Empire of Mass Illusions

fetzerOn this week’s Real Politik we speak with Prof. Jim Fetzer about his recent termination at Veterans Today and his new volume And I Suppose We Didn’t Go to the Moon Either? The Beatles, the Holocaust, & Other Mass Illusions, co-edited with Mike Palacek and featuring chapters by Fetzer, Jim Marrs, Jay Weidner, Thomas Dalton, Zen Gardner, and several others. Fetzer is the Distinguished Knight Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at University of Minnesota Duluth.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he has authored and edited 30 books on the philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and analyses of American political conspiracies, including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the plane crash of Senator Paul Wellstone, and the events of September 11, 2001. Fetzer is a regular contributor at Veterans Truth Network and hosts The Real Deal at Media Broadcasting Central, with older audio files at radiofetzer.blogspot.com Additional writings and information are available at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com



Interview Highlights

We begin the interview by discussing Prof. Fetzer’s recent departure from Veterans Today, where he had been an associate editor since 2011. Fetzer had a falling out with VT director Gordon Duff concerning the overall nature of the Jade Helm military exercises taking place in the summer of 2015. “I’d published 150 articles by about six weeks ago, around the first of May,” Fetzer notes,

when I was dismissed from Veterans Today for publishing about Jade Helm. In retrospect, I’m convinced Gordon has been using VT to manage veteran attitudes about events. He was unhappy to have another former marine, Robert O’Dowd, publish about Jade Helm. [Duff] added an editor’s note to minimize the significance of what O’Dowd was asking about Jade Helm. When I published an article a couple of days later defending O’Dowd and criticizing Duff for intervening, he added an even more caustic editor’s note. But nevertheless after the first hour it had over 600 views. It was obvious it was going to go to number one, which I even observed to my wife.

So Gordon, seeing the handwriting on the wall, took it down. He subsequently published several articles minimizing the threat of Jade Helm, suggesting it’s nothing but a routine training drill involving nothing but National Guard troops and merely 1,200, all of which is provably false. And I have published on this among others, in an article entitled, “Gordon Duff: Covering for Jade Helm and the Boston Bombing,” because I noticed immediately, when on the following day he took me out of Veterans Today, that he’d removed all four of my most recent articles about the Boston bombing, each of which blew the case apart. The entire thing is a fraud … I’ve subsequently continued to publish on my own blog and on Veterans Truth Network.

In relation to the Boston bombing the most significant article being, “THEY DIDN’T DO IT: Maret Tsarnaev Blows Apart the Boston Show Trial,” where Maret was the aunt of the two men who were accused of complicity in the event. I learned from her that even the footage of the two boys at the Marathon was fake because Tamerlan was shown clean-shaven in the footage, but he actually had a beard at the time. I asked her to substantiate it, which she did with proof after proof after proof.

Also, I point out in this same article how Tamerlan was taken into police custody. He was stripped naked and put in to a police car, widely broadcast at the time, and subsequently he is found dead and his brother is claimed to have done it. But how could his brother have done it once Tamerlan is in police custody?

Fetter explains how the idea for the new volume, And I Suppose We Didn’t Go to the Moon, Either? was largely the invention of Mike Palacek. “This came from the creative genius of Mike Palacek,” Fetter explains,

who’s published about 20 books of his own. Mike is kind of a homespun version, kind of a Will Rogers type, who represents genuine Americana. He has a way of looking at the world that is so totally down to earth, and I recommend all of his works.

He wanted to do a series. Initially he was struck by the fact that Kevin Barrett and I had this radio show called, The Dynamic Duo, which lasted a year-and-a-half on Genesis. We subsequently collaborated on many events. Today we’re The False Flag Weekly News together, which I highly recommend on No Lies Radio …

[Palacek] published a book entitled, The Dynamic Duo: White Rose Blooms in Wisconsin, named after this German group that had sought to resist imposition of fascism on Germany, which was very flattering. It turned out to be an enormous thing–the size of a phone book! When Mike proposed doing sequels about Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, about the moon landing and even the Holocaust, and then eventually about 9/11, I was eager to do it, and to become involved as an editor. He proposed the title for the series, which is “Save the World, Resist the Empire.”

A tireless pursuer and analyst of media disinformation, one of Prof. Fetzer’s most notable recent articles is titled, “James H. Fetzer – Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia BUSTED!

171 thoughts on “Empire of Mass Illusions”

  1. Paul McCartney looks like Stanley Dunham check it out they are identical actually just google McCartney and Dunham and judge for yourself.

    1. Nope. My father looked like Paul McCartney in his own youth, and now my brother does. Your basic Celtic features – High eyebrows, big eyes baby face – slightly weak jawline. Dunham does not have that look in my opinion – though you can see Barack inherited his longish face.

    2. I’ve always been mildly fascinated with this substitution. I think there is no doubt that it happened. I’m not so sure about the “death”. I’ve heard a number of variations. I suppose most think he would have had to die rather than simply walk away.

      All of the evidence I’ve seen leads me to the conclusion that Faul is the substitute for the former Paul. The rest is fuzzier. There was a roadie who supposedly had a book in the can about this and was killed in LA by the cops. Allegedly no one ever found the manuscript.

      I believe, like Fetzer, that if they could pull this off at the peak of their popularity in front of millions, their confidence must have grown in regard to other hoaxes in the works.

      The Beatles were a 100% manufactured phenomenon. Don’t get me wrong, I love their music, but the whole production was controlled in the most extreme way possible. Whether that was due to the genius of Epstein or someone else is questionable.

      Everything they did, said, wore or played influenced youth the world over. Jim’s comments on touring are worthy of study. No promoter would voluntarily resign from touring at the peak of his band’s popularity. It doesn’t make sense, or money.

      As far as the “death” goes, I haven’t seen anything yet that seals that for me. He could have either gotten fed up (it would be understandable), or they may have killed him. This would be an aspect of this mystery worth pursuing.

  2. “I suppose next you will say we didn’t go to the moon, like your grandfather !” Know how many times I heard that growing up? Pretty much any time my Dad thought I said something far fetched. He said it about 101 times over the years. On number 102, something broke loose in my mind and i decided to look into the moon landings; without thinking there was any merit to the idea we did not go. I was shocked by what I learned. When I found out how many photos were taken without any being out of focus or poorly composed, that was the first crack in the armor. With my modern Nikon with auto focus, I still get plenty out of focus shots while being well composed. But I am looking right down the barrel of the lens. When I found out the astronauts had no auto focus and could not look through a view finder… I knew there was something to the story

    1. Normally thousands of photos are taken by professional photographers on any subject which will be published only “the good ones” are ever shown to the public.

      I recommend watching this treatment of the moon hoax theory:


      It details the cameras used and the training received by the users.

      Also If your favorite conspiracy analysit clams the moon landings were fake either:
      1) he is incompetent and doesn’t understand the physics involved
      2) he mixes this in along with the more dangerous conspiracies he purports (like JFK, 9/11 and Sandy Hook) to avoid being “suicided” if ever the powers that (should not) be take notice.

      I sincerely hope Dr. Fetzer hopes to be seen lumped in among all the rest of us “wackos” who really pose no real harm to the elites.

      Please take the time to research any claims to your own satisfaction.

      1. Well, given your predilection for arguments based upon selective use of photos chosen from a larger set, you should find the argument of Jack White on page 6 of interest. Jack added up how many photographs were taken during the six missions and the amount of time they had to take them. It turns out that 5771 photos were taken in 4834 minutes. Even if they had done NOTHING BUT take photographs, that is clearly beyond the realm of possibility. That would be one photo every 50 seconds! And since the cameras were mounted on the outside of their space suits and could not be focused or framed, it is all the more astonishing that they all came out so well focused and framed! I am sorry, but you really ought to READ THE BOOK before you attempt to criticize it or you could leave yourself open to embarrassing refutations like this. READ THE BOOK.

        1. : “Buy my book…. And I won’t address the mountain of evidence which points to a successful series of moon missions.”

          This addresses your photography time math:

          If we couldn’t put a man up there, how could we put robots up there in 1969? (or how do you propose “robots placed the mirrors on the moon” at that time?)

          No thanks. Time is prescious.

          I don’t doubt NASA hides a lot from us, but this is just too much. There comes a point when faking something is much harder than actually doing it. One should understand the ramifications of each before arguing either side.

        2. So you have doubled the time by TWO ASTRONAUTS taking photos! Yet, while the cameras were located externally to their space suits and could be neither focused nor framed, we have thousands of perfectly framed photographs? You original argument was that this is because they selected the well-framed/properly focused photos from a larger set.
          So you don’t seem to have addressed that question, but to have made your situation that much worse. Were there TWICE AS MANY taken then from which they selected the well-framed/properly focused subset?

          As I observe in the book you appear to be unwilling to read–even though it is a basic element of serious research to have actually read positions you want to attack–that it would have been impossible to take ANY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS because of the effects of cosmic rays upon the photographic plates, which would have compromised them and made lunar photography under those conditions impossible. But then you only want to cite claims that give specious plausibility to your own position, which in logic is known as the fallacy of “special pleading”.

          And of course you are not addressing the other arguments about how we know that we did not go to the moon. Winston Wu has 35 of them! I don’t see you even discussing the Van Allen radiation belt, which NASA declared in 2012 to be the major obstacle to a manned mission of Mars. But the Van Allen radiation belt was created when Earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago. if it was a problem in 2012, it was certainly a problem in the 1960s. So is NASA lying now or was it lying then? If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to READ THE BOOK.

  3. Excellent interview guys! I have a few thoughts on the subjects discussed and their implications to the management of public perception (what J. Edgar Hoover called “the public mind” in numerous F.O.I.A. released, internal FBI memoranda).
    First, it is well worth taking a look at pictures of crisis actors, from their own commercial web site, plying their trade:


    Again, if you scroll down , on this U.K. crisis actors company site, you will see a nonchalant looking “amputee” having his stump treated with fake blood, and, fake blood on a nearby car.

    Also, the U.K. deployed crisis actors in the “Ebola Scare” that had peppered the Western news with stories late last year:


    My belief, based upon the modus operandi of America, and its Western allies, is that a playbook exists to roll out these actors, in conjunction with trumped up “outbreak scares”, etc., when it is necessary or merely convenient.

    Let us not forget that George Tenet stated that Iraq having WMD’s was a slam dunk case (later qualifying that he meant, not necessarily that they existed, but that a slam dunk the case for their existence could be made-most lawyerly!. This was abetted by Tony Blair’s statement that a Iraqi WMD (that did not actually exist) could reach the U.K. in 45 minutes. Lastly, DNI James Clapper, lied to Congress,and then stated that he was the “least untruthful” fibber amongst the rogues who testified about domestic spying.

  4. Gordon Duff says he’s a self hating Jew, George Soros is a good guy and 40% of what he writes is disinfo.

    1. Gene is indeed a national treasure. He is the key witness to the events of that day. We must never discuss Sandy Hook without reference to his testimony.

      One thing we need to know is who is the man who was with the six tots, who spoke “harshly” to them. I’d also like to know how the “harsh talking” man was at the same time comforting them. Usually, these are opposites.

      This is fantastic.

      Hey, here’s another thought. Were both the “harsh talking” man and the woman bus driver both invited into the house, along with the kids? Did they accept his refreshments? Did he offer plush toys to them, too?

      Reviewing these wonderful primary documents, one wonders if Gene himself needed a teddy bear to calm himself down that day. Poor man.

      1. Satire, Patrick?
        are you conjuring up Mr. Tweed? Cute. Expand and dazzle us with your sardonic wit.

        1. In a way, I’m perfectly serious, Marilyn. The media present interviews with people like Gene, in the early stages of these hoaxes, as if they are real witnesses to real events. Later, when it is clear that they are too ludicrous to keep in the official narrative, they are dropped down the memory hole. I am suggesting we force them back to the front of the official story, and make people like Anderson Cooper talk about the gems of historical insight to be gleaned from the likes of Gene Rosen.

          They take us for such chumps.

    2. Your heart is too big for your house…

      ROFL! a mansion with a million floors could maybe house a heart like yours…

      I love this song. It makes me happy.

  5. I’ve always been puzzled by VETERANS TODAY. Many of the fascist movements in the past have been veteran movements. Italian and German fascism was largely a movement of veterans from ww 1, and Smedley Butler was approached to lead a fascist movement of veterans in the US by the oligarchs.

    But many of the articles and people in Veterans Tday were leftist. I suppose it was an intelligence operation that recruited leftist for some purpose, although I don’t know why it would. But obviously with Jade Helm the split between the right and left occurred, the right supporting and the left opposing.

    But why would the intelligence agencies or police form such an organization to begin with? beats the hell out of me. Maybe the current split will clarify things.

      1. Me too. I like him very much. He apparently has a trusting nature. That’s generally a good thing. I, on the other hand, am a bit cynical. I have always felt that there was something “off” about VT. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t read it very often.

