Prof. James Tracy’s Termination in Light of Orwell’s 1984: If all records told the same tale

David Mathisen
The Mathisen Corollary

Image: Wikimedia Commons

But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) — the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

— George Orwell, 1984 (pages 31-32 in the Signet reprint of the 1949 hardcover).

If all records are made to tell the same (lying) tale, then the memory of the past can be altered for the purposes of exercising control over others. Drawing a veil over the memory of the past, and imposing a false picture of the past in its place, is a tremendously powerful weapon — as George Orwell dramatizes in 1984.

In order to do it, the above passage clearly implies, dissenting views of history must be removed from the record — so that all records tell the same tale.

Until January of this year (2016), that is to say until last month, Professor James Tracy was a tenured professor of media studies at Florida Atlantic University, studying the exact subject which Orwell so powerfully dramatizes in 1984 — namely, the ways in which the narrative of the past is shaped by those who seek to “control the past,” through the organs of the media.

When he found evidence that, in certain circumstances, “all the records” seemed to be lining up in ways that excluded the possibility of any dissenting voices — and even excluded credible evidence which seemed to suggest a very different perspective than the official narrative — he acted upon his belief that such situations should be examined more closely and the conflicting evidence considered carefully, because the “control of history” (as Orwell so clearly warned us) is an extremely coveted weapon by those who wish to annihilate opposition, more terrifying even than “mere torture and death.”

In fact, Professor Tracy selected a name for his blog which reflected the importance of the truth that George Orwell articulated regarding the desire to eliminate all records that do not tell the same tale, by those who seek to control the minds of others. Evoking a concept described in 1984 just a few pages after the section quoted above, Professor Tracy calls his blog (which I believe he started in 2012) the Memory Hole Blog — perhaps because the evidence he and others discuss there is the same evidence that those who want all records to tell the same tale are trying to “send down the memory hole,” so to speak.

Here is Orwell’s first introduction of the famous “memory holes” (which he depicted as though they literally exist in the walls of buildings, in order to in a sense “make visual” to our imaginations a very real activity which is taking place somewhat “invisibly” all around us, though often without our notice or conscious awareness that it is going on):

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers, and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston’s arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

1984, (pages 34 – 35 in the Signet reprint of the 1949 hardcover).

The immense amounts of energy which those wishing to “control the past,” to control the narrative and the record of history, are willing to expend in order to do so — and the intolerance that must be shown to any “scrap of an alternative narrative lying about,” so to speak — is brilliantly captured in Orwell’s metaphorical depiction (or perhaps not so metaphorical, as 1984’s “cubicles” are most certainly an all-too-common reality, and as most physical newspapers and even books made out of paper seem to have already been wafted away on the currents of warm air into a digital hall of records, where of course we can all access them freely via the web, although an imagination similar to Orwell’s might wonder whether that will always be the case).

In any event, it seems that Professor Tracy’s activities to expose evidence that seemed to conflict with the accepted narrative of certain important historical events — evidence which was supposed to have been safely shunted down the “memory hole,” in order to ensure that “all records told the same tale” — was not always welcome as a valuable contribution to the examination of the ways in which narratives are shaped in order to “control the past and the future.”

Even though he was a professor in a department offering classes on media, journalism, and the way that those institutions impact our understanding of history and narratives, where such subjects should be free to be openly discussed, Professor Tracy’s employment was terminated by his university in January of this year. He had been a tenured professor since 2008 — the very concept of “tenure” having been instituted in academia (ostensibly) to enable professors to have the freedom to pursue the truth without fear of being fired for pursuing unpopular evidence or explanations.

He was also verbally attacked and ridiculed in the media.

Both of these circumstances — the vicious media attacks and the firing of a tenured professor for having the courage to examine and discuss evidence which does not fit with the “official narrative” — seem to be very strong evidence in and of themselves pointing to deliberate efforts to make “all records tell the same tale.”

In other words, these actions appear to confirm the reality of the very “memory holes” that Orwell warned us about, and that Professor Tracy is talking about in the present day.

The denial of the evidence of history, by drawing a veil containing a new and fabricated historical narrative over the actual events, is an incredibly important subject, and one which should deeply concern every single adult man or woman on the planet.

It is an incredibly important subject for the recent past (including events such as the September 11 attacks in 2001 which launched wars which have continued nonstop since that date, in which literally hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives), as well as for events of previous decades around which a single “acceptable narrative” has been permitted to be told and conflicting evidence ignored, marginalized, or even “sent down the memory hole.”

It is also an incredibly important subject for humanity’s ancient past, where abundant evidence from multiple fields of study — including archaeology, geology, and (based upon the evidence that I discuss showing that the myths of virtually every culture on earth use a common system of celestial metaphor) mythology — appears to call into question the conventional narrative of human history.

I am not suggesting that Professor Tracy endorses my particular views of ancient history or mythology (although he was gracious enough to interview me on his podcast and radio program in 2014, and he has posted a few blog posts I have written over the years about the vital importance of the narrative of history, including “Paging Dr. Zaius” and “Analysis: against mind control, for human consciousness”).

Nor am I suggesting that everyone must share Professor Tracy’s every conclusion in order to find his firing reprehensible and a grave confirmation that much of what are (or were once) thought to be the bastions of free speech and honest examination of the evidence in the pursuit of truth in the United States — namely the media (both print and video) and the halls of academia — are in fact actively complicit in the suppression of any dissenters who do not comply with the directive that “all records must tell the same tale.”

