be in the best interests of FAU and the public to stand up for academic freedom and for freedom of inquiry.

Not only that, but I have always assumed that public institutions such as FAU stand for truth, knowledge and justice as this nation’s highest values.  If that is not the case, then I would suggest that that really ought to be made known to prospective students and their parents.  Dr. Tracy is simply attempting to sort out the true from the false about an event that has now become of immense national interest, especially when a major movement is afoot to confiscate semi-automatic weapons from the general population, which is a stunning development contrary to our nation’s history.

Of course, it is difficult to assess a situation when you know very little about it.  There are lots of rumor and speculation, which has even affected the main-stream media.  I was astonished at the intensity with which Anderson Cooper of CNN, in particular, took after Dr. Tracy without knowing the circumstances of the case (apart from the “official account”) or why Dr. Tracy has the right kind of background and expertise to be addressing these issues in a public forum.  When I was attacked in The Duluth News-Tribune a few weeks ago, the paper offered me the chance to respond in its Sunday edition (13 January 2013):

Local view: Why the Sandy Hook shootings matter

By: Jim Fetzer, Duluth News Tribune

When asked whether he believed in conspiracy theories, filmmaker Michael Moore replied, “Only those that are true.” The problem is telling the difference.

Having spent much of the past 20 years in collaborative research on dark events (the JFK assassination, 9/11, Sen. Paul Wellstone’s death), Sandy Hook looks to me like part of an escalating series of covert operations designed to promote public hysteria to incite gun control and subvert the 2nd amendment. Here are some reasons why.

A theory is simply an interpretation of facts in a given case. When the police investigate a crime, they form a theory of the case. In courts of law, prosecutors and defense attorneys usually offer alternative interpretations. With Sandy Hook, figuring out what happened poses special challenges.

The facts are not obvious. There were inconsistencies from scratch. The suspect, Adam Lanza, was a student there; then he was not. His mother was a teacher there; then she was not. The principal called the local paper to report the shooting; then she was among the first to die.

The coroner reported all the dead were shot with a Bushmaster; then NBC News reported that four handguns had been found with the body and that the AR-15 had been left in the car. (Check out YouTube, “Sandy Hook shooting — AR-15 rifle was left in the car!”)

Even if Lanza, 20, had done some shooting, the ratio of kills to targets was remarkable. As a Marine Corps officer, I qualified with a .45 four years in a row and also supervised recruits of his age in their marksmanship training. I don’t see how he could have done it.

Police radio in real-time reported two suspects headed toward the officer calling in, one of whom was apprehended. The other was tracked into the woods, as police helicopter footage shows. We have no idea what became of these suspects. So what happened?

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.

I argue a three-man team entered the school. One was arrested in the school, cuffed and put on the lawn. Two went out a back door; one of them was arrested and the other apparently escaped.

Those arrested currently are not in police custody; their names were never released. That is a telling sign that we are being sold a story based on fiction rather than on fact.

Does anything else matter? Most Americans are unaware the Department of Homeland Security has acquired 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber, hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible during combat under the Geneva Conventions.

A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security has issued a study of 680 reports from “fusion centers” that integrate federal, state and local anti-terrorism efforts. It found no evidence of any domestic terrorist activity.

The absence of any terrorist threat and the existence of more than 300 FEMA camps and special boxcars to carry dissidents to them have been deliberately withheld from the public.

Since Homeland Security has no foreign commitments, those camps and ammunition have to be for domestic consumption. Homeland Security appears to be gearing up to conduct a civil war with the American people — but 80 million armed families stand in its way.

What better excuse could there be for banning assault weapons than the slaughter of 20 innocent children? Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has a gun control proposal that would lead to the confiscation of virtually every semi-automatic weapon in the nation.

That’s my interpretation of Sandy Hook.

Jim Fetzer reports for Veterans Today and is a McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

I recommended that the paper include a list of recommended reading, which it chose not to do.  Here was the list I had proposed:

“From America to Amerika: The End Game” by Jim Fetzer with Dennis Cimino

“Fusion and Fear in America:  The non-existent ‘terrorist threat'” by John W. Whitehead

“Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War” by Paul Joseph Watson and Alexander Higgins

On Sandy Hook specifically:

“The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” by James Tracy

“Sandy Hook: Huge Hoax and Anti-Gun ‘Psy Op'” by Jim Fetzer

“Sandy Hook:  Analogies with the London 7/7 bombings” by Nicholas Kollerstrom

Without studying the case, after all, how could anyone at FAU possibly know whether or not Dr. Tracy is acting responsibly?  After even more research I have conducted with Dennis Cimino, moreover, the situation is actually even worse–as a far more obvious hoax and fraud–than even I had previously surmised.  If you are going to read only one article about it, this is the one to read:

“The Nexus of Tyranny: The Strategy behind Tucon, Aurora, and Sandy Hook” by Dennis Cimino with Jim Fetzer

According to the Social Security Death Index, for example, Adam Lanza actually died the day before the shooting; according to ABC/NBC/CBS, only hand guns were found with his body; and my co-author, who is an expert in electronics, has discovered the CT Statewide Emergency Radio Network was manipulated before the event! That Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York encouraged the passage of draconian gun laws by the legislature over-night–admitting the public would not have stood for it–reflects how serious this has become.

As it happens, I have also done extensive research and publication on complex and controversial issues of comparable interest, including both the assassination of JFK and the atrocities of 9/11.  In those cases, as with Sandy Hook, what we have been told does not hold up to critical scrutiny.  How can academicians contribute to solving problems that the nation confronts if they are being intimidated and cowed by administrators who do not understand the role that the academy should fulfill within the broader context of scholars’ obligations and social responsibility?  Dr. Tracy deserves your support and admiration, not your condemnation.

With appreciation,


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

Veterans Today and I are both anti-Zionist but are not anti-Semitic.”


 (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.

About these ads


  1. I’m an academic who works in a neuromuscular research lab. You are not an academic, you are a hack. For me I am entitled to academic freedom for that is my pursuit. You however, are strongly rooted in conjecture, fear, and narcissm

    If I disagreed with you about the color of the sky it would not make it a controversy. Rather I would be an idiot. You are a moron and a disgrace to academia

Comments are closed.