        “Duff” is either a huckster or a loon. His statements lack consistency and his stated beliefs are impossible to reconcile with some of his writing or the author’s who he publishes.

        In my opinion that whole “insider spook” thing is something to be very wary of. That is not how it works. The real planners are too loony to be allowed on the street. The ones who follow orders don’t know anything. It’s all a fantasy.

    1. Veterans Today is widely read by current and former members of the armed forces. These are the same people with strong, anti-war sentiment. Almost half of Gulf War 1 vets are on disability related to their service. This is, in my opinion, a classic example of a controlled opposition. The active military has sympathy for the vets, and thinks more along the lines of what is authored on VT than the more complacent public. Of course, the intelligence agencies have to be on top of, and inside, VT, because a possible military coup represents one of the only real domestic challenges to the stability of government. Personally, I don’t see how that event would make things any worse than the coup against the Constitution that has been in full swing since before 9/11.

    2. “Folktruther” one small point I might add to your observations: A little while ago, I read an article where the author said in his experience in HOllywood, the upper echelon was all leftists and he did not understand why. When you have tons of money, you tend to lean to the right politically…

      AHA! This seems a breach of logic in the real world. But we are not living in a real world. There is a war on reality as reality can be conjured up and manufactured out of thin air.

      If you have ever noticed, Obama spends a good deal of time (how do I say this politely?) sucking up to the moguls of HOllywood. He gets their money, support and their expertise at helping to invent that whole new world Bush the First told us about–The New World Order and what is the realistic name for the euphemism NWO?

      GLOBALIZATION– AKA THE CLUB OF BILLIONAIRES. In that club, there is no left or right. Only one happy family of vicious preditors extracting life from the true producers. You and I.

      To me that is pretty clear.

    1. Mick, yes that is very good. I admire Fetzer. He isn’t perfect, but neither are any of us, if we’re honest.

      Some of us have been at this longer than others. Some of us knew of the lies before the internet. It has proven a remarkable tool for research and information sharing.

      It has its flaws, however. I don’t so much think of them as flaws as I do a new set of problems for discerning information. The same human foibles come into play on the internet as were present in the older, more traditional forms of research. They just happen much faster.

      I think it is very important that we don’t make “heroes” out of anyone. We can admire people’s efforts and analyze what they say. Nobody owns the whole truth.

      I believe we should be quick to grasp new information but slow to form absolute opinions. There is always more information. If we are hasty we risk making logical decisions based on insufficient information. It’s a balance.

      I’m more of a pattern guy. I see the interconnectedness of things and I see the patterns of behavior. The rest are details.

      As to VT, I’ve always had reservations. I worked around the military too many years to trust the claims of “insider information”, etc.. Many of the articles contained great information coupled with nonsense (in my opinion). I am a veteran but I certainly don’t claim that as any sort of accomplishment.

      I suppose I would say that, if asked, I would be suspicious of publishing anything in VT. That is too bad, but it appears to be the case. I certainly can’t reconcile “Gordon Duff’s” statements over time with anything published on his site. His stated views are inconsistent with those of many of his authors.

      Anyway, thanks for the link.

    2. Thanks Dublinsmick for this info from Greg Hallet. Put in my favs for a look at in a day or two. I read the 1st link and he has some astounding things to say!

  6. This is a question to all the commenters at MHB, somewhat still on topic:
    It looks to me quite certain that South Carolina was a false flag event, from the prearranged drill to the millions of dollars in Federal payouts, to unrealistic family interview comments.
    What I haven’t heard is anyone else’s opinion about the “open caskets” at the funerals.
    I well remember going to Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum where my Mother sat on a resting bench, and in a moment screamed in shock to find the ‘man’ sitting next to her was…wax.
    Anyone have any ideas?

    1. Here’s a good analysis of the discrepancies between the corpse on view at Pickney’s funeral and pictures of the “real” Pickney.
      The body on view has a neck that is too short, a head and nose that are too pointy, and skin that is too dark to be Pickney’s. He looks Haitian. Also notice that he is missing his wedding ring. Of course, his widow might have wanted his ring, but where is the mark that the wedding ring made? In the available photos of Pickney, we can see that it was a typical man’s wide gold wedding band. Take off your wedding ring if you are married, and look at the inevitable indentation on your finger. Where is the indentation from Pickney’s missing wedding ring? It simply can’t be the same guy. In my opinion, this is yet another despicable attempt to incite racial tension in America, and to create the illusion that our country is full of mass murderers with easy access to guns. We can expect more of the same in the near future. Its going to be a long summer.

      1. Thank you, Christo. That site is very interesting, and raises all the points I wanted to hear discussed. My only problem, personally, is that I cannot actually see the discrepancies the author is pointing out because that one photograph of the ‘body’ is far away and of poor quality, but even I can discern the skin is a much darker hue.
        I suppose if I did a relentless search, there would be many other photos of Pickney’s ‘corpse’ I could find.

      2. Wait – wtf is that? THIS is how they laid that man out for viewing? Again, wtf?? I have never seen anyone laid out that way – what were they trying to prove??? Whether it is him or not, who in their right mind lays someone out like that for a public or even private viewing??? I, too, knew a mortician for many years and I can tell you this, no one he ever “prepared” was laid out like that, showing a person from head to toe with legs splayed out (and his hands, too – they were always arranged gracefully). Granted, I did not watch one iota of TV news coverage about Charleston and barely read much on the net (frankly, I’m sick and tired of these “shootings”), so I don’t know if some pundit explained why “Picnkney” was shown this way for viewing – any one know? Was this supposed to be “proof” he died? Glancing at the photos at the Winter Watch link, I actually do think it looks like the “alive” version, aside from the incredible way he’s laid out. The neck, depending on where Pinckney was shot, is not unusual, having seen my share of the dead in caskets; in fact, both my dad and grandfather had that same “unreal” thick bunched neck. But come on – what the f is with how this man is laid out???? THAT’S the most unusual thing about it!

    2. I showed the picture to a guy I know who worked for years in a mortuary. He says that guy in the casket is definitely a dead man. In particular, he pointed to the “flatness” of the body’s eyes. His other comments were, “how tall is that guy?” because he didn’t seem to fit in the casket, and “why did they leave his hands like that?” because morticians have a tool of some kind that holds the arms across the chest till they stiffen.

      I don’t believe any of the official story, so I would question the identity of the dead man.

      1. Toni… How about a “dead man” made of wax? (there was plenty of time ahead to configure it).
        Wouldn’t that be ‘better’, in all details, than a uniquely different person altogether?

        1. I don’t know if you can make wax look dead or alive. Iit’s one thing to make a wax replica a la Madame Tussaud’s but are they clever enough to make a wax corpse of that person with, for example, the flattened eyes.

          My friend has seen thousands of dead people. He can just tell. He says it’s the lack of “animation,” which sounds obvious to a layperson but he means something more subtle. He’s been describing this phenomenon to me for about thirty years, so I take his word.

    3. An open casket for a shooting victim of multiple hits from a .45 acp is a huge red flag. According to the narrative, the shooter Dylann Roof reloaded FIVE times. That equates to at least 50 rounds of .45 acp at very close range (sitting at a bible study table). Just one head shot at close range from a .45 doesn’t leave very much of the head left worth fixing or preserving for a viewing. So what do we have?

      Open casket + avg. of 4 to 9 .45 caliber holes per body = Does not compute.

    4. You can get really good wax dummies made for enough money. I had thought once they did not photograph well, after we took our kid’s to the Movieland Wax Museum near Knott’s Berry Farm – some disappointing photos. Then we took a picture of one of Princess Diana at Warwick Castle in England – it is incredibly convincing – perhaps lighting or flash, or perhaps it was just better-made with the right reflectivity. Apples and oranges. So this could be pulled off if the prize was several millions of dollars and a major talking point for policy shift. I think the shooter’s pictures are a cheese fest, by contrast with the man in the open casket.

    5. Regular embalming gives the deceased, in my view, a waxy appearance so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility a waxen dummy was laid out for viewing.

  7. As the wife of a Viet Nam veteran who started life as a concert pianist and became one of the few persons with university education who were assigned eleven bravo status to share the front lines with the mostly poor and colored kids who were premier cannon fodder, i’ve learned a lot as he’s slowly opened up.

    Above all, Hollywood produces copious lies about the nature of gunshots and blood. We grew up seeing movies where death by gunshot was characterized as spasmodic decline with a discreet little pool on the shirt pocket. This has prepared us as a world and a nation for a load of hooey as to what happens when anyone is shot.

    But even hubby and I were sucked into – for example – the inflammatory, viral video of police allegedly killing homeless James Boyd outside Albuquerque. All those shots, so little blood. Until we thought about it.

    From an eleven bravo (and mind you, only about ten percent of veterans are combat veterans dedicated to organized assaults), learn this: the human body is under fantastic pressure. A gunshot anywhere produces lots of blood. Get shot in the finger and you’d hose down your periphery with blood. All the more so with any shot to the thoracic region.

    Take the iconic photo of freshly-slain RFK on the tidy white pillow beneath the little boy with the crucifix. I have it on excellent information that even the single shot to the neck RFK allegedly suffered would produce so much blood “it would take two janitors to clean it up.”

    JFK also had a neck shot which left a rather tidy vehicle behind [queue up track of uncomfortable clearing of throats].

    A beheading – and is any commenter here not already over ISIS? – would be the sanguinary equivalent of a car backing over a fire hydrant. The neck is where pressure and blood are the most constriction. Sorry, no such thing as all the bloodless beheadings, America.

    Another thing about guns, etc. is that there are a lot of bad shots. Hubby estimates that no more than 20% of shots were immediately fatal. When men get shot, they scream and agonize more than women in difficult childbirth. For hours. And hours, and hours.

    We have been snookered into this John Wayne garbage of noble pain, less blood than a sanitary napkin delicately discoloring every dead man’s shirt. Every Hollywood shot in most movies produces instant, bloodless mortality. It just isn’t so.

    Sorry for the gore, and I could go far more in depth than I have. But the false flags gain so much traction precisely because of the ignorance of the masses produced by Hollywood mind control.

    To the savvy commenters here, if you would, take this and run with it. There are no clean little gunshot wounds.

    1. Thank you for this.

      I’m not familiar with gunshot wounds, but I once had an African Grey parrot with a broken blood feather. That little bird sprayed so much blood it looked like an abattoir. There was blood sprayed on the walls and ceiling before we could get it pulled out (the bird lived).

      That was an 18 oz (?) bird.

      1. Makes me think too of this cyberphantom who supposedly shot up Sandy Hook. A tremulous ectomorph with no weapons training takes heavy artillery into the school and creates a world record – some 27 fatal shots including himself (are my numbers right?) in eight minutes? They all held still before him, did they? When not even highly trained combat troops with excellent armaments can fire fatal shots 20% of the time?

    2. @horsegirl: Absolutely love and agree with your comment — especially the bloodless beheadings. The supremes ruled (A.D. 2013) the ban against the gov’t propagandizing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is lifted. Of course, I don’t actually believe the gov’t hadn’t been propagandizing the public forever prior to the ruling. The ruling only served to put everyone on notice in order that those paying attention would never be quite sure what is reality and what is fantasy. (The elite love to tell you what they’re doing to you and if you’re too dumb to comprehend, ‘oh well’, that’s your problem.) My guess is that anything that is permitted to be in print, in movies, or on the internet is either directly propagated by those in control or left alone because it serves their purposes and is the desired and expected response to the pressure cooker in which they keep us.

      1. Have we all asked the question of ourselves, “why have we been so inefficient at spreading the word about these false flags”?
        Yes, der Juden owns the media and controls many other segments of society and business, but why have so few people stepped forward to wage their own writing campaigns against various elements of this massive ruse? I know of less than 3 other people in my home state of Connecticut who have consistently and constantly written the fabled Hartford Courant reminding them of the farcical nature of Sandy Hook. Are there only 3 people who know SH is one big, fat lie? Why the silence, fear or crushing apathy?

        1. I’m not that far away if you ever want to connect. JT has my email, feel free to write me. I happen to agree that we are failing to spread the word efficiently, and should and could be doing more.

  8. The times I’ve heard Gordon Duff he has sounded well, a bit “off.” Okay, more than a bit, a lot. He comes off as a narcissist, who make wild and boastful claims that can never be substantiated, and expects us to believe him. Well, at least 60 percent of the time, according to him. Why anyone gives him the time of day is beyond me. Whenever he is being interviewed by Kevin Barrett, I make a point not to tune in. I think he’s having a hell of a good laugh on all of us. As for Fetzer, he’s whacky but sincere in what he believes; he’s not trying to be coy or fool us by what he says since he truly believes what he is saying. But even with that earnest sincerity, that doesn’t mean I have to believe what he says, and so for him, I’d up Duff’s percentage and believe Fetzer 80 percent of the time. LOL

    1. Can you elaborate on why Fetzer is “whacky”? What is there that you dislike about him or do you feel he is a shill of some nefarious group? While we all respect “feelings”, we respect truth seeking protocols that tell us why people feel certain ways about various things.
      Duff, in my estimation, is somebody’s operative. He claimed to have “security contracts” with 50 African nations, but several writers mention that this is patently untrue. He’s thrown me off VT several times, never mentioning why. I consider that coincident with Voltaire’s quote that those people you cannot criticize are your enemies, or words to that extent. Duff has a way with words, words that are meant to mislead. As I look ever closer to the literary intent of VT, I become more and more suspicious, notably of Jonas Alexis and Kevin Barrett.