And, it should be pointed out, that this is by no means a merely “academic” debate. To return again to my own focus on much more ancient history, please revisit this post from early December of 2015 in which I cited the powerful observation of Peter Kingsley that the prophet in ancient times was not necessarily one who was consulted regarding the future, but rather regarding the past — and in particular, was called upon in order to find out what overlooked error or crime or offense in the past was now bringing about calamity in the present.

For example, in the Iliad, when the Achaeans perceive that the god Apollo is sending invisible arrows of death to smite all their warriors, and that he will undoubtedly continue to do so until all of them are dead unless they figure out how they have offended the god, the leaders consult a prophet.

Elsewhere in the Iliad, Agamemnon recounts a different example that follows the same pattern, describing the time the assembled ships were ready to sail to Troy, but the weather turned violently against them and remained that way, until they consulted a prophet to find out which god they had offended (in that case, it was Agamemnon who had offended the goddess Artemis).

In other words, the prophet was needed in order to correct their faulty memory of the past — to show them the crimes or transgressions they had committed against the divine order of the universe, but which for whatever reason had been improperly understood or appreciated and which had not been dealt with and corrected.

Until such past imbalances are seen and confronted, they will keep haunting us until we deal with them — and the ancient myths teach us that until we deal with the problem, no one is safe.

So, burying our head in the sand is not an option.

The ancients knew this — that’s why they would immediately seek out a prophet or a seer who could tell them what was wrong in the invisible world, once they realized that the gods were trying to tell them something.

And that is probably why the writings of George Orwell seem so “prophetic” today (in the more conventional or colloquial usage of the word prophet to describe someone who is foretelling the future): Orwell was describing a problem that was not dealt with, and so the consequences of that un-confronted issue were going to keep cropping up again and again — and it appears that may be exactly what is happening to this day, which makes it seem as though he was predicting the future (and in that sense, he certainly was).

In this sense, although he probably would not accept my labeling his work using such language, James Tracy is acting in a prophetic role as well, by pointing to unexamined issues in the past, and saying that they must be examined instead of being ignored or papered-over or even “tossed down the memory hole.”

Please take some time to look into the eyes of George Orwell in the picture above, and ask yourself if you think he would advise us to ignore the subjects that James Tracy is bravely calling to our attention, or if he would diagnose these events as repeated manifestations of something to which he himself was trying to call our attention as well.

51 thoughts on “Prof. James Tracy’s Termination in Light of Orwell’s 1984: If all records told the same tale”

  1. If all accounts must tell the same tale, and in these recent faux terror episodes they do, then actual reporting from the field in anathema. News presenters, news readers, must never stray from the lines they are given. I think we have to admit this is true.

    They may follow a “story” like a post bombing amputation, how the patient is holding up, how they are dancing with the stars, but never does anyone return to the scene of the crime and pay attention to how so many atrocities could possibly have happened with the strange lack of destruction there. That’s only one rather simple story, one which was never hard to pursue. Only leaked photographs give it the lie, and the mystery is that they came to light at all. There must be some resistance at work, which may thus far have escaped control.

    But such discrepancies from the record are easy enough to deal with, and the technique is to dismiss someone who doubts as a person who believes in a lot of superstitions as well, and wears a “tinfoil hat”. Dissent becomes a sort of leprosy, and the dissenter an untouchable. It’s astonishing how many will accept this, while at the same time proclaiming they live in a free country. The firing of a tenured professor on trumped up complaints – but of course.

  2. EXCELLENT piece, Mr Mathisen. I was very interested to see the part about the ancient meaning of the word prophet, signifying one who described the sins in the PAST which reflected in the present.

    I think it will be obvious to all who read this site that there are powers in our world that go to extreme lengths to manipulate our perception of reality – I doubt anyone would be reading this far if they did not already understand this. In fact, I have come to the very unpleasant conclusion that this trend has accelerated to such a degree over the past 20 years that the overwhelming majority of the world’s population has been induced to accept as given truth a staggering multitude of brazen fabrications, which in many cases are in fact a near perfect INVERSION of reality.

    Of late, I find myself painfully aware that I am privy to a body of truth that I am unable to share with most of those around me, including most of my old friends and pretty much my entire family. It is a very frustrating and painful thing to learn that knowledge can so profoundly alienate one from those we are close to, from the vast majority of the entire society we live in. I assume, once again, that most who are reading these words know what I am talking about.

    We know what happens when we dare to broach, even in the most oblique, indirect way, certain taboo topics. We understand how people tend to shut down immediately if we step over certain lines. We know the range of responses we can expect – the superior, knowing amusement, thinly veiled disgust, angry contempt, the hostile denial. We understand how they have no interest whatsoever in examining any evidence we might present. We have seen how people simply refuse to even CONSIDER the remote possibility that certain ideas might be true.

    I have no doubt that this phenomenon, this fascinating pressure point in human psychology, is one that is not only very well studied and understood by those who substitute falsehood for truth in the minds of the masses, but it is a phenomenon that they actively nurture and amplify. They know all about our primal desire for the safety of the herd, our mortal fear of isolation from the group. I think there is no end of evidence that we have all been conditioned from early childhood in a ways that reinforce these primal psychological pressure points.

    So what is it that people fear when someone suggests to them that our governments and the media might be lying to them? I think it is evident in the experiences common to those who have stepped beyond the pale and eaten the forbidden fruit of knowledge. What they fear is precisely what my own experience has been, described above. Social alienation and ostracism, isolation from the group, just for starters. Obviously, we all sense that the penalties can go well beyond that, depending on circumstances.