      1. Good questions, Gil. I repudiate Gordon Duff as I did in my interview with James Tracy. But I regard Jonas and Barrett as “good guys” who haven’t figured out that Gordon is running a psyop. Gordon once described me as “a poor writer” and as “a slow learner”, but if it took him 150 articles to reach that conclusion, I am not the one who is “a slow learner”. I benefit from criticism, but my work is so well-supported when I publish that I can not imagine why anyone would think that I am any kind of “whacko”.

        1. I do consider both Alexis and Barrett as highly intelligent, so I’m not sure they would be gulled by Duff, fooled enough to not realize Duff was pulling some shenanigans. Duff’s writing strikes me as erratically constructed regarding syntax and very loose with “facts”. How he could virtually brag that 40% of his verbiage is disinfo is beyond me. His stuff is often unintelligible.
          Your reputation is sky-high, often the target of those who would be jealous of your output and acumen. I’ve marveled that your mRNA allows you to quote seemingly endless packets of information, that’s to your credit.

          I awoke on a recent night wondering if Rebekah Roth did her own work. It strikes me as too smooth for a relative amateur. Her writing is a lot like Caroline Glick, too close for comfort in my purview. Naw, I’m babbling again, sorry.

        2. Gil, Thanks for those kind words. I have had doing a review of her book on my agenda for too long. I need to get to it. I believe your concerns are well-founded. More to come. I greatly appreciate hearing from you.

  9. UN Trucks in Missouri, US military digging a lake, hiker stubles across Jade Helm operations….

  10. So what is Fetzer saying DID occur re the Holocaust? Does he believe in mass deportation, detention and torture or ________???

    1. You could read the book that he helped edit, or any of the dozens of others on the subject. Let’s just say that the nature of scholarly research on the subject does little to support the propaganda.

      1. I am not that interested in numbers re the Holocaust. Whether 300 thousand or 6 million: I believe the horrors occurred. I’ve been to 4 concentration camps, lived near one for a length of time, read reports by Nazi soldiers in their own words, in German, spoke with older German citizens about what they experienced, in German, in Germany, and currently am reading accounts by victims, some in German, which I speak fluently.

        I thought maybe someone could summarize what Fetzer is contesting: the numbers or what occurred or some combination?

        1. Tammie, why don’t you check out the articles on the Holocaust and see if we have something you haven’t run across before? I used the very best for this and what we have published should cause you pause. Check it out and get back. I could give you specifics to articles, but Duff deleted all 150 of them–and what they have put back up is unusable. I would be glad to hear from you when you have actually read our work.

        2. To my surprise, VT has republished my article, “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/the-holocaust-narrative-politics-trumps-science/ This provides a more comprehensive explanation of my position on the Holocaust.

          Millions of people, including Jews, died during WWII, but it is false that 6,000,000 Jews died in gas chambers using Zyklon B. The scientific evidence, the ICRC records and the UK “death books” leave no doubt about it. More Catholics than Jews died at Auschwitz!

        3. So Mr. Fetzer, can you state why the Catholics were deported to Auschwitz and whether their small children and elderly were sent there with them, to be summarily executed at the first opportunity as useless eaters (to introduce another totalitarian system’s phraseology)? I am aware that the Poles were badly treated – although the Polish kapo was a standard feature of the camp (perhaps as a way of doing the kiss up kick down method of social control). Perhaps the Catholic Poles were also used as slave labor, but was it structured as the same type of genocide, where Polish Catholic children were sent there too? Do you have the figures? What about Polish Catholic elderly? We know of course that the Nazis launched a killing spring of ill people and the mentally handicapped, and a hate campaign against them in their vile propaganda. I am so glad we defeated them, aren’t you?

        4. You are an obvious shill and I am not taking the bait. You assume your conclusions without proving them. In logic, that is known as “begging the question”. Check out the books, DID SIX MILLION REALLY DIE?, DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST and BREAKING THE SPELL. I am disappointed but not surprised to see someone like you posting here. It is apparent you have no interest in truth but only in subtle, unwarranted slurs. Those sources refute you, as you, no doubt, are already aware.

        5. Let me correct the term, “refute”, which should have been, “discuss”. The atrocities committed by The Third Reich are the most widely known and discussed in world history, even if there were greater atrocities in the collectivization of farming in the Soviet Union and the decimation of the Native American population in the United State.

          So I did not mean to deny the obvious. Millions died under very unsavory circumstances. My position is far more specific and pointed, namely, that it is not the case that 6,000,000 Jews died in gas chambers through the use of Zykon-B, which was in fact a delousing agent that was employed in copious quantities to kill body lice and contain disease.

          It is ironic that the Germans have been vilified for taking measures that were designed to improve the sanitation and hygiene of those who were incarcerated in these camps, which were labor camps, not centers for extermination. You can’t get work out of a corpse! So read my article, if you have not read it before, to better understand my position:

          “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science:

        6. I find it immensely amusing to see Dr. Fetzer, an eminent logician, talking about musings that way. She has been with us from the start, and everyone who has had her interact in conversation feels privileged when it happens. Nothing she has ever composed and gifted us with as even had a typo, much less a grammatical infelicity.

          So, when one hears her called “an obvious shill” one can only laugh.

          The “bait” he does not want to take, presumably, is a perfectly reasonable question: if all the death camps were is “work camps,” why abduct children and old people, and inter them there? (If that’s not the “bait” he was referring to, I hope the good professor will arise me of the specific thing he had in mind).

          As I said before, the Holocaust is not about how the Jews died, or how their bodies were disposed of. That is meaningless, utterly foolish, diversion. Who cares? The Holocaust is the missing people.

          To get to the villages that were denuded of Jews, in Belorussia, or Romania, or the Ukraine, in the 1940s, was incredibly difficult. No one who did not want to eradicate a specific demographic group would go to the trouble of even finding such places, because they were often not on any map. But every single one of them had every single Jew removed once the Germans took over the country.

          To say that the Germans were beastly to other groups is like saying that Strawberry Alarm Clock was on the charts at the same time as the Beatles. Wow, thanks for the info.

          The Holocaust is about the systematic extraction from every possible nook and cranny in Europe of every Jew–and their disappearance. All in a brief span of years, starting with the laws passed in Germany banning Jewish identity, and kicked off with Kristallnacht. In countries the Germans did not take over those remotest villages still had their Jews. That’s not a coincidence.

        7. This cleverly written response does not begin to come to grips with the content of the book or of the interview, for that matter. There are 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews in distress or fear of loss of their lives before The Nuremberg Tribunals beginning as early as 1890.

          And the claims made about 6,000,000 having been put to death in gas chambers using Zykon B has been demonstrated to be unfounded on the basis of research based upon the laws of bio-chemistry and the laws of materials science. Did you even listen to the interview?

          The actual number of those who died in these camps (which were labor camps and not centers for extermination) according to the 1993 update of the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross was 296,081, which has been confirmed by the British “death books”.

          The number appears to have its origin in a disputed passage of Leviticus, which implies that “the chosen people” can return to “the promised land” only when they are minus 6,000,000 “consumed in the flames”. But there was not even a symbol for that number in the original language.

          Yes, of course, many Jews and others died in World War II. But as one of the contributors observes, the claim that Hitler had a plan calling for the extermination of the Jews appears to be unfounded and false. But it is beneficial to those who want to exploit the Holocaust for political purposes.

          So the rhetorical strategy here is to change the subject. I have stated that the claim 6,000,000 Jews were put to death in gas chambers using Zyklon B is false, provably false and no even scientifically sustainable. This lengthy comment does not address the point I make or evidence I cite by distraction. It is an unworthy response to serious research.

        8. You believe ‘the horrors’ occurred yet you have no interest in what they were? On some metaphysical metaphorical level, one life may be worth six million, but down on the ground where real people live, that’s quite a leap. Try somewhere between 300,000 – 600,000.

          Patrick embarrasses this site when he cites the ‘proof’ that the ‘Holocaust’ happened is the ‘missing jews.’ I found this site when 26 people died all without leaving any trace of dead bodies.

          I for one maintain some consistency in my skepticism.

        9. An interesting response, Dr Fetzer. Of course I listened to the interview. I enjoyed it immensely. (I only became aware of the book by means of the interview, so I haven’t read it.)

          The question is, did you read my remarks, the ones you are purportedly responding to? It’s hard to believe you did, based upon your words, which completely ignore my point (and musings’ very legitimate question).

          Let’s unpack this.

          First, I made no mention of a specific number of missing Jews. I really don’t care what the number is. And I made no mention of the claimed means of murdering them, which, again–as I made very clear–does not interest me either. Why do you keep going back to these straw men, but make not even a tangential attempt to address my argument. I’ll bet you know the technical term for the logical problem with doing that; I believe you taught that sort of thing–at least I’ve heard you make that claim dozens of times.

          Next, you say this: “The number appears to have its origin in a disputed passage of Leviticus, which implies that “the chosen people” can return to “the promised land” only when they are minus 6,000,000 “consumed in the flames”.” Please provide the chapter and verse. This is a new one on me. I can’t say I’m a top expert on the Bible, but I know my way around it, and I can’t recall anything like that. Please help.

          Moving along, you say “the claim that Hitler had a plan calling for the extermination of the Jews appears to be unfounded and false.” Then why did his people systematically search out every Jew in every territory his armies occupied, and extract them all, never to be seen again–except in a few cases, when those who survived the healthy experience of their sojourn in a “work camp” and made their way home (complete with a new tattoo), only to find their whole extended family missing? Why did he do that? Odd that it could “appear to be unfounded and false” that the reason was to exterminate them. It sure looks that way to me. Very intentional, his removal of all those people from the even the remotest of isolated villages, and their never being heard from again. Offer your alternative theory. Perhaps you might also speculate where they all were, after the war, and why they never returned home, if they were not exterminated. If the holocaust did not happen, THAT’S the key.

          Finally, we have your remarkable concluding paragraph: “So the rhetorical strategy here is to change the subject. I have stated that the claim 6,000,000 Jews were put to death in gas chambers using Zyklon B is false, provably false and no even scientifically sustainable. This lengthy comment does not address the point I make or evidence I cite by distraction. It is an unworthy response to serious research.”

          My “rhetorical strategy,” far from “changing the subject,” is to RETURN to the subject, and get you to address it. The holocaust is the missing people, not the number of Jews missing or the technique used to end their lives, which is of very little import, in the end. YOURS is the “distraction.” You claim to prove that the holocaust did not happen, yet the people were removed from their villages, never to be heard from again. Your talk about body counts and murder methods is the distraction. If the holocaust did not happen, all those Jews must not have been searched out and taken away; their happy, extended families, are all still there today in all those thousands of picturesque hamlets. Right?

          Mine is “an unworthy response to serious research”? Methinks da pot be callin’ da kettle black, perfesser.

        10. There are other experts far more knowledgeable about the Holocaust than I, which is why I featured Thomas Dalton, Ph.D., Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D. and Robert Faurisson, Ph.D., as contributors to the book. Your concerns about the breadth and depth of atrocities are discussed in Dalton’s DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST (a new edition of which is about to appear) and Kollerstrom’s BREAKING THE SPELL (which is readily available on amazon.com). You really should read it.

          Nick’s book appears to be the most authoritative on the number of those who died in the camps, which, as I have observed several times, were labor camps (slave labor camps, of course), where it would have made no sense to exterminate the inmates, since you can’t get work out of a corpse. On the origins of the number 6,000,000, here is a source that discusses it in some detail: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-History&ScripturalOriginOfThe6MillionNumber.html

        11. It is exceedingly odd, Dr. Fetzer, that you are so steadfast in your unwillingness to address my argument. Or musings’. You pride yourself on your scholarship, after all.

          I suppose I should thank you for your–what will we call it–desultory? provision of the Biblical reference. But forgive me if I am desultory in my gratitude.

          I love it when I see stupidity like this in a “proof text” article:

          As a matter of fact, Robert B. Goldmann writes: “. . . without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish State.”

          Uh, without the League of Nations Mandate given to Britain, and half a century of systematic migration of Jews to the land of Israel (before the holocaust), there would be no Jewish state.

          Who can write such historically ignorant foolishness? Who could reference it as if it is worthy of quoting? And you, as a scholar, take it at face value? Seriously?

          As for the supposed reference to Leviticus the article discusses, it is absolutely laughable. No one has ever heard it.

          As I say, the holocaust is the systematic removal of each and every Jew from every corner of Europe the Germans could access, and the fact those people, almost entirely, were never heard from again. It has nothing to do with how many disappeared, or how they met their fate.

          Answer the question (musings’, too). Or are you a coward?

        12. You make two contradictory statements, Sue.

          First, at the top, you say “Yes, Patrick, ‘that the Germans searched out every Jew they could find and carried them away – and they never were heard from again’ is in dispute. The germans did it because the jews were strangling the german polity.”

          Later, near the bottom, you say “So your theory, Patrick, that the jews disappeared is absurd. ”

          You can’t have it both ways.

          Belorussia and Greece (and all the lands in between) were NOT “the german polity.” How those old people and children in those distant lands “were strangling the german polity” is beyond mysterious. The Germans were obsessed with hovering up every drop of Jewish blood, in every country, no matter how unrelated to Germany’s polity. And none of them ever came back.

          You say “No one vaporized them. They changed their names and made sure they could avoid responsibility for their misdeeds, and later extort money for them from innocent people.”

          Right. All those little kids. All those old people. All their misdeeds. They all changed their names, and never wanted to go home.

          The hate it must take to think up such things, much less say them chills the blood.

        13. Patrick the fact that you feel such license to speak on ‘everyone here’ and their experience of musings speaks for itself. Who would you be to speak for all these people’s personal experiences and feelings?

          No one, of course, but you do it anyway, just as you declare ‘fact’ whatever you feel. Your feelings don’t make a ‘fact,’ I’m sorry to tell you.

      2. How about science and empiric evidence completely refute it? Even the pathetic Nuremberg trial transcript – even a couple of pages – proves the entire hoax was just that – staged afterwards. Again, I’ll reiterate that some commenters’ refusal to engage actual concrete physical evidence is a discredit to this site. Why proffer an opinion without scrutinizing the facts? The only reason Europe banned Holocaust revisionism is precisely because open fact-based debate exposes the absurd lies for what they are.

        Only once in my life have I been ashamed of being an American (as opposed to soberly aware of our faults as a people). That was directly after exploring the evidence and judging the debate. I could not believe what we did to the germans, but more importantly, to the world and the truth.

        Anyone who wants to find the real holocaust of WWII try watching Kyle Hunt’s documentary Hellstorm, about how the jewish-led Soviet army genocided the german people. The sadistic rape, torture and murder of the german girls and women is the truth world powers didn’t want anyone to know.

        1. The only “fact” we have, Sue, is that the Germans searched out every Jew they could find, and carried them away–and they never were heard from again. This is not in dispute.

          Why the Germans did it, and what they did to them after they were abducted, are matters of dispute. If those matters interest you, or Dr. Fetzer, knock yourself out debating the evidence (or lack thereof).

          If my position, standing on the only fact we absolutely know, “discredits” this site, I’d like to know how.

          Actually, we know one other thing. The Nazis passes a sequence of laws outlawing Jewish identity in Germany, culminating with Kristallnacht. It may be sheer coincidence, but I’m inclined to connect that with the only other fact we know for certain. I’m guessing the same impulse in the German breast that outlawed Jewishness in the Fatherland is the same one that spurred their mysterious desire to remove every Jew from every hill and holler anywhere they could. Call me crazy.

        2. Yes, Patrick, ‘that the Germans searched out every Jew they could find and carried them away – and they never were heard from again’ is in dispute. The germans did it because the jews were strangling the german polity. Germans were starving all over their own country because the jews as a group has exploited the masses, which was their very aim in going into Europe in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, there really is no dispute about what happened to the jews upon internment. It’s been proven beyond any reasonable (or even articulated) doubt that there were no gas chambers. There were various plans to move the jews to different locations. Hitler thought they were parasitic; once a parasite has been removed from the host they’re no longer toxic to it. There was absolutely no necessity to kill off the jews as long as they could do labor and eventually be relocated, which they were. The jews’ indigenous homeland is not Germany or Europe. They have no right whatsoever to be there, unlike the german tribes and celtic ones who evolved in Europe. The jews’ motive for entering Europe was solely imperialistic and violating of the majority of european people.

          These are the facts. The jews changed their names upon leaving the camps so as to avoid the horrible shame that they had literally armed the very military that had segregated them. They were fighting the Allies, yet they wanted to work with the Allies to not only re-conquer Europe but also now, Palestine.

          So your theory, Patrick, that the jews disappeared is absurd. No one vaporized them. They changed their names and made sure they could avoid responsibility for their misdeeds, and later extort money for them from innocent people. While a set number suffered mass starvation at the very end, this is because the jews were arming the germans and the supply lines had to be cut off leading out of the camps, which then prevented any food supplies from being brought in. It was nothing more, nothing less than jewish willingness to perennially suck off the european people instead of carrying themselves. Feel free to carry the Chosen People, but beware that there are growing number of europeans who won’t allow you or them to force us to.

        3. I’ve gone to the spam folder again, and the essay (once again, it got a tad longish) was a damned good summary of this distressing topic. How people deny the removal of an entire ethnicity from every corner of a continent happened, when it obviously did, is beyond me.

          Anyway, here’s the good news: while we await James’ retrieving it from the taint of “spam,” you, my friends, can read it in its entirety, just by clicking on my name! Ain’t having a web site of one’s own grand? (If only I tended to it more often. Alas.)

        4. Note: The comment that went to the spam folder, which you can read at my own site immediately, was being composed while Sue’s most recent comment was evidently languishing in moderation. So the two were like ships passing in the night. I did reply to her with specificity, once James released it–but that one is in moderation status just now, too.

          Let’s say I found Sue’s remarks very strange. Perplexing?

        5. If you were horrfied only once, that being the Nuremberg farce, how about the Hellstorm chronicles? How about the fact we allowed Churchill to refuse German entreaties to end the war before it really got going? How about the licking FDR took from Stalin?
          Many of these transgressions were thrown at us by jews, whether jew bankers, industrialists, or rank and file politicians. Are you fibbing when you say you are “not anti-semitic”? Why would a person be anti-semitic, other than the FACT this means anti-Palestinian and not anti-jew? The former are true semites, the vast majority of jews are ex-Russian Khazars aka Ashkenazim.
          I would recommend that you start reading the work of John Kaminski, a fine writer and truth sayer. John lays the cards on the table about der Juden, there’s no lies there, either. Truth helps us all, isn’t it time we demand the truth of ourselves? Or do we think euphemisms will set us free?

    2. Tammie. I am still trying to work through his methodology myself. It appears he is attempting to debunk the 6 million killed in gas chmbers figure.
      As someone else pointed out, that seems to be splitting hairs. Gasing of fellow humans is not something to quibble about and definitely not the topic for a board game or video recreation, though sonme clever entrepreneur might invent a version.

      Now, I must take issue on a couple of Mr. Fetzer’s contentions: The doors of gas chambers opening from the inside would allow escape of victims if they were so inclined. Careful reading of the situation on the ground, however, would reveal people were herded into the gas chambers with whips and bayonettes which might preclude a gutsy attempt to flee. Not to mention, the guns held the boyonettes, ready as needed. No one could have escaped the net.

      Second point that Mr. Fetzer seemed to champion were medical clinics (why even OB-Gyn facilities were noted), recreation sites such as gyms and apparentley a full-length soccer field for that Enlish soccer team…hmmm. NOw let us be real. If indeed that blueplint graphic of Auschwitz was authentic, those luxury items were perhaps intended for the throngs of German SS and army staff members and families of those German guards Families were among the German presence at the death camp. They were housed off camp to themselves in plush garden-like settings and attended to by Polish Catholic servants (aka slaves) The Poles were easily controlled and more subserviant to German masters. (See the liberation of Auschwitz online.)

      Still want to know the origins of that soccer team photo. In the area of antique authenticity, think that is called provenance.

      For our purposes, may I offer this opinion: if the photo cannot be verified, it may be said to prove a matter that vitiates all other postulations. So though I don’t strongly question Fetzer’s integrity, I might contest his methodology.

      1. Splitting hairs? Surely you jest. The core of the Holocaust narrative is that 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated in gas chambers using Zykon B. Just do a search on the number itself, 6,000,000, and the word to see what I am talking about. These are the central contentions of the official history of World War II regarding the treatment of the Jews, who were subjected to many forms of abuse.

        Millions died brutal deaths in WWII, including large numbers of Jews, but the core of the narrative appears to be false, provably false and not even scientifically sustainable. That is the focus of my work on the Holocaust, where the best research on this issue can be found in BREAKING THE SPELL (2014) by Nicholas Kollerstrom, an historian of science, who is a meticulous scholar. Check out his work.

        An interesting discussion of the origin of the number, 6,000,000, may be found in this article, which explains that it appears to have been derived from a disputed passage in Leviticus, which has been interpreted to say that “the chosen people” cannot return to “the promised land” until they are minus 6,000,000 “consumed in the flames”, even though there is no term for 6,000,000 in the original Hebrew:


        Nick is a meticulous scholar and documents everything he publishes. I find the map of Auschwitz rather remarkable, but I can appreciate your take as affording an alternative perspective. Since we have no reports of pink bodies and the only walls of chambers that turned blue were those used for delousing (which was done with Zyklon B), I presume you can see the irony of converting a heath program into one for extermination!

        The photograph of the British football (soccer) team at Auschwitz may be found on page 200 of BREAKING THE SPELL. Here he talks about it:


        At Monowitz soccer games were well-organized in 1944; one can see pictures of them cheered by civilian fans. SS teams played soccer with in- mates. There was a British POW soccer team at Auschwitz. (Source: Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive)

        Also, Auschwitz-Birkenau had its own soccer field, with weekly games between the SS staff and camp inmates, and a central sauna. The field was right next to buildings which allegedly housed homicidal gas chambers; they would have been in full view. David Cole has well described how the football field was adjacent to the site of alleged human gassing (i.e. the Crematoria II & III, according to the design plans and air photos). It is hard to see how this fiendish process could have been carried on in secret, as normally alleged:353

        353 David Cole, “Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers” (www.codoh.com/library/document/987/).

        So the source it the Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive. I can ask Nick for more specifics about its identification number and such, if you would like to have them, but he is among the most conscientious and meticulous scholars of my acquaintance. He and I and others with whom we collaborate are only interested in getting history straight that it not be nothing but “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”.

        1. I believe that it is ironic that the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust has actually increased anti-Semitism. Firstly, as you and others have pointed out, claims of Zyklon B gassing are exaggerated, and, were largely based on hearsay and bunk evidence. Most Jews and the many other camp victims were allowed to starve to death, and die of diseases, in conditions calculated to bring about their demise. The bodies were buried and cremated to avoid the spread of disease.This was Genocide, no doubt about that.
          As you pointed out, a great number of Catholics dies in the camps. Gypsies, Mason’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, peace activists, the mentally ill, etc., were also subject to the same Genocide. In fairness, the Jews were singled out for mistreatment, perhaps more than any other “enemy of the state”, from the very beginning. This is clear from a reading of Mein Kampf
          However, i believe, that the Jews have co-opted the Holocaust to such a degree, that they have failed to build a consensus that a more broadly based campaign was waged against many societal elements that were similarly subjected to Genocide. If, the Jews had taken a broader view of the crimes against humanity, I believe that they would not have been met with the same resistance. Most of the victims died of hunger and disease, at a time when the Germans were fighting a two front war. Nevertheless, they were prisoners with human rights, and they should not have perished in this manner. The same goes for other camp victims. In my opinion, concentrating on falsifiable claims of mass gassings in the work camps, and soap and lamp shades made of human skin, hurt their never again campaign. I am responding to your message because I believe that you are well-versed in these issues, and moreover, you are taking a non-fanatical, fact-based approach to these issues. I also believe that what I am stating is reflexively considered anti-Semitic by many Jews, and, that unfortunately this is the opposite of the case. I believe that you and other researchers have largely taken a dispassionate, analytical approach. Your attackers, in my opinion, are the fanatics.

        2. So many opinions, so little time.

          First and foremost, h/t to Patrick for a solid and articulate rejoinder to Mr. Fetzer’s rebuke of ‘misings’ and Patrick’s own dissertation re the nuanced facts surrounding this issue. They don’t need my support as their scholorship stands alone and is superior to my own.

          Having offered that preamble, now I must remember what points I need to make. lol I was still so struck by the possibility of soccer games at a notorious DEATH CAMP {my emphasis}, I had to see for myself. How in the world can strenuous exercise required in soccer be accomplished on about 1000 calories of food per day-which would be about the ration of a prisoner of the Reich…Most of the food supply, to my thinking, would be fed to German staff members.