    I came upon a quote in a book titled “Justice Matters” by Mona Weissmark about a study done on the children of holocaust victims and victimizers a couple of years ago, which struck me as a profound general truth about human group psychology. Even though she was writing about and applying it to an entirely unrelated subject (and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she were horrified by me applying it to this circumstance if she knew about it), nonetheless I believe it fits all too well. It describes to perfection the inherent resistance – which is deliberately played upon and amplified by the transnational deep state – that we all have to even considering alternatives to the beliefs held by the large majority of those around us. This is particularly true when those beliefs pertain to traumatic events that resonate powerfully with primal emotions that focus on fear of rejection or isolation for familial or tribal disloyalty. Here is her quote:

    “There are social pressures imposed on us to accept assertions about conditions of reality that lay claim to our beliefs rather than our intellect. This in turn compels us to ignore new facts, to deny them, or treat them as oddities. Otherwise, we may risk the threat of isolation, punishment, the loss of identity. The psychic cost of changing one’s view of reality is considerable…”

    1. It is always good to hear from David Mathisen. Also, I came across this video about what is going on in China regarding a “harmless” little app to create social pressure to conform. I thought it would go well with Stuarts well crafted comment above.

    2. Apparently you are in denial or ignorance that the Holohoax/Holco$t did not happen. Any person with two brain cells to rub together, who examined the evidence could see that it is impossible to accomplish the feat. There is so much evidence that this is another supreme lie told to the common man, that only a fool could continue to beLIEve that it is true.

      1. Oh, yes. “There is so much evidence that this is another supreme lie told to the common man, that only a fool could continue to beLIEve that it is true.”

        If I understand your argument here,THX, the millions of Jews who lived in every corner of Europe at the time of WWII, and their descendants, still live there, and their relatives who have traveled there to find them since the war ended, only to discover that their villages are utterly devoid of Jews, don’t actually experience that trauma. I can’t imagine how you explain that. They are still there, but no one can see them. Maybe the NAZIs created an invisibility device so gentiles don’t have to LOOK at the despicable creatures who live in their midst; the “final solution” was not murder after all–they’re all still there, but even their relations from non-European countries can’t see them anymore, either.

        The thing is, those family members who have made the pilgrimage, in their millions, feel unquenchable sadness. I know many Jews whose entire families simply vanished. Maybe its a mass-example of the phenomenon David Paulides has documented in his Missing411 books ( Everyone tells them that they were killed. You say it’s a lie, that they weren’t murdered–so if they really are NOT still in every remote hamlet, but it wasn’t the NAZIs rounding them up wherever they conquered, it was the same mysterious face that is abduction hikers in National parks! THAT’s why we can’t see them when we tour Europe! If so, David should get on the case; it might help those millions of Jews in their grieving process. Some sense of closure.

        I’ve been to Israel. In a way, it can be a very lonely place, because almost all the Jews who live there are haunted by all the missing family members who never left Europe for the new State. Unfortunately, they, too, have been persuaded by that “supreme lie” as you describe it, that their relatives were murdered. They are deluded, apparently, and their invisible families are either still alive and well in every remote hamlet from Normandy to Transdniestria, their customs and histories still intact, or a mysterious force abducted them all (I’m going with the latter, for now). You really should tell them the key to the mystery, friend. If you spend some time with them you will know their unconsolable sadness. Maybe you can help.

        One more thing. You say that “only a fool” thinks all those millions of people were not rounded up and systematically killed, with the goal of removing all traces of Jewish humanity form every corner of Europe (i.e. the Holocaust). I know that many of the people around here at MHB harbor a rabid Jew-hatred, hating them because they consider them by nature evil–but this is the first time I have heard it said that they are all by nature fools. Fools because they are too stupid to be able to find their families. Boy, you really have to feel for them, as a race, suffering as they do from such monumental stupidity. And to think that everyone believes Jews are smart! Just another myth, busted, apparently.

      2. Here we go with the Jews again. If they are such a stumbling block, why not simply quit believing in them. Throw them down the memory hole. When little Timmy cries Daddy, Daddy, there is a Jew under my bed. Just tell him, Timmy, there’s no such things as Jews. For that matter Timmy, there is no such thing as genocide, the twentieth century was all in your imagination. It was all just a bad dream. Everything will be OK. Things like that can’t happen anymore, Err, Umm, because they never did.

        Trying to explain to someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible, why there are Jews on this planet, why they persist, why their culture survives, is an exercise in futility. I am barely able keep it straight, though I look at it over and over again. Its a lot of work. Maybe that is why most people just wish they were gone.

        Of course, all the other genocides committed by all the other collectivist freaks that hate the concept of the individual, well those, they are perfectly believable.

        1. The reason all the other genocides are believable is that they actually happened. At least 40 million people were killed during the “hostilities” of WWII, so even if we accept that 6 million Jews were exterminated, why are we only reminded of the suffering of the poor Jews? Why does “holocaust” only apply to the six million Jews? How come the people who constantly yap that “we must never forget” don’t care if we forget all the millions of Chinese and Russians who were murdered during WWII?

          And why is asking questions about the Nazis and what they may or may not have done, such a threat to the holocaust story? Real historians have no reason to fear reexamining the past because all they care about is finding the truth, and are willing to follow the evidence trail wherever it leads them. I’ve personally read Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe, and I know he never mentioned death camps or gas chambers once. It is said that Eisenhower had Jewish heritage, so I don’t know how he was motivated to deny, but I’m pretty sure he’d laugh at the notion not being able to find one’s family necessarily proves anything other than that it can’t be found.