          Picture found on Google does verify existance of said team. Still I find the whole enterprise unseemly and out of joint. Well if nothing, Germans love their sports. This article, during an interview of former inmate, does demonstrate timididy on the part of the English players; it also mentions the smoke from crematoria and fear of incurring the wrath of German masters for some infraction. hmmmmm

          So much for fun and games.eh what?

        3. Marilyn, I’m only catching a few parts of this discussion, but your comments clearly conclude things with very little to no proof. You mention an authentic report mentions that there is smoke coming out of a crematoria. This is a good angle to explore. Have you ever looked up the revisionist explanation of how even half the number of supposed dead couldn’t have been burned up in the time allegedly allotted? The science of burning bodies and time and fuel it takes is one of the strongest points (although all the scientific forensic evidence strongly or completely refutes, really) for the revisionist side. The videos I’ve cited explore the issue and there are others that do. The crematoria had to burn for so long to dispose of a body they could barely cover the minimum of people who were dying from typhus, age, and other maladies. Zyklon B gas or any other type was not one of them.

          Science and surrounding evidence totally refute that there was any Holocaust. That doesn’t mean no one died, however. It just wasn’t at rates that even approached the party line numbers. Best estimates seem to be between 300,000 and 600,000.

      2. Ry Dawson and Eric Hunt make the best videos I’ve seen on the subject. Ry’s focus more on the forensic evidence that wholly disproves all the contentions about gas chambers. He also presents conclusive circumstantial evidence. The combination of his 90 and then 30 minute videos on the subject answer most of the basic questions about logistical impossibilities, etc. Eric Hunt works more on exposing the many many lies told by ‘survivors’ and filmmakers like Steven Spielberg; his most recent refuted the authenticity of the ‘new evidence’ allegedly uncovered at Treblinka. When a bunch of Dailystormer posters decided to attend a talk given by the jewish anthropologist in England about a year or so ago, armed with notecards bearing questions, the talk was cancelled. Never has a single jew that I know of been willing to engage in unscripted spontaneous debate with a revisionist. The unassailable evidence simply refutes the Holocaust, hence the unwillingness to actually debate the topic.

        It seems to me that naysayers are enjoying their own version of avoiding real debate with this speculation that’s not based on the agreed upon evidence. Certain things aren’t open to theorizing or interpretation. Why such resistance to examining the evidence?

  11. I agree with FBI district Director(deceased) Ted Gunderson when he says the planning for the 9-11-2001 attacks began in London England. I say in the early 1960s just before the project was begun in the prototype stage at queen Elizabeth II’s Idaho state ARCO nuclear
    Testing Reservation by Wright,Schuchart, and Harbor in construction and the Kellogg corporation designing the nuke demolition system which was to be perfected until the WTCs had lost their usefulness in Manhattan. It was a shock when this was changed by Lloyd’s of London who demanded the nuke demolition system be installed during construction

    1. I don’t know bout that, BUT

      Tuesday 9/11/01, plane 1 hits WTC at 8:45 a.m., followed by second plane crashing at 9:03 a.m. Curiously, the Towers had about 25,000-30,000 people on a similar work day (have the traffic patterns been analyzed to see whether some sort of Bridgegate-esq problems cropped up? (“coincidentally” of course).

      2606 seems like a small number of victims. Cantor Fitzgerlad “lost” 658 people. They were ordered to “stay put” on all five floors they occupied.


      Insurance titan Marsh, directly below, lost about half that of CF. CF lost almost double the number of firefighters who died on 911! Together Marsh and Fitzgerald lost about 1100 or a little over 40% of casualties. Imagine if there were efforts made to evacuate the 12 floors occupied by these two financial firms. Well, that would be too low of a body count to defend against the attacks of dangerous “conspiracy theorists”.

        1. One thing is certain, and that is 911 was a perfectly timed intelligence-run operation. The video evidence showing precise demolition charges flashing down the Towers making a controlled demolition is as clear as day. This is supported by eyewitnesses such as, William Rodriguez, a janitor who rescued people from the Towers that day. Rodriguez reported “many explosions” happening, from the basement to the upper floors of the building, as he was helping to evacuate victims. See video:


          Certainly, this well -tuned operation could have used decoy planes, photoshopped images, and myriad deceptions to create the illusion of an alternate, non-existent event.

          I think it is worthwhile putting this into perspective. Benton K. Partin’s analysis of the Murrah Building bombing excludes McVeigh’s bomb as the causal event. Furthermore, an independent state trooper, Terry Yeakey, died under circumstances indicating he was suicided, while conducting an independent investigation of the Murrah building bombing. His key witness, who had no previous psychiatric history, was involuntarily committed.
          April Gallop, a Pentagon employee, described a bomb going off 30 feet from her desk on 911. She crawled out of the hole it made, in the building, and saw no plane debris. This was aired on Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory Show. Ventura also interviewed a TV cameraman who was on the scene within minutes of the explosion, and saw no debris of a plane on the Pentagon lawn. Engineers, specializing in aviation, have stated that a plane of the size that supposedly hit the Pentagon could not have flown that low.

          Once this much evidence of a pattern of meticulously designed conspiracies is shown, anything is possible.

        2. Are you familiar with my work on 9/11 as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (911scholars.org)? I featured her 15 times on my radio shows when no one else would give her the time of day. I gave her three hours to speak at the Madison conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11” and published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).

          But when I posted a five-star review of her book on amazon.com, I was besieged by her supporters for suggesting that she had not ruled out the use of mini or micro-nukes, which remains the case to this day. Check out “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii/ There’s a lot more where that came from.

  12. color me nonconformist from my raised eyebrows of disbelief to my routine scoff at network news. Suppose that is why I find James Fetzer so disconcerting. He stopped me cold with his pronouncements on the Hollocaust and knocked me over with his slightly cogtradictory take on the death of Paul McCartney. (And I should care strongly about Paul’s death because?)

    Thus I started looking up background on the professor to find many of his associates and like-minded researchers do not trust his theories. One detractor mentioned his right-wing affiliations. What does that mean? Also, it seems he has the talent and power to persuade notable high profile individuals to follow him and capitalizes on their success in the public arena. He latches onto enough conspiratorial issues to lend credance to his scholorship, then falls off the cliff with unfounded propositions. Reminds me of David Icke’s yarn about alien reptilian forms taking over human bodies. (Sorry, don’t buy it.)


    Above is a long disqus challenging Fetzer on his celebrated book, “Asssasination Science,” citing one point of contention…

    Just my two cents, for what it’s worth.

    1. My two cents is that the article linked to reads like a cut-and-paste hit piece. In fact, Assassination Science is quite a remarkable book, particularly for its time.

    2. I agree with James. Why you would be “stopped cold” by pronouncements on the “Holocaust” is equally surprising. Jim Fetzer has been accused of many things. That’s what happens when one gets too close to the truth.

      I sometimes wish he would be a bit slower to form full-fledged theories, but I greatly admire his courage and we all owe a debt to him for his many efforts. When he is wrong about something he freely admits it. That is both the sign of a real scholar and a gentleman.

      The volume and varied nature of conspiracies may have something to do with the fact that we are constantly under attack from numerous directions. There is no shortage of conspiracies. When lies are identified they should be publicized.

      Jim Fetzer can make mistakes, as we all can, but make no mistake. He’s the real deal. He says what he means and means what he says. One can disagree with anything he says but they would do well to have facts to bring to the dispute.

      1. Got up early to rethink this issue which I did not expect to be welcomed with a warm and fuzzy virtual hug. But another deleted comment after much arduous typing and some saliant (I feel) propositions.
        Really James, you should have a heart to heart discussion with
        Word Press. I thought MHB was all in for free speech.

        Dropped and deleted commentary does not a free speech zone make. Moderated daily, that is enough to trip up dissenting voices. Seems like Cass Sunstein hovers over all like the vapid spook he is.


        Fetzer, IMO, is tied in with some dubious characters and is clever enough to throw even some very astute sleuths off scent.

        Enough said! Read above link people and continue to rethink certain opportunists–my final admonition.

        “…the death of one man diminishes me
        for I am involved with mankind…” (John Donne)

        The death of six million souls diminishes me and I will not let it go.

        1. Really James, you should have a heart to heart discussion with
          Word Press. I thought MHB was all in for free speech.

          Dropped and deleted commentary does not a free speech zone make.

          Cannot locate any such submitted commentary by you in the “Spam” folder or otherwise. Perhaps the technical issue is on your end. Comments are only deleted if there is the suggestion that a troll is at work.

        2. There probably is some factual truth to the historical revisionism espoused by Fetzer and others. The same can be said about Jewish Holocaust revisionists. For example, Finkelstein’s book on the Holocaust industry, and even Chomsky, in particular, with the Faurisson affair.
          I believe that there are a better reasons why academics may want to consider abstaining from Holocaust revisionism. Firstly, no one is disputing that countless thousands of Jews and others died in appalling Genocidal conditions in the camps. The video and photographic evidence makes this a sub-academic argument. The American soldiers liberating Dachau were so appalled by the scene that they killed the Nazi guards in the Dachau massacre.
          More importantly, the more that anti-Semitism prevails, the worse the implications for Palestinians become. A good example of this was Netanyahu’s call for mass European Jews emigration to Israel because of growing anti-Semitic attitudes prevailing there. This certainly does not help displaced Palestinians, or the Israeli/Palestinian peace efforts.
          Many of the prominent historical revisionists have made white supremacist and/or pro-Hitler/Nazi statements (Zundel, Duke, etc.), making it hard to believe in their objectivity.
          Lastly, there is a vicious circle of hate between Gentiles and Jews in regard to the Holocaust issue that is fueled by these 70 year-old debates.

        3. You may be correct James. It could be my computer is in a technical brain freeze–metaphorically speaking.
          Which brings up another interesting possibility. Hacking has also been a problem in the past. Whatever the glitch is, very annoying with much wasted effort.
          The ‘drop’ occurs before I finish a post and must originate in Word Press. That is my theory

          My son does not approve of my time spent chasing down ideas, which he says only exist between my ears.
          Advises me to take up knitting–says it is more appropriate for a woman of my advanced age. Can’t explain to him such a sedentary pursuit would drive me mad.

          I did temper that reference to Paul McCartney’s death.
          Was never aware, but million dollar rock stars with side issues of drugs, or playful games of musical beds with various women, did not seem to merit a serious conspiracy theory. Paul, to my knowledge, was never political; the story of Lennon’s murder is a whole other ball of wax.

          Now excuse me…I must check out types of yarn and fluffy kittens. Would make darling photos on You Tube.

        4. Except the best evidence is against the claim that 6,000,000 Jews died in gas chambers using Zyklon B. And it is disappointing that you cite an obvious hit piece based upon a radio interview when far better sources are available, such as The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/the-holocaust-narrative-politics-trumps-science/ which I am very surprised to find restored in its entirety at Veterans Today! Give it a read, Marilyn, and give me your take on more complete presentation of my views. Given your stance in attacking me, you owe me and MHB readers a more responsible take.

      2. Because the Holocaust is a hot-button issue still. What is the energy that drives its dissection–pro and con?

        Must we fight WW11 over and over–Jews v. Germans? Germans want to be absolved of all crimes and sins. Only in the mind of their closeted nationalists–maybe. Or those with ethnic ties that just won’t quit.

        Facts are difficult to come by. Seems they are lost in the mists of time but surface with clever musings by the faithful or those with a political agenda–which is often disguised as truth.

        1. I have this sort of touchstone moment about the Germans. I saw it very recently, in a story on PBS about Jesse Owens at the 1936 Munich Olympics. Of course, he beat the German favorite. But the German athlete embraces him, literally, and the crowd goes wild in a positive way. It is like a moment from Gladiator in which the mob is for Maximus – and implicitly against the emperor. Hitler is massively overdressed, in a heavy coat, surrounded by his lackeys (each one of them looking like a Dick Tracy caricature of a mobster). They are emanating their negative vibe, but the crowd is simply ignoring them, not following their lead, but celebrating the athletes. At that moment, I thought the Germans might have saved themselves. For a moment they were redeemed by their simple and honest response to excellence. But the lunatic in charge of their society needed to drag them down into his own private hell, and there was no escape. Oh for a trap-door that might have buried the villains at that moment.

    3. This is the second interview I’ve heard recently where he talked about Faul; in the other one he went on at some length. What struck me was how he came to conclude that Paul died in 1966: he did the research.

      Why did it strike me? Because a couple of years ago he did a very long interview with Tina Foster (here’s her PID blog: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10), where he expressed real skepticism (he’s such a giant Beatles fan). He listened to her carefully. She’s a lawyer by training, so she can state her case quite well. He seemed impressed, but not persuaded.

      That tells us something about the man. If you can demonstrate that he is wrong, even when arguing a seemingly preposterous position, he can turn his mind around.

      I agree with lophatt that he often states what should be preliminary conclusions with the force of finality, which is a weakness, not a strength. He’s got a lot of bluster, too, which can be annoying.