        2. I would have no problem with the entire war being labeled “holocaust”. One genocide is no better than another. However, only one could return Israel to the land. Nothing could stop that.

      3. The real Holocaust was what was done to the Germans (and Japanese) with the fire bombing of German cities, when they served no purpose other than to burn alive men women children, the sick, the aged etc (see Dresden) or the over 1 million German POWs in the Eisenhower death camps, where POWs were placed outside with no protection from the rain, snow, cold, almost no food and water, no toilets, no bathing areas, etc.;
        the German women that were raped, made into slaves years after the war etc-THIS IS THE TRUE STORY OF WWII,
        which only makes the lies and facades of the so called Jewish Holocaust and other events that make people who KNOW the truth hurl

    3. I feel ya brah. I have resorted to emailing, texting, and handing out slips of paper with book titles to back me up. “Hope & Tragedy”, “Dope Inc”, “Monster of Jekyll Is.”, “Hitler / Wall Street”, “Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy” by Michael Collins Piper etc. Eustis Mullins, Barry Goldwater, David Ickes, and John Stockwell, Gary Allen, Dean Henderson, Daniel Estulin, Jim Marrs, G.William Domhoff are a few authors that come to mind. There are hundreds of titles that confirm the truth of deceit by the powers at large. A warning is included that melancholy to PTSD affliction has been noted.

  3. Defense Attorney – “Mr. Langley, will you please explain to the court the meaning of ‘tenure’ as it relates to tenured professorship?”

    Expert Witness, Langley – “Well…(lengthy pause), a professor who has been granted ‘tenure’ has been recognized as being a valuable asset to an institution; typically a university. In so doing, those professors are free to teach with relative immunity against persecution by the administrations overseeing the schools in which they teach. More importantly, their status allows their teaching to be unaffected by the political views of any outside parties.”

    Defense Attorney – “Or, in other words they can’t simply be fired for having unpopular or controversial views. Is that correct?”

    Expert Witness, Langley – “Yes, that’s an accurate statement.”

    Defense Attorney – “Would you agree then, that past controversies in administrative matters at various universities…specifically arising from views held by professors within the faculty at those universities was the primary issue that led to the establishment of ‘tenureship?'”

    Expert Witness, Langley – “I believe that to be the case.”

    Defense Attorney – “Thank you. The defense has no further questions for Mr. Langley.”

  4. “The ancients knew this — that’s why they would immediately seek out a prophet or a seer who could tell them what was wrong in the invisible world, once they realized that the gods were trying to tell them something.”

    Maybe elsewhere, but not in Israel. The prophets we have recorded in the Old Testament are almost always voices crying in the wilderness, hated by the established order, and certainly not consulted by either nation’s rulers in those days. They rarely had anything good to report from Yahweh about their present behavior or their plans for the future, so they were hated and ignored. It did not matter that the true prophets always turned out to be perfectly accurate in their pronouncements, over hundreds of years; the kings wanted false prophets around them, to tell them what they wanted to hear. Disaster always ensued.

    I think this would have been a better observation for your otherwise fine narrative to have led to, David, because it is in my opinion the true status of James Tracy. Prophets (the Biblical kind) don’t always know they are prophets, and as you intimate it is unlikely that James would welcome the (dubious?) honor. They are just uniquely capable of seeing the truth, and simply cannot keep their mouths shut, even when they know the consequences will be very unpleasant. They exist to see and say what needs to be known by those who CAN’T see it.

    Take the last Old Testament brand of prophet, John the Baptist, for example. He knew where telling the truth to Herod’s face about the sin he was openly living would lead. And indeed, his head ended up on a plate. He wouldn’t dream of doing it any differently. COULDN’T have done.

    Similarly, James. He simply reports the truth as it unfolds in his consciousness, and could not care a fig about the warnings issued to him by the “kings” he happens to be living in the times of. (I have told Barry Chamish numerous times the same thing about himself, which he never wants to contemplate, irascible fellow that he can be in his desire to keep things entirely secular.)

    But this is a minor quibble. Your observations about Orwell’s model fitting this situation are very astute, and entirely apposite. I wish I had thought of the outline myself. A very great contribution. Thanks!

  5. Wow, I want to talk about “memory holes” so bad my mouth is watering, but that will have to wait, because I want to give Dr. Tracy a chance to review & respond to the same information I gave Kevin Scott King. I sent him an email the day before Thanksgiving, and never got any response – don’t know if that was because it was indecipherable drivel, or it just got caught in his junk mail filter and he never saw it. (Will send email today)

    I’m hoping the version I gave Mr. King is at least semi coherent in comparison to the word salad I sent out on November 25 – I just don’t communicate very well and apologize for that – I’m embarrassed to directly address anyone like a professor of communications because I never learned proper grammar and couldn’t tell you the difference between a conjugated verb and a dangling participle to save my life. But I can see & smell BS from a mile away, and the University’s position on this tenure thing is about as pure as BS can get.

    I think everyone who follows this blog is familiar with Dr. Tracy’s predicament, compare the conduct described below to simply asking for proof of legal standing, and then realize that the “professor” does not have tenure. (I could be wrong about that, but I’m pretty sure she’s just an adjunct or a lecturer and is an “at will” employee.):

    “This week, Mireille Miller-Young who still has her job at the university pleaded no contest.

    Joshua Rhett Miller of FOX News reported:

    California professor pleads no contest to assault on pro-life students

    A feminist studies professor at a California state university accused of forcibly grabbing an anti-abortion activist’s poster and assaulting the 16-year-old girl has pleaded no contest to three misdemeanor charges.

    University of California at Santa Barbara Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young was charged with one count each of grand theft, vandalism and battery in connection to the March 4 incident involving 16-year-old Thrin Short, her older sister, Joan, and other pro-life activists who were holding signs in a free speech zone on the campus when the professor went berserk.

    Miller-Young, who remains employed by the university, and her attorney, Catherine Swysen, did not respond to requests for comment. The charges reportedly carry the possibility of jail time, but sources close to the matter say Miller-Young is likely to be ordered to pay a fine, perform community and undergo counseling when she’s sentenced on Aug. 14.

    According to a police report on the March 4 incident, Miller-Young told police that she was pregnant and was “triggered” by the protesters’ signs and the graphic images depicted on them.

    Try to imagine the press coverage this story would generate if a conservative professor had assaulted a student protesting any liberal cause on any college campus.

    This is what conservative and libertarian students face on college campuses. Liberal professors and students who not only disagree with them but are openly hostile and who will stop at nothing to silence their voices.

    Featured image via YouTube.”

    1. The “battery” charge against the professor in your example seem to be a bit ridiculous considering the lack of evidence. The video shown does not show anything that would qualify as such, and it seems like it could implicate the “victim” as easily as the “perpetrator”. Nonetheless, I agree that the behavior of this professor is reprehensible and deserving of a more severe penalty than she was given. I absolutely agree that these protesters were simply exercising there free speech rights and it was outrageous that their sign was taken from them.

      You seem to miss some very important distinctions in the broader issue of the repression of free speech, however. The difference between this example you cite and what Professor Tracy has experienced is very important, they really are not the same thing at all. One involves the repression of free speech by a small group of individuals (the professor and two students), and the other involves the repression of free speech by the administrator of a state institution, in response to a coordinated campaign by local corporate media attacking Professor Tracy for the views he expressed.

      In other words, even though both types of free speech repression are wrong and deserving of condemnation, there are some VERY important qualitative differences between these two general categories. One involves the spontaneous actions of an individual or small group acting on their own initiative, and the other involves the highest authority in a government institution with corporate proxies (the media) to suppress critical speech which questions the veracity of governmental and corporate media narratives. Do you understand the significance of this HUGE distinction?

      1. Actually, the only point I intended to make was that a woman who does not have tenure and isn’t even in tenure track, got to keep her job, whereas Dr. Tracey merely asked someone to prove legal standing, before meeting an ultimatum. If that’s cause for termination, then FAU professors have tenure in name only.

        Maybe you’re the one who missed the HUGE distinction – Dr, Tracey not only didn’t violate any law, he had every right ask for bonafides. The porn professor pleaded no contest to crimes they actually put people in jail for.

        BTW, it’s interesting that you would try to minimize what that whacko did – what’s that all about? And what makes you think her actions were spontaneous? I think the whole thing was staged, including the anti-abortionists.

        1. Try re reading what I wrote again. I agreed that you were correct in saying that what the other professor did was wrong, and she should have been punished more severely. I think it is obvious that her case is quite different from that of James Tracy, for the obvious reason that she did something wrong and got a slap on the wrist, and he did NOTHING wrong and got fired. HUGE difference, I AGREE.

          However, please try to understand what I’m getting at. There are OTHER important differences between Dr Tracy’s case and the one you cite. The Professor who stole the protester’s sign was acting on her own initiative, right? You don’t think she was put up to that by someone higher up the chain of command, do you?

          Tracy, on the other hand, was targeted by two sources (the media and the most powerful person at the University) who were themselves arguably acting as proxies for the most powerful interests in the world. Tracy’s work raised serious questions about the corporate government and corporate media’s narrative, and they responded by having their foot soldiers attack and fire him, in complete violation of the US Constitution and tenure contract law.

          As far as me “trying to minimize what that whacko did” – I merely pointed out what the video shows – that there was no evidence of “battery”. Watch the video – I think any objective person would agree that it showed (with no clarity at all because the camera was too close and jumping all over the place) a very minor scuffle, apparently a bit of a tug of war over the sign, and no sign of “battery” perpetrated by either side. Regardless, she should have been more severely punished for stealing the sign and infringing on the protester’s freedom of speech.

        2. Look, I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, but the problem is that I don’t think anything like the way you do – you want me to stipulate that some woman I’ve never even met, was “upset” by a picture of a fetus, and “spontaneously” decided that the UCSB goon squad, aka the campus police weren’t crushing the “free speech zone” quite as ruthlessly as she could? Seriously? Did you know that she teaches some sort of “pornography appreciation” course? I’m guessing no, else you probably wouldn’t take anything she says or does without a big pile of “salt”.

          I’m sorry, but the time when I could accept anyone, or anything, as actually being the way it or they are “supposed to be”, ended a long time ago. Maybe you haven’t seen some of the other comments I’ve posted – I’m not playing a game – I know of a major news story that has been widely reported on the local TV news, all over California for the last 5 years – it’s a provable and unmistakable hoax involving numerous “authorities”, and if I can get this thing to “unwind” publicly, that horrifying sound you hear will be the largest piece of “excrement hitting the fan” in California history.