      It’s odd that people would consider him “right-wing” when he is far more of a lefty (he LOVED the commie Paul Wellstone, and thinks Scott Walker is bad for Wisconsin’s economy). But as lophatt mentioned in the most recent of James’ posts, it is not helpful to think in these black/white formats–thinking people are far more nuanced and interesting than that.

      Of course, when it comes down to a choice between Castro and Mises, I’m with the Austrian with every fiber of my being. But economic theory is just one topic. I think the War on Drugs is not only vicious and cruel, but completely asinine, and that all drug “criminals” should be released from custody. What box does that put me in? I enthusiastically endorse the death penalty (but only it is carried out quickly), and I think abortion should be banned. What box this time?

      Fetzer is a thinker, and thinkers are complex things. His complexities are fine with me, warts and all.

      1. Patrick, we usually agree, but not this time. My last comment was dropped and a terse follow up is stuck in moderation. No surprise there.

        Something does not compute…or does, depending on whom ‘they’ are trying to bmboozle…hmmm

        1. Well, Marilyn, since I don’t know what we disagree on, I can’t answer specifically. I’m going to guess, though.

          I suspect you think I’m giving Fetzer too much credit, based upon his reasoned conversion regarding the Faul issue, and that this one item can’t be extended to the man in his entirety. That’s a fair complaint, even if it’s not the one you are making, so I will answer it.

          The problem here, to start, is the Alex Jones problem. This has two elements, for me: I don’t know and I don’t care if these guys are clever agents of our enemies. That is, neither one is my cup of tea, never has been, so I have spent little time with either. In both cases, I have gotten very valuable information from them, and also have felt my radar telling me that they are not what they purport to be.

          I avoid the Holocaust conversation at MHB when it arises, because in my opinion is degrades the tenor of the conversation here. I don’t like the whole “Jews are the conspiracy” model. I don’t like the shallowness of most people’s complaints about Israel–especially when they deny that Hamas intentionally causes as many civilian deaths as possible by launching rockets from schools and hospitals and residential neighborhoods. Anyone who denounces Israel without acknowledging that incontrovertible fact has an agenda I do not have space in my life to explore. Modern Israel is a very, very, evil, in many ways–but that doesn’t mean the Moslems dedicated to its destruction are any less evil. Judaism, if contained to the Torah, is God’s direct creation, and thus very, very, good. Islam, being the creation of Satan, cannot be regarded as anything but unmitigated evil. Of course, if modern Jews restricted their theology to the Bible, they would be Christians.

          That is to say, I know a very great deal about these subjects, and I find that in the short format of a blog not dedicated to the subject it’s impossible to achieve anything of value in weighing in. What I just said will cause all kinds of trouble I’m not interested in doing battle over. I’ll regret having done it, reinforcing my normal reticence.

          I once broke this self-imposed rule at MHB a long time ago, when someone posted an asinine video that purported to “prove” that the Holocaust did not happen because there were only a few very small furnaces at Auschwitz. You may remember. My position was, and remains, that the missing people are the Holocaust–not the technique of disposing with the bodies. Every remote village in any country the Nazis conquered was denuded of Jews. Belorussia, Bulgaria, Greece. All gone. Relatives, in their millions, have gone to those places, looking for family heritage, and everyone is missing.

          That’s what the Holocaust is: the missing people.

          The only things all those missing people have in common is that they were Jews, and that the Germans had just taken over their country.

          Not long ago, the Holocaust-deniar in charge of Iran was in New York, and one of those people whose whole extended family simply disappeared, confronted him, asking the question: if the Holocaust did not happen, WHERE IS MY FAMILY?

          Well, the guy in charge of the PLO these days has a PhD. His dissertation was about how come the Holocaust did not happen. Of course, his predecessor’s uncle, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spent WWII in Berlin, encouraging Hitler to complete the Final Solution in Mandatory Palestine.

          Anyone who denies the Holocaust happened and does not acknowledge these historical facts is not going to find themselves talking about it with me for very long. If Fetzer is one of those, I’ll have even less desire to spend time with him.

          Still, I stand by everything I said in my previous comment.

        2. For Patrick….excellent summary and yes it was about Fetzer’s denial of HOllocaust. Your alwways in-depth historical allusions are keepers.

          Tried to answer only to find another dropped comment.

          Think I am narrowing down culpret or culprets,

          Back tomorrow. Will try again. Up since 5:00 a.m.
          Too weary to even think.

          Best and Bless.

        3. “That’s what the Holocaust is: the missing people.”

          Pulled that excerpt up because it says a lot in a few words, Patrick. And yes, you are correct. The Holocaust is not a cause to be trivilized nor tweaked,so
          Fetzer’s rather cavalier treatment is outrageous to my thinking. Now some may find the link downgrading Fetzer’s scholarship and his playing loose with facts unsubstantiated.

          But the men who arrived at their conclusions are fairly grounded researches and editors, too. They do give Fetzer ample oppotunity to defend his work but are not taken in by his academic mumbo jumbo. He is quite adept at playing the “I have multiple degrees card” and parenthetically, “You don’t.” As you mentioned, you have a healthy skepticism of both Alex Jones and James Fetzer. Shows you have a free-thinking mind. Take what they offer, roll it around and conclude whether it fits personal thresholds for truth and honesty in the marketplace of ideas.

          So many important issues to deal with, why waste time on the incidental?

        4. Hear, hear, Patrick. “The Holocaust is the missing people.” When a hundred of your cousins never come back to the village they were deported from (even though their family had lived there more than one hundred years, and was no different from the other residents, except that they were Jewish shoemakers, tailors, and small farmers rather than Christian shoemakers, tailors and small farmers), and no one ever sees them again, not even the surviving relatives with tattoos on their arms, then you know they are dead. Even the records from Auschwitz note their presence there at one time, as well as other camps. Where did they go? Does it even matter that instead of dying in some gassing they were starved and succumbed to cold and disease? It seems to the proprietor of a POW camp in the South during the Civil War, a Swiss, was hanged by the Union for less than what the Nazis did to their inmates. So I consider the gassing story a non-issue too. There are those who needed to make a point, perhaps, or maybe there was experimentation on methods (in that evil way the Germans had to try and send pleasing reports back to their masters). It was effectively genocide, and the war crimes tribunals were right to hang the ones responsible.

        5. musings, have you lived in the densest population of jews on the planet (rivaling Israel)? How much yiddish do you speak? Was there a time in your life when you could recite whole parts of the bar mitzvah (in Hebrew)?

          I ask because you sound pretty ignorant to me, and generally inexperienced with jews. I am most certainly not.

          ‘Missing jews’ was nothing new in the history of Europe. Jews had gone ‘crypto’ or some version of it pretty much throughout the centuries of their occupation of Europe. I had a friend who was a quarter Russian jewish; his great (or great great) grandfather was both a carpenter and calligrapher, who lived in some territory between Germany and Russia the two countries perennially fought over. His second career allowed him to falsify papers for both his jewish family and others. When the Russians came through he was russian, to the germans he was german. We both speculated that when great grandpa came to the US in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s he was somehow a christian for awhile and later resurfaced as a jew.

          I grew up around these people in a horrific plurality/majority. All were not so wholly evil, but there is still absolutely nothing good I have to say for the net experience. They don’t think of their cousins the way many other ethnic groups do, instead organizing their extended ‘family’ around either the ‘schul’ or, in the lexicon of non-orthodox types, the temple. It’s not the slightest bit uncommon for the jews to have friends over their house for a holiday when cousins live only two towns away in suburbia. I agreed in my early 20’s to ‘teensit’ for a jewish friend’s younger brother while her parents went to Europe for two weeks (she was living in another state). She and I had grown up sort of together in the same general neighborhood and had become even closer in college, but since ‘Adam’ was six or seven years younger I didn’t feel like I knew him that well, and, I come from a very large mostly catholic family of legions of first cousins who, in my childhood, lived within 10-30 minutes of me. ‘Adam’ drove me crazy (he had minor disciplinary issues) and eventually, years later, apologized for his outrageous behavior. He said, “You’re like my sister” as some explanation. I felt no such intimacy with him and had treated him far nicer than I would have my cousins of the same age. I felt the distance of formality might have kept his teen behavior in check.

          But ‘Adam’ experienced me as a much closer intimate than I did him, which accounted for the bad call on my part. Once a half jewish acquaintance congratulated me on the observation that jews don’t really care about their cousins much or bother keeping up with them. Where I come from, the italians, irish, wasp’s, and then jews care about their cousins in that exact order (there weren’t really enough of any other ethnicity to judge). The jews really don’t think of extended blood family as such, in my pretty vast experience, although of course there are different elements of jewish people.

          So this notion of ‘missing cousins’ is kind of not that relevant. I’ve known jews who admitted to having been raised in a secret observance (eastern europeans) in the 40’s and 50’s. Indifferent christians outside the home, jews inside it. I’ve known jews who don’t even know they’re jews, whose families converted to mostly catholicism before or during WWII. Golda Meir and tons of other Israelis changed their eastern european jewish names to hebrew ones upon emigrating to Israel. Jews have anglicized their names consistently in coming to the US, before and after the war.

          So huge numbers of jews either didn’t care about being found or intentionally disappeared themselves, or somewhere in between, upon leaving for America, Israel, etc. There was much to be ashamed about, as the jews had taken up a posture in these camps that most europeans (especially men) wouldn’t respect. My great irish uncles chronically mocked the one who somehow escaped the draft (he had a bootlegger past). It wasn’t even uncommon, prior to the advent of Holocaustianity in the early 1980’s, for some apostate jews to admit that they brought on the targeting in the war. Most of the psychological cruelty inflicted on the inmates was perpetrated by other jews who ran the camps, although I’ll state here that the evidence I’ve seen does support that medical experimentation did occur. Dr. Mengele was probably mostly mythical, but war crimes did happen. Japanese camps were by far way crueler, however, to both soldiers and civilians.

          War is chaos and suffering, shame and guilt, destruction, pain and sorrow. Many jews, like europeans, didn’t want to look back for any variety of reasons. A friend worked for a german jew in the 70’s who had spent his middle school or thereabouts years in a camp; he absolutely played soccer regularly and didn’t remember the time with such horror, even as deprivation was part of daily life. I happen to know a jewish family who had a movie made about them (they fell in love first in a holding camp in Holland, then in Auschwitz). It’s an hour long documentary about the romance set in the backdrop of such drama. My family is fairly intimate with their son, a dutch jew.

          At the end of the documentary which used old photos from the camps and letters, and voiceovers, this elderly couple was met by the filmmakers at Auschwitz. The couple immediately linked arms and put big smiles on their faces, announced that ‘No one should ever discriminate’ and then hightailed it as fast and far away as they could get from the filmmaker. They did not want to be forced to make spontaneous commentary – because they knew they’d have to lie. Do I think they realized there were no gas chambers at all? I don’t know but doubt it. What they did know was that the story as it’s been told by the Holocaust Industrialists doesn’t jibe much at all with their experience.

    4. Marilyn, I deal with the most complex and controversial events of our time. I do collaborative research with experts in fields where I am not an expert myself. There are active efforts to suppress the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more.

      I don’t understand your methodology of looking at critics of my work unless you look at my work itself. How else are you going to know whether or not they are playing you? I have found they make a practice of distorting my work in order to make it easier to attack.

      If you find something you think I have wrong, tell me what it is and why I claim it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. I don’t learn from those who agree with me but from my critics. But there are many who are working to suppress the truth.

      1. James Fetzer, thst is a reasopnable request so I do have at least two issues to put to you:

        You cite Robert Faurisson stating allied bombing was mainly responsible for the starvating of concentration camp victims (and yes, they were victims). Can we just dimiss it as “collateral damage”? “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.” (Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar”) Those things do happen–OOPPS!

        But it begs the question: who concentrated those people
        into those crowded, disease-infested camps to starve and die? OK, some will say Anglo/American bankers manipulated both sides into war. Even if true, it was the German high command who ordered the killing of civilians en masse and gasing/cremation of millions, not the Western Allies.

        “Work camps” and extermination camps were intregral parts of Hitler’s Reich. The conception of such horror does not register in the sound mind so some simply will not accept facts. Bergen-Belson was a “work camp” but Auschwitz was a designated killing field. Photos of the remains of the ovens are online for viewing. Most other structures have long disintegrated into dust. Visiting your blog one day, I found you in a chat with another man regard the fact that the gas chamber doors opened from the inside and this proved a point which i did not understand; can you elaborate for me?

        The Red Cross’ figures on human casualities remain ambiguous as many did die outside camp enclosures. There were 11,000,000 Jews in Europe at the start of the war. How many remained? Would be of interest to know. Of course, many migrated to other countries but to say the Jewish population was decimated would be an understatement.