          I don’t want to put anything out publicly for numerous reasons, but mostly because if ever this does get a major reveal, “they” will out my ID – I’m not discussing my personal problems here, but if you could see where I am, and what I and my surroundings look like, you would most likely wonder “what in the name of God happened there?” And I think you’d understand exactly why I can’t personally write any story – all I can do is give someone else a synopsis of publicly reported “facts”, and links to publicly available data proving the official government/MSM narrative false.

          You have a nice day, okay?”

  6. I have been a guest on Dr. Tracy’s radio broadcast as well as a guest author on this site. Dr. Tracy is the last person who would resort to, or, advocate violence. However, the fact that F.A.U. resorted to mobbing evinces a reckless state of mind on their behalf.
    Does F.A.U. remember the 2010 U. of Alabama at Huntsville mass shooting by a Harvard educated professor? A little closer to home, in Jacksonville, teacher Shane Schumerth shot dead the headmaster at Episcopal H.S. after complaining of harassment.

    Given that literally hundreds of shootings and other acts of violence result from the toxic environment of mobbing, why do academic institutions continue this recklessness? Why can’t the U.S. evolve like Scotland, a handful of jurisdictions in the E.U., and, even Turkey, and, enact laws against this systemic and systematic psychological terrorism? Here are the consequences of mobbing:

  7. That last sentence is obviously intended for newer readers of this site – anyone who knows of Professor Tracy, whether by this blog or from his teachings, knows that what he speaks of is the bread and butter of life in America.

    This country wouldn’t be what it was for all those decades if not for the freedoms and liberties we once enjoyed. We won’t get them back by sticking our heads in the sand; and if we did, we would be deserving of nothing more than Emperor Caligula’s bladed tank.

  8. The title of the book is Nineteen Eighty Four. Not 1984. Writing about a tenured college professor and mistaking the title of this novel is ironic at best especially given the title of this blog.

    1. I’m holding a paperback copy from Signet Classics and 1984 is not spelled out anywhere … so either the original spelling of the title went down the memory hole, or you are mistaken…

  9. We have been brain washed, mind controlled, and poisoned in this country for longer than we would ever want to admit. From the media (informative and entertainment), education system, medicine, marketing, food (including water), and availability to just general knowledge. They’ve attempted to label people who speak of truth “conspiracy theorists” or “unpatriotic”. Only a very small percentage of Americans with a lot of connections to higher level people, usually with access to government, or are extremely wealthy are exempt from the ever-seeing watchful “eye” and subsequent consequences if you step too far towards uncovering the truth. Snowden was VERY brave and heroic for what he did to say the least. If you are considered exempt its probably because you are apart of their group or are fully aware and are too afraid to speak out or you agree with their agenda. We are looked upon as subhumans to be profitted off of and subdued. They are very fearful of our minds. I’m unafraid to speak truth because of my faith in a Higher Power named Jesus.

    1. “Snowden was VERY brave and heroic for what he did to say the least.”

      There are true brave and heroic people

      and then there are

      fake brave and heroic people.

      Too many examples to count.

      Sunstein knows bravery and heroism sells and he can use that to the hilt.

      Read the following and see if you think Snowdon is the real deal.

      Read Snowden’s comments on 9/11 that NBC didn’t broadcast
      Published time: 30 May, 2014 17:13

      RT and Press TV stopped posting my comments a long time ago.

    1. Your link here is utterly despicable deep state propaganda, pure and simple. They play upon the mayhem, chaos, havoc, and suffering they create in the world, creating the conditions that lead to the mass exodus of civilian refugees from the “civil wars” they foment – and then using the resulting cultural conflict resulting from the influx of refugees into different cultural traditions to sow further social divisions and chaos within the host nations. It is all about the masterful use of the oldest (and most necessary, for highly outnumbered elites) trick in the book: Divide and Conquer.

      They fabricate false narratives and manufacture crises which serve their end of setting the world’s people at each others throats, and diverting their attention from their REAL enemies. The question always arises when confronted with anonymous online individuals who push the devious deep state’s Machiavellian propaganda – is this the doing of a deluded true believer, or one of their hired trolls? The result is the same, either way.

    2. I’ve seen the post, and the criticism of that post, and I agree that it is despicable…despicably correct. The link points to actual historical facts, though it may look unfavorably on certain “religious” & ethnic groups. One must understand something: conspiracies & policies & plans throughout history have NEVER been carried out &/or conceived by the majority population of a country, region, ethnicity, race, etc; its always the elites and the ruling groups of those populations. Certainly, we can’t blame every German for “The Holocaust”, nor every American for the destruction of Iraq, nor every Judaic for controlling the financial system of the world. But, Germany carried out the “Holocaust”, America did destroy Iraq, and Jews dominate Global Finance(with assistance from Gentiles). It isn’t divide & conquer when it’s the truth.

  10. In addition to your description of one of the roles of the Prophet, they who could decipher the truth of the past, was the role of seeing the truth of the present. And being able to see the true path that came from the past to the present and thus extended into the future, they could foresee what the future held.

    Therefor the true Prophet, the real Prophet, was a purveyor of Truth. This realization for me personally has made the Prophet a very real and relate-able person. Not some special chosen person from God. Now as to whether some have a special ability or gift to see through the deceptions to the truth… that’s a different matter altogether.

    But history shows that Prophets were not necessarily beloved in their time. In part because they spoke the truth. And in times of plenty no one wants to hear of a possible unpleasant future. No one wants to hear that the ‘present’ they are enjoying is at the expense of the past and stolen from the future.

    Only in times of trouble is the Prophet summoned. Only in times of trouble will the crowd grant an audience to the Prophet. Only in times of trouble will people lend their ear to the words of the Prophet. Only in times of trouble will the people open their hearts to the truth that the Prophet speaks.

    We are in times of trouble…

    and thus the time of the Prophet is at hand.

    1. I don’t mean to put you on the spot, KSK, but I thought you wanted to prevent, the next staged propaganda event – I posted a comment on your blog couple of days ago describing the phony events that have been happening where I live – was I wrong to take you at face value?

      I don’t expect anyone to take my word, but clearly a series of events have occurred dozens of times in California since 2011 and have never been reported to the rest of the country. I just don’t understand what else “Exposing Obama’s Next False Before It Happens” could possibly mean.

      1. Robert says ” a series of events have occurred dozens of times in California since 2011 and have never been reported to the rest of the country”

        Pls do tell. I live here and would interested to know what your referring to in case I saw one of events but it didn’t register at the time.

        I would love to hear about these events.

  11. Well, it was blocked again. I’ve always known unlike most that I was dealing with fascists. (From a very young age.)

  12. “Holocaust denial” is now a crime in France (and Switzerland too, if I remember correctly). Probably in Germany as well.

    I used to think, “What kind of monstrous bonehead could deny the Holocaust?” As it turns out, “Holocaust denial” covers a wide range of investigation (depending on who is defining the “crime”).

    Faurisson (sp?) has a very interesting article on the CODOH website which I reread last night. It is from 1980. His article sums up the problem with thoughtcrime (which in, in essence, that which resulted in Dr. Tracy’s termination from FAU).

    Faurisson questions the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. He admits the camps. He admits there was a massive death toll at these camps. But he makes a very interesting statement regarding history. To paraphrase, “Never in the history of history (!) has one source been sufficient to close a case.”

    With Sandy Hook (and 9/11 before it), the media was becoming (or had become) a single source–a unified perspective with absolutely no shades of dissent. Such a situation is, in essence, no different from a state such as North Korea.

    Our “choices” in media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, NYT, WSJ) are nothing more than illusory choices at this point. They offer a mere vestige of a previous time when there was some independence between these brands. And it is probably best to think of them as brands: like a supermarket shelf with the same news in different-colored revolting Pop Art packages.

    The point is this… Perhaps the gas chambers were a dramatic flourish, but now they have become a vital organ of a sacrosanct topic. And why if 3 million died instead of 6 million? Without going into too much detail, it is not hard to see that truth can become a victim to other ends.

    But once there has become a consensus truth, beware the man or woman who poses even the most gentle question.

    To tip another sacred cow, it occurred to me today that the “climate change” movement is already being framed with the same sort of language which disallows critical discussion of the Holocaust.

    I am not expert on the Holocaust or climate change. I am, however, someone who has suffered real estrangement because of my personal research on 9/11. That event taught me that the truth can be almost diametrically opposed to that which is presented to be truth by the largest, homogenous, harmonized news outlets.

    Sandy Hook resonated with me because it occurred on my birthday. It got my attention. I studied it quite closely (though not nearly as much as 9/11). I would add that 9/11 made such an impression on me because of my fear of heights. Therefore, my sympathy for those who died at the WTC was immense.

    Spectacular false-flag terror is a double-edged sword in that the shock can turn a person into a researcher and activist if a miscarriage of justice seems to be wrapped up in the riddle mystery.

    In terms of academia, no one in the U.S. has garnered more respect in my book than Dr. Tracy.


    1. I agree with you, and hats off to Dr. Tracy. I think 911 was the biggest mistake they ever made. It was so sloppily pulled off and so horrific people began to see some of the other things like Oklahoma City and Ruby Ridge, the Koresh killings etc. were dodgy also and began to look around.

      911 really opened my eyes as to just how stupid, cowardly and brain washed a large segment of Americans really are. Some won’t accept facts if you slap them in the face with them. It doesn’t say much for a country when people can blow you up, tell you hey this other guy did it and then have the army go to war with the wrong people.

      Of course they long gotten away with shooting presidents who want to print their own money, so why not.

      Jesse James actually went after the people who dynamited his family. That being the robber barons, railroad moguls and Pinkerton agents which actually were the forerunners of British M16. The James gang considered banks, trains and anybody in the network fair game. What is kept from Americans is they even distributed money to farmers who were losing their land due to taxes and mortgages. That part you don’t hear much about, most Americans just consider them blood thirsty bank robbers. The trouble started when the Pinkertons offered them pennies on the dollar for their farm and were told to take a hike.

      1. All things considered, Sandy Hook seems more sloppy than 9/11. I know that’s perhaps a bold assertion, but the 9/11 myth has stood up to lazy scrutiny and teetered to the precipice of 15 nightmare years in the can.

        Michael Ruppert seems to have a plethora of detractors, but I really appreciate his “cui bono” method. Jim Marrs took a similar tack in some of his books.

        To wit, WTC 7 might seem like a sloppy error at first glance. Then, it might seem to fit into the craven machinations of Larry Silverstein. But in the final estimation, it may have been merely to extend the myth that the collapses of towers 1 and 2 were massive earth-shaking events. They were not. The WTC 7 collapse lingers as a sort of proof for an untruth.

        I’m glad you mentioned Koresh/Waco as well. That was a sad day for America. The problem is that when “kooks” can be murdered with impunity, then no one is safe.