        More in the next post…thanks

        1. Marilyn, It was not the policy of The Third Reich to exterminate Jews. The camps were labor camps, not centers for extermination. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN PURSUE THIS WITHOUT READING THE BOOK! It is now on Kindle and can be purchased for a song. The doors opening from the inside means that, if the chambers were full of people, they could have escaped by opening the doors from the inside!

          I am sorry, but you are so convinced you know what happened and so impervious to evidence that you are making posts that are based upon ignorance and propaganda. Are you aware there were 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews in dire straights or fear of loss of their lives before The Nuremberg Tribunals, the first as early as 1890? There is no historical or empirical evidence to support it. You are being played. Read the book!

        2. sorry for all he typos; but I will keep working it. For James Fetzer:

          Oh, here is another point that caught my attentiion: regard the English soccer team photo at Auschwitz…what is the date, where was it taken, who was the photographer?

          It seemed so incongruous, I find it particularly off the wall, as they say. We know of the classical music meant to calm down the soon-to-be exterminted ones as they walked to their fate. And I have read that the camp officials routinely spruced up a few finely-orchetrated theatrical sets for Red Cross inspectors. What a grisley joke on the inmates. The roving inspectors could not detect burning flesh or notice the tattoos on childrens’ arms?

          What a strange world we live in….

        3. It appears in Nicholas Kollerstrom, BREAKING THE SPELL (2014), which is the most up-to-date and scientific study of the Holocaust yet to appear in print. I highly recommend you track down a copy. It is also available on amazon.com. If you are serious about understanding the Holocaust and separating truth from fiction (which I believe is the case), then you want to have a copy. His is the first publication to report about the British “Death Books” and the data they provide confirmed the data from the ICRC. I include a map of Auschwitz, which has many features that are inconsistent with a center of extermination, such as a hospital with oby/gyn facilities, a symphony hall for the orchestra, a woodworking center for producing furniture and other artifacts–and even a brothel!

        4. About 56,000 soldiers died in prisons during the war, accounting for almost 10% of all Civil War fatalities.[11] During a period of 14 months in Camp Sumter, located near Andersonville, Georgia, 13,000 (28%) of the 45,000 Union soldiers confined there died.[12] At Camp Douglas in Chicago, Illinois, 10% of its Confederate prisoners died during one cold winter month; and Elmira Prison in New York state, with a death rate of 25%, very nearly equaled that of Andersonville.


          Death camps have been around in modern war time, going back to the Civil War in this country. To state that the victims of the Civil War camps were decimated would be an understatement. The term concentration camp was coined during the Boer wars. The Holocaust evokes particularly strong emotions for Jews, even though the victims are well known to have been both Jews and non-Jews targeted by the state.

        5. Jim, you put a lot into your presentations and work from facts. My personal opinion is that to continue entertaining people who assiduously avoid primary sources, or any real sources, and the basic facts is to give these lunatics the appearance of even semi-legitimacy on here. Patrick has lied outright numerous times, and Marilyn does also. Or maybe they just cannot bear to know that the ‘facts’ they spout aren’t considered authentic anymore even by the ‘pro’ side as the concrete evidence is just too hard to hide.

          Maybe Patrick can regale us with tales of how aliens abducted these so called missing jews. He’s an expert on super natural creatures and such, for real!

        6. ” Patrick has lied outright numerous times”

          How about this, darling girl: provide one, single, example. If you can’t, promise to stop pestering us with your hate. Deal?

        7. Patrick, my comment was directed to Jim Fetzer. You and Marilyn Jay can’t seem to observe the most basic of boundaries in this ‘debate’ that for you two has become some sort of mutual admiration society. I personally don’t think it’s advisable to respond to the type of inappropriate overly-personalizing tone Marilyn Jay resorted to when she couldn’t engage the facts. I shouldn’t have allowed her to drag me down to that level. I’ve never ‘h/t’d’ Jim Fetzer because his comments stand on their own, as do mine. Any truly interested parties can look up the sources Jim and I cite.

          People resort to these hollow emotional characterizations and inappropriately personal tones when they can’t stand on the facts and arguments.

          I’m neither Marilyn’s ‘dear’ nor your ‘darling girl,’ and you both disrespect the site by addressing me in such a manner. Since you are overall a civil and well-intentioned poster I’ll offer that I shouldn’t have been so caustic in my response and exit this discussion which hasn’t once engaged any of the primary sources or scientific evidence anyway.

    5. Marilyn, what is remotely “contradictory” about my stance on Paul? He died on 9 September 1966 and was replaced, which I support with a plethora of evidence, including forensic proof. Where do you come up with some of this nonsense? For a recent interview with Nick Kollerstrom, who has authored an (as yet unpublished) book about Paul, see “The Real Deal Ep. #70 Paul vs. Faul with Nick Kollerstrom”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcqugTraDrI Then tell me what it is that you fault. The case seems to me to be rock-solid!

      1. Oh Mr Fetzer, I am glad you asked about that.

        I understood you to say that Paul was thinking of making a controversial film of a political nature and was ‘offed’ possibly as a result. Then I thought I heard you say a woman jumped into his car which
        distracted him and he hit a pole; the woman jumped out and the car caught fire; he burned to death. That possibility sounds more like a typical accident. (Was she connected to MI6?)

        Then again, I thought I heard you say: Paul was decapitated. Or was that further information you were just passing along? Your interviews are so quick and full of information, it is sometimes difficult to assorb all of it in one session. (Slow down)

        Also, I had another dropped comment in which I mentioned that after the end of the war, 3.5,000,000 Jews were left in Europe. Starting out from 9.3,000,000 or 11,000,000 (dpending upon which figure you pull up) that represents a startlng decline.

        Thanks to all; it’s been interesting.

        1. Marilyn, while there are those who believe he may have been taken out for offering to compose the score for a film of “Rush to Judgment”, I am not among them at present (although I suppose I could be convinced, were new evidence to be produced that I have yet to encounter).

          It appears to have been an accident after an argument with John at the studio, where it was raining and Paul picked up a girl who was stranded. She was so excited to be in a car with Paul McCartney she distracted him, he ran a light, was hit in the side and the car ran into a pole.

          She got out but Paul was trapped. The car caught fire and he burned to death. It is a gruesome story, but the best I can do at reconstructing the event. You may want to watch my recent interview with Nick Kollerstrom, which includes some photos of Paul’s replacement not in the book.

        2. Since I am sight impaired, I would have to find your books online, Mr. Fetzer. My son rigged me up a huge computer screen with 200 resolution capability. That is the reason I can still blog.

          I appreciate your work on Wellstone, 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon Bombing but wonder why you feel compelled to take on the Holocaust with such zeal. Have listened to several of your electronic presentations. They mostly cover the same ground. If the German Reich did not plan to eliminate people, why store them like animals on a farm? The idea that Auschwitz possessed humane facilities is absurd when the purpose was to kill. Are you being played, sir?

          Also, did I miss your answer to my query on the Auschwitz English soccer team? The photo I am referring to seems out of sync and makes little to no sense.

          Thank you for your time.


        3. The book has become available in a Kindle edition. I recommend that you download it and read it and we can discuss these issues further. New scientific evidence combined with access to data not previously made public has motivated its reconsideration. Read my piece on the pink-and-blue argument, which is rooted in the laws of bio-chemistry and of materials science, and you will begin to appreciate that we know the official narrative cannot be sustained. I am not interested in denying the Holocaust but in getting history straight, which is untrue in this instance. I am not being played and the photo is a telling indiction that what we’ve been told in the past about the Holocaust is far removed from the truth.

        4. According to the International Red Cross, just over 200,000 jews were found dead in Europe, most of which are considered to have been starved due to the many Allied bombing raids, not murdered by the Germans and/or burned.
          I’d recommend reading David Irving’s books on WW2 as well as the incredible “Hellstorm” by Thomas Goodrich. It’s a heartstopper.

          Thanks to the jewry, it is illegal in a number of European countries to talk about the Holocaust and many well known people have gotten slammed into jail for disputing the figures, regardless of the proof they have in contrast to der Juden.

    6. Remember one thing here, Marilyn. Einstein was NOT given the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity, but his discourse on the photoelectric effect. Careful analysis, something unknown to you, showed that the committee appointed to handle the merits of his Prize application was UNABLE to fathom his boundless analysis because his work was BEYOND their comprehension,sacre bleu!!!!! So, they did the logical thing and refused him on his application to grant said Prize for relativity. Or, if you don’t know, fake it…..

  13. It is hard to know what to take seriously with Fetzer, coming as he does from a site that admitted to falsifying a great percentage of its published product. It is probably the same with Fetzer’s current published writings. Just off the top of my head Fetzer claims Tamerlan Tsarnev was bearded at the time of Boston Bombing and that the “naked man” taken into custody is Tamerlan, but the video while fuzzy is good enough to show the naked man is not bearded. I am not refuting that the bombing was a live drill but merely questioning some of Fetzer’s evidences which I am sure he would acknowledge as healthy skepticism? Were the early anti Jewish writings of Hitler and the early anti Jewish legislation of the National Socialist Party just the creation of story for later use by Zionist? Perhaps the Nazi documents out lining the “final solution” is just more of this cover creation as are all the other documents and plans for ovens, card punch systems etc all being for reliable story for possible later use? Not saying that some of Fetzer’s work is not credible but rather questioning how much.

    1. You can take EVERYTHING WITH ME seriously. I am disappointed at the distortions in your post, including attributing to a web site a remark by Gordon Duff. That is not honest reporting. When I am denouncing him, I am baffled why you would continue to associate me with Duff. Your reasoning about the Holocaust looks as sloppy as yours on VT.

      I am also troubled by your remarks about the Boston bombing, on which I have published quite a lot. Check it out. Maret send proof after proof that he had a beard at the time, when the footage from the marathon shows him clean shaven: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/05/they-didnt-do-it-maret-tsarnaev-blows.html

    2. Gordon Duff aka Bob Foote is the person who is given “credit” for admitting that 40% of his written verbiage is lies.
      It’s kind of pointless to say that because Jim Fetzer was “associated” with VT that he shares the 40% lie statistic, don’t you think?You probably have friends that lie, did it rub off on you?
      Don’t take the LSAT’s any time soon, finish the GED and then we’ll talk about it.

  14. Wow, Fetzer is one of my guru’s….I heard every minute for the last year or so, with Duff, Stew, Fetzer, Dean, etc….absolutely fascinating…good job! You are at the top now, too!

    talk to you soon, Shawn

    *Shawn E. Abrell*

    Attorney at Law *†*

    t 971.258.0333

    e shawn.e.abrell@gmail.com

    Partner* †*

    Abrell & Abrell, Attorneys at Law†

    92-1498-4 Aliinui Drive

    Kapolei, Hawai`i 96707

    t 971.258.0333

    f 971.223.3237

    e shawn.e.abrell@gmail.com

    skype abrell777

    *† Licensed in the State of Washington*

    ‘If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.’ A. Einstein

    This message is a confidential communication from Shawn E. Abrell, Attorney at Law*†*, and may be subject to attorney-client privilege. The information contained in this communication, and any attachments thereto, is privileged and confidential and intended solely for use by the addressee(s). Any other use or dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and is a tortious interference with confidential business relationships. If this was erroneously sent to you, please notify Shawn E. Abrell, Attorney at Law*†*, immediately at 971.258.0333 and permanently delete the original and any electronic or printed copies of this electronic communication. Thank you for your assistance.

  15. I just wanted to add a comment on the whole ‘Paul is Dead’ thing…just because it was something I hadn’t looked into very seriously, and I was surprised to see it included with other subjects that I have such as the moon fakery.

    So I’ve spent a couple days looking into it, I’ll admit to not having read the chapters in the book, and haven’t found anything even remotely convincing. What I did find though is a 1 hour lecture by Brian Moriarty on the subject that was fascinating and told from the perspective of Game theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLoRUS-ypM

    It’s an interesting account of his own fascination with the Paul is dead thing, when he was a kid back in 1970. It goes into the origin of the myth and the beatles reaction to it and ultimately shows the coincidental nature of most of the ‘death clues’.

    Wherever you stand on this issue, the end of the lecture where he relates his ‘death clue hunting’ experience to the concept of “Constellation” in game theory aka pattern recognition is just gold for anyone interested in ‘conspiracy’ related thinking. It makes you think how much of your own bias you bring to what you’re researching.

    1. “So I’ve spent a couple days looking into it, I’ll admit to not having read the chapters in the book, and haven’t found anything even remotely convincing.”

      Apparently, you haven’t been looking in very well researched places, Lev. If you work your way through all of this (trust me, it’s a lot of fun, all the way through): http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html and you still think Faul is Paul McCartney, I don’t think your reasoning abilities are up to the standards of this site.

      That research constitutes absolute proof.

      1. Well,
        I guess my reasoning abilities aren’t up to the standards of this site. I checked out that link and I’m even less convinced there is anything of substance to this myth than I was before. Maybe we see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe.

        What you see as ‘research’ constituting Absolute Proof seems dodgy and psuedoscientific to me. Of course, as stated above, I guess my standards aren’t up to snuff.

        Absolute proof…well there is no reasoning with that anyways.
        Good day.

  16. WordPress sucks sometimes…I’ll try again.

    I just wanted to comment on the ‘Paul is Dead’ thing because it was something I hadn’t looked into and was surprised to see it included with subjects that I have such as the moon hoax.

    I haven’t read the articles in the book yet, but what I have found online leaves me entirely unconvinced to say the least. I did find a 1 hour lecture by Brian Moriarty that was just great on the subject and relates it to Game Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLoRUS-ypM

    It details his own obsession with the ‘Paul is Dead’ thing when he was a kid in 1970 and goes into the origins of the myth and the beatles reaction to it. Ultimately it demonstrates that most of the ‘death clues’ are simply coincidence.

    The real Gold of the lecture is about the concept of “Constellation” in game theory aka, pattern recognition and how it relates to conspiracy research in general. It’s pretty fascinating and worth the time. It makes you think about your own biases which is a good thing when you’re diving down all of these rabbit holes.

  17. Pingback: The Modern Gnostic
  18. Pingback: dj1964
  19. Let us break out of the right-hand prison and start afresh.

    It occurs to me that this is a lot like the Jack the Ripper saga. Everyone knows the people died, but there is endless fascination in the facts of the case; the emotional energy invested in both is extreme, and never lessens, decade after decade. “True crime” stories are riveting–at least lots of people are riveted by them.

    That’s not to say these two examples are the same. With “Jack,” we know exactly how his victims died, whereas there’s apparently some dispute as to how the Germans snuffed the Jews. As for motive, the laws banning Jewishness make it not so hard to guess the WHY of the genocide; whether “Jack” was protecting a Royal from embarrassment, we might never know for sure. And we KNOW it was the Germans who committed the crime, whereas no one knows for certain who “Jack” was.

    As I say, it’s the endless fascination with these two events that makes them similar.

    The difference, I suppose, is that in one instance the dead people are prostitutes, whom no one cares about almost by definition, which makes the study purely for the fun of it. With the Jews of Europe, on the other hand, since it’s a case of genocide, there is a large constituency interested in getting to the bottom of it–because no one likes to see their whole family murdered, much less a large portion of one’s entire race. I think that would rankle me, too. Certainly, what I learned from “horsegirl”
    the other day, right here at MHB, about the English enslaving my own race, well, I can’t know exactly how the Jews feel about it but I no have a better taste of it than I did before.

    Still, I’ve never been interested in “true crime.” It bores me, for the most part. It’s enough to know the crime happened, and if the accused criminal was falsely convicted. (I DO want to know who poisoned Joffrey, that little shit, though. I suspect it’s Margaery’s grandmother; she seems quite the conniver.)

    This is important, if my readers wish to understand my thought (not the GOT aside). I have written here countless times that I’m certain that we can never know the names of the people behind 9/11, or indeed who is behind any of the pageants we have been treated to since. If we know their names, they are not high enough up, and thus can’t be the ones behind it. I have frequently referenced Eyes Wide Shut (which yesterday at MHB was discussed wonderfully, to my delight): the people who put on the ritual in the movie are unnamed, because the people behind these things keep the lowest of low profiles. They are content to get their New World Order; they do not wish to be congratulated for making us all slaves.

    The Jews of Europe–every single one that the Germans could gain access to–were absconded with.

    This is an incontrovertible fact.

    Almost all of them were never heard from again. Once more: no one disputes this.

    How do we know 9/11 really happened? Seven buildings named WTC were destroyed one morning, and two of them actually were turned into dust and blew away. David Copperfield didn’t pretend to do that. You can go to New York and see for yourself.

    How do we know the holocaust happened? Millions of Jews, whose ancestral home was the thousands of remote hamlets strewn across all the lands Germany invaded, were abducted, and vanished from history (at least most did; some we know died in captivity, and a few survived, sporting a lovely new tattoo to remind them of it). Just like the WTC buildings in New York, you can go those towns and see for yourself that none of them are there anymore.

    True crime novels, movies and television shows are big because many people are obsessed with finding out how crimes are accomplished. I am not one of those people.

    I don’t care about the exact number of people who died in the WTC buildings. I WAS interested to learn that planes didn’t do it, and conventional explosives and cutting charges didn’t do it–but I wouldn’t spend a lot of effort doing primary research to find it out. I’m glad other people do that work, though. I commend them for their service.

    So if the Germans didn’t use gas to murder the Jews, I’m glad to know that, too, but I don’t particularly care one way or another, any more than I care if it was Nukes or Tesla technology that turned WTC1 and WTC2 into dust. If the case is some day conclusively proven, I’ll be interested in reading about it. I like seeing things like that put to bed.

    Likewise, I can’t wait to find out if the people who are obsessed with proving that it was not gas that was used to murder the old people and children, abducted from all those unmapped villages in Belorussia, discover just what tool their German captors DID use to snuff ’em.

    Me, I’ll be here waiting, as I pursue my actual interests.

    1. I think Jack the Ripper was the Queen’s personal palace physician. He had had a stroke and was considered slightly deranged thereafter. His carriage was often spotted driving around the district where murders occurred–at least a carriage with the royal crest was noted on more than one occasion. He would have had the expertise in anatomical dissection of corpses described in graphic detail after each horrific event.

      Think some poor immigrant man was charged. Of course, any royal connection would be scrupulously covered up to avoid Buckingham entanglements. Sound familiar?

    2. Tons of people dispute these supposed ‘incontrovertible facts,’ Patrick. You’re debating like a child now. I’m no longer responding because I truly think to do so would be a discredit to this site.

      1. Who cares if there are morons who deny indisputable realities, Sue? I’ve heard that there are people who think there are no chemtrails.

        Hey, here’s a great movie of a true story about resisting the Germans in Belorussia: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_16

        Tell THOSE people, all of whose neighbors who did not join them in the forrest were carted off by the Germans. The main characters, after the war, came to America, so you really CAN tell them their experience was imaginary. BONUS!

    3. After The Vancouver Hearings (June 2012), each of the participants was invited to submit evidence in support of an indictment of key players in the event. My submission was “J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and O’Brien, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/911-jaccuse-zelikow-cheney-rumsfeld-bush-and-obrien/ So I think it is wrong to suppose. “If we know their names, they are not high enough up, and thus can’t be the ones behind it.” But knowing who was responsible and bringing them to justice are not the same thing. 9/11 was brought to us by the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad.

      1. A helpful summary of some of the features of the pageant, Dr. Fetzer. But it’s not the powerful thing you seem to think it is.

        “9/11 appears to have been a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and The White House itself. When consideration is given the the totality of the evidence, no alternative explanation is reasonable.”

        Of course it was “approved” there. They had to carry it out after all. But that doesn’t mean it was their creation.

        Your error is in thinking “Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and O’Brien” are somewhere near the top of the pyramid. Cheney takes his orders from David Rockefeller, and David takes HIS orders from the nameless men Kubrick so ably told us about. These guys are just worker-bees. I’m surprised you don’t know that. Here is an example of how badly you miss the true meaning of the evidence you cite:

        “According to Mineta, the vice president was asked about orders concerning the approaching aircraft:
        There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’ Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. 11”

        This is so silly, Dr. Fetzer, I’m amazed you didn’t see through it right away. At the speed the plane was supposedly moving, the boy would have had to be sprinting in and out of the office, as if on a tag team, to keep updating Cheney. Even at 50 miles out, it would have been far too late for a shoot-down order to stop the plane. 10 miles? Ha! They obviously wanted us to laugh at Mineta’s testimony, but knowing that the American people are too stupid to get the joke, it was really a way for them to laugh at US, rubbing our faces in it.

        So why did our masters put Mineta up to this stupidity? (Perhaps he is smart enough that he tried to refuse to recite the lines, his part being so obvious a plot-hole—but what the hey, the whole thing was nonsensical from start to finish, and since NO actor in this ridiculous play was going to sound sensible, I’ll bet he thought, why make waves? Might as well just keep cashing the pay check.)

        The answer: to make Cheney look like the one in charge of the whole operation, the Darth Vader of the Left’s fevered imagination, to cast him in the role of a heartless murderer (which, of course, he is, which indicates that the casting director was top-notch).

        So this exchange actually PROVES that Cheney was not the mastermind, just one cog in the machine—the designated fall-guy the inevitable skeptics would be handed. The Emanuel Goldstein character of the play.

        The fact of the matter is the people you list were just playing parts in the pageant. Being a lead actor in a play does not make one either the writer of the script or the producer, much less the mastermind behind the whole production. They are of course guilty of crimes, for participating. But really, in fact, I often wonder if any of these fellows will even rate a ticket to survival in a Deep Underground Military Base, when the real trouble is finally unleashed by our masters. I doubt that David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski would find themselves capable of enduring their company in a confined environment for more than a few hours. I know I couldn’t.

        1. Patrick, you are correct about these characters being players and nothing more. How many non players capable of independent thought could stomach their company for even an hour – be it under or above ground? The company of David and Zbigniew ? Never.

          Mineta’s story is a hoot. The young man sprinting back and forth displayed Olympic skills. As dangerous as these players are, they also provide top notch amusement.

    4. Patrick, just one last point on this Holocaust issue, then I think it’s time for me to move on.

      As the Russians approached Auschwitz death camp at war’s end, the Germans quickly tried to cover deeds and in their frenzied escape, they marched surviving prisoners off to other camps in Germany, destroyed files, and blew up the cremation ovens. Would tend to show why so much information was lost. And unfortunately, would give substance to unfounded rumors surrounding atrocities that still persist today.

      U S General D.D. Eisenhower ordered his camera crews to take pictures of one liberated “work camp” for posterity. He said future generations would never believe what had transpired there. Did he nail human nature? He also said he was ashamed to be from German stock. He then ordered town’s people to walk through the camp to view the human bodies and help to bury the thousands of dead.

      1. Don’t know what’s being moderated this time. But it forced me to pull up many links. This one perhaps fits best…Eisenhower was so repelled by what he saw at liberated camps, he maybe rethought much about his German heritage. Soul searching is not generally a military priority.

        How do you react when you stare into the eyes of the devil?


        1. Patton had very very different things to say about the camps and their inhabitants. He’s rumored to have been offed by the same inner circle who faked the Hoax.

          Dr. Tracy, if you continue to allow such one-sided ‘debate’ to go on via selective moderating, I’m out of here once again.

        2. Sue, I happen to like Patton. But here’s the problem: his bias was always in favor of people like himself, clean, with manners and sophistication, and he was not brought up to be a bleeding heart. If you ever go to the Huntington Library in Pasadena, California, and stroll through its fabled gardens, you will find yourself at one extreme edge right by where young Georgie Patton and his sister rode their horses. They had a privileged upbringing. So even though he was intent on our beating the Germans, to him it was more like beating another football team, and not eliminating an existential threat.

          He had little of sense of sympathy for the down-trodden. It would have seemed a leftist notion in his social Darwinist circles. I remember going to a second hand store in Pasadena many years ago, when some of the Old Guard were still around (every wedding announcement in the Pasadena Star News used to detail what Founding Fathers the bride and groom were descended from, as though nobody else was — but that is the privilege of wealth) — where they were selling piles of back issues of some Eugenics magazine. It seemed creepy to me at the time, but I discovered that in the 1920’s or so, lots of people thought it was quite progressive. Guess Hitler gave it a bad name.

          So that’s Patton’s milieu (and I still love him and so did Hollywood) – he was repelled by the sight of survivors of the camps, imagining somehow, perhaps from German propaganda which he believed, that they could have kept themselves clean and not just laid down and died. I imagine he viewed the plight of African Americans with similar lack of insight. He was like someone who was tone deaf or colorblind.

          Also, of course, he saw a great threat in Stalin’s important victory. It was necessary to winning the war, but the price to be paid was very high for civilization. Churchill probably put it best, but Patton momentarily forgot the fact that Stalin’s enemies are not necessarily our friends either.

        3. Oh Sue Patrick must be devastated by your rejection and we don’t march in step on all issues; but this one is so obvious we sometimes mesh on ideas.


      2. Was NOT Auschwitz, the pictures were taken at Ordruff. Bodies piled up were from other camps and piled up there. Ike, part jew, absolutely loathed Germans. He loved the Morgenthau plan to murder Germans.
        Nuremberg was another jew stinkjob. Even to-be Senator Thomas Dodd mentioned “there’s too many jews on the judicial committees”. Robert Jackson, head of the judicial committee, had a violent argument with Francis Yockey, author of “Imperium”, and the latter flat out quit his involvement in the farce called Nuremberg. Yockey was a brilliant mind, he know the court scenario was a total farce thanks to the greasy input of the jew element of world politics.

Comments are closed.