    2. “Holocaust Denial” is a purely Jjewish construct, and has NO PLACE in intelligent discussion, and should be shouted down for what it is-a monstrous lie, Jewish control, Jewish political correctness-it is a phrase that allows Jewish crimes and financial fraud to go unabated and unchallenged, and to avoid discussing the real history of WWII, the shenanigans and crimes of the Jews (and Aliies ) who were as usual at choke points of control in Western societies, the media, government, military,
      anyone who in earnest who has studied the so called “Holocaust” knows that the figure of 6 million Jews killed in camps, gassing, etc. are absurd lies that have been grossly exaggerated and the true nature of the events confused, hidden and concealed, that have been used to justify and support the Jewish agenda of killing, stealing, financial fraud, extortion, etc., as they have been waging war crimes against the people of the Middle East, all the while stealing American taxpayer money and resources, arms, supplies, controlling the media, expounding lie after lie-
      it is time for Americans to man-up and call this abomination for what it is, time to name names and end this madness

    3. Great commentary. I too felt traumatized by 9/11 and thus compelled to study the event in detail – details we were given that all but fell to ash on examination. There are still unanswered questions to it, about victims.

      But some initial gut reactions like looking at one tower fall and feeling the other would come down exactly the same way needed a better explanation than the official one when it finally happened. Why did I think that? Did I see signs of an explosion? Did Dan Rather’s initial response that this is what is leave an impression? Did the hole in the initial building look too small? Who knows? Doubts were sown, but it took a long time to shake it off. With these events, the conditioning of the public is 24/7. You simply cannot avoid the event. Every public occasion including the ballet begins with a patriotic intro of the National Anthem, etc. All your friends and family keep talking about it. You have to find a way through the labyrinth back to reality. There is reality, and you must understand that it is there somewhere. What you had not understood before was the complexity of your world and how it is actually governed. Every TSA examination reinforces your low status.

      The white women with the hairnets making hamburgers for the workers at Pentagon after the event, smiling that fake smile we were to see later with Sandy Hook – as someone who came from Washington, it was “what’s wrong with this picture?” Just this moment I can see my first impression was that they were out of place and time. I don’t know if I can see a clip of that anywhere, but my subliminal impression that it was a phony scene might come from my background in that part of the country, where I was born. Not a single black cafeteria worker at the Pentagon, even if from an outside food service company? (I don’t know if there was, but I focused on one especially phony looking and “overqualified” worker who must have been some bureaucrat.) When you’d probably see all of them black in that context? But the retro hairnet look – and the phony smiles in the face of unimaginable tragedy and distress — seriously weird. The other details at the Pentagon were of course far more persuasive that no passenger jet ever crashed into it. Not on your life!

      Yet why was some little detail like the hairnet lady going to leave me with doubt when so much effort was put in to make us believe it all? Here I was, scared like everyone that day, and yet some inner child kept pestering me. “The Emperor Has No Clothes” she kept saying to me.

      I can only analogize it to the POW’s paper cut in the James Garner movie, 36 Hours, which convinces him that the artificial reality created to convince him to spill secrets about D-Day is a fraud. It takes awhile, but he remembers how he got the paper cut and he does not remember the people who say they are his friends. Only a few days have elapsed, not five years, but it takes awhile for that to sink in since he has been drugged and they are convincing him that he has intermittent amnesia and is in one of those states when they grill him on the allied invasion they say already happened.

      Movie makers understand that if even one thing is off, some of the audience will disbelieve. The game is to make most of them believe and they can take care of the bottom line of the picture. The movie is almost an allegory of illusion-making and how the subjective state of the individual is the one thing over which total control is elusive. You are the target, and your cooperation is essential to the operation. But you have this nagging paper cut.

      1. Excellent contribution! Yes, your comparison to cinema is apt in that I fancy myself a sort of amateur critic. You are absolutely right: one errant detail can derail the whole thing.

        I appreciate your analysis of the Pentagon. On a human level, it seems your brain was telling your gut, “This is BS!”

        That happens to me all the time. Sandy Hook, the Paris Attacks (both of them), San Bernardino, Umpqua…

        As Dr. Tracy has keyed in on: the media reaction is often the most telltale sign of a disingenuous heart. In other words, this is indeed a communications issue.

        At any rate, I wish you continued success as a gleaner of details.

        Thank you,


  13. Too much to cram in a comment, my response to post and replies. I won’t overly work-up what to write back but – here and quickish. (Be more pondering on this article and therefore, many thanks, David).

    As soon as I touch into 1984 I get that ‘old’ fear. The… where we’re being dragged. The atmosphere. Years held. Maybe the mono TV drama. Yet to me prophetic, is and should be, ‘will be’ but – ‘if…’ not; a prophetic-passive, not only predicting what – but suggests will, and Must-Be. And at least and at last, I’m slowly and finally, learning to take captive what I do with ‘it’ – my thoughts and more. Especially ‘more’. Take prophetic – being one of them Biblical nuts – in words-infused, with something/one, that captures the current with power to produce a different ‘tomorrow’. Captures us. Somehow we’re infused for action. I think prophetic ‘does’ to us and – back to nuts – the unseen. Something-like – and hopefully the opposite – to a memory hole. A kind of future-making. I don’t profess that much understand but working on it. And maybe… no, surely believe; those who control the prophetic, in some way, control the future.

    Prof. James, may you be given or earn enough cash, to – with respect to the Prof.-ing – have a new lease of living, larger and stronger. You hold valuable ground here and I’m likely to start whipping in for a quick splurge of non-higher educated rambles. Peace and press on.


Comments are closed.